Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

14 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

See  H. R. Rep.  No.  1203,  at  1.    That  multilateralism  is 
threatened  if  one  nation  alone,  through  application  of  its 
own  liability  rules  (by  nonexpert  judges),  can  shape  the
policy choices or actions that an international organization 
believes  it  must  take  or  refrain  from  taking.   Yet  that  is 
the  effect  of  the  majority’s  interpretation.    By  restricting
the  immunity  that  international  organizations  enjoy,  it 
“opens the door to divided decisions of the courts of differ-
ent member states,” including U. S. courts, “passing judg-
ment on the rules, regulations, and decisions of the inter-
national bodies.”  Broadbent v. Organization of Am. States, 
628  F. 2d  27,  35  (CADC  1980);  cf.  Singer,  Jurisdictional 
Immunity  of  International  Organizations:  Human  Rights
and  Functional  Necessity  Concerns,  36  Va.  J.  Int’l  L.  53,
63–64 (1995) (recognizing that “[i]t would be inappropriate 
for municipal courts to cut deep into the region of autono-
mous decision-making authority of institutions such as the 
World Bank”).

Many  international  organizations,  fully  aware  of  their 
moral  (if  not  legal)  obligations  to  prevent  harm  to  others
and to compensate individuals when they do  cause harm, 
have sought to fulfill those obligations without compromis-
ing  their  ability  to  operate  effectively.  Some,  as  I  have 
said, waive their immunity in U. S. courts at least in part. 
And the D. C. Circuit, for nearly 40 years, has interpreted
those  waivers  in  a  way  that  protects  the  organization 
against  interference  by  any  single  state.    See,  e.g., 
Mendaro,  717  F. 2d,  at  615.    The  D. C.  Circuit  allows  a 
lawsuit  to  proceed  when  “insistence  on  immunity  would 
actually prevent or hinder the organization from conduct-
ing its activities.”  Id., at 617.  Thus, a direct beneficiary of 
a  World  Bank  loan  can  generally  sue  the  Bank,  because 
“the  commercial  reliability  of  the  Bank’s  direct  loans  . . . 
would  be  significantly  vitiated”  if  “beneficiaries  were 
required to accept the Bank’s obligations without recourse 
to judicial process.”  Id., at 618.  Where, however, allowing