Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

view  further  bolsters  our  understanding  of  the  IOIA’s
immunity provision. 

D 
The  IFC  argues  that  interpreting  the  IOIA’s  immunity
provision  to  grant  anything  less  than  absolute  immunity 
would lead to a number of undesirable results. 

The  IFC  first  contends  that  affording  international
organizations  only  restrictive  immunity  would  defeat  the
purpose  of  granting  them  immunity  in  the  first  place. 
Allowing  international  organizations  to  be  sued  in  one 
member  country’s  courts  would  in  effect  allow  that  mem-
ber  to  second-guess  the  collective  decisions  of  the  others. 
It would also expose international organizations to money 
damages,  which  would in  turn make it more  difficult and 
expensive  for  them  to  fulfill  their  missions.
  The  IFC 
argues  that  this  problem  is  especially  acute  for  interna-
tional  development  banks.  Because  those  banks  use  the 
tools of commerce to achieve their objectives, they may be
subject to suit under the FSIA’s commercial activity excep-
tion  for  most  or  all  of  their  core  activities,  unlike  foreign
sovereigns.  According  to  the  IFC,  allowing  such  suits
would bring a flood of foreign-plaintiff litigation into U. S. 
courts,  raising  many  of  the  same  foreign-relations  con-
—————— 

918  (1980)  (“By  virtue  of  the  FSIA,  and  unless  otherwise  specified  in 
their  constitutive  agreements,  international  organizations  are  now 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  our  courts  in  respect  of  their  commercial 
activities,  while  retaining  immunity  for  their  acts  of  a  public  charac-
ter.”);  Letter  from  Arnold  Kanter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  to  Presi-
dent  George  H.  W.  Bush  (Sept.  12,  1992)  in  Digest  of  United  States  
Practice  in  International  Law  1016–1017  (S.  Cummins  &  D.  Stewart 
eds. 2005) (explaining that the Headquarters Agreement of the Organi-
zation of American States affords the OAS “full immunity from judicial
process, thus going beyond the usual United States practice of affording 
restrictive  immunity,”  in  exchange  for  assurances  that  OAS  would 
provide for “appropriate modes of settlement of those disputes for which 
jurisdiction would exist against a foreign government under the” FSIA); 
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24–29.