Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T23:24:14.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flatow v. Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas Weatherall
Thomas Weatherall*
Affiliation:
Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, United States Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 540 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Cass., sez. un. civ., 20 ottobre 2015, n. 21946, 99 Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 293 (2016), available at http://www.cortedicassazione.it (follow “SentenzeWeb” hyperlink; then search by case number/year). The references below to the factual portion of the judgment, Ritenuto in fatto, are labeled “Facts”; those to the legal considerations, Considerato in diritto, simply use the Court’s numbering.

2 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1602–11 (2014) [hereinafter FSIA].

3 The provisions in question, 28 U.S.C. §§1605(a)(7) & 1605 note (West Supp. 1997), respectively, are currently codified at 28 U.S.C. §1605A (2014).

4 Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998).

5 Cass., sez. un. civ., 22 giugno 2007, n. 14570, at http://www.ilcaso.it; see also Cass., sez. un. civ., 22 giugno 2007, n. 14571 (applying the same reasoning in parallel proceedings to recognize and enforce the related judgment Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000)).

6 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.; Greece intervening), 2012 ICJ Rep. 99 (Feb. 3).

7 Legge 14 gennaio 2013, n. 5, Gazzetta Ufficiale [G.U.] (ser. gen.) Jan. 29, 2013 [hereinafter Law No. 5/2013].

8 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, GA Res. 59/38, Arts. 5, 12 (Dec. 2, 2004) (not yet in force) (definition of immunity and exception for damages, respectively).

9 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Arts. 7, 27, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 (on crimes against humanity and nonimmunity of officials, respectively).

10 Simoncioni v. Repubblica Federale di Germania, Corte cost., 22 ottobre 2014, n. 238, G.U. (ser. spec.) n. 45, Oct. 29, 2014, I, 1 [hereinafter Judgment No. 238/2014], translated at http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/doc/recent-judgments/S238_2013_en.pdf (reported by Riccardo Pavoni at 109 AJIL 400 (2015)).

11 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Consolidated Version), Sept. 27, 1968, as amended, 1998 O.J. (C 27) 1.

12 The Court of Cassation then observed that (a) the FSIA was inconsistent with the jurisdictional criteria of the Italian legal system, (b) the defendants were not represented in the United States, and (c) the conduct at issue occurred entirely outside the United States and was never subject to criminal proceedings before a U.S. court. Para. 6.5.

13 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ Rep. 3, 24, para. 59 (Feb. 14).

14 See similarly Réunion Aérienne v. Jamahiriya Arabe populaire et socialiste, Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Mar. 9, 2011, Bull. civ. II, No. 247 (Fr.), translated in 150 ILR 630.

15 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, supra note 6, at 140–42, paras. 92–97.

16 Law No. 5/2013, supra note 7, Art. 3; UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, supra note 8.

17 Judgment No. 238/2014, supra note 10.

18 Corte cost., 11 febbraio 2015, ordinanza n. 30, at http://www.cortecostituzionale.it.

19 Weatherall, Thomas, Jus Cogens and Sovereign Immunity: Reconciling Divergence in Contemporary Jurisprudence , 46 Geo. J. Int’l L. 1151, 1207–10 (2015)Google Scholar.

20 See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895).

21 See Briggs, Adrian, The Principle of Comity in Private International Law, 354 Recueil Des Cours 65, 91 (2011)Google Scholar.

22 de Vattel, Emer, The Law Of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §85 (Béla Kapossy & Whatmore, Richard eds., Nugent, Thomas trans., 2008)Google Scholar (1797) (“In consequence of these rights of jurisdiction, the decisions made by the judge of the place within the extent of his power, ought to be respected, and to take effect even in foreign countries.”).

23 Lorenzen, Ernest G., Huber’s De Conflictu Legum, 13 Ill. L. Rev. 375, 403 (1919)Google Scholar (translating and quoting Huber: “Sovereigns will so act by way of comity that rights acquired within the limits of a government retain their force everywhere so far as they do not cause prejudice to the power or rights of such government or of its subjects.”).

24 Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws §38 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 5th ed. 1857)Google Scholar (footnote omitted).

25 Briggs, supra note 21, at 149.

26 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, supra note 6, at 123, para. 57.

27 Flatow, supra note 4, at 23.

28 Indeed, when defending its treatment of Germany before the ICJ, Italy invoked the terrorism exception prompted by the Flatow affair as support for its refusal to grant immunity to Germany. See Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, supra note 6, at 138, para. 88.