The ELSI Case (U.S. v. Italy)
International Court of Justice
1989 I.C.J. 15 (1989)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In 1948, the United States (plaintiff) and Italy (defendant) signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. The treaty permitted corporations of one country to control and manage the affairs of corporations of the other country, and vice versa, in accordance with applicable laws of the other country. Raytheon-Elsi S.p.A. (ELSI) was an Italian corporation wholly owned by two American corporations, the Raytheon Company and The Machlett Laboratories Incorporated. ELSI had financial problems and plans began to liquidate the company’s assets. ELSI had a large facility in Palermo, Italy. The Mayor of Palermo, given the importance of the ELSI facility to the municipality and its people, issued an order requisitioning the facility and its assets for six months. The company then went into bankruptcy. At the close of the bankruptcy proceeding, there were no remaining funds to pay Raytheon or Machlett shareholders. The United States instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that the mayor’s order violated the treaty by impermissibly altering the manner of disposing of ELSI’s assets. The United States and Italy requested that the ICJ establish a chamber to hear the case. The ICJ agreed and established a chamber of five judges to hear the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Schwebel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.