Search

The article analyzes the case Celestin v. Caribbean Air Mail Inc., wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Act of State doctrine did not bar a class action suit alleging that the Haiti government and multinational corporate defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The article discusses Third Circuit's interpretation of "foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Topics include U.S. courts can consider legal acts of both recognized and derecognized regimes, the complexity regarding the President's authority to recognize foreign governments and the President's recognition power implied control over Act of State status, but this ruling blurs those lines, posing new challenges to determining sovereignty under the FSIA.

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya and others (International Human Rights Program and others intervening) is worthy of the attention of the common law world. The case interrogated, albeit in relation to the preliminary issue of the striking out of a claim, significant aspects of the relationship between domestic law and customary international law. The doctrine of 'act of state' and the nature and extent of the incorporated norms of international law were examined in rich detail and the differing opinions by the Justices present important albeit conflicting guidance for their foreign counterparts. Other apex courts will have to make what they will of the Nevsun decision that it is possible that local corporations can be held liable in domestic law for breach of customary international norms in respect of their acts or those of their subsidiaries in foreign countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents Canadian cases in public international law in 2020, including refugee protection Celestin v. Canada (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration), act of state doctrine in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, and Corrections and Conditional Release Act in Brazeau v. Canada.

In Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to dismiss a series of customary international law claims brought by Eritrean refugees against a Canadian mining corporation for grave human rights abuses committed in Eritrea. In doing so, the Supreme Court opened the possibility of a novel front for transnational human rights litigation: common law tort claims based on customary international law. Under the doctrine of adoption, customary international law is directly incorporated into the Canadian common law. However, Canadian courts have not yet upheld a private right of action for violations of customary international law. Writing for a divided court (5–4), Justice Abella allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, finding that it is not "plain and obvious" that the plaintiffs' customary international law claims are bound to fail under either Canada's burgeoning "transnational" or "foreign relations" law, or international law itself. In reaching this conclusion, she offered a unique and overdue reflection on the role of national courts in identifying, adopting, and developing custom. A larger majority of the court (7–2) also rejected outright the application of the act of state doctrine in Canada, tracking several common law systems in limiting the doctrine in favor of human rights litigants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courts are confused and divided regarding the scope of the act of state doctrine. Some foreign nations have capitalized on this phenomenon by utilizing acts of state to declare liability on the part of whatever parties the foreign nations choose. These foreign nations then sue in the United States seeking to domesticate their determinations of liability while preventing American courts from inquiring about the veracity of the determinations even where evidence exists that the determinations were made in violation of principles of fairness and due process. Foreign nations are using the act of state doctrine as the vehicle to preclude American courts from assessing the foreign nations' claims on the merits. The United States should be cognizant of the dangers posed to American policies and interests by permitting these abuses of the doctrine to continue unabated. Furthermore, the contradicting case law leads many courts to believe themselves bound to rigidly apply the act of state doctrine while simultaneously abhorring doing so because of the conflict with traditional notions of fairness and justice. This Article analyzes the act of state doctrine and its legal parameters and afterward proceeds to examine cases that have misapplied the act of state doctrine and the implications of those decisions. The Article proposes that the solution to these abuses of the act of state doctrine is a legislative amendment prohibiting a foreign nation from employing the doctrine when that foreign nation avails itself of the American judiciary by suing in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a court case Sea Breeze Salt, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss as its supplier Exportadora De Sal, S.A. de CV (ESSA) did not violate antitrust laws due to the act of state doctrine.

In Animal Science Products, Inc. et al. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the decision below, casting a shadow on the future of four vitamin C manufacturers in China. This case could be crucial for Chinese or other foreign enterprises which seek the protection of the "act of State doctrine" and/or other exemptions concerning the interpretation of their domestic law in U.S. courts. Among others, one of the profound implications of this case is that it will not be as simple for foreign parties to prove the effects of domestic law on their business practices from now on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was only in 2006, during my sabbatical in France, which was almost entirely dedicated to the translation of Mirbeau's Le Calvaire, that I read Traité de stylistique comparée. Analyse comparative de l'italien et du français (Paris, Didier, 1979) by Pierre Scavée and Pietro Intravaia. I did not immediately realise how this text could influence my work as a translator. It is only in hindsight that I recognise my debt to this enlightening text. I was not particularly convinced by its ontological and theoretical principles, which appeared to be slightly dated or debatable. On the other hand I found very fruitful its operational potentials and its pragmatic capacity of shedding light on how native languages work in their everyday, rather than literary use. Inspired by the work of Pierre Scavée and Pietro Intravaia, I will demonstrate in my paper how Italian language has the paradoxical potential to infuse with a stronger expressive dimension Mirbeau's «intimate» prose, which is so full of pathos in its constant struggle with the writer's inner demons. I am going to argue that the Italian translation of Mirbeau's pseudoautobiographical style is, in some ways, more evocative than its French original and of greater impact for the reader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issues surrounding recovery of art and cultural property taken during the Nazi-era and Russian Revolution in the U.S. Topics discussed include analysis of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and act of state doctrine for the same; Republic of Austria v. Altmann court case addressing FSIA in claims seeking art stolen long ago; and The Night Cafe-Morozov Heirs v. Yale University case on the same.

‘Act of State’ doctrine absolves state action from judicial review by a foreign court. Indeed, it is settled law that there is no cause of action that will make a foreign state liable in domestic courts. The doctrine has developed in a manner which focuses on the sovereign nature of an act rather than the status of the person who committed it. In the UK, recent judgments have evaluated the honesty and fairness of dealings in the public policy context. The courts have moved beyond competence and restraint, and state officials who have breached a fundamental principle of international law have faced judicial scrutiny. Courts have developed the concept of a qualified state immunity for the actions of officials that are contingent on human rights. This paper argues that courts should develop a doctrine that allows judicial activism when wrongs are committed by states that infringe customary international law. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on development and use of the act of state doctrine for speculating its value in stolen art cases. Topics discussed include obtaining of act of state doctrine for art taken from individuals, galleries, and private museums through national expropriation laws, and failure in enforcing applications of doctrine due to changing U.S. foreign policy.

The article discusses the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Konowaloff v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, in which the court held that Konowaloff's action was barred by the act of state doctrine. It discusses the U.S Supreme Court cases such as Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, United States v. Pink, and United States v. Belmont concerning a Soviet nationalization decree after the Litvinov Assignment (agreement between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Maxim Litvinov.

The article focuses on the tension brought by the act of state doctrine application on the art taken by the U.S. government. It traces the history of the doctrine, its usual application, and its exceptions. It summarizes and highlights the application of the doctrine to the ruling of Pierre Konowaloff's case and then explains how the ruling was supported by the doctrine's history. It also takes into account the effect of Konowaloff on Russian immigrant descendants and the significance of setting it aside.

The article presents information on the concerns related to consumer welfare in case of antitrust laws with reference to Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act. The misuse of market power and the antitrust decisions by the federal district court of Texas and Fifth Circuit courts of the U.S. Court of Appeals are discussed. The requirements of interstate commerce, act of state doctrines and Walker process are also discussed.

The article offers information on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and also on exceptions to jurisdiction immunity. It mentions that FSIA is a foreign state which is immune from suit, and its property from execution. It highlights some court cases including Samantar v. Yousuf and Cassirer v. Spain, which focus on FSIA and expropriation exception respectively. It informs that exception involve commercial activity, service of process by international mail, and act of state doctrine.

The article discusses the Federal Court of Australia Full Court's ruling in the 2010 case Habib v. Commonwealth of Australia which deals with dual Australian-Egyptian citizen Mamdouh Habib's arrest in Pakistan and his claim that he was mistreated and tortured while being detained in various countries for close to 40 months. Australian common law and the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba are mentioned, along with Australia's act of state doctrine and the Australian Federal Police.

The article discusses the need for U.S. courts to use sovereignty-based defenses in antitrust cases against Chinese manufacturers to promote diplomacy and to facilitate important policy considerations. It describes the different changes in the antitrust regime in China, and explores the doctrines of the Act of State, Comity and Foreign Sovereign Compulsion. Moreover, it offers several best practices for the federal courts, the Chinese government and Chinese producers.

This article briefly examines the history of federal court adjudication of national security issues to determine how judges have employed specific legal rationales for deciding not to decide in order to avoid confrontation with the executive branch. By focusing on the historical development of these legal strategies, we demonstrate that while judges have been generally deferential to the executive on national security issues, this deference increases in times of crisis. Through a series of qualitative case studies, we examine the use of threshold issues as a legally justifiable means to avoid ruling on the merits. Specifically, we focus on the use of the political question and act of state doctrines both historically and in the post-September 11th environment. We conclude that the federal courts continue to employ these techniques to avoid resolving challenges to national security, thereby promoting a continued deference to the executive branch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the history of the Act of State presumption and uses policy and law to contend for changing the presumption to allow for more claims to be brought against rogue foreign regimes in the U.S. It discusses several rationales of the Act of State such having constructional underpinnings. It states that the U.S. must acknowledge the threat of foreign expropriation and protect its citizens who are investing abroad.

Many procedural barriers exist to litigating the recent wave of claims in American courts regarding the ownership of Nazi-looted art. Along with the requirements of personal jurisdiction, statute of limitations and forum non conveniens, the act of state doctrine remains a hurdle for litigators when the looted property remains in the hands of a foreign sovereign. This comment gives an updated status on the judicial maze that is the act of state doctrine and attempts to answer the question of whether it should protect foreign sovereigns from having to litigate claims in American courts over Nazi-looted art. By examining the policies behind the act of state doctrine, recent act of state jurisprudence, and relevant exceptions to the doctrine, this comment concludes that the act of state doctrine is inapplicable in most looted art cases, where the international law consensus through treaties and public policy prompts the return of Nazi-looted art to its original owner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the reaffirmation McClain doctrine under the National Stolen Property Act and the abiding trade in looted cultural objects in the U.S. It discusses the impact of McClain as law and as policy against looters of cultural artifacts. It contends that whether McClain is a sound doctrine or not, still the international market is responsible in placing restrictions to eliminate this illegal act.

Addresses issues on territoriality inquiry that the courts have been concerned with and examines problems in international debt. Notions of territoriality as developed by the courts and commentators subsequent to the Sabbatino doctrine; Approaches to situs of debt rules relevant in the Doctrine; Argument for an enhanced rule of reason in guiding judicial situation of international debts.

Focuses on the application of the act of state doctrine by the Second Circuit on the case of Allied Bank in the United States. Implementation of the legal rights of lenders; Consistency with the US law and policy; Application of decision to other foreign debt disputes.