Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which stands as a strong barrier to suing a foreign state, including a

“political subdivision” or “instrumentality” of a foreign government. The law warns judges that a “foreign state
shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the states,” with just a few
exceptions.

One is for “commercial activity” that is “carried on in the United States by a foreign state” or causes “a direct
effect” here. For example, if Argentina sold bonds in this country and defaulted on them, it could be sued for
the losses. Similarly, if China made a contract with California to supply medical equipment, it could be sued if
it failed to deliver what was promised.

The other major exception is for terrorism. The law says a “foreign state shall not be immune” for claims arising
from terrorism, including an “act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking or the
provision of material support or resources” to those who carry out such acts.

- Suits appear to be symbolic and political. 

- They are addressed to Chinese government entities, and they are entitled to immunity.”
- This kind of lawsuit has no factual or legal basis. It only invites ridicule.
- Such frivolous litigation will not help the U.S. with its epidemic response, nor will it contribute to the
global cooperation in this regard. The right course of action for the U.S. side is to dismiss this abusive
lawsuit.
- “The worst possible thing that Congress could do right now would be to further politicize sovereign
immunity by creating jurisdiction for these suits, which are unlikely to result in any actual financial
recovery even if they do go forward.” (by making laws to make possible china’s litigation)

State immunity- It's the basic background principle that countries have special protection in
both their own courts and the courts of their sister and, you know, brother countries around
the world. But then the - and so the real question at the end of the day is not whether you can
get a judgment against a foreign country but whether you can enforce it, whether you can
actually collect the damages that a federal court might say you're entitled to.
Indeed. I mean, I think the issue that arises in cases like the Rezaian case is not whether the
case will get to a judgment. It almost certainly will. The question is simply if he actually wins
and obtains the money judgment, is the U.S. government going to have any interest in
releasing some of the Iranian assets that they have already seized and frozen to satisfy that
judgment?
Entered the domain of intnl law.

The responsibility of states

The rights accorded to states under international law imply responsibilities. States are liable for breaches of
their obligations, provided that the breach is attributable to the state itself. A state is responsible for
direct violations of international law—e.g., the breach of a treaty or the violation of another state’s territory.
A state also is liable for breaches committed by its internal institutions, however they are defined by its
domestic law; by entities and persons exercising governmental authority; and by persons acting under the
direction or control of the state. These responsibilities exist even if the organ or entity exceeded its authority.
Further, the state is internationally responsible for the private activities of persons to the extent that they
are subsequently adopted by the state. In 1979, for example, the Iranian government officially supported the
seizure of the U.S. embassy by militants and the subsequent holding of diplomats and other embassy staff
as hostages. A state is not internationally responsible if its conduct was required by a peremptory norm of
general international law, if it was taken in conformity with the right to self-defense under the UN Charter, if
it constituted a legitimate measure to pressure another state to comply with its international obligations, if it was
taken as a result of a force majeure (French: “greater force”) beyond the state’s control, if it could not
reasonably be avoided in order to save a life or lives, or if it constituted the only means of safeguarding an
essential interest of the state against a grave and imminent peril, where no essential interest of the states toward
which the obligation exists (or of the international community) was impaired.

A state must make full reparation for any injury caused by an illegal act for which it is internationally
responsible. Reparation consists of restitution of the original situation if possible, compensation where this is
not possible, or satisfaction (i.e., acknowledgment of and apology for the breach) if neither is possible.