International Comity

International comity refers to deference to other countries that is not required by international law. The principle of international comity animates many different doctrines, which can be grouped into three categories: those that defer to foreign governments as litigants (“sovereign party comity”), those that defer to foreign lawmakers (“prescriptive comity”), and those that defer to foreign courts (“adjudicative comity”). Within each of these categories, “positive” comity doctrines use comity as a principle of recognition (such as the recognition of foreign judgments or the application of foreign law), while negative comity doctrines use comity as a principle of restraint (such as foreign sovereign immunity or the act of state doctrine).

When courts refer to the “doctrine of comity” or “comity abstention,” they often mean deference to parallel litigation in foreign courts or foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, however, have invoked “international comity abstention” more broadly to dismiss cases based on foreign relations concerns.

A Primer on International Comity

The Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot (1895) famously defined international comity as “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation.” That definition is incomplete, however, as comity encompasses much more than the recognition of foreign acts. The Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law…

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

All I Want for Christmas (from the Federal Courts)

Rounding out this week’s posts by John Coyle and Bill Dodge, here’s my wish list for the lower federal courts (plus a bonus plea to the Supreme Court). Stop Violating Rule 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes service of process on defendants “at a place…

Continue Reading

DOJ Argues Against Turnover of Argentina’s Assets

On November 6, 2024, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York sent a letter to Judge Loretta A. Preska arguing against turnover of Argentina’s interests in YPF S.A., a state-owned energy company, to satisfy a breach of contract judgment. The $16.1 billion judgment in Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic arose…

Continue Reading

Comity and Kleptocrats

To succeed in their trade, thieves need a place to stash their ill-gotten gains. Should the United States become a safe haven for international financial wrongdoing, shielding the proceeds of misdeeds whenever the thief brings corrupt government officials into the plot? Zhakiyanov v. Ogai, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New York, indicates…

Continue Reading