Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:04:14.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States Supreme Court: Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. New York

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bruce Zagaris
Bruce Zagaris*
Affiliation:
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP, Washington, D.C.
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.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 735 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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.)

Footnotes

*

This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the United States Supreme Court website (visited July 23, 2007). <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-134.pdf >

References

1 Partner, Berliner Corcoran&Rowe LLP, Washington, D.C. and member of the ILM Advisory Board.

2 N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law Ann. § 418 (West 2000).

3 Id.

4 §1605(a)(4).

5 Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. New York, 446 F.3d 365 (2006).

6 The other countries challenging and not paying the fees are Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Germany, Libya, Mauritius, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Switzerland. See US diplomats in London roads row, BBC News, Oct. 20, 2005.

7 Id.

8 See, e.g., Associated Press, Supreme Court Justices Spar Over International Law, <http://www.law.com,> January 18, 2005; U.S. Supreme Court Holds Juvenile Death Penalty Unconstitutional, Citing Treaties and Foreign Practice, 99 A.J.I.L. 487-488 (Apr., 2005).

9 For background on the negotiation of the Mexico-U.S. TIEA, see Bruce Zagaris, Mexican Senate Ratifies Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA), 6 International Enforcement L. Rep. 7 (January 1990). Bruce Zagaris, U.S.-Mexico TIEA In Force, 6 International Enforcement Law Rep. 65 (February 1990).

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the United States Supreme Court website (visited July 23, 2007).http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-134.pdf>

1 The City concedes that even if a court of competent jurisdiction declares the liens valid, petitioners are immune from foreclosure proceedings. See Brief for Respondent 40 (noting that there is no FSIA immunity exception for enforcement actions). The City claims, however, that the declarations of validity are necessary for three reasons. First, once a court has declared property tax liens valid, foreign sovereigns traditionally concede and pay. Second, if the foreign sovereign fails to pay in the face of a valid court judgment, that country's foreign aid may be reduced by the United States by 110 of the outstanding debt. See Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, §543(a), 119 Stat. 2214 (hereinafter Foreign Operations); Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, §543(a), 118 Stat. 3011 (hereinafter Consolidated Appropriations). Third, the liens would be enforceable against subsequent purchasers. 5 Restatement of Property §540 (1944).

2 The City offers several other arguments against immunity based on the Vienna Convention, but those arguments ulti mately go to the merits of the case, i.e., whether petitioners are actually responsible for paying the taxes. Because the only question before us is one of jurisdiction, and because the text and historical context of the FSIA demonstrate that petitioners are not immune from the City's suits, we leave these merits-related arguments to the lower courts.