Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶99
The absence of that language, though not dispositive, is telling because Helms-Burton did amend the FSIA as to a different matter. The key background fact here is that the FSIA grants foreign states and instrumentalities two kinds of immunity: not just the immunity from suit (“jurisdictional” immunity) this case is about, but also “execution” immunity, rendering the property of state defendants “immune from attachment[,] arrest[,] and execution” absent an applicable exception. 28 U. S. C. §1609. And while leaving untouched the FSIA’s jurisdictional-immunity provision, Helms-Burton changed the FSIA’s execution-immunity rule: “Notwithstanding the provisions of [the FSIA], the property of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment and from execution in an action brought under [Helms-Burton] to the extent that the property is a facility or installation used by an accredited diplomatic…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.