Week 7 Third Ave. v. Mission of the Rep. of Zaire to the UN

Question 1

What kind of dispute was this?

Answer 1

landlord-tenant dispute

Question 2

Who is third ave. associates and sage realty corp?

Answer 2

plaintiff-appellees/ landlord

Question 3

Who is permanent mission of the republic of Zaire to the UN?

Answer 3

Defendant-appellant/ tennant

Question 4

What defense did defendant assert?

Answer 4

diplomatic immunity (under 28 USC 1602-1611)

Question 5

What is the procedural history?

Answer 5

in a previous lawsuit, sage realty sued and obtained a default judgment and terminated the missions lease. however, defendants continued to rent the premises on a month to month basis.

the mission defaulted against and plaintiffs sued.
The district court refused to credit the defense of diplomatic immunity and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for back rent and also awarded it possession of the premises, ordering US marshals to remove the mission physically if it failed to vacate in a timely manner.

Question 6

what did both parties decide regarding the enforcement of the courts eviction order?

Answer 6

order is stayed pending the resolution of this appeal.

Question 7

What did the US file in support of the mission?

Answer 7

amicus brief

Question 8

what does inviolable mean?

Answer 8

unchallengeable/ absolute

Question 9

which international agreements did the US rely on?

Answer 9

UN charter, HQs of the UN agreement, convention on the privileges and immunities of the UN, Vienna convention on diplomatic relations

Question 10

what does art. 22 say from the vienna convention?

Answer 10

the premises of the mission shall be inviolable. the agents of the receiving state may not enter the premises, except with the consent of the head of mission.

Question 11

what were the courts main arguments regarding the vienna convention?

Answer 11

1. the foreign sovereign immunities act does not govern the courts decision.
2. 4 international agreements support mission inviolability
3. the drafters of the convention rejected any exceptions to inviolability.
4. history establishes beyond question that the convention intended to provide for inviolability in art 22 -( historically, states adopted the notion that ambassadors must be received and that they must suffer no harm)
5. diplomatic immunity under the theory of functional necessity (the US had to provide absolute immunity to foreign diplomats so those countries to the same for ours)
6. DC’s argument that mob violence and unannounced seizures were ever the main concerns underlying diplomatic immunities; plaintiff’s position is refuted because the US has consistently respected the complete inviolability of missions and consulates; the supreme court has decided previously that federal courts must defer to the language of art. 22.; Congress and the president have not limited mission inviolability through diplomatic relations act.

Question 12

What is the courts decision?

Answer 12

the portion of the District courts order granting the landlord possession of the premises and ordering the US marshals forcibly to seize the premises, is reversed. however, order for monetary damages is affirmed.

Question 13

Who can limit mission inviolability?

Answer 13

president and congress through the diplomatic relations act