1 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993).

2 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(3) and (7).

3 Lauterpacht, E. The Codification of the Law of Diplomatic Immunity, 40 Transactions of the GrotiusSocy1954 71 Google Scholar

4 Restatement Third , Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §402, cmt. g. (1987).

5 See also, e.g., the Torture Victim Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat 73 (reprinted at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note) and 18 U.S.C. § 2313 (amended in 1984 to include the possession of automobiles abroad that had been stolen in the United States).

6 28 U.S.C.§ 1603(b) (emphasis added).>

7 Velasco v. Government of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2004).

8 See also, e.g., In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp. 2d 765, 788 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that the FSIA covered the official acts of the Prince Sultan, the third-highest ranking member of the Saudi Arabian government, and Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador to England, who had been the director of Saudi Arabia's Department of General Intelligence). Note that the author provided legal advice on some issues to plaintiffs' lawyers in one of these consolidated cases. For earlier FSIA cases, see, e.g., Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank, 976 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1992), and Jungquist v. Nahyan, 115 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

9 There are exceptions to immunity under the FSIA, but they are carefully circumscribed and probably would not be applicable to this hypothetical. One possible approach for the study and possible changes mentioned below would be to amend certain exceptions under the FSIA, such as the (a)(5) exceptions for torts. It is now limited in part to suits seeking damages for death or injury “ occurring in the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1605(A)(5).

10 370 F.3d at 402.

11 Carter, Barry E.et al., International Law 611-618 (4th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

12 124 S.Ct. 2739, 2766 n.21 (2004).