INTERNATIONAL LAW
Home »
INTERNATIONAL LAW
1(1) —Generally
1(2)—Comity
1(3) —Jurisdictional Immunities for Foreign States Act
2(1) —Generally
2(2)—Applicability
2(3)—Baggage Claims
4(1) —General Principles
4(2)—Applicable Law
RESERVED
Judgments of the courts of foreign nations are not entitled to full faith and credit in courts of the United States.U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1; A.S.C.A. § 43.1702.In re Petition of Puailoa, 13 A.S.R.2d 22.
Judgments of the courts of foreign nations may be recognized in American Samoa under the doctrine of comity, by which a nation recognizes in its territory the legal acts of another nation with due regard both to international duty and convenience and to the rights of persons protected by its laws.In re Petition of Puailoa, 13 A.S.R.2d 22.
Recognition of any particular judgment of a foreign court depends on wide ranging local policy considerations, including whether the foreign proceeding comports with due process requirements.In re Petition of Puailoa, 13 A.S.R.2d 22.
§ 1(3)—Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act
The Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act contains provisions for the service of process upon foreign governmental instrumentalities and agencies.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
The Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act was enacted to provide access to courts of the United States, its states and territories, for resolution of ordinary legal disputes involving a foreign sovereign, their subdivisions, agents, and instrumentalities.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
With regard to application of the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act, the High Court of American Samoa constitutes a court of the United States.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
Service in accordance with the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act is made upon a foreign state’s agency or instrumentality by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process in the United States.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
Individual who served as authorized representative for two foreign government-related entities, who regularly reported to such entities, and who was specifically entrusted to deal with legal matters pertaining to employment of workers from such foreign country, was an “agent” under the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act and authorized to receive process on behalf of such entities in employment-related case.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
Under the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act, a court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate suits against foreign government-related agencies so long as the activity concerned is not covered by the JIFSA’s immunity provisions.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
A foreign sovereign is not immune from a court’s jurisdiction in any case in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
In order to satisfy the exception to immunity under the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act, the alleged conduct must be a commercial activity, in which a private actor could take part; and there must be a nexus between the plaintiffs’ action and the commercial activity.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
Where foreign, government-related entities recruited, exported, and employed workers in a for-profit garment manufacturing company in American Samoa, such actions clearly constituted commercial activity in which a private actor could equally participate and was the premise of the workers’ lawsuit.Therefore, such entities were not immune to suit under the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 138 (Trial Div. 2002).
The government’s terminal facilities tax is in violation of Title 49 U.S.C. § 1513(a), prohibiting the levying of a head charge on persons traveling in interstate commerce.Am. Samoa Gov’t v. South Pacific Island Airways, 2 A.S.R.2d 47 (App. Div. 1985).
Rules of liability established by the Warsaw Convention apply to “international transportation,” that is, to air transportation between one signatory country and another.Warsaw Convention, art. 1(2).American Samoa Government ex rel. Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Terms of air carriage contract which were inconsistent with Warsaw Convention were void, because the contract itself so provided and also because treaty obligations are the supreme law of the land and therefore supersede private contracts.U.S. Const. art. VI.Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
In order to effectuate its drafters’ intent to foster international air transportation by creating uniform rules of liability, the Warsaw Convention should be read to create its own cause of action for loss of baggage, so that whether particular damage occasioned by loss of baggage is compensable depends on construction of the Convention and not on internal law of signatory countries.Warsaw Convention art. 18(1).Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Provision of the Warsaw Convention creating liability for “damage sustained by” loss of baggage, and containing no language limiting the amount of recovery to the value of the lost baggage or to “foreseeable” damages, should be construed to allow recovery of consequential damages occasioned by loss of baggage.Warsaw Convention art. 18(1).Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Under provision of the Warsaw Convention which, unlike the common law, allows recovery of consequential damages whether or not they were foreseeable, passenger’s purchase of a battery pack for use during his trip to replace one lost by defendant airline constitutes compensable damage even though the lost battery pack belonged to plaintiff’s employer and not to plaintiff.Warsaw Convention art. 18(1).Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Airline’s disclaimer of liability for “valuable items” such as video equipment is unenforceable in light of Warsaw Convention clause that nullifies contractual provisions “tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit” than that allowed by the Convention.Warsaw Convention art. 23.Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Warsaw Convention limits liability for lost baggage to $9.07 per pound.Warsaw Convention art. 22(4).Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
Under Warsaw Convention where carrier’s liability for lost baggage depends on weight, defendant airline has the burden of proving weight of the lost bag, and in the absence of such proof court will assume the bag weighed seventy pounds, the maximum amount the contract allowed passenger to carry in one bag.Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.
To be sufficiently conspicuous, a notice of baggage liability limitations must be positioned and identified so as to penetrate the traveling public’s reasonably focused consciousness.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 31.
Baggage liability limitation found on ticket jacket was sufficiently conspicuous where: (1) type though small was legible; (2) the message was set out in a separate box at the tope of the page; and (3) a bold-faced “PLEASE NOTE” drew attention to it.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 31.
Although the common law prohibited a common carrier from attempting to exculpate itself from all liability for loss of baggage due to its own negligence, federal common law has developed the “released value doctrine” under which a carrier may limit the amount of its liability to the agreed value of the goods, provided that the shipper has the option of obtaining coverage for the full value of its goods, is made aware of that option, and knowingly chooses to pay a lower price for the lesser coverage.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 31.
In promulgating regulations allowing airlines to limit liability for lost baggage by providing notice to passengers, and in rejecting a proposal that would have required passengers to sign a “statement of understanding” as a prerequisite to limitation of liability, the Civil Aeronautics Board implicitly limited the extent to which passengers may rely on the “released value doctrine” to avoid an airline’s attempt to limit liability.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 31.
Expressed intention of Civil Aeronautics Board not to preempt state courts on applicability of “released value doctrine” to limitation of airlines’ liability for lost baggage, and the Board’s somewhat conflicting intention to facilitate incorporation by reference of limitations of liability, could be harmonized by requiring carriers (1) to make excess valuation insurance available; (2) to make this fact known to the traveling public in a manner at least as conspicuous as the required notices of the airline’s limited liability; and (3) to set out the outlines of the coverage provided.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 31.
Auto parts, clothing, and modestly priced mats are not the type of goods—such as live animals, jewelry, fragile, perishable, or inherently dangerous items, or items with unique value—which an airline may reject from carriage altogether, or for which it may require increased payment or a release or other condition before agreeing to carry the goods.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, 13 A.S.R.2d 5.
Language in airline ticket limiting airline’s liability for lost baggage adequately notifies passenger of such limited liability where language is conspicuous and understandable, even though the language deviates from that provided in federal regulation.14 C.F.R. § 254.5(b).American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, 13 A.S.R.2d 5.
Language suggested in federal regulation to give notice of monetary limitations on airline’s liability for passengers’ baggage is not mandatory; alternative language that effectively notifies passengers is permitted.14 C.F.R. § 254.5(b).American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, 13 A.S.R.2d 5.
The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits embodies an effort by international bankers at consensual regulation.Amerika Samoa Bank v. Pacific Reliant Industries, 20 A.S.R.2d 102.
The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) 16(e) addresses only notice, and does not limit the issuing bank’s liability to the party which actually presents the documents.Amerika Samoa Bank v. Pacific Reliant Industries, 20 A.S.R.2d 102.
A.S.C.A. § 27.1002(a) dictates that all merchandise and baggage brought into American Samoa from any foreign country be inspected by a customs officer.YRT, Inc. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 6 A.S.R.3d 108 (Trial Div. 2002).
Federal customs law is applied here as practicable under A.S.C.A. § 27.1030.YRT, Inc. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 6 A.S.R.3d 108 (Trial Div. 2002).
SEE ALSO CRIMINAL LAW § 11 SEARCHES & SEIZURES
Items which must be declared before a customs officer examines baggage and are not so declared are subject to forfeiture.YRT, Inc. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 6 A.S.R.3d 108 (Trial Div. 2002).