Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:56:51.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iran Handicraft and Carpet Export Center v. Marjan International Corp.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Federal jurisdictionnonrecognition of foreign state governmententitlement of citizen of foreign state to sue in U.S. courts
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 954 - 955
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The court noted that “ ‘[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’ ” 655 F.Supp. 1275, 1277 (quoting Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980)).

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(4) (1982) provides for suits between “a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.”

5 The court noted that “[n]onrecognition of a particular government” indicates that the United States Government has refused “ ‘to regard that government as the legitimate spokesmanin international affairs for the people it purports to govern.’ ” 655 F.Supp. at 1278(quoting Federal Republic of Germany v. Elicofon, 358 F.Supp. 747, 752 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), aff’d, 478 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 415 U.S. 931 (1974)).

6 Id. (citing Republic of Vietnam v. Pfizer, Inc., 556 F.2d 892, 894 (8th Cir. 1977); Elicofon, 358 F.Supp. at 756–57).

7 Id. (citing Windert Watch Co. v. Remex Electronics Ltd., 468 F.Supp. 1242, 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)).

8 Klausner v. Levy, 83 F.Supp. 599 (D. Va. 1949); Windert Watch Co., 468 F.Supp. at 1242.The court also discussed several other cases in this context, including Murarka v. Bachrack Bros., 215 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1954); Cedec Trading Ltd. v. United Am. Coal Sales, 556 F.Supp.722 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); and Tetra Fin. (HK) Ltd. v. Shaheen, 584 F.Supp. 847 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

9 Slip op. at 8. In its discussion of the facts of the case, the court recounted the history of political turmoil in Iran during 1979–1980, noting that the United States had severed all diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran on Apr. 7, 1980.

10 Id. at 1280.

11 Id. at 1281. See, e.g., Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng’g Firm v. Harza Eng’g Co., No. 87 C 1599 (N.D. 111. filed Feb. 19, 1987).