Opinion ID: 672302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The waiver exception of Sec. 1605(a)(1).

Text: 39 Not surprisingly, there is no sovereign immunity in a case in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(1) (with an exception not here relevant). Here the amici argue that the Third Reich impliedly waived Germany's sovereign immunity under the FSIA by violating jus cogens norms of the law of nations. In their own words: A foreign state that violates these fundamental requirements of a civilized world thereby waives its right to be treated as a sovereign. With respect, we do not think that the waiver exception to the FSIA can be read so broadly. 40 A jus cogens norm is a principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.... Committee of U.S. Citizens in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929, 940 (D.C.Cir.1988), quoting Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 53, U.N.Doc. A/Conf. 39/27, 8 I.L.M. 679. Such peremptory norms are nonderogable and enjoy the highest status within international law, Committee of U.S. Citizens in Nicaragua, 859 F.2d at 940; they prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them, and they are subject to modification only by a subsequent norm of international law having the same character. Restatement, supra, Sec. 102 comment k. 41 According to one authority, a state violates jus cogens, as currently defined, if it: 42 practices, encourages, or condones (a) genocide, (b) slavery or slave trade, (c) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals, (d) torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, (e) prolonged arbitrary detention, (f) systematic racial discrimination, or (g) a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. 43 Restatement, supra, Sec. 702 and comment n. Before the Nuremburg trials, such outrages had not been expressly declared violations of the law of nations. David F. Klein, A Theory for the Application of the Customary International Law of Human Rights by Domestic Courts, 13 Yale Journal of Int'l Law 332, 340 (1988); Fogelson, supra at 869. The Nuremberg Tribunal nonetheless punished Nazi officials for committing crimes against humanity: 44 [The trials] for the first time made explicit and unambiguous what was theretofore, as the Tribunal has declared, implicit in International Law, namely, that to prepare, incite, or wage a war of aggression ... and that to persecute, oppress, or do violence to individuals or minorities on political, racial, or religious grounds in connection with such a war, or to exterminate, enslave, or deport civilian populations, is an international crime. 45 R. Jackson, Final Report to the President on the Nuremberg Trials (Oct. 7, 1946) (cited in R. Jackson, The Nurnberg Case xiv-xv (1971)); see also Klein, supra at 340 and nn. 40-42; The Nurnberg Trial, 6 F.R.D. 69, 77-78 (1946). As the Ninth Circuit has explained: 46 The universal and fundamental rights of human beings identified by Nuremberg--rights against genocide, enslavement, and other inhumane acts ...--are the direct ancestors of the universal and fundamental norms recognized as jus cogens. 47 Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 715 (9th Cir.1992). Indeed, it is doubtful that any state has ever violated jus cogens norms on a scale rivaling that of the Third Reich. See Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy: An Unfulfilled Promise, 63 S.Cal.L.Rev. 833, 834 (1990). 48 The amici argue that interpreting the FSIA to imply a waiver where a violation of jus cogens norms has occurred would reconcile the FSIA with accepted principles of international law. Citing Adam Belsky, Implied Waiver Under the FSIA: A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law, 77 Cal.L.Rev. 365 (1989). Although no reported decision considers the amici 's specific argument that a violation of jus cogens norms forfeits immunity under the implied waiver provision of the FSIA, the Ninth Circuit has stated broadly that [t]he fact that there has been a violation of jus cogens does not confer jurisdiction under the FSIA. Siderman de Blake, 965 F.2d at 719. 49 Moreover, the amici 's jus cogens theory of implied waiver is incompatible with the intentionality requirement implicit in Sec. 1605(a)(1). See Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 444 (D.C.Cir.1990), quoting Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir.1985) (courts rarely find that a nation has waived its sovereign immunity ... 'without strong evidence that this is what the foreign state intended' ); accord Drexel Burnham Lambert v. Committee of Receivers, 12 F.3d 317, 326 (2d Cir.1993); Joseph v. Office of the Consulate General, 830 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir.1987); Zernicek v. Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), 614 F.Supp. 407, 411 (S.D.Tex.1985), aff'd, 826 F.2d 415 (5th Cir.1987). That requirement is also reflected in the examples of implied waiver set forth in the legislative history of Sec. 1605(a)(1), all of which arise either from the foreign state's agreement (to arbitration or to a particular choice of law) or from its filing a responsive pleading without raising the defense of sovereign immunity. See H.R.Rep. 1487, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 18 (1976); Sen. Rep. 1310, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 18 (1976). And as the Seventh Circuit has observed, [s]ince the FSIA became law, courts have been reluctant to stray beyond these examples when considering claims that a nation has implicitly waived its defense of sovereign immunity. Frolova, 761 F.2d at 377. 50 In sum, an implied waiver depends upon the foreign government's having at some point indicated its amenability to suit. Mr. Princz does not maintain, however, that either the present government of Germany or the predecessor government of the Third Reich actually indicated, even implicitly, a willingness to waive immunity for actions arising out of the Nazi atrocities. We have no warrant, therefore, for holding that the violation of jus cogens norms by the Third Reich constitutes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity under the FSIA. 1 51