The United States federal government should cease its surveillance of foreign diplomats in the United States and at United States embassies
Download 0.83 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- It’s the US’s sovereign territory
- For the United States, foreign missions here and American missions abroad are both considered domestic
- Domestic means territories under U.S. jurisdiction
- Territorial jurisdiction of embassies concerning the U.S. was never legally defined, but the court ruled domesticity in multiple cases
- W/M – Foreign Embassies in US
Topicality AnswersW/M – US Embassies AbroadUS embassies abroad are domesticSneed and Skopil 83 — circuit judges at the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit (“McKEEL v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN”, 722 F.2d 582, 12/30/83, http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/722/722.F2d.582.82-5417.82-5117.82-5114.82-5111.html)//twemchen B. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Jurisdiction 12 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1330(a) states that district court jurisdiction over claims against foreign state defendants is limited to cases in "which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of ... title or under any applicable international agreement." The district court examined the relevant passages of the FSIA, and found that sovereign immunity barred suit against Iran. We affirm. 13 Under the FSIA, sovereign immunity is waived in suits "for money damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state ...." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(5) (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1603(c) defines "the United States" for purposes of the FSIA to include "all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 14 This brings us to the heart of this case. Appellants argue that section 1603(c) should be interpreted to embrace "all territory and waters" with respect to which the United States exercises any form of jurisdiction. Inasmuch as United States embassies are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for certain purposes, appellants argue that events occurring at the embassies fall within the waiver of immunity contained in section 1605(a)(5). US = possessionUS Code 7 (2 USCS § 1966, lexis)//twemchen (f) Definition of United States. As used in this section, the term "United States" means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and territories and possessions of the United States. It’s the US’s sovereign territoryBallentine's 95 (Legal Dictionary and Thesaurus, p. 689)//twemchen the territory over which this sovereign nation called the “United States” exercises sovereign power That includes US embassies abroad – diplomatic asylum sets a sovereignty precedentSkiba 12 – JD, PhD Candidate, Department of History @ University of California, Berkeley (Lynsay Skiba, Fall 2012, “2012 LATCRIT SOUTH-NORTH EXCHANGE ON THEORY, CULTURE, AND LAW: "ASILO AMERICANO" AND THE INTERPLAY OF SOVEREIGNTY, REVOLUTION, AND LATIN AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY: THE CASE OF 20TH-CENTURY ARGENTINA,” 3 Creighton Int'l & Comp. L.J. 198, Lexis)//twemchen This understudied Latin American practice allows political dissidents to seek refuge in, and safe passage out, of embassies and other extraterritorial sites located in the very countries that deem them threats. 104 Frequently [*199] employed during the civil wars and revolutionary conflicts of the 19th century, diplomatic asylum became by the middle of the 20th century both a mechanism for states to assert their sovereignty and a method for non-governmental advocates to defend individuals from state-sponsored persecution. By the late 20th century, while never disappearing, it had faded as a celebrated advocacy tool in the region. This paper examines diplomatic asylum and its links to sovereignty, political dissent, and the development of Latin American human rights activism. For the United States, foreign missions here and American missions abroad are both considered domesticLocke 9 (Ryan. adjunct professor of law at Emory school of law. “are embassies considered ‘united states territory’?”. Fair Play Substantial Justice. 23 April 2009. https://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-considered-united-states-territory)//JuneC// Diplomatic and consular premises are NOT extraterritorial. This is the most common misconception about “embassies, and something you see in movies and TV all the time. For example, in an episode of The Simpsons the family travels to Australia and eventually takes refuge on the grounds of the U.S. embassy where they can’t be arrested because it’s “technically U.S. soil.” In reality, that’s not the case. U.S. embassies are on the soil of the host country. This was made clear in Persinger v. Iran, where a marine who was held hostage for 15 months at Embassy Tehran sued his captors, the government of Iran, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Although other countries are generally immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts, the FSIA created certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the tortious act occurs on U.S. soil. This makes sense–if Japan injures you in Ohio, you should be able to sue them in Ohio. But the FSIA said U.S. soil, not “U.S. states.” So what does “U.S. soil” mean? 28 U.S.C. section 1603(c) has the answer: “United States” means “all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” The marine argued that it should be considered part of the U.S. since the Embassy was substantially removed from the jurisdiction of the receiving state and was subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of both the sending and receiving states, but the Court of Appeals didn’t go for it. Instead, they deferring to the language of the statute, its legislative history, and the consequences of finding embassies part of the U.S.–in the end, he wasn’t allowed to sue Iran. Notably the court didn’t decide if Congress could extend jurisdiction to U.S. embassies; they merely decided that Congress didn’t. For extreme nerds, the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law and the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, agree with this decision. The OLA opinion is at Vol. II, 1430-1432, 1440 (1994). But even though embassies are not part of the U.S.’s territory, the U.S. still exercises substantial control over its embassies and consulates, including enforcing American law. This is done mostly through treaties and bilateral conventions. For example, judicial assistance between the U.S. and Japan is governed by: Article 5(f) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 UST 77. Article 17 of the U.S.-Japan bilateral Consular Convention of 1963, 15 UST 768. the U.S.-Japan bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters treaty, Treaty Doc. 108-12. the multilateral Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 20 UST 361. Customary international law Applicable U.S. law and regulations Applicable Japanese law and regulations As you can imagine, international law gets rather complicated as you’re flipping through nine or ten sources of law. The most important treaties can be found here. In conclusion, Domestic means territories under U.S. jurisdictionU.S. Code 5 (U.S. Code. 28 U.S. Code § 1603. Legal Information Institute. 18 February 2005. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603)//JuneC// (a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b). (b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity— (1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country. (c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose. (e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States. Territorial jurisdiction of embassies concerning the U.S. was never legally defined, but the court ruled domesticity in multiple casesConley 15 (JM. Department of Sociology and Anthropology. “Foreign Sovereign Immunity”. 2015. http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1821&context=gjicl)//JuneC// European courts which have litigated the issue of whether the receiving state or the sending state has jurisdiction over embassies, have uniformly held that such jurisdiction lies with the receiving state. 7 United States courts, however, had not addressed the question directly. Two district court opinions suggested that the noncommercial tort exception applies only to acts which occur within the geographic territory of the United States. In Matter of Sedco, Inc., Sedco, an offshore drilling corporation, attempted to sue Pemex, a subsidiary of the Government of Mexico, for property damage arising out of an oil well drilling disaster which had oc curred off the coast of Mexico."8 Plaintiff argued that for the noncommercial tort exception to apply, the tort could occur in whole or in part in the United States. If the acts or omissions cause direct effects in the United States, the tort occurs in part in the United States. 9 The District Court for the Southern District of Texas, holding that the non-commercial tort exception was inapplicable, concluded that "although the exception does apply to all non-commercial torts committed in this country, . . . the tort, in whole, must occur in the United States. ' 20 An even narrower interpretation of the exception was given in Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic. 21 Hanoch Tel-Oren concerned wrongful death and personal injury actions arising out of an attack in Israel on a bus containing citizens of and visitors to Israel.2 2 In holding that the non-commercial tort exception did not apply, the court stated that ti... it is undoubted that sovereign immunity is still in effect for tort claims unless injury or death occurs within American borders. ' 23 The Sedco and Hanoch Tel-Oren incidents, however, both occurred within the exclusive jurisdiction of other countries and did not concern any question of concurrent United States jurisdiction or, more particularly, jurisdiction of United States embassies. In Persinger, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that for jurisdiction under the FSIA, the phrase "in the United States" includes United States embassies abroad.24 In reaching this conclusion, the Persinger court followed a three pronged analysis. First, because the legislative history failed to define the scope of "territory . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," the Persinger court relied on the language of the FSIA itself to determine the meaning of the phrase.25 According to the court, that language does not indicate that "territory" means literally only that territory geographically in the United States,26 but also includes any territory abroad which is under United States jurisdiction. 7 Second, the court stated that, although under international law United States embassies are regarded as United States territory,2 8 they are not necessarily excluded from coverage under the FSIA.29 If it can be shown that the United States exercises some form of jurisdiction over its embassies, they fall within the "territory" contemplated by the non-commercial tort exception.3 0 Third, the court reasoned that United States jurisdiction does not have to be exclusive jurisdiction. The term also includes territory subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the United States and another country. 1 The court determined that United States embassies fall under the broad authority of Congress to regulate foreign affairs,32 that they are subject to the authority of the State Department to promulgate regulations governing consular affairs,3 " and that they are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States.3 4 A fortiori, the court concluded that the United States exercises concurrent jurisdiction over its embassies abroad.35 Thus, the Persinger court held that United States embassies abroad are territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; therefore, the Iranian actions on embassy grounds occurred "in the United States" within the FSIA exception. Thus, Iran could not claim immunity under the FSIA and the court had jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits. W/M – Foreign Embassies in USForeign embassies are domestic territoryState Department 12 (“WHAT IS A U.S. EMBASSY?”, last modified 8/11/12, http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm)//twemchen ORIGINALLY, AN EMBASSY referred to an ambassador and his staff who were sent by their country to another country’s government to represent and advance the interests of their home country. Today, an embassy is the nerve center for U.S. affairs inside another nation—the headquarters of the U.S. ambassador and his or her staff. An embassy is always located in the capital city of a foreign nation. U.S. embassies abroad, as well as foreign embassies in the United States, have a special status. While an embassy remains the territory of the host state, under international rules representatives of the host country may not enter an embassy without permission—even to put out a fire. Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. Besides the ambassador, embassy staff is typically made up of a deputy chief of mission, Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service Specialists, and representatives of many other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture. The staff of all of these agencies reports to the ambassador. Citizens of the foreign country fill jobs at an embassy, too, and these foreign employees are essential to the success of an embassy’s mission. They used to be known as Foreign Service Nationals, but are now officially called Locally Employed Staff—which may include U.S. citizens who are long-time residents of the country. Ilaw agreesJP 3 (Jakarta Post, “Embassy land not sovereign”, 7/16/03, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2003/07/16/embassy-land-not-sovereign.html, Deech) I refer to the letter by Brien Doyle that appeared in The Jakarta Post on July 10, concerning the refusal of Governor Sutiyoso to permit the construction of a protective fence on the premises of the U.S. Embassy, even after repeated requests from Ambassador Boyce. Doyle states, ""Let us not forget that the embassy is U.S. sovereign territory"". If this statement is accurate, why would the embassy ask anyone for permission to build a wall anyway? There is no precedent under international law that grants a ""sovereign territory"" status to embassies, not even for the United States. It is a widespread misconception that a foreign embassy belongs to the territory of the representative nation. The only status given to embassies under international law concerns ""premises of the mission, which are inviolable and agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission"" (Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations). Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.83 Mb. Share with your friends:
|