Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 17

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 (2013). 

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. II, §2, Feb. 13, 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,  §3,  Dec.  27,  1945,  60
Stat.  1413,  T.  I.  A.  S.  No.  1501  (IMF  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. 27–30.