US Government Debt Different - Finance Department - University of ...

224 United States Sovereign Debt: A Thought Experiment On Default And Restructuringimmunity from execution under the FSIA would be “property in theUnited States of a foreign state . . . used for a commercial activityin the United States . . . if— . . . the property is or was used for thecommercial activity upon which the claim is based.” 154 It is now wellaccepted that the issuance of debt securities by a sovereign state is“commercial activity.” 155 But the FSIA applies only to foreign states,not to the immunity (or not) of the U.S.Assets of the U.S. that are used for commercial activity and locatedoutside the U.S could be reached by judgment creditors to the extentpermitted by the sovereign immunity rules applicable in a relevantforeign court. 156 In much of Europe, legislatures and courtsBank of Korea, 298 F. Supp. 143, 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (holding that the Departmentof State’s decision to not extend sovereign immunity to Korea was bindingunder the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity and, moreover, the court agreedwith this decision because entering into a contract for the purchase of machineryand equipment to be used in the construction of a soda plant was “private and commercialin nature rather than public or political acts . . . .”); Victory Transp. Inc. v.Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes, 232 F. Supp. 294, 296 (S.D.N.Y.1963) (holding that sovereign immunity did not prohibit a private corporation fromfiling suit against a branch of the Spanish Ministry of Commerce because the agreementto charter petitioner’s vessel was a “commercial operation of the Spanish government”and, in recognition of the Tate Letter, “the defense of sovereign immunity[was] not available.”) aff’d 336 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1964).154 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(2).155 In Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, the Supreme Court held that a State’s debtsecurities are commercial activities. 504 U.S. 607, 620 (1992). The Court notedthat the FSIA “provides that the commercial character of an act is to be determinedby reference to its ‘nature’” and “that when a foreign government acts, not as regulatorof a market, but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign sovereign’sactions are ‘commercial’ within the meaning of the FSIA.” Id. at 614. See alsoMortimer Off Shore Servs., Ltd. v. F.R.G., 615 F.3d 97, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2010) (holdingthat the commercial activity exception of the FSIA applied because agriculturalbonds are commercial in nature and Germany had affirmatively assumed liability forthese bonds); Turkmani v. Republic of Bol., 193 F. Supp. 2d 165, 174-75 (D.D.C.2002) (relying on Weltover, the court held that bonds issued by Bolivia constitutedcommercial activity under the FSIA).156 England’s foreign sovereign immunity legislation is typical of the law applicableto attachment of property of foreign states. State Immunity Act, 1978, c. 33, §13(4) (U.K.). For discussion on immunity from execution see Hazel Fox, The Lawof State Immunity 599-662 (2d ed. 2008); Dhisadee Chamlongrasdr, Foreign StateImmunity and Arbitration 259-333 (2007); State Practice Regarding State Immunities151-248 (Gerhard Hafner et al. eds., 2006); Ernest K. Bankas, The State ImmunityControversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in