Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortjurisdictiondamagesstatuteappealcorporationrespondenthigh seasadmiralty law
jurisdictionappealcorporationrespondentsovereign immunity

Related Cases

Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 77 A.2d 923
View Case »
Stern v. Miller, 348 So.2d 303
View Case »
Ponca City v. Reed, 115 Okla. 166, 242 P. 164, 1925 OK 980
View Case »
Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682
View Case »
Cooke v. Allstate Management Corp., 741 F.Supp. 1205
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818, 1989 A.M.C. 501, 57 USLW 4121

Facts

Respondent United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, chartered its oil tanker, the Hercules, to Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation, also a Liberian corporation. The Hercules was attacked by Argentine military aircraft while in international waters during the Falklands War. The tanker suffered extensive damage and was later scuttled after attempts to seek relief in Argentina failed. The corporations sought damages in the U.S. District Court, invoking jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute and general admiralty law.

A crude oil tanker owned by respondent United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, and chartered respondent Amerada Hess Corp., also a Liberian corporation, was severely damaged when it was attacked in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war between Great Britain and petitioner Argentine Republic over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) off the Argentine coast.

Issue

Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provide the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts, and do any exceptions to the FSIA apply in this case?

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over action against foreign state, and no exception to foreign sovereign immunity applied to give the district court jurisdiction over the Argentine Republic.

Rule

The FSIA is the exclusive means by which a foreign state may be sued in U.S. courts, and it provides specific exceptions under which a foreign state may not claim immunity.

The FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in United States courts.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the text and structure of the FSIA, concluding that it was intended to be the sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states. The Court found that none of the exceptions to the FSIA applied to the facts of this case, particularly noting that the alleged tort occurred on the high seas, outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

The FSIA's text and structure demonstrate Congress' intention that the FSIA be the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in United States courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming that the FSIA provides the sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states and that the District Court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Reversed.

Who won?

Argentine Republic prevailed because the Supreme Court held that the FSIA barred the jurisdiction of U.S. courts over the claims against it.

The District Court correctly dismissed the action, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1330 et seq., does not authorize jurisdiction over a foreign state in this situation.

You must be