Immunity from Suit for International Organizations: The Judiciary's New Que of Separating Lawsuit Sheep from Lawsuit Goats

Y. Dautaj
{"title":"Immunity from Suit for International Organizations: The Judiciary's New Que of Separating Lawsuit Sheep from Lawsuit Goats","authors":"Y. Dautaj","doi":"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In 1945, the United States Congress enacted the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). Section 288a(b) of the act grants international organizations \"the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.\" The ensuing issue has been whether \"the same immunity\" means the immunity enjoyed in 1945, or whether it has evolved together with the body of law on sovereign immunity.In Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp, 586 U.S. (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court was finally asked to decide this issue, resolving a split in the federal circuits. The Court held that the immunity enjoyed by international organizations is that immunity which is enjoyed by foreign governments pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).This article reaches two conclusions: first, a static interpretation more accurately reflects the context, purpose, consequences, and history of the IOIA. Second, if the reference to the same immunity is taken to mean a reference to the body of law on sovereign immunity, it is nonetheless a reference to the general rule of absolute immunity, which is now codified as a presumptive (or default) rule in § 1604 of the FSIA.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":"207 - 268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:In 1945, the United States Congress enacted the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). Section 288a(b) of the act grants international organizations "the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments." The ensuing issue has been whether "the same immunity" means the immunity enjoyed in 1945, or whether it has evolved together with the body of law on sovereign immunity.In Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp, 586 U.S. (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court was finally asked to decide this issue, resolving a split in the federal circuits. The Court held that the immunity enjoyed by international organizations is that immunity which is enjoyed by foreign governments pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).This article reaches two conclusions: first, a static interpretation more accurately reflects the context, purpose, consequences, and history of the IOIA. Second, if the reference to the same immunity is taken to mean a reference to the body of law on sovereign immunity, it is nonetheless a reference to the general rule of absolute immunity, which is now codified as a presumptive (or default) rule in § 1604 of the FSIA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际组织的诉讼豁免:司法机关将诉讼绵羊与诉讼山羊分离的新任务
摘要:1945年,美国国会颁布了《国际组织豁免法》。该法案第288a(b)条赋予国际组织“与外国政府享有的诉讼豁免权和各种形式的司法程序豁免权相同”。随之而来的问题是,“同样的豁免权”是否意味着1945年享有的豁免权,或者它是否与主权豁免的法律体系一起演变而来。在Jam v.Int'l Finance Corp,586 U.S.(2019)一案中,美国最高法院最终被要求对这一问题作出裁决,解决了联邦巡回法院的分歧。法院认为,国际组织享有的豁免是外国政府根据1976年《外国主权豁免法》享有的豁免。本文得出两个结论:第一,静态解释更准确地反映了《外国主权豁免权法》的背景、目的、后果和历史。第二,如果提及同一豁免是指提及主权豁免的法律体系,那么它仍然是指绝对豁免的一般规则,该规则现在被编纂为FSIA§1604中的推定(或默认)规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Managing Digital Resale in the Era of International Exhaustion The Digital Transformation of Tax Systems Progress, Pitfalls, and Protection in a Danish Context Blockchain and the Right to Good Administration: Adding Blocks to or Blocking of the Globalization of Good Administration? The Risk of Digitalization: Transforming Government into a Digital Leviathan Guilty of Probable Cause: Public Arrest Records and Dignity in the Information Age
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1