B-1
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 24
INTERNATIONAL AND SPACE LAW
24-1A. Sovereign immunity
The United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he issuance of the Bonds was a commercial ac-
tivity under the [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)], and the rescheduling of the maturity
dates on those instruments was taken ‘in connection with’ that activity within the meaning of” the
FSIA. The Court reasoned that “[w]hen a foreign government acts, not as a regulator of a mar-
ket, but in the manner of a private player within that market, its actions are commercial within
24-2A. Sovereign immunity
The court denied the motion to dismiss. The doctrine of sovereign immunity immunizes foreign
nations from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) of 1976
codified this doctrine. A nation is not immune if it has waived its immunity or if the action against
it is based on a “commercial activity carried on in the United States.” The court recognized that
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 24
24-3A. Import controls
The court affirmed the U.S. Customs Service’s ruling, and DaimlerChrysler appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision.
24-4A. Sovereign immunity
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a U.S. court cannot exercise jurisdiction
over a dispute unless the plaintiff can prove, among other things, that the defendant’s actions
24-5A. Sovereign immunity
The court held that because Ente Nazionale Idrocaburi was an “agent or instrumentality” of the
Italian government, Nuovo was a “foreign state” entitled to sovereign immunity—unless an ex-
ception applied. The court concluded that an exception did apply: Nuovo was not entitled to
24-6A. Import control
The court explained that “[t]he purpose of the ordinary course of trade provision is to prevent
dumping [calculations] from being based on sales which are not representative.” The ITA “must
evaluate not just one factor taken in isolation but rather . . . all the circumstances particular to
the sales in question.” However, “the burden rests with the plaintiff to provide [the ITA] with suf-
ficient evidence showing that the sales used in [the ITA’s] calculations are outside the ordinary
24-7A. Act of state doctrine
The United States Supreme Court held that the action was not barred by the act of state doc-
trine. The Court stated that in every case in which it had held the act of state doctrine applica-
ble, “the relief sought * * * would have required a court in the United States to declare invalid
24–8A. Comity
The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Voda’s foreign patent infringement claims. Cordis
appealed to a federal appellate court, which concluded that the lower court did not have jurisdic-
tion. The appellate court found that “considerations of comity” “constitute compelling reasons to
decline jurisdiction” in this case. The court explained, “Comity, in the legal sense, is neither a
matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 24
other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, execu-
tive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and conven-
24-9A. Sovereign immunity
The key international legal principles at play here are comity and sovereign immunity. Comity
requires one nation to give effect to the laws and judicial decrees of another. Sovereign immuni-
ty prevents the U.S. courts from exercising jurisdiction over foreign nations unless certain condi-
tions are met. In this case, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth
24–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated that “[t]hree reasons persuade
us: (1) the parties’ undertaking is truly international in character, (2) all parties other than Riley
* * * are British, and (3) virtually all activities giving rise to the suggested claims occurred in
England.”
Against the court’s decision, it might be argued that Riley would lose his rights under U.S.
law. The court acknowledged that “a showing of inconvenience so serious as to foreclose a
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 24 B-5
2. As the appellate court stated, “The fact that an international transaction may be sub-
ject to laws and remedies different or less favorable than those of the United States is not a val-
3. Yes, and in fact, as listed above, that was one of the factors that weighed in favor of
the court’s decision to require Riley to resolve his dispute abroad. It is always fair to make a