1 28 U.S.C. §1850.

2 Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009).

3 Id. at 256.

4 Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 453 F. Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); See John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 101 AJIL 210 (2007)Google Scholar.

5 582 F.3d at 247–48.

6 Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’l BankLtd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007); See John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 102 AJIL 183 & 896 (2008)Google Scholar.

7 582 F.3d at 258.

8 Id.

9 In the proceedings below, the Department of State advised that” ‘considerations of international comity and judicial abstention may properly come into play’ in view of Canada’s objections to the litigation and the United States government’s determination that Canadian courts were capable of adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims.” Id. at 251–52.

10 In the district court, “Canada argued that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction [i] infringed on its sovereignty, [ii] chilled its ability to use ‘trade support services as “both a stick and carrot in support of peace,”’ and [iii] violated traditional restraints on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction.” Id. at 252.

11 Id. at 254–56.

12 United States v. von Weizsaecker (Ministries case), 14 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, at 308, 662 (1949).

13 582 F.3d at 259.

14 Id. (citation omitted)

15 Id. at 259–60.

16 Id. at 260.

17 Id. at 254.

18 Id. at 263.

19 Id. at 264.