Further Thoughts About Terrorism Exceptions and State Immunity
As regular readers know, Iran has sued Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that the terrorism exceptions in Canada’s State Immunities Act (SIA) violate customary international law. The United States also has terrorism exceptions in its Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for actions against state sponsors of terrorism and for actions based on international terrorism in the…
Continue ReadingGovernmental and Non-Governmental Acts in Terrorism Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity
The Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) brought proceedings in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) against Canada on June 27, 2023, alleging that Section 6.1(1) of Canada’s State Immunity Act (SIA), its “terrorism exception,” violates Iran’s sovereign immunities from jurisdiction and enforcement under customary international law. Section 6.1(1) creates an exception to the jurisdictional immunity…
Continue ReadingWhy Terrorism Exceptions to State Immunity Do Not Violate International Law
[Editor’s Note: This post also appears at Just Security.] On June 27, 2023, Iran sued Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that the terrorism exceptions in Canada’s State Immunities Act (SIA) violate customary international law. As Professor Maryam Jamshidi noted at Just Security, it seems that the main target of Iran’s action…
Continue ReadingMicrosoft’s Dispute Resolution Provisions Are a Mess
The Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and its foreign subsidiaries buy goods and services from companies all around the world. To streamline the contracting process, Microsoft has drafted a purchase order that contains standard terms and conditions. This purchase order – viewable here – is used by Microsoft and its subsidiaries in 109 different countries. This agreement…
Continue ReadingIf Not Here, Where? Transnational Litigation Against U.S. Tech Companies Around the World
As U.S. courts have narrowed their amenability to transnational litigation, foreign courts have emerged as forums for such litigation. This is strikingly clear in suits against U.S. tech companies, which often cannot be sued at home because of Section 230 immunity. In suits around the world against U.S. tech giants, foreign courts are adapting concepts…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Equustek v. Google
This year marks the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Equustek v. Google, in which Canada’s highest court became one among a select few to order an internet intermediary to remove information from its services on a worldwide basis. The decision in Equustek aroused angst and controversy out of fear…
Continue ReadingPerspectives on the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention from the United States and Canada
On August 29, 2022, the European Union and Ukraine became Contracting Parties to the 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, commonly known as the Hague Judgments Convention, thus triggering its entry into force on September 1, 2023. Our article recently posted to SSRN, The 2019…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Canada, Cannabis, and Forum Selection Clauses
Companies engaged in transnational litigation prefer, as a rule, to litigate disputes at home. Litigating at home allows a party to rely on lawyers and procedures with which it is already familiar. It also forces the other party to bear the costs of litigating in an unfamiliar legal system and (sometimes) in a foreign language….
Continue Reading