The United States is one State under international law


Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution sets the District of Columbia as the seat of national government and removes it from the authority of the states.

US State Dept. - Note 1: In this listing, the term "independent state" refers to a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US.

Independent States in the World recognized as independent by the US.

State A term of international law: those groups of people which have acquired international recognition as an independent country and which have four characteristics; permanent and large population with, generally, a common language; a defined and distinct territory; a sovereign government with effective control; and a capacity to enter into relations with other states (i.e. recognized by other states). The USA, Canada and China are examples of states. States are the primary subjects of international law. The United Nations is comprised of all the states of the world. Some large states have subdivided into smaller units each having limited legislative powers normally restricted to subjects which are more properly regulated at a local, rather than a national level. Thus, the states of the USA are not really "states" under international law. It is common for the general public and English dictionaries to use the word "nations" to refer to what international law calls "states."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geographic area of the federal state, the United States


Notice that the below areas are not listed as "State of ______."

TITLE 28 - CHAPTER 5 - DISTRICT COURTS

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Under 18 U.S.C. s 3231, federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over "all offenses against the laws of the United States." These offenses include the tax crimes defined in Title 26 of the United States Code. Thus the federal courts unquestionably have subject matter jurisdiction over tax offenses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska and Hawaii were no longer defined (U.S. Code) as states when they joined the Union.

The two above States were referred to as "Free Compact States" or "States in Free Association" before joining the union.

Some of these "States" are or were; District of Columbia, American Somoa, Guam, Commonwealth of Porto Rico, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Wake Island, Johnston Island, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Navassa Island + on. [The "States in Free Association" (26)(63rd Congress, Oct, 3, 1913. sess. I., CH. 16, page 177)]

The above entities along with the singular "United States" might in error be referred to in the plural context, "United States", and has been be falsely referred to as "The Federal Zone".

*Tax laws apply only to "federal" areas: {NOTE: This nonsense appears to arise from a tortured reading of the definition for United States given in 26 USC sec. 3121(e), with the cranks going to dictionaries to try to prove that "includes", as used in the definition, means "only" - but the Tax Code defines "includes" very differently in 26 USC sec. 7701(c) and United States is defined in 26 USC sec. 7701(a)(9), making it clear that throughout the Tax Code, altho only some provisions apply to Samoa and Puerto Rico, they always apply to the fifty states.} Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dism (5th Cir 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 98 USTC para 50157; Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; US v. Mundt (6th Cir 1994) 29 F3d 233; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Freeman (D NJ unpub 1993) 71 AFTR2d 1272, 93 USTC para 50296 aff'd 16 F3d 406 cert.den 511 US 1134 ("federal courts have never accepted these arguments").

See Idiot Legal Arguments Part Five By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

Short-form name                    Geopolitical
Long-form name           Sovereignty  Code 1   Capital


01. American Samoa
Territory of American Samoa
                             United States  AQ   Pago Pago
06. Baker Island     
(no long-form name)
                             United States  FQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C. 

32. Johnston Atoll
(no long-form name)
                             United States  JQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.
33. Kingman Reef 
(no long-form name)
                             United States  KQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.

38. Midway Islands     
(no long-form name)
                             United States  MQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.

40. Navassa Island
(no long-form name)
                             United States  BQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.

45. Northern Mariana Islands 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
                             United States  CQ   Saipan
46. Palmyra Atoll 
(no long-form name)
                             United States  LQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.

49. Puerto Rico 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
                             United States  RQ   San Juan
58. Virgin Islands 
Virgin Islands of the United States
                             United States  VQ   Charlotte Amalie
60. Wake Island 
(no long-form name)
                             United States  WQ   Admin. fr. Wash. D.C.
Source: Office of The Geographer and Global Issues, Bureau of Intelligence and Research U.S. Department of State, Washington, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT

Q. What is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

A. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of l976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 289l, 28 U.S.C. Sec. l330, l332(a), l39l(f) and l60l-l6ll [hereinafter the FSIA], limits the role of the Executive branch in suits against foreign governments and governmental entities by precluding the Department of State from making decisions on state immunity. By a circular note dated December 10, 1976, the Department of State informed all foreign embassies in Washington of the enactment of the FSIA (1976 Digest of United States Practice in International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, 327-328 (1977)). The US. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act codifies the restrictive theory of immunity, incorporating criteria, which the courts had developed in applying the theory, while codifying and applying international law. (See ch. 5, Restatement 3rd, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, sec. 451-463, pp. 390, 435, American Law Institute (1986).) The Act prescribes the means of service for suits against a foreign State or agency and instrumentality in Section. For a discussion of the Act and its service provisions, See the American Law Institute (ALI)'s Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Chapter Five, Sec. 451, 460, pp. 390, 435 (general) (1986); Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction and Related Matters 2d, Sec. 3662, note 7, pp. 385-385 (1985), pp. 370-371 (1997 Supp.); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d, Sec. 1111, pp. 199, 226 (1985), pp. 40, 41 (1997 Supp.); Born & Westin, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 335, 402 (1989); Delaume, Law and Practice of Transnational Contracts, Chapter VIII, Sec. 8.01-8.15, pp. 223, 280 (1988).

Q. What is the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity?

A. Under the U.S. legal system, however, the scope of a foreign state's immunity is determined by judicial, rather than executive, authorities. A party to a lawsuit, including a foreign state or its agency or instrumentality, is required to present defenses such as sovereign immunity directly to the court in which the case is pending. The immunity of a State from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State is an undisputed principle of customary international law. Until the twentieth century, sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts seemed to have no exceptions. However, as governments increasingly engaged in state-trading and various commercial activities, it was urged that the immunity of States engaged in such activities was not required by international law, and that it was undesirable: Immunity deprived private parties that dealt with a state of their judicial remedies, and gave states an unfair advantage in competition with private commercial enterprise. The restrictive principle of immunity spread rapidly after the Second World War. The United States moved to the restrictive theory in the early 1950's, and adopted it by statute in 1976 (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act). Under the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, a State or State instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons. Under the restrictive theory, a State is immune from any exercise of judicial jurisdiction by another State in respect of claims arising out of governmental activities (de jure imperii); it is not immune from the exercise of such jurisdiction in respect of claims arising out of activities of a kind carried on by private persons (de jure gestionis).

Q. What are the general exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State?

A. Since the enactment of the Act in 1976, the general exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state have expanded, moving beyond the realm of "commercial activity". Most recently, P.L. 105-175 of May 11, 1998 further expanded the restrictive theory. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. 1605 now provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the states in any case in which:

1605(a) (1) - explicit or implicit waiver of immunity by the foreign state;

1605(a)(2) - commercial activity carried on in the United States or an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity elsewhere, or an act in connection with a commercial activity of a foreign state elsewhere that causes a direct effect in the United States;

1605(a)(3) - property taken in violation of international law is at issue;

1605(a)(4) - rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the United States are at issue;

1605(a)(5) - money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state;

1605(a)(6) - action brought to enforce an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a private party to submit to arbitration;

1605(a)(7) - money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, if the foreign state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App 2405(j) or Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371).

1605(b) - a suit in admiralty is brought to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of the foreign state which maritime lien is based upon a commercial activity of the foreign state.

Q. What is the difference between a foreign State, political subdivision, agency or instrumentality?

A. Section 1330(a) of the Act gives federal district courts original jurisdiction in personam against foreign states, which are defined as including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities of foreign states. The Act provides distinct methods of service on a foreign state or political subdivision (28 USC 1608(a)) or service on an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state (28 USC 1608(b)). In order to serve the defendant, the claimant must determine into which category the defendant falls. If in doubt, a claimant should serve the defendant according to both sets of provisions. See Born & Westin, 340-344 (1989) and George, 19 Int'l Law. 51 (1985). The term "political subdivisions" includes all governmental units beneath the central government, including local governments according to the Act's legislative history. Section 1603(b) defines an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state as an entity (1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is neither a citizen of the a state of the United States as defined in Sec. 1332(c) and (d) nor created under the laws of any third country. An instrumentality of a foreign state includes a corporation, association, or other juridical person a majority of whose shares or other ownership interests are owned by the state, even when organized for profit. For a discussion of the responsibilities of states for the obligations of their instrumentalities, see Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Sec. 452, p. 399-401 (1986). See also, the legislative history of the Act at 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6614-6618, in particular, which states in part: "[A]s a general matter, entities which meet the definition of an 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' could assume a variety of forms, organizations, such as a shipping line or an airline, a steel company, a central bank, an export association, a governmental procurement agency or a department or ministry which acts and is suable in its own name. Id. at 6614. For a discussion of case law regarding the status of quasi-commercial entities in socialist states, see Born & Westin, p. 343-344 (1989); See also, Note, Breaking Out of the Capitalist Paradigm: The Significance of Ideology in Determining the Sovereign Immunity of Soviet and Eastern-Bloc Commercial Entities, 2 Hous. J. Int'l. L. 425 (1980); Note, Foreign Sovereign Immunity: Communist and Socialist Organizations - Effects of State's System of Property Ownership on Determination of Agency or Instrumentality Status Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 9 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 111 (1979); But see, Yessenin-Bolpin v. Novosti Press Agency 443 F. Supp. 849, 852 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, D.C. Del. 1978, 461 F. Supp. 384; Harris v. VAO Intourist Moscow, D.C. N.Y. 1979, 481 F. Supp. 1056; United Euram Corp. v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, D.C N.Y. 1978, 461 F. Supp. 609; S&S Mach. Co. v. Masinenexportimport, 706 F. 2d 411 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 850 (1983); Edlow Int'l Co. v. Nuklearna Elektrarna Krsko, 441 F Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1977); Dayton v. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, 834 F. 2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------