abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

19 Dec 2011

Joshua S. Devore & others

[PDF] Suhail Nazim Abdullah Al Shimari, et al v CACI Intl. Inc; Wissam Abdullateff Sa’eed-Al-Quraishi, et al v L-3 Services, Inc.- Brief of professors of civil procedure & federal courts as amici curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees

Likewise, Defendants’ so-called “law-of-war immunity” does not provide an immunity from suit of the kind that permits immediate review. The law-of-war defense provides that foreign courts lack personal jurisdiction over members of the United States military...When the foreign country is friendly, the army “is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place” because the foreign nation has in effect “cede[d] a portion of his territorial jurisdiction when he allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions.”...In other words, although the troops are physically present in a foreign nation, they are regarded as if they were in their home country, and thus are not considered present in the host country for purposes of the jurisdiction of the host-country’s courts. When the foreign country is hostile, the invading army is said to be “exempt” from the foreign nation’s laws and jurisdiction.