Showing posts with label Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). Show all posts

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

U.S. House Passes Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act

September 12, 2017 – by 0

Congressman Steve Chabot
The U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote yesterday passed the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (FCEJICA).  The legislation seeks to protect foreign artwork on loan to American museums by clarifying a part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

The legislation was introduced by Judiciary Committee member Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) on February 24 and co-sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TX).  Their intent is to have a law that encourages more foreign lending of art to America without the fear of lawsuits.

Under the current federal statute known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (the Immunity from Seizure Act (IFSA), 22 U.S.C. § 2459), foreign lenders are encouraged to lend cultural objects to museums in the United States without risk that those objects will become targets of litigation while on American soil.  The statute protects imported objects determined by the State Department to be (1) of cultural significance, (2) intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition, and (3) in the national interest.  Museums importing objects into the U.S. for temporary display must apply for this legal protection.  The notice of immunity is then published in the Federal Register.

The FSIA, meanwhile, is a law that generally protects foreign states from lawsuits.  The FSIA embodies a long held principle of American jurisprudence.  But the law has been interpreted to sometimes grant jurisdiction to the courts over foreign governments when their artwork is displayed in the U.S. because such loans are deemed “commercial activity.”  Specifically, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3) of the FSIA states:

 “A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States.”

By way of example, in the 2005 case of Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam the heirs of Kazimir Malevich sued Amsterdam in federal court in Washington, DC to either recover artworks that the city’s Stedelijk Museum loaned to American museums or to acquire $150 million in damages.  The heirs claimed that the foreign museum unlawfully obtained the paintings.  Amsterdam argued that the Immunity from Seizure Act protected it from a lawsuit, but the federal district court ruled that Amsterdam had engaged in “commercial activity” under the FSIA by loaning the art to American institutions.  While IFSA may protect artwork from seizure, the FSIA did not protect Amsterdam from related damages said the court.  So the lawsuit moved forward.

The FCEJICA was introduced in order to remedy potential conflicts between IFSA and the FSIA.  The bill adds a new section to the FSIA that protects foreign nations from lawsuits in American courts related to loaned artwork.  The bill that passed the Judiciary Committee on February 28 and the full House on March 19 states:

“If a work is imported into the United States from any foreign country pursuant to an agreement that provides for the temporary exhibition or display of such work entered into between a foreign state that it is the owner or custodian of such work and the United States or one or more cultural or educational institutions within the United States, [and] the President, or the President’s designee, has determined . . . that such work is of cultural significance and the temporary exhibition or display of such work is in the national interest; and the notice thereof has been published . . . any activity in the United States of such foreign state, or of any carrier, that is associated with the temporary exhibition or display of such work shall not be considered to be commercial activity by such foreign state . . . .”

The bill adds that art stolen by the Nazis shall not be protected from legal claims filed in federal court.

A House report attached to the bill notes that "the intent of IFSA is being frustrated by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Recent court decisions have interpreted a provision of FSIA in a manner that opens foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if foreign government-owned artwork is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity and there is a claim that the artwork was taken in violation of international law." The report adds: "This has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to export artwork and cultural objects to the United States for temporary exhibition or display. Future cultural exchanges may be seriously curtailed by foreign lenders' unwillingness to permit their artwork and other cultural objects to travel to the United States. In order to keep the exchange of foreign government-owned cultural objects flowing, this legislation clarifies the relationship between the immunity provided by IFSA and the exceptions to sovereign immunity provided for in FSIA."

The Congressional Budget Office reported that enactment of the legislation "would have no significant impact on the federal budget."

The bill now goes to the Senate for its consideration.

This link contains a video of Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith's remarks on the floor of the House.


Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/

Rubin v. Iran Cases Move Forward in First Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court

September 12, 2017 – by 0
on March 29, 2011 sent the case back to the district court in Illinois for review.  But the Rubin appellants ruled on September 25, 2011 to grant the MFA’s and Harvard’s motions to dismiss the case.  Jenny Rubin et al. then brought the matter before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  They filed an appellate brief on March 28, 2012, arguing three primary issues.

First, the appellants argue that TRIA preempts all other federal and state laws because the case involves the enforcement of judgments by victims of a terrorist attack.  Their brief states:

“Pursuant to TRIA, and Treasury Regulations set forth at 31 CFR §535.201, governing collection actions on behalf of victims of state sponsored terrorism, any interest that Iran retains in the Iranian objects in Harvard and the MFA’s collection is subject to levy by the Appellants. Due to federal preemption by TRIA and 31 CFR §535.201 of any inconsistent state laws, neither Harvard nor the MFA can rely on any conflicting state laws such as those imposing statutes of limitation or governing adverse possession claims to kafetaria or otherwise defeat the Appellants’ right to attach and levy on objects of Iranian origin in each of their possession in which Iran retains any interest.”

Second, the appellants say that Iran maintains an interest in the artifacts at the museums in Massachusetts.  The appellants claim that “[t]he Iranian government has always retained a private ownership interest in artifacts from Persepolis, the former capital of the Persian Empire. For the thousands of years beginning in the reign of Darius, this historic site has never been privately owned and always has been the sole property of the government of Persia and subsequently Iran. In addition, pursuant to the Persian Law Concerning the Preservation of National Antiquities (the “1930 Law”) enacted and in effect since November 3, 1930, all antiquities in Iran, whether movable or immovable, created up through 1794, the end of the Zand Dynasty, fall under the protection, control and ownership of the Iranian government.”

Third, the appellants argue that Iranian law gives Iran an interest in its antiquities unless that country gave a specific license.  They allege that the museums cannot demonstrate that any licenses were given.  The appellants’ brief argues:

“With the exception of objects removed from Persepolis . . .which have always been owned by the Persian government, other antiquities removed from Persia prior to November 3, 1930, were not recognized as owned by Iran. Accordingly, the Appellants always have indicated that the order of garnishment against the MFA and Harvard does not encompass any artifacts of Persian origin, other than those from Persepolis, that provably were exported from Iran prior to November 3, 1930. Nor do the Appellants assert any claim to any artifact from Iran acquired either by Harvard or by the MFA or on loan to either obtained from excavations by scientific expeditions to Iran occurring on or after November 3, 1930, if the holder Museum’s documentation as to the artifact establishes that the Museum acquired each such antiquity as part of the share of a “division” of finds assigned to a scientific archeological expedition as approved by the Persian/Iranian government and as required by the 1930 Law. Similarly, with respect to antiquities exported from Iran as a seller’s purported private property, the 1930 Law vests the government of Iran with an automatic 50 percent interest in all objects found in Iran on or after November 3, 1930. As to antiquities provably in private hands as of the enactment of the 1930 Law, the government is vested with a right of first refusal to acquire the object and a right to seize and confiscate the object if the seller attempts to circumvent his obligation to secure an export permit from the government, which if obtained, requires payment of an export duty equal to five percent of the value of the object as calculated by government appraisers.”

“Without documentary proof that an artifact was assigned to the scientific expedition or that the Iranian government approved the export of purportedly privately held property, Iran retains an interest in all objects under the 1930 Law that is subject to levy by the Appellants pursuant to TRIA.”

The appellees in the case are expected to file their reply shortly.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)