The Seizure of Property by a Foreign Government and International Law
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 foreign government could not be sued in United States courts for acts performed within its territory. Underhill v. Hernandez, 65 F. 577, 579 (2d Cir. 1895), aff'd, 168 U.S. 250 (1897). This rule was in basic agreement with customary international law. Ifeanyi Achebe, The Act of State Doctrine and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976: Can They Coexist?, 13 Md. J. Int'l L. & Trade 247, 281 (1989). This rule was carried over by the U.S. Supreme Court in 196...