Publication Date
2025
Abstract
With the advent of globalization, sovereign nations both facilitate and participate in international transactions with public and private entities. As disputes inevitably arise, foreign sovereigns have increasingly found themselves as parties in U.S. courts, and in so doing, have raised fundamental questions as to the extent of a U.S. court’s power over a foreign sovereign.
For almost as long as the United States has been in existence, the doctrines of international comity and foreign sovereign immunity have served as guiding principles for U.S. foreign policy. Additionally, U.S. courts have long exercised their power to issue foreign antisuit injunctions—a vital tool for a court to protect against threats to its jurisdiction. However, where these principles have inevitably clashed and U.S. courts have been asked to enjoin foreign sovereigns from litigating abroad, the courts have reached contradictory conclusions based on insufficient precedent, even though subjecting foreign sovereigns to judicial inconsistencies on uncertain legal grounds threatens U.S. international relations.
This Note argues that categorizing the basis of a domestic court’s jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign as either intrinsic or extrinsic—relative to a concrete U.S. interest—establishes a heightened threshold requirement for courts to enjoin foreign sovereign parties while observing principles of comity and sovereignty. Issuing antisuit injunctions only when a categorical U.S. interest is at stake would lead to more predictable and equitable exercise of domestic jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, and avoid unnecessarily infringing on the sovereignty of other nations to the detriment of U.S. foreign relations.
Recommended Citation
O'Halloran, Sean W.
(2025)
"Balancing Comity and Sovereignty: The Diplomatic Dance of Antisuit Injunctions Against Foreign Sovereigns,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 59:
No.
3, Article 7.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol59/iss3/7