FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT of 1976, p. 787

• Essential structure
• §1604: foreign state (as defined in §1603(a,b) is immune, unless an exception applies - does this change the burden of persuasion, as applied in Victory Transport?
• §1605(a): principal exceptions
• waiver
• commercial activity (with qualifications)
• title to wrongfully expropriated property owned by US citizens
• rights to immoveable property in US
• tortious act causing injury in US
• "terrorism": note the preconditions!
• designation of FS as state sponsor of terrorism
• U.S. national as victim
• rest of statute: compensatory damages only (1606), counterclaims (1607), service (1608), immunity of property of foreign state from attachment or execution (1609-1611, same basic format as with personal immunity)
• applicable law: is §1602 as "ambiguous" as the editors claim in note 1 p. 790? Is the reference to international law an invitation to apply it, or a justification for §1605(a)(2)?
 

• what is the "commercial activity" allegedly engaged in by Nigeria?
• purchase of goods (cement)?
• obtaining a letter of credit?
• how does the court know what is "commercial"? does §1603(d) help
• did this activity have a “direct effect in the United States”?  How so?

• what is the basis for jurisdiction of federal court in this case?
• why doesn't the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. 1350) work here?
• does the claim asserted here fit into any of the exceptions provided for in FSIA §1605?