## Facts

- During the Falklands/Malvinas war, Argentine military aircraft attacked and severely damaged a crude-oil tanker in international waters.
- The tanker was owned by United Carriers, Inc., and chartered by Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.; both were Liberian corporations.
- The owner and charterer filed separate federal suits seeking damages from Argentina.
- Plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS); Amerada Hess also invoked federal admiralty jurisdiction and customary international law “universal jurisdiction.”
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) barred the suits.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding jurisdiction existed under the ATS.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA provides the exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts.
2. Whether any FSIA exception eliminated Argentina’s immunity for a wartime attack on a vessel on the high seas.
3. Whether the ATS, federal admiralty jurisdiction, or customary international law can supply jurisdiction over a foreign state despite the FSIA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the district court’s dismissal.
- The Court held the FSIA provides the sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts.
- The Court held no FSIA exception applied to the claims arising from the attack in international waters.
- The Court held the ATS, admiralty jurisdiction, and customary international law theories could not override FSIA immunity.
- Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment but would have remanded for further consideration of FSIA exceptions rather than resolving their inapplicability on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant qualifies as a “foreign state” under the FSIA, subject-matter jurisdiction exists only if an FSIA immunity exception applies.
- The FSIA’s immunity rule (§ 1604) and jurisdictional grant (§ 1330(a)) operate together, making the FSIA the exclusive jurisdictional framework for suits against foreign states.
- The ATS is a general jurisdictional statute for certain alien tort claims and does not independently authorize jurisdiction over a foreign state where the FSIA confers immunity.
- Other general grants of federal jurisdiction, including admiralty jurisdiction, do not permit courts to proceed against a foreign state absent an FSIA exception.
- The FSIA noncommercial tort exception requires that the injury or property damage “occur in the United States” and does not reach torts occurring on the high seas.
- Existing international agreements affect FSIA immunity only when they expressly conflict with the FSIA’s provisions; absent an explicit waiver in an applicable agreement, immunity remains.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FSIA is the exclusive means of obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in U.S. courts and that a wartime attack on a vessel in international waters did not fall within any FSIA exception, so Argentina was immune and the suits were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989)