问答题
Joseph v．Office of the Consulate General of Nigeria(U．S．Court of Appeals 1987) In 1978，Catherine Joseph(“Joseph”)leased a house in San Francisco to the Consulate General of Nigeria(the“Consulate”)．0.Effion9，a former consular officer，signed the standard form lease on behalf of the Consulate．The house was used as a residence by employees of the Consulate and their families. Shortly after the end of the five year lease period，Joseph allegedly discovered that the tenants had removed property from the house and had left the premise severely damaged，Joseph brought suit in federal district court，seeking，inter alia，compensation for damages to fixtures，landscaping，and appliances. Joseph asserts four causes of action against both Nigeria and the Consulate．The first is for breach of contract; the other three are tort claims for conversion，trespass，and waste．The Consulate lodged its objection to the suit in accordance with“sovereign immunity”.On August 12,1986,the court issued the opinion and order. The court determined that it had jurisdiction over Nigeria and the Consulate pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act(“FSIA”)．Specifically，the court found jurisdiction over Joseph's tort claim under the FSIA's “tortuous activity” exception to immunity… Please answer the following questions：
【正确答案】美国1976年《外国主权豁免法》(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act，FSIA)对主权豁免的例外规定：被指称的行为“是该外国国家在美国进行的商业行为，或在美国发生的与该外国国家在别处的商业行为有关的某行为，或者在美国之外发生的与该外国国家在别处的商业行为有关，并且该行为对美国产生了直接影响”。在确定是否适用“商业行为”例外时，法院考查外国国家行使权力的性质而不是其效果。如果外国国家行使的“仅仅是那些公民私人也可行使的权利”而不是那些“主权独有的权利”时，则外国国家从事的行为是商业行为；如果主权者“不是作为市场的管理者，而是作为市场内的私营者”行事，主权者即从事了商业行为。问题在于“外国国家的特定行为(无论其背后的动机如何)是否在类别上属于当事方据以进行贸易、运输或商业活动的行为。” 美国形成了法院听从国务院“建议”的判例法惯例，而国务院的决策则是根据美国外交战略作出的。1976年的《外国主权豁免法》规定，将决定外国主权豁免的职能完全移交给法院，但美国政府发言人当即就此指出：行政部门不会轻易抛弃美国在有关影响到外国国家的争端诉讼中的利益。此后，行政部门仍以“法庭之友”的身份陈述意见，而法院也会对行政部门的意见给予充分考虑或支持。