英语翻译节选Respondent is mistaken in urging that the FSIA,and the

英语翻译
节选
Respondent is mistaken in urging that the FSIA,and the expropriation provision in particular,should be applied retroactively to allow individuals to sue foreign states in United States courts based on conduct occurring sixty years ago.This Court's decisions governing non-retroactivity establish that,in the absence of a clear statement of contrary intent not present here,federal legislation does not apply new rules of substantive law to event long past.That principal has particular force in this case,where the type of conduct at issue is extensively addressed through treaties,agreements,and separate legislation that were all adopted against the background assumption that such claims could not be litigated in United States courts.
The court of appeals'retroactivity analysisi rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States' law and practice regarding foreign sovereign immunity before the 1952 Tate Letter.Contrary to that court's impression,the United States adhered to the "absolute" theory of immunity at the time of Austria's challenged conduct and did not recognize an exception to immunity for expropriations or other violations of international law.The United States did not follow and established exception allowing this Nation's courts to exercise jurisdiction over "unfriendly" nations.Indeed,even today,the FSIA does not provide any such categorical exception.The courts should not engage in an attempt to surmise whether,more than half a century ago,the Executive Branch would have denied immunity to a particular foreign state on some extraodinary or ad hoc basis,such as punishment for particularly egregious conduct.The courts of that era would never have presumed the authority to make such inherently political decisions,and the FSIA does not provide the courts of this era authority to speculate retroactively on what the Executive and the courts might have done.

被告是错误的,对豁免催促和征用条款,特别应该允许个人回溯适用外国在美国法院控告基于60年前发生的行为.这个法庭的决定,理事不溯及既往证明,在缺乏明确的意图不是相反在座联邦法律并不适用新规则对实体法事件久远.特别有力,主要在这种情况下,那里的种类问题进行广泛讨论,通过条约、协议、而单独立法,都是采取这种背景假设债权无法在美国法院提出诉讼.法院appeals'retroactivityanalysisi取决于一个根本误解了美国的法律和惯例的涉外主权豁免1952年以前乃尔函.相反,法院的印象,美国坚持"绝对"论免疫力当时奥地利进行质疑,不承认一个例外豁免征用或其他违反国际法的行为.美国不遵循既定例外允许这种国法院行使管辖权"不友好"的国家.事实上,即使在今天,这种绝对主权豁免不提供任何例外.法院不应企图搞猜测是否超过半个世纪,行政部门会否认免疫力某一外国一些超常或临时性尤其令人震惊的行为的处罚等.法院认为时代就从来推定有权做出此类决定的政治本质、而法院对豁免不提供权威的时代,补办何种猜测执行,法院可能做.