The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

Of course, the FSA in its statement of purpose indicates that its goal was to codify the restrictive

theory of foreign sovereign immunity under which a state's commercial activities are treated

as the activities of any other private party would be for jurisdictional purposes.

Although there's some debate about whether that restrictive theory really was, customary

international law in the 1970s, I think it's quite clear that it is today and maybe the

FSA even played some role in helping to catalyze that development.

These other exceptions and terrorism notably are not universally accepted as an appropriate

basis for one state to exercise jurisdiction over the acts of another state in its own

domestic courts.

I'm Scott Aranderson and this is the LawFair podcast for December 11, 2020.

This week the Supreme Court returned once again to the Complex and sometimes controversial

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or FSAIA that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation

before US courts.

At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided

by the FSAIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that

may risk violating international law and exposing the United States' dissimilar lawsuits overseas.

To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, I sat down with two leading

...