Opinion ID: 787911
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subject to existing international agreements....

Text: 21 The first issue we must resolve is the relationship between the NATO-SOFA and the FSIA. The central provision of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, provides: 22 Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter. 23 (emphasis added). 24 Although this language is critical, its meaning is not entirely transparent. Does subject to existing international agreements modify only shall be immune, so that existing international agreements can only permit suits against foreign states where the FSIA would not? Or are the exceptions specified in §§ 1605-1607 also subject to existing international agreements, so that such agreements can preclude suit where the FSIA would otherwise allow it? No court has explicitly resolved this issue. See, e.g., Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 719 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing § 1604's language without resolving this question). 25 In Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989), however, the Supreme Court provided some guidance. Amerada Hess held that the treaty exception intended by the subject to existing international agreements phraseology applies when international agreements `expressly conflic[t]' with the immunity provisions of the FSIA. Id. at 442, 109 S.Ct. 683(quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, at 17 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6616) (alteration in original). This language suggests that any conflict with the FSIA immunity provisions, whether toward more or less immunity, is within the treaty exception. 26 Although there is no other pertinent judicial precedent, the House Report accompanying the FSIA is clear on this point: 27 Like other provisions in the bill, section 1605 is subject to existing international agreements (see section 1604), including Status of Forces Agreements; if a remedy is available under a Status of Forces Agreement, the foreign state is immune from such tort claims as are encompassed in sections 1605(a)(2) and 1605(a)(5). 28 H.R. REP. NO. 94-1487, at 21, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6620; 6 see also id. at 17, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6616( All immunity provisions in sections 1604 through 1607 are made subject to `existing' treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party. In the event an international agreement expressly conflicts with the [FSIA], the international agreement would control. (emphasis added)). 29 This conflict reading of § 1604 is the only sensible one. Under this interpretation of the FSIA, preexisting international agreements could either expand or contract a foreign nation's amenability to suit as compared to that provided under the FSIA. To read § 1604 otherwise, as permitting pre-existing international agreements only to expand a foreign state's exposure to suit but not to limit it, would allow the FSIA implicitly to trump treaties precluding certain kinds of suits against foreign nations. Given the lack of any specific indication that Congress intended this alternate construction, we follow the canon of statutory interpretation that acts of Congress should not be construed to conflict with international treaty obligations. Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1441-42 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 178, 113 S.Ct. 2549, 125 L.Ed.2d 128 n. 35 (1993)). We therefore hold that the FSIA in its entirety is subject to such existing international agreements. If there is a conflict between the FSIA and such an agreement regarding the availability of a judicial remedy against a contracting state, the agreement prevails. 30 The NATO-SOFA pre-dated the FSIA, and is therefore one of the existing international agreements covered by the caveat in § 1604. See H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, at 17, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6616 ([T]he[FSIA] would not alter the rights or duties of the United States under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement or similar agreements with other countries....). Because the FSIA is subject to the NATO-SOFA, whether Moore's FSIA claim may go forward turns on two inquiries: Does the NATO-SOFA apply in this case? If so, does it expressly conflic[t], Amerada Hess, 488 U.S. at 442, 109 S.Ct. 683 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), with the FSIA? If the NATO-SOFA applies and conflicts with the FSIA, then the defendants may not be sued under the FSIA.