Talk:Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208082243/http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16786 to http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16786

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidal takings

I was hoping to add something to my short added passage on genocidal takings from a second source, by my Google Books preview did not give me a wide enough view.

Nazi-Looted Art and the Law: The American Cases by Bruce L. Hay

Top of page 242: The court acknowledged that it was "well-settled that a state's taking of the property of its own citizens, no matter how egregious, does not constitute an international law violation."

Bottom of page 244: Such genocidal takings, the court noted, violated international law regardless of whether compensation was paid. "The violation is the genocide itself, which occurs at the moment of the taking, whether or not a victim subsequently attempts to obtain relief through the violating sovereign's domestic laws."

Clearly this concerns American law (and precedent), though possibly prior to FSIA.

In my view, Wikipedia should have something on international law and genocidal takings, only I didn't find much.

I entered into this topic through the following article:

Far more than just compliant cogs (2012) by Martin Thurau

With these kinds of laws on the books as early as 1933 (overtly discriminatory by 1938) looking the other way in the rest of Westeren Europe must have got off to an early start.

And from what little I found, it seems like under modern international law, this is still considered largely a family affair. — MaxEnt 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had another document open, which I lost among my tabs:

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's Evolving Genocide Exception

In the most recent appellate decisions to consider the issue, two circuits, the Seventh and D.C., nationality has been discarded entirely as a criterion to abrogate immunity if a court considers the defendant state's expropriation to have been part of a policy of genocide. The D.C. Circuit has gone still further in the later of the cases and equates the act of property expropriation with genocide. Both circuits initially also imposed a new exhaustion of local remedies requirement. As of 2018, a conflict exists between the two circuits on that issue.
The genocide interpretation with the imposition of exhaustion distorts both the FSIA and international customary law. It risks trivializing the concept of genocide, and in the Seventh Circuit it removes exhaustion from its international law roots in cases that occur exclusively in international tribunals by inserting the requirement into a domestic court framework. Neither development is consistent with the FSIA statute.

That's technical at the outset, then extremely opinionated rounding onto the back stretch, so I don't know what to do with it. — MaxEnt 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]