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 ReadingDoe Run Defendants Seek Cert for Foreign Relations Abstention
A pending cert petition in Doe Run Resources v. Reid asks the Supreme Court to dismiss tort claims brought by foreign plaintiffs against a U.S. company, its subsidiaries, and various corporate officers based on foreign relations abstention. The Peruvian plaintiffs allege they were seriously harmed as children by toxic substances, including toxic levels of lead,…
Continue ReadingSDNY Stays Action Based on International Comity
Lower federal courts have developed several forms of abstention based on international comity. Some courts have adopted a doctrine of prescriptive comity abstention to dismiss federal statutory claims when facing a “true conflict” with foreign law. Some have embraced doctrines of adjudicative comity abstention that permit dismissals or stays of federal proceedings in favor of…
Continue ReadingAll 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