The covered claims are deemed to put rights in violation of international law in issue
What the document says“Notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision, any civil claim or cause of action covered by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be an action in which rights in violation of international law are in issue for purposes of section 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, without regard to the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim.”
A new subsection (b) inserted into section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note), after subsection (a). Claims covered by subsection (a) of that section are to be treated as actions in which rights in violation of international law are in issue for purposes of section 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, and the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim does not bear on that. The instruction applies notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision. This law does not state which claims subsection (a) covers or what section 1605(a)(3) of title 28 provides.
What the document actually says“Notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision, any civil claim or cause of action covered by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be an action in which rights in violation of international law are in issue for purposes of section 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, without regard to the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim.”
These cases count as ones about rights taken against world law. That is true no matter what country the owner was from.
Other countries can be sued in US courts only in set cases. One set is about rights taken in ways world law bars. This part puts these art claims in that set.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.