Talk:Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208082243/http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16786 to http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16786
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Genocidal takings
editI was hoping to add something to my short added passage on genocidal takings from a second source, by my Google Books preview did not give me a wide enough view.
- Nazi-Looted Art and the Law: The American Cases by Bruce L. Hay
Top of page 242: The court acknowledged that it was "well-settled that a state's taking of the property of its own citizens, no matter how egregious, does not constitute an international law violation."
Bottom of page 244: Such genocidal takings, the court noted, violated international law regardless of whether compensation was paid. "The violation is the genocide itself, which occurs at the moment of the taking, whether or not a victim subsequently attempts to obtain relief through the violating sovereign's domestic laws."
Clearly this concerns American law (and precedent), though possibly prior to FSIA.
In my view, Wikipedia should have something on international law and genocidal takings, only I didn't find much.
I entered into this topic through the following article:
- Far more than just compliant cogs (2012) by Martin Thurau
With these kinds of laws on the books as early as 1933 (overtly discriminatory by 1938) looking the other way in the rest of Westeren Europe must have got off to an early start.
And from what little I found, it seems like under modern international law, this is still considered largely a family affair. — MaxEnt 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I had another document open, which I lost among my tabs:
In the most recent appellate decisions to consider the issue, two circuits, the Seventh and D.C., nationality has been discarded entirely as a criterion to abrogate immunity if a court considers the defendant state's expropriation to have been part of a policy of genocide. The D.C. Circuit has gone still further in the later of the cases and equates the act of property expropriation with genocide. Both circuits initially also imposed a new exhaustion of local remedies requirement. As of 2018, a conflict exists between the two circuits on that issue.
The genocide interpretation with the imposition of exhaustion distorts both the FSIA and international customary law. It risks trivializing the concept of genocide, and in the Seventh Circuit it removes exhaustion from its international law roots in cases that occur exclusively in international tribunals by inserting the requirement into a domestic court framework. Neither development is consistent with the FSIA statute.
That's technical at the outset, then extremely opinionated rounding onto the back stretch, so I don't know what to do with it. — MaxEnt 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)