Voest-Alpine Trading v. Bank of China : Can a Uniform Interpretation of 'Direct Effect' Be Attained Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976?

This Note advocates that the courts should use new language in the statutory "direct effect" test of the FSIA in order to promote uniformity among the Circuit Courts and prevent confusion with the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act and the Sherman Act's "direct effect" test. Section II will provide background on the development of sovereign immunity, the enactment of the FSIA, and the application of the "direct effect" exception in courts until the present. Section III of this Note will reveal the recent split in the Circuit Court's application of the FSIA "direct effect" test through detailed analysis of the Voest-Alpine decision and discussion of problems with that interpretation. Section IV will detail the history of the "effects" test of the Sherman Act and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 and provide insights for the interpretation of the Voest-Alpine "effects" test. Finally, Section V will propose a model statute that will provide the courts with a more specific test that will prevent U.S. courts from becoming small international courts of claims and prevent confusion with the "effects" test of the Sherman Act and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). Through a narrowly tailored test that more clearly articulates the "direct effect" exception, U.S. courts will not become subject to foreign suits with tenuous causal connections