Seizure of Property by a Foreign Government

This case involves the expropriation of private property owned by an American citizen by the Bosnian government. The American citizen is seeking the attachment of a bank account located in the United States as a step towards securing compensation for the property seized. The Bosnian government claims that United States courts do not have jurisdiction over the Bosnian government because of sovereign immunity and the act of state doctrine.

This memorandum concerns whether a U.S. court can attach a United States bank account belonging to the Bosnian government in order to secure a source of compensation. This memorandum presents the argument that a U.S. court does have jurisdiction over such a bank account in a situation where a foreign government has appropriated private property belonging to an American citizen. Under United States law, foreign governments enjoy sovereign immunity for their acts. This is a traditional part of customary international law. However, there is some question as to whether the expropriation of property by a State is a sovereign act which is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of other states. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a U.S. court can acquire jurisdiction over a foreign state within the provisions set out by the Act. 90 Stat. 2891, 28 U.S.C. ºº 1602-1611.

Prior to the enactment of the FSIA, the absolute rule in U.S. law was that a forei

. . .
re money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property ... occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious acts of the foreign state or its omission or of its official or employee while acting within the scope of his office or employment .... º 1605(a)(5). The two most important of these exceptions for the purposes of this case are the second and third. An activity by a foreign government does not qualify as an act of state if that act is a part of a commercial activity. º 1605(a)(2). Courts have interpreted this provision rather broadly, labelling many different kinds of acts as commercial activities. For instance, the purchase of cement by a foreign government for use in the construction of military barracks is a commercial activity under the FSIA. Texas Trading and Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1981). The chartering of a ship to deliver grain from a U.S. food grain program to a wholly-owned foreign state company was held to be a commercial activity. Gemini Shipping, Inc. v. Foreign Trade Organization for Chemicals and Foodstuff, 647 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1981). In this case, an argument can be made that almost any
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
International Law, Supreme Court, FSIA American, Chemicals Foodstuff, Legal Mat, Law Nutshell, Act FSIA, Republic Nigeria, Underhill Hernandez, Restatement Revised, international law, private property, commercial activity, bosnian government, foreign government, expropriation private property, 2d cir, expropriation private, legal mat, int'l legal, int'l legal mat, public international law, customary international law, public international, iran 23 int'l,
Approximate Word count = 1722
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)