22
International Treaties Not Issues for Domestic Courts
The latest judicial decision in the 26-year long case McKesson Corporation et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran was released August 26, 2008 from the United States District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The dispute surrounds an allegation by McKesson that Iran illegally expropriated McKesson's stake in an Iranian dairy company and blocked its receipt of dividends. In this appeal, Iran challenged the district court's decision upholding McKesson's argument that the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights provided a course of action for securing its due.
The appeals court, finding for Iran, reversed the district court on that issue, stating that generally, international agreements do not create private rights or provide for a private cause of action in domestic courts.
Additionally, because the Treaty of Amity does not explicitly call upon the courts for enforcement, it would be involving the judiciary in matters outside its competence and authority. Without a cause of action, McKesson's complaint cannot continue.
The appeals court remanded for the district court to consider whether McKesson may have a cause of action under Iranian law or under the Customary International Law and whether the act of state doctrine applies to this case. -- Genevieve Cohoon, law student, formerly legal assistant at Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP, Washington, DC.
Fri, / Embassy Law Link