How does the FSIA treat state-owned companies?

An 'agency or instrumentality' of a foreign state—such as a state-owned enterprise—is generally covered, but the Supreme Court held in Dole Food v. Patrickson (2003) that the relationship must be direct, with the state owning a majority of shares itself.

Can a winning plaintiff actually collect against foreign-state assets?

Execution is much harder than obtaining a judgment. The FSIA's §§ 1609–1611 protect most sovereign property from attachment, with narrow exceptions for commercial property used in the activity giving rise to the claim and for certain terrorism judgments.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Definition

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1976 and codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602–1611, is the exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. federal or state courts. Before the FSIA, decisions on whether to grant immunity were made case by case, often shaped by State Department "suggestions of immunity." The Act shifted that authority to the judiciary and codified the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, under which states are immune for sovereign (jure imperii) acts but not for commercial (jure gestionis) acts.

The statute begins from a presumption of immunity and then lists enumerated exceptions, including:

Waiver by the foreign state, express or implied.
Commercial activity carried on in the United States or having a direct effect there (§ 1605(a)(2)).
Expropriation of property in violation of international law (§ 1605(a)(3)).
Non-commercial torts committed in the United States (§ 1605(a)(5)).
Arbitration agreements and awards (§ 1605(a)(6)).
A terrorism exception added in 1996 and substantially revised in 2008 (§ 1605A), allowing suits against states designated as state sponsors of terrorism for personal injury or death.

The Act also governs service of process, attachment, and execution against foreign-state property, with separate, narrower rules for executing judgments. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the FSIA in cases such as Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping (1989), Republic of Argentina v. Weltover (1992), Saudi Arabia v. Nelson (1993), Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital (2014), and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne (2017).

The 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) further amended the FSIA to allow certain civil suits against foreign states for terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, most notably enabling claims by 9/11 victims' families against Saudi Arabia. The FSIA is frequently studied as the U.S. counterpart to the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004), which has not yet entered into force.

Frequently asked questions

Yes. The FSIA is the sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states in any U.S. court, state or federal, and cases filed in state court are typically removable to federal court.

The statute begins from a presumption of immunity and then lists enumerated exceptions, including:

Waiver by the foreign state, express or implied.
Commercial activity carried on in the United States or having a direct effect there (§ 1605(a)(2)).
Expropriation of property in violation of international law (§ 1605(a)(3)).
Non-commercial torts committed in the United States (§ 1605(a)(5)).
Arbitration agreements and awards (§ 1605(a)(6)).
A terrorism exception added in 1996 and substantially revised in 2008 (§ 1605A), allowing suits against states designated as state sponsors of terrorism for personal injury or death.

Frequently asked questions

Yes. The FSIA is the sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states in any U.S. court, state or federal, and cases filed in state court are typically removable to federal court.

Frequently asked questions

Go deeper than the definition

Frequently asked questions

Go deeper than the definition