{"id":244032,"date":"2021-02-18T14:01:01","date_gmt":"2021-02-18T08:31:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=244032"},"modified":"2021-03-05T12:11:13","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T06:41:13","slug":"germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of the United States: <\/strong>Roberts, CJ., while addressing a matter with regard to artworks obtained by Nazis from Jewish art dealers with the usage of coercion, held that:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The phrase \u201crights in property taken in violation of international law,\u201d as used in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act expropriation exception, refers to violations of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic takings rule.<\/p>\n

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that foreign nations are presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States Courts. One of the exceptions under the statute is:<\/p>\n

a sovereign does not enjoy immunity in any case \u201cin which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>The question to be considered in view of the above exception is: Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals falls in the above exception?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Factual Matrix<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Present matter is in with regard to the dozen medieval relics and devotional objects known as the Welfnschatz. The pieces date back to the early days of the Holy Roman Empire and occupy a unique position in German History and culture.<\/p>\n

The collection was assembled within Germany\u2019s Brunswick Cathedral over the course of several centuries, before being moved to a Hanoverian chapel in 1671 and later to Switzerland for safekeeping in the wake of World War I.<\/p>\n

During the waning years of the Weimar Republic, a consortium of three art firms owned by Jewish residents of Frankfurt purchased the Welfenschatz from the Duke of Brunswick. By 1931, the consortium had sold about half of the collection\u2019s pieces to museums and individuals in Europe and the United States, including many to the Cleveland Museum of Art, where they reside today.<\/p>\n

After ascending to power, Hermann Goering\u2014Adolf Hitler\u2019s deputy and the Prime Minister of Prussia\u2014became interested in the remainder of the Welfenschatz.<\/p>\n

Reasons for the Complaint filed and what does it allege?<\/u><\/span><\/h3>\n

It has been alleged in the complaint that Hermann Goering employed a combination of political prosecution and physical threats to coerce the consortium into selling the remaining pieces to Prussia in 1935 for approximately one-third of their value.<\/p>\n

What happened to the consortium members and how are the respondents related to them?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two of the consortium members fled the country following the sale, and the third died in Germany shortly thereafter.<\/p>\n

Respondents are two United States citizens and a citizen of the United Kingdom who traces their lineages back to the three members of the consortium.<\/p>\n

The United States took possession of the Welfenschatz in the course of the occupation of Nazi Germany at the end of the war, eventually turning the collection over to the Federal Republic of Germany.<\/p>\n

For nearly 60 years, the treasure has been maintained by Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK)\u2014the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation\u2014and it is now displayed at a museum in Berlin. SPK is an instrumentality of the Federal Republic.<\/p>\n

SPK conducted an investigation on heirs approaching them claiming that the sale of the Welfenschatz to Prussian Government was unlawful. In the investigation, it was determined that the transaction occurred at a fair market price without coercion.<\/p>\n

German Advisory Commission<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Parties agreed to submit the claim to the German Advisory Commission for Return of Cultural Property Seized as a Result of Nazi Persecution, Especially Jewish Property.<\/p>\n

Commission concluded after reviewing the witnesses and hearing from expert witnesses the sale had occurred at a fair price without duress.<\/p>\n

Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Germany argued that it was immune from suit because the heirs\u2019 claims did not fall within the FSIA\u2019s exception to immunity for \u201cproperty taken in violation of international law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Panel while agreeing with the heirs that the exception for property taken in violation of international law was satisfied because \u201cgenocide perpetrated by a state even against its own nationals is a violation of international law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whether the sale of the consortium\u2019s property was an act of genocide, because the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights.<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bench recognized that \u2018United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.\u2019 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108, 115 (2013).<\/p>\n

As a Nation, we would be surprised\u2014and might even initiate reciprocal action\u2014if a court in Germany adjudicated claims by Americans that they were entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars because of human rights violations committed by the United States Government years ago. There is no reason to anticipate that Germany\u2019s reaction would be any different were American courts to exercise the jurisdiction claimed in this case.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Court found that none of the arguments submitted by the heirs could overcome the text, context and history of the expropriation exception.<\/p>\n

Heirs could not show that the FSIA allows them to bring their claims against Germany.<\/p>\n

Further, while concluding its decision, Supreme Court expressed as follows:<\/p>\n

We hold that the phrase \u201crights in property taken in violation of international law,\u201d as used in the FSIA\u2019s expropriation exception, refers to violations of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic takings rule.<\/p>\n

While vacating the decision of the \u00a0Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Bench remanded the case for further proceedings.[Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp,\u00a0 2021 SCC OnLine US SC 1<\/b><\/a>, decided on 03-02-2021]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of the United States: Roberts, CJ., while addressing a matter with regard to artworks obtained by Nazis from Jewish art <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[45222,45221,35128,45224,3354,45225,29785,45223,3590,30014,43743,45227,45226],"class_list":["post-244032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-artwork","tag-civil-suits","tag-coercion","tag-germany","tag-heirs","tag-jews","tag-law","tag-nazi","tag-property","tag-scotus","tag-suits","tag-welfenschatz","tag-world-war-1"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-18T08:31:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-05T06:41:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-18T08:31:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-05T06:41:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act | SCC Times","description":"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act","og_description":"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-02-18T08:31:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-05T06:41:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/","name":"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2021-02-18T08:31:01+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-05T06:41:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Germany in Nazi Era Art Dispute","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/18\/germany-in-nazi-era-art-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS | Claims of Artwork by the heirs of Jewish Art dealers rejected. Why? Read discussion on Whether a country\u2019s alleged taking of property from its own nationals fall within exception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":107641,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/23\/uk-supreme-court-decides-against-government-and-its-officials-in-two-human-rights-cases-rules-they-must-face-the-claims\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":0},"title":"UK Supreme Court decides against Government and its officials in two Human Rights cases, rules they must face the claims","author":"Saba","date":"February 23, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom:\u00a0Two human rights cases have been decided by the UK Supreme Court against UK officials. The respondents (Behlaj and Rahmatullah) sought a declaration of illegality and damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the UK officials in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and removal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":45861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/05\/world-bank-jurisdictional-immunity-relating-to-information-sharing-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":1},"title":"World Bank jurisdictional immunity relating to information sharing, upheld","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 5, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Canada: While deciding a matter the Court has upheld the immunity status and independence of international organizations by rejecting an attempt by a group of accused individuals to compel personnel of the World Bank Group to appear in court and produce various documents. The Court ruled unanimously\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Canada SC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":107631,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/18\/uk-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-government-says-the-capturing-of-afgan-nationals-by-british-troops-is-crown-act-of-state\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":2},"title":"UK Supreme Court rules in favour of Government, says the capturing of Afgan Nationals by British troops is Crown act of State","author":"Saba","date":"February 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom:\u00a0Serdar Mohammed-an Afghan national was captured by British troops in Afghanistan on 7 April 2010 as the soldiers believed he was a senior Taliban commander who posed a threat to their safety. After his arrest, he was detained at British military bases in Afghanistan until 25\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":57421,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/20\/applicability-of-certain-provisions-of-united-nations-privileges-and-immunities-act-1947-notified\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":3},"title":"Applicability of certain provisions of United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, notified","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 20, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, declares that the provisions of section 1 of Article I, sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and section 8 of Article II, section 9 of Article III and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6116,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/11\/05\/state-immunity-act-not-applicable-on-acts-of-torture-committed-by-a-foreign-state-outside-canada\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":4},"title":"State Immunity Act, not applicable on acts of torture committed by a foreign State outside Canada","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 5, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Canada: In a recent case relating to sovereign immunity where Civil proceedings were initiated against Iran, its head of State and two State officials in relation to the alleged torture and death of a Canadian citizen in Iran, a question arose whether they are entitled to immunity\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Courts"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/foreigncourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195699,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/30\/scotus-puts-corporations-outside-the-scope-of-the-alien-tort-statute-for-human-rights-suits\/","url_meta":{"origin":244032,"position":5},"title":"SCOTUS puts corporations outside the scope of the Alien Tort Statute for human rights suits","author":"Saba","date":"April 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States: The Supreme Court of the United States in a 5:4 ruling, held that victims of overseas atrocities cannot sue foreign corporations for complicity under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute. The petitioners, claiming to be or to be representing persons who were injured or killed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244032\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}