•  
  •  
 
Vanderbilt Law Review

First Page

283

Abstract

As sovereign nations become more involved in international commercial dealings, it becomes more important to establish a reliable and stable framework for resolving disputes with foreign sovereigns. The FSIA is the result of a long historical trend towards establishing that framework. While the FSIA is a step in the right direction, there are a number of interpretive questions regarding where it places the boundaries of a court's jurisdiction over foreign sovereign activity. While these questions remain open and while courts continue to find reasons to keep them open, they undermine the principal purpose of the FSIA: predictability. There is no clear way for a foreign sovereign to know ahead of time whether it is opening itself up to suit in the United States by engaging in commercial dealing, and there is no clear way for a private individual to know ahead of time whether they can rely on U.S. courts to resolve a dispute. Even federal courts have difficulty determining for themselves how their own circuit's precedent on the issue should compel them to rule.

This Note has shown that one of these open questions can be resolved: the question of what constitutes a direct effect sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the FSIA. The Supreme Court should adopt a uniform rule where it interprets the direct effect clause to not require a legally significant act but still require the effect be a necessary consequence of the act. This rule would subject foreign sovereigns to suit in the United States only when they themselves established that connection. There would be no barrier as to how significant the effect needs to be. Doing this would bring the FSIA considerably closer to creating a stable and predictable framework for courts to apply jurisdiction.

Download

Included in

Jurisdiction Commons

Share

COinS