Visitors now: 12
Private Cause of Action Under Treaty of Amity
On July 18, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the United States Government's interpretation of the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran, and affirmed an earlier decision allowing American plaintiffs to sue Iran in U.S. courts under Article IV(2) of the Treaty: McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 82-00220, slip op. at 32 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007).
Following the District Court's 1997 decision, the Solicitor General filed a Statement of Interest with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that foreign nationals may only enforce their Treaty of Amity-based rights in the territory of the other Contracting Party. The Solicitor General feared that the District Court's 1997 decision would lead to a floodgate of unwanted and unbargained-for suits in foreign countries against the United States if other treaties were similarly interpreted; McKesson, at 32.
However, despite the fact that both the United States and Iran agreed about the proper interpretation of the Treaty, the District Court refused to defer to the Executive Branch's interpretation, and declared that it was at odds with the plain meaning of the Treaty's language. Therefore, the District Court affirmed the U.S. corporation's cause of action against Iran in the District of Columbia. -- Jason A. McClurg, Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP, Washington, DC.
Thu, / / Embassy Law Link
