Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

1989-01-23

Headline: Ruling says the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is the only way to sue a foreign government and allows dismissal of Liberian companies’ suit over an Argentine attack, limiting suits against foreign states in U.S. courts.

Holding: The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is the exclusive basis to sue a foreign state in U.S. courts, and because no FSIA exception covered this overseas attack the suit was properly dismissed.

Real World Impact:

Restricts lawsuits against foreign governments to the narrow exceptions in the FSIA.
Bars suits for overseas attacks on ships unless an FSIA exception clearly applies.
Requires plaintiffs to meet FSIA service and venue rules before U.S. courts hear claims.

Topics: sovereign immunity, suing foreign governments, maritime attacks, court jurisdiction

Summary

Background

Two Liberian companies that owned and chartered the oil tanker Hercules sued Argentina in a New York federal court after Argentine military planes attacked the neutral ship on the high seas, damaging it and forcing it to be scuttled. The companies said the attack violated international law and sought money damages. A federal district court dismissed the suits as barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). A divided Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The Court explained that Congress, through the FSIA, set the exclusive rules for when foreign states can be sued in U.S. courts. The FSIA both says foreign states are immune unless a listed exception applies and gives district courts jurisdiction when immunity does not apply. Because the FSIA governs immunity questions, the Court held that other general jurisdictional statutes or the old Alien Tort Statute cannot be used to bring this suit against a foreign state. The Court also reviewed the FSIA exceptions and emphasized that the noncommercial tort exception applies only when the injury occurred inside the United States; here the attack took place on the high seas far from U.S. territory. The Court rejected arguments that international agreements or treaty language created a private right to sue Argentina in U.S. courts.

Real world impact

The decision means plaintiffs who want to sue a foreign government in U.S. courts must fit within one of the explicit FSIA exceptions. Claims for harms that happen far outside U.S. territory will generally be barred unless a specific FSIA exception applies. The Court reversed the appeals court and approved dismissal of the suits.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice joined the Court’s core holding that the FSIA is the exclusive basis for jurisdiction but would have remanded rather than decide in the first instance whether any specific FSIA exception applied on these facts.