Sovereign Immunity and the Suit against OPEC
![handle is hein.journals/cwrint12 and id is 223 raw text is: Volume 12, Number 1, Winter 1980
Sovereign Immunity and the Suit Against OPEC*
by Lawrence Crocker**
I. INTRODUCTION
THERE IS WIDESPREAD belief that the inflation and balance of
payment problems facing the American economy are the result, in
large measure, of the machinations of the Organization of Petroleum Ex-
porting Countries (OPEC).'. OPEC openly fixes prices, and price fixing is,
if engaged in by domestic American firms, a per se violation of section 1
of the Sherman Antitrust Act.2 Considering these facts together, it was no
doubt to be expected that someone would attempt to turn antitrust law
against OPEC by bringing suit under section 4 of the Clayton Act for
treble damages$ and under section 6 of that act for an injunction against
the price fixning.4
The plaintiff that stepped forward was the International Association
of Machinists (IAM)-a union whose leadership has a reputation for lib-
* International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp. 553
(C.D. Cal. 1979) [hereinafter cited as IAM v. OPEC].
** A.B., (1966) Yale University;, M.A., Philosophy (1968) Harvard University; Ph.D.,
Philosophy (1970) Harvard University; J.D. (1980) Duke University School of Law.
*** A condensed version of this comment is forthcoming in the INT'L AND CoMP. L.Q.
under the title The Suit Against OPEC: Foreign Sovereign Immunity in the United States.
OPEC had its origins in a 1960 meeting of representatives of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. The organization now also includes Algeria, Ecuador, Gabon,
Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. These nations, as well as
OPEC, were named as defendants in the suit.
OPEC's dramatic influence on the world oil economy began with a cut in production in
1972-73 and the embargo of the United States in 1973. OPEC countries then quadrupled
their crude oil prices and accelerated the nationalization of oil operations. A. EZATI, WORLD
ENERGY MARKETS AND OPEC STABmrrY (i) (1978).
2 Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that: Every contract, combination in the form
of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations is hereby declared illegal. 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1976). The section
continues, classifying the conduct as a felony and setting maximum penalties.
3 Section 4 provides in pertinent part that [a]ny person who shall be injured in his
business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor
in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is
found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover
threefold the damages by him sustained . . . . 15 U.S.C. § 15 (1976).
' Section 6 provides in pertinent part that [a]ny person, firm, corporation, or associa-
tion shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States
having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the
antitrust laws . . . . 15 U.S.C. § 26 (1976).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cwrint12&div=16&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Sovereign Immunity and the Suit against OPEC
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most