Suchergebnisse

39States as international persons — Recognition of acts of foreign States and Governments — Sovereign immunity as bar to jurisdiction over agency of foreign State — Act of State doctrine operative once such jurisdiction obtained — The law of the United States of America.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign States — Condemnation of Land — Contract with Government for Use of Airfield — Restrictions by Foreign State on Use of Lands Adjacent to Airport.

Petitioner, International Tin Council (ITC), brought an action to stay an American Arbitration Association arbitration that was initiated by respondent, Amalgamet Inc., and that arose out of petitioner's refusal to honor three contracts for the purchase of tin from respondent. Petitioner claimed that it was immune from suit in the United States by virtue of its status as an international organization under British law, and, in the alternative, that the arbitration clause in its contract with respondent was unenforceable. The Supreme Court of New York County (per Parness, J.) dismissed the petition, and held that petitioner lacked any basis under U.S. law for immunity from legal process and that petitioner had consented to the arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and Rules of — Interpretation in Accordance with General Intention of the Parties.160Air Law — Meaning of Term "International Transportation" — Warsaw Convention of 1929 — Burden of Proof of "Wilful Misconduct" for Purpose of Avoiding Limitation of Liability — What Constitutes "Wilful Misconduct" — Effect of Omission of Particulars from Ticket — Interpretation of Treaties — Interpretation in Accordance with General Intention of the Parties.

International organizations — Immunity — Whether international organization entitled to immunity in State which is not a member of organization — Whether organization has sovereign status — International Tin Council — Whether entitled to immunity under United States law — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — International Organizations Immunities Act — Immunity of International Tin Council under United Kingdom law — Whether comity requires recognition of that immunity by courts in the United States — International Tin Council-United Kingdom Headquarters Agreement, 1972 — International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972 — Scope of immunity under United Kingdom law — Arbitration proceedings — Waiver of immunity — Whether act of State doctrine applicable to commercial contract between International Tin Council and New York corporation
31Relationship of international law and municipal law — Act of State and justiciability — United States act of State doctrine — Whether applicable to commercial transactions — Whether applicable to acts of international organizations
Comity — Recognition of foreign laws required by comity — Whether comity requires courts in the United States to give effect to immunity accorded to international organization by United Kingdom law — Whether that immunity intended to have extraterritorial effect — The law of the United States

41Sovereign immunity — Foreign State — Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity — Contract for the supply of military equipment for use by armed forces — Public or political act — Whether non-commercial nature of transaction affected by subsequent commercial use of equipment — The law of the United States

In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to delist all websites used by Datalink, a company that stole trade secrets from Equustek, a Canada-based information technology company. Google had agreed to do so in part, but with respect to searches that originated from google.ca only, the default browser for those in Canada. Equustek however, argued the takedowns needed to be global in order to be effective. It thus sought an injunction ordering Google to delist the allegedly infringing websites from all of Google's search engines—whether accessed from google.ca, google.com, or any other entry point. Google objected. The Canadian Supreme Court, along with the two lower Canadian courts that considered the issue, sided with Equustek (para. 54). The ruling sets up a potential showdown between Canadian and U.S. law and raises critically important questions about the appropriate geographic and substantive scope of takedown orders, the future of free speech online, and the role of intermediaries such as Google in preventing economic and other harms.