Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. et al.
488 U.S. 428 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides the sole and exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in United States courts. Consequently, other statutes like the Alien Tort Statute cannot be used to establish jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.
Facts:
- United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, chartered its oil tanker, the Hercules, to Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation, also a Liberian corporation.
- In May 1982, during the Falklands War between Argentina and Great Britain, the Hercules was on a return voyage from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Alaska, sailing without cargo in international waters.
- United States officials had previously informed both Argentina and Great Britain of the location of the neutral Hercules to avoid any attack.
- On June 8, 1982, while the Hercules was approximately 600 miles off the Argentine coast and outside any designated war zones, the ship's master radioed its position and neutral status to Argentine officials.
- Shortly after this communication, Argentine military aircraft, without provocation, bombed the Hercules in three separate attacks.
- The attacks severely damaged the ship, forcing it to sail to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for safety.
- In Brazil, an undetonated bomb was found lodged in the ship's hull, making it too hazardous to repair.
- As a result, the Hercules was scuttled (deliberately sunk) 250 miles off the Brazilian coast.
Procedural Posture:
- United Carriers, Inc. and Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. sued the Argentine Republic in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute and general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
- The District Court dismissed the complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling that the suits were barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the FSIA did not eliminate jurisdiction that existed under the Alien Tort Statute.
- The Argentine Republic, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provide the sole and exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in United States courts, thereby precluding jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute for a tort committed in violation of international law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides the sole and exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in United States courts. The Court reasoned that the text and structure of the FSIA demonstrate Congress's intent to create a single, comprehensive framework for claims against foreign sovereigns. Sections 1604 and 1330(a) of the Act work together, with §1604 establishing a general rule of immunity and §1330(a) conferring jurisdiction only when one of the specific exceptions in §§1605-1607 applies. The Court rejected the argument that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provided an alternative basis for jurisdiction, concluding that the FSIA's comprehensive scheme preempts older, more general jurisdictional grants. The Court also examined the FSIA's noncommercial tort exception, §1605(a)(5), and found it inapplicable because the tortious act occurred on the high seas, not 'in the United States' as the statute requires.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Justice Blackmun concurred with the majority's holding that the FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court. However, he did not join the part of the opinion that analyzed whether any of the FSIA's exceptions applied to the facts of this case. He argued that this issue was not decided by the Court of Appeals, was not presented in the petition for certiorari, and was not fully briefed. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to decide this secondary question and would have remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider it in the first instance.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the FSIA as the exclusive gateway for suing foreign nations in U.S. courts, effectively closing off alternative jurisdictional paths like the Alien Tort Statute. By doing so, the Court reinforced a congressionally mandated, predictable framework for foreign sovereign immunity, preventing plaintiffs from circumventing the FSIA's specific requirements. The ruling centralizes the determination of jurisdiction over foreign states within the FSIA's detailed exceptions, thereby limiting the judiciary's power to hear cases involving foreign governments to only those scenarios explicitly permitted by Congress. This has a significant impact on international law litigation, requiring all claims against foreign states, regardless of the nature of the alleged violation, to satisfy one of the FSIA's narrow exceptions.
Unlock the full brief for Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. et al.