Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Forget International Law Not: IFC Loses Absolute Immunity in Jam v International Finance Corporation
Department of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China
Department of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China
- 1 Department of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China
- 2 Department of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
In J am v International Finance Corporation (Jam case), the United States (US) Supreme Court (Supreme Court) applied a dynamic approach in interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) and found that immunity of international organizations (IOs) and foreign sovereign immunity shall be continuously equivalent. Jam case interpreted US domestic law in depth but did not carry out detailed analysis of IO immunity under international law. This case note discusses sources of IO immunity under international law, which can serve as a basis for arguments in future litigations involving IOs, and observes that Jam case does not necessarily increase the litigation risks of all IOs.
KeywordsInternational OrganizationInternational Finance CorporationJudicial ImmunityFunctional ImmunityCustomary International Law
- Amaratunga v. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2013 SCC 66, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 866 (Can.) para. 27.
- Amerasinghe, C. F. (2005). Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (p. 321). Cambridge University Press.
- Atkinson v Inter-American Development Bank, 156 F.3d 1335, 1340 (DC Cir 1998).
- Bradlow, D. D. (2005). Private Complaints and International Organizations: A Comparative Study of the Independent Inspection Mechanisms in International Financial Institutions. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 36, 405.
- Brzak v United Nations (2010). 597 Fed 3d 107, 110-11 (2d Circuit).
- Burci, G. L., & Granziera, E. (2013). Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges. International Organizations Law Review, 10, 349-372.
- Carr v United States (2010). 560 US 438, 463 (Alito J, Dissenting).
- Chemidlin v International Bureau of Weights & Measures, 12 Annual Digest 281 (France, Tribunal Civil of Versailles 1945).
- Dame Adrien & Others, 6 Annual Digest 33 (France, Conseil d’Etat 1931).
- Evans, M. (Ed.) (2014). International Law (p. 268). Oxford University Press.
- Garcia, J. M. (2011). International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon US Law (Summary). Diane Publishing.
- Harpignies, R. H. (1971). Settlement of Disputes of a Private Law Character to Which the United Nations Is a Party—A Case in Point: The Arbitral Award of 24 September 1969 in re Starways Ltd. v. the United Nations. Revue Belge de Droit International/Belgian Review of International Law, 7, 452.
- International Institute of Agriculture v Profili, 5 Annual Digest 413 (Italy, Court of Cassation 1931).
- Jam v International Finance Corp, 586 US (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
- Jam v International Finance Corp, No 1: 2015cv00612-Document 61 (DDC 2020).
- Jam v International Finance Corp, Proceedings and Orders (2022, 13 January). https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-995.html
- Mendaro v World Bank, 77 F 2d 610, 614-615 (DC Cir, 1983).
- Okeke, E. C. (2018). Jurisdictional Immunities of States and International Organizations (p. 353). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190611231.001.0001