Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States, 1976)

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is the generally applicable United States statute governing immunity of foreign states from civil jurisdiction and the immunity of their property from attachment and execution. It begins from immunity and specifies exceptions, although Congress can clearly abrogate immunity for defined claims in another statute. Jurisdictional immunity and execution immunity are separate inquiries, and a judgment against a state does not make all sovereign property available to satisfy it.

Jurisdictional framework

The FSIA defines a foreign state to include specified political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. Sections 1604 to 1607 govern immunity from jurisdiction, including exceptions for waiver, commercial activity, certain property claims and terrorism-related cases. Service, venue and default procedures are also statutory.

The commercial-activity exception turns on the nature rather than the purpose of the conduct and requires the connection specified in section 1605(a)(2). It does not remove immunity merely because state action has economic effects. The terrorism exception has its own designation, claimant and conduct requirements.

Property and execution

Sections 1609 to 1611 separately protect foreign-state property from attachment and execution unless an exception applies. Section 1611(b)(1) gives additional protection to property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account, subject to its terms. Ownership, use, location, waiver and statutory overrides therefore matter.

In Bank Markazi v Peterson, the Supreme Court upheld a statute directing treatment of identified assets in specified litigation. The decision concerned that legislative measure and property. It did not abolish central-bank immunity generally. In Republic of Argentina v NML Capital, the Court addressed post-judgment discovery, not a universal execution entitlement.

Criminal process and international boundary

In Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS v United States, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution and remanded common-law immunity questions. On 22 October 2024 the Second Circuit held that common law did not protect Halkbank from the charged prosecution. Rehearing was denied on 6 December 2024, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on 6 October 2025. Those decisions address immunity, not guilt on the charges.

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v Corporacion CIMEX S.A., decided on 23 June 2026, the Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued under that Act. Such plaintiffs need not also establish an FSIA exception. The holding is tied to that statute and those defendants; it does not erase the FSIA's general rule.

International law and treaty obligations remain separate. The International Court of Justice's 2023 Certain Iranian Assets judgment decided claims under the 1955 Treaty of Amity and held that Bank Markazi was not a company for the relevant treaty provisions. It was not a general appellate review of the FSIA.

Statecraft significance

Sovereign assets can become leverage in sanctions, judgment enforcement and post-conflict policy. FSIA analysis imposes discipline by separating blocking from confiscation, jurisdiction from execution and a foreign state from legally distinct entities. Each proposed use requires the current statute, controlling judgment and exact property interest.

Entity and asset analysis

The identity of the defendant and owner is decisive. A ministry, state-owned corporation and central bank can occupy different statutory positions, and separate juridical status is not ignored merely because the state ultimately owns an entity. The claimant must establish subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, valid service and an exception to immunity. At execution, it must identify property, ownership, location, use and a specific statutory exception. Sanctions blocking can prevent transfer while preserving title and immunity arguments. Confiscation, vesting or use of proceeds requires additional authority. These steps prevent political descriptions of sovereign wealth from substituting for legal analysis of the asset before the court.

See also

Sovereign immunity of central bank assets · ICJ Certain Iranian Assets (2023) · Asset freeze · Economic statecraft

Sources

• Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 28 USC chapter 97, checked 30 July 2026.
• United States Supreme Court, *Republic of Argentina v NML Capital*, 573 US 134 (2014).
• United States Supreme Court, *Bank Markazi v Peterson*, 578 US 212 (2016).
• United States Supreme Court, *Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS v United States*, 598 US 264 (2023).
• United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, *United States v Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS*, No. 20-3499, 22 October 2024.
• United States Supreme Court, docket No. 24-1144, certiorari denied 6 October 2025.
• United States Supreme Court, *Exxon Mobil Corp. v Corporacion CIMEX S.A.*, 609 US ___ (2026).
• International Court of Justice, *Certain Iranian Assets*, judgment, 30 March 2023.
• Congressional Research Service, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.