# Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. > Supreme Court of the United States · January 23, 1989 · 488 U.S. 428 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431517 ## Case - **Full name:** ARGENTINE REPUBLIC v. AMERADA HESS SHIPPING CORP. Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 23, 1989 - **Citations:** 488 U.S. 428; 1989 A.M.C. 501; 57 U.S.L.W. 4121; 109 S. Ct. 683; 102 L. Ed. 2d 818; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 581 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun - **Judges:** Rehnquist, Blackmun, Marshall - **Cited by:** 952 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431517 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over a Liberian corporation’s suit against Argentina for damage to an oil tanker during war between Great Britain and Argentina, because the FSIA was the sole source of jurisdiction over a foreign state, and it did not authorize … - holding that Geneva Convention on the High Seas, which provides that illegally boarded merchant ship “shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained,” does not create private right of action for foreign corporations to recover compensation in United S… - finding no basis for concluding that Argentina had waived its immunity, explicitly or implicitly, "by signing an international agreement that contains no mention of a waiver of immunity to suit in United States courts or even the availability of a cause of action in the United… - stating that a treaty that “only set[s] forth substantive rules of conduct and state[s] that compensation shall be paid for certain wrongs . . . do[es] not create 10 private rights of action for foreign corporations to recover compensation from foreign states in United States … ## Opinion text Justice Blackmun, with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring in part. I join the Court’s opinion insofar as it holds that the FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court. Ante, at 431-439. I, however, do not join the latter part of the Court’s opinion to the effect that none of the FSIA’s exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity apply in this case. As the majority notes, the Court of Appeals did not decide this question, ante, at 439, n. 6, and, indeed, specifically reserved it. 830 F. 2d 421, 429, n. 3 (CA2 1987). Moreover, the question was not among those presented to this Court in the petition for certiorari, did not receive full briefing, and is not necessary to the disposition of the case. Accordingly, I believe it inappropriate to decide here, in the first instance, whether any exceptions to the FSIA apply in this case. See this Court’s Rule 21.1(a) (Court will consider only questions presented in *444 petition); Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (Court ordinarily will not decide questions not passed on below). I would remand the case to the Court of Appeals on this issue. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431517. Public record. Not legal advice.