Page 28

1

collective, do not in their typical legal usage necessarily

2

exclude individuals.”

3

Moreover, the FSIA’s “legislative history does not even hint

4

of an intent to exclude individual officials,” but does

5

contain “numerous statements [suggesting] that Congress

6

intended the Act to codify the existing common law

7

principles of sovereign immunity.”

8

passage, those principles “expressly extended immunity to

9

individual officials acting in their official capacity.”

Chuidian, 912 F.2d at 1101.

Id.

Prior to the FSIA’s

10

Id.; see also Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations Law

11

§ 66(f) (1965) (“The immunity of a foreign state . . .

12

extends to . . .

13

agent of the state with respect to acts performed in his

14

official capacity if the effect of exercising jurisdiction

15

would be to enforce a rule of law against the state.”).

16

a consequence, if the FSIA did not extend to individuals, it

17

would represent “a substantial unannounced departure from

18

prior common law.”

19

because, after the FSIA’s passage, the Restatement (Third)

20

of Foreign Relations Law “delete[d] in its entirety the

21

discussion of the United States common law of sovereign

22

immunity, and substitute[d] a section analyzing issues

any other public minister, official, or

Chuidian, 912 F.2d at 1101.

28

As

This is so

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

Advertisement