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 ReadingDistrict Court Grants Air Senegal Motion to Stay Parallel Suit
Sometimes you have to choose one court. In SASOF III (A2) Aviation Ireland DAC v. Air Senegal S.A., the plaintiffs, airline leasing companies, sued Air Senegal for non-payment of rent in Dakar, Senegal. Three months later, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar suit in New York. On January 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron stayed…
Continue ReadingCoordinating Prosecutions: The Rise of Global FCPA Settlements
One of the central structural challenges in transnational criminal enforcement is multijurisdictional prosecution. When multiple states possess prescriptive jurisdiction over the same conduct, wrongdoers can face overlapping—or sequential—national prosecutions for a single course of conduct. This challenge is endemic in the anti-corruption arena. Foreign bribery is almost always transnational: the bribe is paid in one…
Continue ReadingSDNY Grants Anti-Suit Injunction Against TV Azteca
For the past several years, parallel litigation has been ongoing in Mexico and the United States between the Mexican media conglomerate TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), the Indenture Trustee for a series of TV Azteca’s unsecured notes. Two weeks ago, Judge Paul G. Gardephe (SDNY) granted BNY’s…
Continue Reading
