Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-16631House OversightOther

Court Opinion Discusses Immunity of International Development Banks under FSIA

The passage merely outlines legal arguments about sovereign immunity and commercial activity definitions for development banks. It contains no specific allegations, names, transactions, or novel revel References to IFC charter and its lack of absolute immunity Discussion of whether development bank lending qualifies as commercial activity under FSIA Citations to prior Supreme Court cases (Jesner,

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #028556
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely outlines legal arguments about sovereign immunity and commercial activity definitions for development banks. It contains no specific allegations, names, transactions, or novel revel References to IFC charter and its lack of absolute immunity Discussion of whether development bank lending qualifies as commercial activity under FSIA Citations to prior Supreme Court cases (Jesner,

Tags

international-financesovereign-immunityfsialegal-analysishouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
14 JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. Opinion of the Court cerns that we identified when considering similar litiga- tion under the Alien Tort Statute. See Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. __, __ —___ (2018); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 116-117 (2018). The IFC’s concerns are inflated. To begin, the privileges and immunities accorded by the IOIA are only default rules. If the work of a given international organization would be impaired by restrictive immunity, the organiza- tion’s charter can always specify a different level of im- munity. The charters of many international organizations do just that. See, e.g., Convention on Privileges and Im- munities of the United Nations, Art. IT, §2, Feb. 18, 1946, 21 U.S. T. 1422, T. I. A. S. No. 6900 (The United Nations ... shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity’); Articles of Agreement of the Inter- national Monetary Fund, Art. IX, §8, Dec. 27, 1945, 60 Stat. 1418, T. I. A. S. No. 1501 (MF enjoys “immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that it expressly waives its immunity’). Notably, the IFC’s own charter does not state that the IFC is absolutely immune from suit. Nor is there good reason to think that restrictive im- munity would expose international development banks to excessive liability. As an initial matter, it is not clear that the lending activity of all development banks qualifies as commercial activity within the meaning of the FSIA. To be considered “commercial,” an activity must be “the type” of activity “by which a private party engages in” trade or commerce. Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614 (1992); see 28 U.S.C. §1603(d). As the Government suggested at oral argument, the lending activity of at least some development banks, such as those that make conditional loans to governments, may not qualify as “commercial” under the FSIA. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-80.

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.