Durham E-Theses

International law: state immunity and the controversy of private suits against soverign states in domestic courts
Bankas, Ernest Kwasi W.

How to cite:

Bankas, Ernest Kwasi W. (1999)

International law: state immunity and the controversy of private suits

against soverign states in domestic courts,

Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham

E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4793/

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:

a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: e-theses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk

INTERNATIONAL LAW STATE IMMUNITY AGAINST AND THE CONTROVERSY OF P R I V A T E I N DOMESTIC COURTS SUITS

SOVERIGN S T A T E S

By

DR.

E R N E S T KWASI W. BANKAS

(SJD) SMU

A DOCTORAL T H E S I S UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED TO

OF DURHAM

I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.

(LAW)

SEPTEMBER

1999

2 3 JUN 2004

PREFACE P r i o r t o 1900 the immunity of s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s from t h e judicial process and enforcement jurisdiction of municipal c o u r t s was absolute and t h i s i n the main ex hypothesi was d e r i v e d from two i m p o r t a n t concepts, namely s o v e r e i g n t y and t h e e q u a l i t y of s t a t e s . S o v e r e i g n t y may be d e f i n e d as t h e power t o make laws backed by a l l the c o e r c i v e f o r c e s i t c a r e s t o employ. T h i s means t h a t a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e has what can be known a s suprema potestas w i t h i n i t s t e r r i t o r i a l b o u n d a r i e s . Jean Bodin was the f i r s t of w r i t e r s to propose t h i s i d e a of sovereignty, but i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n of t h i s n o t i o n , he undoubtedly c r e a t e d a c o n f u s i o n about the leges imperii which a r g u a b l y t u r n e d out t o be a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r the long c o n t r o v e r s y between what can be denoted as a n a l y t i c and an h i s t o r i c a l method i n m e t a - j u r i d i c a l p h i l o s o p h y as r e g a r d s immunity of s t a t e s . His influence, however, has remained a l a s t i n g i m p r i n t on p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l , b a c k e d by t h e f a c t t h a t a l l s t a t e s a r e e q u a l and i n d e p e n d e n t w i t h i n t h e i r s p h e r e s o f i n f l u e n c e (superanus) , which i m p l i c i t l y has given root to a m e t a - j u r i d i c a l philosophy t h a t foreign s t a t e s be a c c o r d e d immunity i n domestic c o u r t s . T h a t t h i s metaj u r i d i c a l p h i l o s o p h y found a p p l i c a t i o n i n the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon i s c l e a r l y e x e m p l i f i e d by C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s judgment i n the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t e d manner.
"This perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and t h i s common i n t e r e s t i m p e l l i n g them to m u t u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , and an exchange of good o f f i c e s w i t h e a c h other, have g i v e n r i s e t o a c l a s s of c a s e s i n which e v e r y s o v e r e i g n i s u n d e r s t o o d t o w a i v e the e x e r c i s e of a p a r t o f t h a t c o m p l e t e e x c l u s i v e t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , which has been s t a t e d t o be the a t t r i b u t e of e v e r y n a t i o n . " [See (1812) 7 C r a n c h 116.]

The d e c i s i o n i n the Schooner Exchange over the y e a r s i n f a c t became w e l l grounded i n the p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s u n t i l quite r e c e n t l y when i t s c u r r e n c y was thrown i n t o doubt b e c a u s e of t h e g r e a t i n c r e a s e i n commercial a c t i v i t i e s of s t a t e s .

C u r r e n t S t a t e of t h e Law of S t a t e Immunity The power of a domestic c o u r t or a n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e whether i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over a p a r t i c u l a r l e g a l c o n t r o v e r s y i s w i t h o u t doubt a q u e s t i o n of p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and t h i s n o t i o n i s w h o l l y p r e d i c a t e d on whether t h e s u b j e c t matter at i s s u e i s properly associated with a foreign element. The lex fori i s t h e r e f o r e d e s i g n a t e d as an i m p o r t a n t means o f defining l e g a l i s s u e s and i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o take j u r i s d i c t i o n or not b e c a u s e i t i s c o n s i d e r e d as t h e b a s i c r u l e i n p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. The problem, however, becomes more d i f f i c u l t i f a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e i s d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y impleaded b e f o r e a n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y . In t h i s respect, the c o u r t would be f a c e d w i t h the i s s u e of whether a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e can be sued by a p r i v a t e e n t i t y i n a f o r e i g n c o u r t . ii

The

Until quite recently the n o t i o n of a b s o l u t e sovereign immunity was embraced and a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , but of l a t e , many have s t a r t e d q u e s t i o n i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e b a s i s of t h e concept of s t a t e immunity and have i n t u r n suggested that l i m i t a t i o n s be p l a c e d on s t a t e immunity. This i n fact has prompted some countries, notably U.S.A., U.K., Canada, Singapore, A u s t r a l i a , P a k i s t a n and South A f r i c a , to r e s o r t to l e g i s l a t i o n as a means of i n t r o d u c i n g r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n t o t h e i r s t a t u t e books. I n s p i t e of t h e c a l l by some l e a d i n g countries to a b r o g a t e or modulate the c o n c e p t of absolute immunity i n t r a n s n a t i o n a l l i t i g a t i o n , R u s s i a and the d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s , however, s t i l l c l i n g w i t h o u t any r e s e r v a t i o n s to t h e n o t i o n of a b s o l u t e immunity. It i s i n s t r u c t i v e to note that recent writers have suggested and s u p p o r t e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity but a r g u a b l y have f a i l e d to provide a straightforward and p r e c i s e p r e s c r i p t i o n t o the p r o b l e m . W h i l e i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e jurisdictional immunity a c c o r d e d t o foreign s t a t e s i s most r e a d i l y r e c o g n i s e d f o r p u b l i c a c t s , i t i s no more r e c o g n i s e d i n the Western w o r l d f o r a c t s e s s e n t i a l l y commercial i n n a t u r e . There i s t h e r e f o r e a s t r o n g t r e n d among some c o u n t r i e s toward the complete a c c e p t a n c e o f c o m m e r c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n on state immunity. Be t h i s a s i t may, one is still l e f t wondering whether in this complex world without any supranational authority l e g i s l a t i o n per s e i s adequate i n c o n t a i n i n g t h i s e l u s i v e problem. The major problem l i k e l y t o f a c e l i t i g a t i n g p a r t i e s i s t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e immunity depends w h o l l y on a method by w h i c h governmental ( p u b l i c a c t s ) and c o m m e r c i a l a c t s of s t a t e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether t o a c c o r d immunity or not. So f a r i t has become a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e to f i n d a common ground t o f o r m u l a t e a c r i t e r i o n t h a t would perhaps be a c c e p t a b l e t o a l l and sundry. Even d o m e s t i c c o u r t s w i t h i n many s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s have d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r r e a s o n i n g or q u e s t to f o r m u l a t e a suitable methodology or proper standards to distinguish commercial a c t s of s t a t e s from p u b l i c a c t s . This in turn has l e d to p e r s i s t e n t d i v e r g e n c e i n t h e p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s as f a r as r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s c o n c e r n e d . I t i s therefore f a r from c l e a r as to t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e of t h e law of s t a t e immunity i n r e s p e c t of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law or g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law because i t would seem r e s t r i c t i v e immunity l a c k s usus and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l element o f opinio juris sive necessitatis. These d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a way have c r e a t e d a l b e i t a penumbra of doubt in the application of the doctrine of restrictive immunity. It is suggested that codification is inherently p r o b l e m a t i c and not t h e o n l y means of r e s o l v i n g the c o n t r o v e r s y . The hub of t h i s t h e s i s i s t o f i n d an a l t e r n a t i v e means of Hi

d e a l i n g wxth the problem, t h u s l o o k i n g a t the i n f l u e n c e of e a r l y w r i t e r s on the d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n immunity. I n t h i s l i g h t I would be a b l e to l a y b a r e the problem and then d e a l w i t h i t objectively. C h a p t e r One f o c u s e s on the h i s t o r i c a l o r i g i n s of t h e c o n c e p t of a b s o l u t e immunity, where an attempt would be made t o p r o v e t h a t e a r l y European w r i t e r s d i d i n f l u e n c e C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s judgment i n the Schooner Exchange d e c i s i o n . Chapter Two a d d r e s s e s s p e c i f i c a l l y the r e a s o n i n g behind the Schooner Exchange judgment and how t h e s a i d judgment found a p p l i c a t i o n i n o t h e r c o u r t s around t h e g l o b e . Chapter Three r e e x a m i n e s some a s p e c t s of the r a t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n of s t a t e immunity and the r e a s o n s why some s t a t e s a r e f i n d i n g i t d i f f i c u l t to g i v e up t h e o l d o r d e r , i . e . , s t a t e immunity. C h a p t e r Four e v a l u a t e s the r e a s o n s behind the changing views of states on absolute immunity. I t also covers observations on current legal position on absolute and r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n the USA and UK, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Chapter F i v e c o v e r s i n many r e s p e c t s private suits against African states in foreign courts, w h i l e Chapter S i x examines the practice of African states in respect of state immunity. C h a p t e r Seven i s devoted to I L C d r a f t a r t i c l e s on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunities. C h a p t e r s E i g h t and Nine cover i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o some u n r e s o l v e d problems of s t a t e immunity and the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f the law. The c o n c l u s i o n i s s t r u c t u r e d as to have r e g a r d to the o v e r a l l p o s i t i o n of the t h e s i s : (1) t h a t c o d i f i c a t i o n has i t s own problems; (2) t h a t t r e a t y p r o v i s i o n s between s t a t e s would be helpful and. will certainly bring about stability in transnational business transactions; (3) t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d be judicial development of the law of sovereign immunity as e x e m p l i f i e d i n L o r d Denning's r e a s o n i n g on s t a t e immunity; (4) t h a t d o m e s t i c c o u r t s s h o u l d f o l l o w the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e , e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e i n d e a l i n g w i t h s o v e r e i g n immunity i s s u e s , and t h u s must make i t a p o i n t to r e l y on or supplement t h e i r forum d a t a w i t h c o m p a r a t i v e s u r v e y of s t a t e p r a c t i c e t h e w o r l d o v e r ; (5) t h a t n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n must be d i s c o u r a g e d so a s to pave way f o r the modern judge to have a l a t i t u d e of freedom t o e x p l o r e and s o l v e by r e a s o n i n g the difficulties u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h immunity of s t a t e s and international c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n ( j u s gentium publicum) . For r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s an i n c o m p l e t e d o c t r i n e which must be r e l e g a t e d to t h e background and t h a t m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s would be b e t t e r o f f by b a l a n c i n g the j u s t i f i e d e x p e c t a t i o n s of p r i v a t e traders as a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t s of s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s . The p r e s e n t s t u d y or t h e s i s i s submitted f o r t h e p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t f o r the degree of Doctor of P h i l o s o p h y i n Law a t Durham U n i v e r s i t y , England, The United Kingdom.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My i n t e r e s t i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w was g r e a t l y a r o u s e d and encouraged a t Southern M e t h o d i s t U n i v e r s i t y Law S c h o o l by t h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d and l e a r n e d Dr. and P r o f e s s o r Joseph Jude Norton, AB (LLB Hons), LLM, SJD, M i c h i g a n , and D P h i l (Oxon) . The present writer takes this opportunity to express h i s immeasurable debt t o him f o r s u p e r v i s i n g my SJD d i s s e r t a t i o n on the c o n f l i c t o f laws, w i t h g r e a t competence and k i n d n e s s . He c u r r e n t l y h o l d s double a p p o i n t m e n t s a t SMU and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f London, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o t h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d Dr. and P r o f e s s o r Covey T. O l i v e r , BS, JD, LLM (SJD), Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , a r e t i r e d F e r d i n a n d Wakeman H u b b e l l P r o f e s s o r o f Law, U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , who e x p r e s s e d g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n me d u r i n g t h e time he s p e n t i n D a l l a s , t e a c h i n g a s a v i s i t i n g p r o f e s s o r i n 1986-1987 academic y e a r . My s i n c e r e s t t h a n k s must a l s o go t o t h e SMU f a c u l t y f o r o f f e r i n g me s c h o l a r s h i p i n o r d e r to work on my graduate s t u d i e s . The w r i t e r i s d e e p l y a l s o i n d e b t e d t o Dr. K. H. K a i k o b a r d , BA, LLB, LLM and PhD (London) , f o r m e r l y a l e g a l a d v i s o r t o t h e Government o f B a h r a i n , and P r o f e s s o r C. J . W a r b r i c k , BA, LLB, MA (Cantab) and LLM (Mich.), d i s t i n g u i s h e d and p r o l i f i c w r i t e r s on p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, f o r e n c o u r a g i n g my coming t o Durham U n i v e r s i t y , F a c u l t y o f Law, t o s t u d y some more. These two scholars a r e great classroom teachers who shared their e x p e r i e n c e s and thoughts w i t h me a t e v e r y s t a g e o f my r e s e a r c h work. These e x c e l l e n t s c h o l a r s were a l s o r e a d y t o o f f e r t h e i r o b j e c t i v e and k i n d c r i t i c i s m s , c o u p l e d w i t h i m p o r t a n t r e f e r e n c e s and s u g g e s t i o n s a s t o how t o c o n t a i n t h e e l u s i v e n a t u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t s t a t e immunity i n p r e s e n t - d a y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. I am also very thankful to Professor G. R. S u l l i v a n , LLB (LLM) , London, f o r b e i n g a l w a y s k i n d a n d h e l p f u l t o me. I shall f o r e v e r be g r a t e f u l t o a l l t h e s e l e a d i n g l e g a l s c h o l a r s . E r n e s t K w a s i W. Bankas a t Durham F e b r u a r y 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C h a p t e r One THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF STATES I. II. III. IV. Source A n a l y s i s J e a n Bodin's P h i l o s o p h y on S o v e r e i g n t y Thomas Hobbes The I n f l u e n c e o f t h e P h i l o s o p h y of Thomas Hobbes on L a t e r W r i t e r s V. C l a i m s and C o u n t e r c l a i m s

1 2 3 6

10 16 20

VI. F i n a l Remarks C h a p t e r Two THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: A CLAIM AGAINST FRANCE BEFORE AMERICAN COURTS AND I T S AFTEREFFECTS I. J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l and H i s Groundbreaking Rule II. III. IV. A n a l y s i s of C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s T h e s i s . Factors that Influenced Chief Justice Marshall's Decision The I n f l u e n c e o f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s Judgment on E n g l i s h C o u r t s (A) E n g l i s h C o u r t s and t h e S o v e r e i g n Immunity Q u e s t i o n

23

24 27

39 41

41

V.

C i v i l Law C o u n t r i e s and t h e S o v e r e i g n Immunity Q u e s t i o n 47 50

VI. VII.

R u s s i a and t h e S o v e r e i g n Immunity Q u e s t i o n . .

I s S o v e r e i g n Immunity an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Custom? A C o n t r o v e r s y Chapter Three THE RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES OF STATES IN FOREIGN COURTS: A STUDY OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF STATES A. General Observations v/'

51

59 59

B. C. D.

The R a t i o n a l Foundation D i p l o m a t i c Immunities

o f S t a t e Immunity...

67 72

and S t a t e S o v e r e i g n t y .

Comity of N a t i o n s , R e c i p r o c i t y and Peaceful Coexistence The E q u a l i t y o f S t a t e s i n t h e S p h e r e o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law B e n e f i c i a r i e s of State Immunities S o v e r e i g n Immunity C l a i m s : Immunity i n E n g l i s h C o u r t s The P r a c t i c e o f S o v e r e i g n i n American C o u r t s Claims to

75

E.

78 83

F.

90 Immunity 109

The I s s u e o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity and the Mixed C o u r t s o f E g y p t The I s s u e o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity b e f o r e South A f r i c a n C o u r t s The I n t r o d u c t i o n o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t o t h e C o u r t s o f O l d and New B r i t i s h Commonwealth S t a t e s : Some P r e l i m i n a r y Thoughts C h a p t e r Four THE CHANGING LAW OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY I N U.S. AND U.K. COURTS: A LOOK AT THE R E S T R I C T I V E IMMUNITY RULE (1) (2) Background E a r l y P r a c t i c e i n B e l g i u m and I t a l i a n Courts (3) (4) (5) (6) A Move Towards R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity and I t s I m p l i c a t i o n The Change o f Heart i n A m e r i c a n P r a c t i c e S o v e r e i g n Immunity A c t o f 1976: U.S. Law S i n c e t h a t Time (7) (8) J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t s Preliminary Issues wi th Respect t o vii

116

120

125

131 131

133 138 141 147

14 9 150

Commencement o f A c t i o n (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) C o m m e r c i a l A c t i v i t y under F S I A C o n t a c t s and D i r e c t E f f e c t Approach A r b i t r a t i o n Clauses The Change o f H e a r t i n B r i t i s h Practice

151 152 155 158 163

Some D i f f i c u l t i e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e A p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Theory o f R e s t r i c t i v e o r R e l a t i v e Immunity

180

Chapter F i v e PRIVATE SUITS AGAINST AFRICAN COUNTRIES COURTS P r e l i m i n a r y Observations

IN FOREIGN 193 193

A f r i c a n S t a t e s before Foreign Courts: Evidence of Resistance to the R e s t r i c t i v e Rule as of Right N i g e r i a before E n g l i s h Courts Trendtex Nigeria N i g e r i a b e f o r e German C o u r t s N i g e r i a b e f o r e American C o u r t s : N i g e r i a b e f o r e American C o u r t s : Uganda b e f o r e E n g l i s h C o u r t s Egypt before Indian Courts P a r t One P a r t Two T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f

199 201

201 209 213 217 220 223 224 226 227

U.A.R. b e f o r e American C o u r t s T u n i s i a before United States Courts Z a i r e before E n g l i s h Courts S o m a l i D e m o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c b e f o r e American Courts L i b y a b e f o r e American C o u r t s The P e o p l e ' s R e p u b l i c o f t h e Congo b e f o r e Canadian Courts viii

229 230

232

A r b i t r a t i o n , D e f a u l t Judgment and t h e Q u e s t i o n of Enforcement Under U.S. Law N i g e r i a b e f o r e S w i t z e r l a n d and A m e r i c a n C o u r t s . . . T a n z a n i a b e f o r e American C o u r t s The R e p u b l i c of Guinea b e f o r e A m e r i c a n C o u r t s . . . . I s R e s i s t a n c e by A f r i c a n S t a t e s t o S u i t s i n Foreign Courts L e g a l l y J u s t i f i e d ? Chapter S i x THE PRACTICE OF AFRICAN STATES IN THE MATTER OF JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF STATES: I S I T S T I L L ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR RESTRICTIVE IMMUNITY? 235 235 238 242

245

253

(1) (2)

Introduction P r e - C o l o n i a l A f r i c a and E a r l y A f r i c a n Dynasties

253

254 260

(3) (4) (5)

The C o l o n i a l E r a How t h e E n g l i s h V e r s i o n o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity Found I t s Way i n t o A f r i c a How t h e French V e r s i o n o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity Found I t s Way i n t o A f r i c a A f r i c a n S t a t e s , S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Some R e f l e c t i o n s on S t a t e P r a c t i c e and I t s Implications A f r i c a n S t a t e s , Custom and t h e Concept of P e r s i s t e n t Objector Some Thoughts on t h e P e r s i s t e n t Rule Objector

264 276

(6)

281

(7)

286

(8)

301

(9)

311

(10)

The P o s i t i o n o f A f r i c a n S t a t e s on t h e S o v e r e i g n Immunity C o n t r o v e r s y The Preceding O b s e r v a t i o n s S u g g e s t t h e Following Conclusions

317

(11)

324

ix

C h a p t e r Seven A LOOK AT THE I L C REPORT ON JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES AND THEIR PROPERTY Introduction The Changing C o m p o s i t i o n of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission Some P r e l i m i n a r y O b s e r v a t i o n s Specific Exceptions t o Immunity o f S t a t e s

329 329

330 332 334

The Commercial E l e m e n t o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s and I t s R e l a t i o n t o J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Competence.... General P r i n c i p l e s of Sovereign Immunity under t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s Execution Against a Foreign State

334 341 344

Actions i n Tort i n Respect to Personal I n j u r y o r Damage t o P r o p e r t y under t h e Draft A r t i c l e s The E f f e c t o f D r a f t A r t i c l e 2 P a r a g r a p h 2 on t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e R e s t r i c t i v e Principle Some R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e I n f l u e n c e of t h e T h i r d World on t h e D e l i b e r a t i o n s o f t h e ILC The U n c e r t a i n t y of State P r a c t i c e

347

354

358 383

Chapter E i g h t SOVEREIGN STATES BEFORE FOREIGN COURTS: AN OBSERVATION ON CERTAIN UNSETTLED OR LINGERING STATE IMMUNITY PROBLEMS Introduction The Problems o f T e r r i t o r i a l Nexus o r Connection The C o n t i n u i n g Problems A s s o c i a t e d t h e N a t u r e and Purpose T e s t s with

395 395

398

408

Problems o f Mixed A c t i v i t i e s o f S t a t e s Involving P r i v a t e Traders The C o n t i n u i n g Problems of A r b i t r a t i o n x

427 439

The S t a t u s o f C e n t r a l Banks and S t a t e Immunity: C e r t a i n U n s e t t l e d Problems Some Problems R e l a t i n g t o t h e A c t o f State Doctrine The O v e r l a p o f A c t of S t a t e and t h e Doctrine o f Sovereign Immunity

447

4 61

4 65 478

F i n a l Remarks C h a p t e r Nine THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Introduction Some Thoughts on t h e C u r r e n t S t a t e o f t h e Law A P e r s p e c t i v e Sketch of t h e Changing Scope o f S o v e r e i g n A Look a t C u r r e n t Immunity State Practice

480 480

481

483 493

Some Thoughts on t h e A s i a n - A f r i c a n L e g a l C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee's Report F u r t h e r R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e S t a t e o f the Law S t a t e Immunity and t h e C o n t r o v e r s y o v e r Embassy Bank Accounts and F o r e i g n R e s e r v e s Employment C o n t r a c t s and S t a t e Immunity: Can t h e Problem Be R e s o l v e d Through R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity? The F u t u r e o f t h e Law o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity

508 512 519

525 544

C h a p t e r Ten A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR RESOLVING THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CONTROVERSY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

551 569

xi

CHAPTER THE

ONE CONCEPT

HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF

STATES

The to e x p l o r e against leads

p r i n c i p a l purpose f o r which t h i s study i s conducted i s the sovereign sovereign immunity c o n t r o v e r s y

1

regarding

claims then If a

foreign us to an

s t a t e s i n domestic c o u r t s . question which runs

This

important entered foreign terms o f is it

thus: f o r the result

sovereign of cement

s t a t e has with of the a

into a sale contract corporation the contract, that and the the as a

supply of the

violation foreign immunity fori?

s t a t e i s sued i n a plea for to sovereign the lex

court, can

possible be

successfully

litigated
2

according

Many b e l i e v e i t i s p o s s i b l e . i n the

While o t h e r s

have answered law.

3

i n the n e g a t i v e
1

l i g h t of r e c e n t developments i n t h e

Sompong Sucharitkul, State immunities and trading a c t i v i t i e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law ( 1 9 5 9 ) . A l l e n , The p o s i t i o n of foreign s t a t e s b e f o r e n a t i o n a l c o u r t s (1928-33). Gamel Badr, State immunity, an analytical and prognostic view (1984). C h r i s t o p h e r S c h r e u e r , S t a t e immunity, some r e c e n t developments. F i t z m a u r i c e , S t a t e immunity from p r o c e e d i n g s i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s (1933) 14 B Y I L . L a u t e r p a c h t , H., The problem of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f f o r e i g n s t a t e s (1951) 28 B Y I L . The Schooner E x c h a n g e v . McFaddon (1812) 7 C r a n c h 116; The P r i n s F r e d e r i k (1820) 2 Dods 451. The P a r l e m e n t B e i g e (1880) 5 PD 197; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; F i t z m a u r i c e , S t a t e immunity from P r o c e e d i n g s i n F o r e i g n Courts (1933) 14 B Y I L . Hyde, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1947) , " I n h i s v i e w a s t a t e a l w a y s a c t s as a public person." See Lauterpacht, H., The problem of jurisdictional i m m u n i t i e s o f f o r e i g n s t a t e s (1951) 28 B Y I L ; P a s i c r i s i e (1857) I I 348 Foro I t a l i a n o 1887, 1474. See g e n e r a l l y B r i t o n , S u i t s a g a i n s t f o r e i g n s t a t e s (1931) 25 A J 16. For r e c e n t r u l e : See Trendtex T r a d i n g Corp. v . C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) I A l l ER 881. 1
3 2

I.

Source A n a l y s i s In order to o f f e r an objective assessment of the subject

m a t t e r a t s t a k e , i t i s a p p o s i t e t h a t an i n q u i r y be made i n t o t h e historical 0. Elias, s o u r c e s o r f o u n d a t i o n of a b s o l u t e immunity. in his exposition on the development of Judge T. modern

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, had t h i s to say:

"The f i r s t and e a r l i e s t p e r i o d was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by o f t e n rudimentary arrangements f o r r e g u l a t i n g the almost ceaseless o l d - w o r l d s t r u g g l e s between empires, kingdoms and c i t y states. The medieval period witnessed the break-up of Western C h r i s t e n d o m under t h e Holy Roman Empire a s a r e s u l t of the T r e a t y o f W e s t p h a l i a (1648) and t h e consequent r i s e o f n a t i o n s t a t e s b a s e d upon t h e C u l t of P o l i t i c a l S o v e r e i g n t y adumbrated by J e a n Bodin and o t h e r s . "
4

In

fact,

historical

records

show t h a t Jean Bodin was

(1530-1596), a of writers
6

French p o l i t i c a l to And

scientist

and j u r i s t ,

the f i r s t

develop the concept of sovereignty i n the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . i t i s believed sixteenth Bodin took up the c h a l l e n g e b e c a u s e between of

the and of find

ceaseless

century

struggles

empires

nation-states, political

and more p a r t i c u l a r l y facing

because o f t h e problems
7

instability

France.

I n an

attempt created a

to

s o l u t i o n s t o t h e s e problems,

Bodin undoubtedly

Law

T . 0. E l i a s , (1990) p. 63.
5

Africa

and

the development

of

International

George S a b i n e and Thomas Thorson, A h i s t o r y o f p o l i t i c a l theory (1973) pp. 348-385; A. Appadorae: The s u b s t a n c e o f p o l i t i c s (1968) p. 48.
6

Appadorea, op. c i t . , supra note 5. George S a b i n e and Thomas Thorson, op. c i t . , 5.

c o n f u s i o n about t h e leges

imperii

which arguably

t u r n e d out

to be

be a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e l o n g c o n t r o v e r s y between what can denoted as a n a l y t i c and an historical method i n meta

juridical

p h i l o s o p h y as r e g a r d s immunity o f

states.

II.

Jean Bodin's The term

P h i l o s o p h y on

Sovereignty

superanus

means s o v e r e i g n t y which i n s i m p l e terms Sovereignty i s t h e r e f o r e an essential the

denotes

supreme power. of the as

characteristic state so long

state the

and

i t c o n t i n u e s t o be subsists.
9

p a r t of

state

In

other

words,

s o v e r e i g n t y i n r e a l i t y i s i n s e p a r a b l e from t h e The France

10

state. into being in

modern because

theory

of

sovereignty

came

of i t s i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l epoch.

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . Bodin And during that era,

l i v e d i n France a t t h a t h i s t o r i c a l France was as he was

d i v i d e d as t o w h e t h e r t o obey t h e Monarch or the Pope believed to be the head of Christendom.

11

The to

c o n t r o v e r s y r e g a r d i n g t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e s o v e r e i g n power was a l a r g e e x t e n t due the French war with respect to the fact was that, at that historical
1 2

epoch,

of r e l i g i o n to the

at i t s zenith. of the

These problems power thus

location

sovereign

Ibid. of p o l i t i c a l science with P a k i s t a n (1949) pp. 89-103.

Bhattacharyya, First course c o n s t i t u t i o n s of I n d i a R e p u b l i c and

1 0

Ibid. 348-385. cit., note 3 5.

I b i d . a t pp.

12

Appadorae, op.

prompted

Bodin

to

express

his

thoughts

on

the

concept

of

sovereignty state:

i n the

f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t e d manner.

D e f i n i n g the

"as an aggregation of families and their common p o s s e s s i o n s r u l e d by a s o v e r e i g n and by reason, he s a i d t h a t i n e v e r y i n d e p e n d e n t community governed by law t h e r e must be some a u t h o r i t y whether r e s i d i n g i n one person or s e v e r a l , where t h e l a w s t h e m s e l v e s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d and from which t h e y p r o c e e d . And t h i s power b e i n g t h e s o u r c e of law must be above t h e law though n o t above d u t y and m o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . "
1 3

For

Bodin, of by

in practical state the law

terms be of

any

legitimate the law moral

power though

being

the

source limited

must

above duty

somewhat

demands

and

responsibility. or

Sovereignty,

he m a i n t a i n e d ,

i s a supreme power o v e r c i t i z e n s

t h e r u l e d and t h i s

supreme power being the s o u r c e o f law i s not

14

bound by any laws o f the r e a l m . Bodin's postulated certain ruled, l a w was and theory, however, that

fell the laws

short

of

the mark

when

he

admitted

s o v e r e i g n c o u l d not dear
15

abrogate of the

important e.g., the

entrenched Salic Law of

to and

the that

hearts

France,

international
1 6

o u t s i d e t h e domain o f t h e power of the S o v e r e i g n .

He

f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t the l a w s o f God and n a t u r e a r e t o be d u l y respected subjects. by the Sovereign was and the citizenry, that i.e., the law the of

However, he

careful

in stating

1 3

I b i d . a t p. Ibid. Ibid.

48.

1 4

1 5

law

E d w i n D i c k i n s o n , The (1920) a t pp. 56-57.

16

e q u a l i t y of s t a t e s

in

international

nations any

( i n t e r n a t i o n a l law) cannot than except domestic t h e laws laws

i n f l u e n c e or bind a sovereign legitimately

1 7

more

enacted Bodin's

by

the

Sovereign,

o f God and n a t u r e .

system

as can be gathered i m p l i c i t l y f a v o u r s o r s h i f t s the maxim: Par in parent non habet imperium,

somewhat towards and t h i s i n the

main can l o g i c a l l y be s u p p o r t e d to h i s system means a

i n s o f a r as sovereignty according wholly unlimited i n its

supreme power, n o t bow

sphere

of i n f l u e n c e and does

o r succumb t o any or i n i t s l o c a l

other spheres

power, be i t on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e of o p e r a t i o n . postulation
18

T h i s bent o f t h i n k i n g c o n t r i b u t e s g r e a t l y t o t h e i f a country or a sovereign country, be state has i t s i n the as a

that

s o u r c e of power c o n t r o l l e d by a n o t h e r real state, sense of t h e meaning i t lacks of

i t cannot designated

sovereignty

because

s o v e r e i g n power o r supreme power which

as a matter of p r i n c i p l e i s a d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o r mark of a state.

1 9

In this

r e s p e c t , Bodin

laid

t h e groundwork f o r heights as to

o t h e r s t o develop

the s u b j e c t to such law.

20

reasonable

be r e c e i v e d i n t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l Many such as s c h o l a r s from Thomas Hobbes

the period (1508-1679),

of Renaissance John Locke

t o Hume,

21

(1632-1704),

1 7

Ibid. Ibid. B h a t t a c h a r y y , op. c i t . , D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , note 9, a t p. 80, pp. 90-92.

1 8

19

20

not 16 a t pp. 55-99. (1964),

B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l , A h i s t o r y o f Western Philosophy p. 491.

21

Rousseau (1712-1778), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John A u s t i n (1790-1859) c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y t o t h e development of t h e t h e o r y of sovereignty.
2 2

Grotius also

whom many regard made his mark be as

as an

the

father of of

international political was the

law,

exponent

sovereignty. first

G r o t i u s , as may on

recalled,

however, of

t o concentrate
23

e x p l a i n i n g the

importance

external sovereignty e q u a l i t y , which has w i t h respect But he was

and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s w i t h regard t o s t a t e

much t o do w i t h t h e independence o f s t a t e s system.

24

t o a l l o t h e r s t a t e s i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l

c e r t a i n l y not t h e o r i g i n a l proponent of t h e concept

of n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s .

Ill.

Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes made s o v e r e i g n t y absolute and a p t l y l o c a t e d

i t w i t h o u t any h e s i t a t i o n i n t h e r u l e r , thus d e r i v i n g h i s t h e o r y from the f o r c e and thrust of the social contact.

25

Professor

Russell i n h i s studies stated that:

"Hobbes h o l d s t h a t a l l men are n a t u r a l l y equal. In a s t a t e of n a t u r e , b e f o r e t h e r e i s any government, e v e r y man d e s i r e s t o p r e s e r v e h i s own l i b e r t y but t o a c q u i r e dominion o v e r o t h e r s ; b o t h t h e s e d e s i r e s a r e d i c t a t e d by the i m p u l s e t o s e l f preservation. From t h e i r c o n f l i c t a r i s e s a war of a l l a g a i n s t a l l , w h i c h makes l i f e ' n a s t y , b r u t i s h and s h o r t . ' In a s t a t e of n a t u r e , t h e r e i s no p r o p e r t y , no j u s t i c e or i n j u s t i c e ; t h e r e i s

2 2

Ibid. Appadorae, op. c i t . , note 5; Dickenson, op. c i t . , note 56-60. D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , note 16 a t pp. 60-98. R u s s e l l , op. c i t . , note 21 a t pp. 494-659. 16

23

a t pp.
24

2 5

o n l y war and virtues. '"

2 6

'force

and f r a u d

a r e i n war, t h e two

cardinal

For Hobbes, i n order f o r men t o escape from these they must endeavour t o form communities ready

evils,

t o delegate
2 7

a b s o l u t e power i n t o the hands o f a c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t y a c c o r d i n g t o him, must be based on t h e concept contract.

2 8

and t h i s ,

o f the social t o Hobbes, by a l l

This

central

authority,

according

r e p r e s e n t s a source

o f power known as superanus which

29

means s h a l l put an end t o the " u n i v e r s a l war." Again Professor R u s s e l l e x p l a i n s t h a t :

"Hobbes p r e f e r s monarchy, b u t a l l h i s a b s t r a c t arguments a r e e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l forms o f government i n w h i c h t h e r e i s one supreme a u t h o r i t y n o t l i m i t e d b y l e g a l r i g h t s o f o t h e r b o d i e s . He c o u l d t o l e r a t e P a r l i a m e n t a l o n e b u t n o t a s y s t e m i n w h i c h governmental power i s s h a r e d between K i n g a n d P a r l i a m e n t . This i s the exact a n t i t h e s i s to the views o f L o c k e and Montesquieu. The E n g l i s h c i v i l war o c c u r r e d , says Hobbes, b e c a u s e power was d i v i d e d between K i n g , L o r d s a n d Commons."
30

It to

i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o note t h a t Hobbes p r e f e r s d i c t a t o r s h i p and balances and t h e p u r p o r t e d golden notion of

checks

liberty.

The powers o f the s o v e r e i g n i n h i s view must be made Thus the ruled must surrender power t o the shows

u n l i m i t e d . 31 Sovereign clearly
2 6

i n order t o have peace and t r a n q u i l l i t y that the kernel of h i s thesis was

which

p r e d i c a t e d on

I b i d . a t p. 550. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. I b i d , a t p. 551. Ibid.

27

28

29

30

31

a c h i e v i n g i n t e r n a l peace. the

32

Hobbes was a l s o o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t

worse despotism be p r e f e r r e d t o anarchy since absolute power

33

w i l l c r e a t e p e r p e t u a l peace. The

concept o f a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n t y a l s o found favour w i t h t h a t i t belonged

Rousseau b u t he was a b i t c a r e f u l t o conclude t o t h e people r a t h e r than t h e r u l e r . The of his most a u t h o r i t a t i v e

3 4

restatement

o f t h e modern concept
35

s o v e r e i g n t y may be c r e d i t e d t o John A u s t i n (17 9 0-18 5 9) . words,

" I f a d e t e r m i n a t e human s u p e r i o r , n o t i n t h e h a b i t o f o b e d i e n c e t o a l i k e s u p e r i o r , r e c e i v e s h a b i t u a l obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior i s sovereign i n that s o c i e t y (including the superior) i s a society p o l i t i c a l a n d i n d e p e n d e n t . . . . F u r t h e r m o r e e v e r y p o s i t i v e law o r e v e r y l a w s i m p l y and s t r i c t l y s o c a l l e d i s s e t d i r e c t l y o r c i r c u i t o u s l y , by a sovereign p e r s o n o r body t o a member or members o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t p o l i t i c a l s o c i e t y w h e r e i n t h a t p e r s o n o r body i s s o v e r e i g n o r s u p r e m e . "
36

In

A u s t i n a l s o f o l l o w s t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e sovereign's power is unlimited.

3 7

H i s system t h e r e f o r e accepts

t h e precept

that

s o v e r e i g n power i s i n a l i e n a b l e and t h a t t h e sovereign has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o exact such t h a t obedience from t h e r u l e d b u t h i s s t a t u s i s cannot be a f f e c t e d by anybody i n t h e

h i s authority

3 2

Ibid. Ibid. Appadorae, op. c i t . , n. 5 a t p. 451. Ibid. I b i d . , a t p. 49. B h a t t a c h a r y y , op. c i t . , n. 9 a t pp. 94-95.

3 3

34

3 5

3 6

37

world.

3 8

The

t r u t h of the matter

i s that Austin believes and t h e r e f o r e according

that to
3 9

law i s the command of the sovereign h i s bent o f reasoning, Austin's require proper

knows no i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l s u p e r i o r . and to therefore the

views a t best were l e g a l i s t i c qualification with respect

may

democratic of his the

d o c t r i n e of sovereignty, views being unrealistic.

i n order
4 0

to contain c r i t i c i s m difficulties

These

regarding

concept o f s o v e r e i g n t y principles prompted

and

i t s many o t h e r Laski to

confused that

underlying the whole

Professor

argue

n o t i o n o f s o v e r e i g n t y be surrendered science.
41

f o r t h e sake o f however, t h a t

political Austin's

I t must be noted

i n passing,
42

views were vehemently opposed. It be should, however, be

noted

t h a t a l l these

theories

can

a t t a c k e d from a s t a n d p o i n t o f e q u i t a b l e maxims w i t h the w r i t i n g s o f Locke

43

specifically
44

associated these

and

Montesquieu,

but to

e q u i t a b l e maxims can

o n l y be

a p p l i e d t o put pressure

bear on t h e sovereign i f the sovereign world public opinion. International

i s w i l l i n g t o succumb t o law in its intrinsic

n a t u r e , as d e r i v e d from the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s , can be a source

3 8

I b i d . a t p.

95. 49-50.

39

Appadorae, op. c i t . n. 5 a t pp. Ibid. I b i d . , p. 50.

4 0

4 1

42

See L a s k i , A grammar o f p o l i t i c s R u s s e l l , op. c i t . , n. 21.

(1967), pp.

44-45.

43

""Montesquieu, The s p i r i t o f law

(1748).

of

limitation

upon

the

absolute

power

of

the

state,

but

in
45

r e a l i t y t h e r e i s no International law,

s u p r a n a t i o n a l power t o e n f o r c e these therefore, is obeyed by states

laws. out

of

c o u r t e s y and t h e need t o promote the concept o f comity w i t h the hope o f a v o i d i n g d i s r e p u t e .

IV.

The

I n f l u e n c e o f t h e Philosophy

o f Thomas Hobbes on

Later

Writers I n t e r n a t i o n a l law was not i n v e n t e d by magical powers. Its

growth f o l l o w e d a r o u t e o f g r a d u a l process s i n g u l a r l y i n f l u e n c e d by p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e r i v e d from n a t u r a l law as c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d by some prominent w r i t e r s law; one that:

" A l t h o u g h s e v e r a l s y s t e m s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n v a r i o u s stages of arrested development existed in antiquity and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y or s u b s e q u e n t l y , i n other p a r t s of the world, p r e s e n t - d a y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law has i t s r o o t s i n m e d i e v a l Europe. I t might be t h o u g h t t h a t t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r o f t h e Middle Ages was i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.
4 6

on

international observed

such w r i t e r was

Professor

Schwarzenberger who

Sornarayah, Problems i n a p p l y i n g the r e s t r i c t i v e theory of sovereign immunity (1982) 31 ICLQ 664. Nussbaum, A c o n c i s e h i s t o r y o f t h e law o f n a t i o n s (1962) pp. 35-44, 61-114; op. c i t . , n. 6, pp. 35-99; Sanders, I n t e r n a t i o n a l j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n A f r i c a n c o n t e x t (1979) pp. 3-38. Brownlie principles of public international law (1992). B r i e r l y , The law o f n a t i o n s , an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and peace (6th ed. 1963); Kelsen, P r i n c i p l e s of international law (2d 1966) per Tucker; Lauterpacht, I n t e r n a t i o n a l law ( g e n e r a l works) (1970) 4 volumes; O'Connell, I n t e r n a t i o n a l law (2d ed. 1970) 2 v o l s . ; H e r z i j l , I n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e ; Schwerzenberger, I n t e r n a t i o n a l law ( v o l . 1 3d ed. 1957; v o l . 2, 1962); Oppenheim and Lauterpacht, A t r e a t i s e (1952) 2 v o l s ; Hyde, I n t e r n a t i o n a l law c h i e f l y as i n t e r p r e t e d and a p p l i e d by t h e U n i t e d States (1947) 3 vols) .
46

45

10

which requires the coexistence of equal and independent communities. A c t u a l l y , the p y r a m i d a l s t r u c t u r e o f feudalism, c u l m i n a t i n g i n Pope and Emperor as s p i r i t u a l and t e m p o r a l h e a d s of Western C h r i s t e n d o m was h a r d l y e v e r f u l l y r e a l i z e d . It left ample scope f o r r e l a t i o n s on a f o o t i n g of e q u a l i t y between what were o f t e n i n f a c t independent s t a t e s . "
4 7

Professor

Schwarzenberger

seemed

to

indicate

that

the

t r e n d o f i n e q u a l i t y t h a t e x i s t e d i n medieval p e r i o d was markedly pronounced as to eclipse the

not t h a t of

development

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law which by i t s very n a t u r e supports t h e e q u a l i t y of s t a t e s , as a s p e c i a l i n g r e d i e n t necessary f o r t h e harmonious existence naturalist of states. Secondly, the m a t e r i a l i s m o f Hobbes, the essential nature a of of

d i s q u i s i t i o n , encouraged for universal

n a t u r a l law, t h e quest states.

4 8

order and

the e q u a l i t y

The

i n t r o d u c t i o n of the first the

theory o f n a t u r a l

equality

into who of of

t h e law o f n a t i o n s was gathered

developed by t h e n a t u r a l i s t s singularly pragmatist

49

i n s p i r a t i o n from (an Oxford

views works

Thomas Hobbes Hobbes covered particularly Leviathan. revive

50

t r a i n e d philosopher) ,

The

l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y and t h i s can be in his Elementa Philosophica de Cive and

found the

As a r e s u l t o f h i s i n f l u e n t i a l work, he was importance of j u r i d i c a l philosophy

able t o a of ed.

the

which covered

c r i t i c a l aspect o f medieval t h e o r y o f n a t u r a l law, t h e s t a t e

47

Schwarzenberger,

Manual

of

international

law

(4th

1960) .
48

D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , n. 16 a t pp. 69-75. R u s s e l l , op. c i t . , n. 21. D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , n. 16.

49

50

11

nature, and

and

natural equality.

5 1

Through h i s sagacious w r i t i n g s to a

i n f l u e n c e these t h e o r i e s were not by any means r e l e g a t e d i n a new fashion 17th, as

the background b u t were r a t h e r e x p l o r e d way and of encouraging p h i l o s o p h e r s 19th c e n t u r i e s . and

jurists

o f the

18th

I t i s important

t o note, however, t h a t the

1

system of Hobbes was teachings

52

somewhat i n a n t i t h e s i s t o t h a t o f G r o t i u s disputed

and

t h i s e x - h y p o t h e s i cannot be

i n view of

the a u t h o r i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e works o f G r o t i u s and Hobbes by Dr. Edwin The the Dickinson.

53

t e a c h i n g s o f Hobbes a l b e i t d i d i n f l u e n c e Pufendorf and such prominent Vattel,

5 4

and

naturalists,

writers

as

Barbeyrac,

Rutherforth,

Burlamaqui and no the

but

i t would appear t h a t to the basic by

these successors were by general applications

55

means a l l agreed as naturalist theories

of

advanced

Thomas Hobbes.

I n sum

"anthropomorphism" p l a y e d a c e n t r a l r o l e

i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e a c h i n g s o f Hobbes which a l s o leads t o the conclusion t h a t the law o f n a t u r e and the law o f n a t i o n s i n his

system can a p p r o p r i a t e l y be t a k e n i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l terms t o mean the same t h i n g .

5 6

Hobbes, t h e r e f o r e , notion

can

be

credited for

the into

introduction
5 1

o f the

of n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y of states

I b i d . a t p. I b i d . a t p. I b i d . a t pp. I b i d . a t pp. I b i d . a t pp. I b i d . a t p.

74. 70. 35-100. 68-100. 76-89. 75.

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

12

j u r i d i c a l philosophy.

And i t s a f t e r - e f f e c t on V a t t e l , by e v e r y o f h i s w r i t i n g s and theories

e s t i m a t i o n cannot be i g n o r e d i n t h e l i g h t the fact that t h e combined force

o f a l l these

implicitly the

or e x p l i c i t l y
5 7

have had e f f e c t on t h e development o f

law o f n a t i o n s .

One major i n f l u e n c e o f Hobbes as can be g a t h e r e d from t h e w r i t i n g s o f V a t t e l runs t h u s :

" S i n c e men a r e by n a t u r e e q u a l and t h e i r individual r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s t h e same, a s coming e q u a l l y from n a t u r e , n a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e composed o f men and may be r e g a r d e d a s s o many f r e e p e r s o n s l i v i n g t o g e t h e r i n a s t a t e o f n a t u r e , a r e by n a t u r e e q u a l and h o l d from n a t u r e t h e same o b l i g a t i o n s and t h e same r i g h t s , s t r e n g t h o r weakness, i n t h i s c a s e , c o u n t s f o r nothing. A dwarf i s a s much a man a s a g i a n t i s ; a s m a l l r e p u b l i c i s no l e s s a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e t h a n t h e most p o w e r f u l kingdom. A n a t i o n i s t h e r e f o r e f r e e to a c t as i t p l e a s e s , so f a r as i t s a c t s do not a f f e c t t h e p e r f e c t r i g h t s o f a n o t h e r n a t i o n , and so f a r a s t h e n a t i o n i s under m e r e l y o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h o u t any perfect external obligation. I f i t abused i t s l i b e r t y i t a c t s w r o n g f u l l y ; b u t o t h e r n a t i o n s cannot complain s i n c e t h e y have no right to dictate to i t . S i n c e n a t i o n s a r e f r e e , independent, and e q u a l , and s i n c e e a c h h a s t h e r i g h t t o d e c i d e i n i t s c o n s c i e n c e what i t must do to f u l f i l i t s d u t i e s , t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s i s t o produce, b e f o r e t h e w o r l d a t l e a s t , a p e r f e c t e q u a l i t y o f r i g h t s among n a t i o n s i n t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e i r a f f a i r s and i n t h e p u r s u i t o f t h e i r policies. The i n t r i n s i c j u s t i c e o f t h e i r conduct i s a n o t h e r m a t t e r w h i c h i s n o t f o r o t h e r s t o p a s s upon f i n a l l y ; so t h a t what one may do a n o t h e r may do, and t h e y must be r e g a r d e d i n t h e s o c i e t y o f mankind a s h a v i n g e q u a l r i g h t s . "
5 8

The Vattel

thrust

and t o t a l

effect

o f t h e above

statement by doubt

i n i t s philosophical

and p r a c t i c a l

terms w i t h o u t

s u p p o r t s t h e maxim:

par in parem non habet imperium which i s

5 7

Ibid. I b i d . a t p. 98.

5 8

13

derived and

b a s i c a l l y from t h e p r i n c i p l e o f independence,
5 9

equality

the d i g n i t y o f s t a t e s .

Although the c l a s s i c a l w r i t e r s of deal a t length with the

international notion

law d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y states

o f immunity o f f o r e i g n
6 0

from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

domestic c o u r t s , way or the

a t l e a s t i n t h e main, t h e i r w r i t i n g s i n one gave i n turn support to the gave idea of absolute t o the

other which

sovereignty

logically

foundation
61

concept o f s t a t e immunity i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w .

The weight o f philosophical

these h i s t o r i c a l records shows c l e a r l y t h a t e a r l y writings on t h e concept o f a b s o l u t e

sovereignty d i d influence

i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s and t h e i r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s t o take t h e l e a d i n opening t h e way

62

f o r t h e development

of the rules

of

state

immunity.

Further international

evidence law

of

the such

influence as

of

classical Pufendorf, influenced

writers

Grotius,

Bynkershoek and V a t t e l , who were a l l t o some e x t e n t by and the w r i t i n g s o f Hobbes on n a t u r a l natural equality, found

law, t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e i n the decisions o f

application

59

Badr, op. c i t . , n. 1, pp. 34-40; L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . , n.

1.
60

Badr op. c i t . , n. 1, p. 9.

I b i d . , p. 12. The Schooner Exchange v . McFaddon (1812) 7 Cranch 116; The Prins F r e d e r i k (1820) 2 Dods 451; The Parlement Beige (1880) 5 PD 197; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; The A n n e t t e : The Dora (1919) p. 105 a t p. 111. M i g h e l l v. S u l t a n o f Johore (1894) 1QB 149.
62

6 1

14

municipal

c o u r t s o f t h e U n i t e d States between 1789 t o 1820 .

63

And t h i s i s c l e a r l y supported by t h e s t a t i s t i c a l data below.

Writers

Citations of Pleadings 16 9 25 92

Court Citations 11 4 16 38

Court Quotation 2 8 7 22

Grotius Pufendorf Bynkershoek Vattel Source: (1960). work.

See G. Schwarzenberger, Manual o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was borrowed from Dr. Dickinson's

The above s t a t i s t i c a l data was prepared by Professor Edwin D. Dickinson, writers and i t r e f l e c t s t o support citations and q u o t a t i o n s law cases which
64

from were

early

international

d e c i d e d by American c o u r t s from 1789 t o 1820 . cannot writers underestimate of

6 5

One

therefore

the i n view

influence of

of

early

philosophical of t h e above

Europe

the authority

statistics.

I t i s i m p o r t a n t a l s o t o take note o f t h e f a c t t h a t and V a t t e l

66

Bynkershoek

were

specifically

cited

i n Schooner

Exchange v. McFaddon, lends support to

by Chief J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l and t h e r e f o r e thesis that early philosophers and

the

"Schwarzenberger, op. c i t . , n. 46.

6 4

Ibid.

"Ibid. "(1812) 7 Cranch 116. 75

c l a s s i c a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law w r i t e r s d i d a f f e c t t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e of municipal
67

courts

in

developing

the

rule

of

sovereign

immunity. Marshall history,

This i s f u r t h e r supported by t h e f a c t t h a t J u s t i c e relied on a and combination the U. S. of factors ranging from

philosophy,

Constitution,

i . e . , the

Eleventh Amendment i n h i s quest t o f i n d s o l u t i o n s

t o t h e issues
68

r e g a r d i n g s t a t e immunity i n the Schooner Exchange case.

V.

Claims and Counter Claims The writings o f Bodin, Hobbes, Hagel and Vattel set the

pace f o r the understanding t h a t immunity i n a metaphysical supreme power the accepted sense as a t h e o r e t i c a l
69

o f s t a t e s must be seen derivation from local

(superanus). notion that Thus

This d o c t r i n e state a has

gave f o u n d a t i o n t o link be with no

the

a positive there

sovereign

power.
70

without

state

will

sovereign power. power and

Which means t h a t i n t h e absence o f sovereign o r make laws backed by a l l the

the power t o enact

c o e r c i v e f o r c e s i t cares t o employ, a s t a t e cannot be i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

71

recognised t h e former

I n l o g i c a l terms, t h e r e f o r e ,

67

Badr, op. c i t . , n. 1 a t p. Ibid.

9.

6 8

69

D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , n. 16 a t p. Bhattacharyya, op. c i t . , n. 9.

70

0 ' C o n n e l l , I n t e r n a t i o n a l law f o r s t u d e n t s (1971) pp. 4963. See a l s o Chen, The i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o f r e c o g n i t i o n (1951). Compare the views o f t h e above w r i t e r s w i t h L o r d McNair's "The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition" (1933) 14 BYIL. Lauterpacht, R e c o g n i t i o n i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law (1948).

71

16

cannot

exist

without

the l a t t e r .

An

intriguing

r e s u l t can and t h a t i s

hereby be d i s c e r n i b l e before a t e r r i t o r y other states,

from t h e above p r o p o s i t i o n ,

i s recognised as a s t a t e , equal i n s t a t u s t o a defined

i t must have a permanent p o p u l a t i o n , a determinable ruled attribute of an

72

territory, juridical factors

and

autonomous I f these

community

by a s o v e r e i g n

power.

a r e p r e s e n t w i t h i n a community, statehood i s achieved states i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. t o international personality

73

equal t o a l l other turn gives b i r t h

Statehood i n

and thus breeds than of

consensus among equals on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l plane r a t h e r subjection.

7 4

Such equality

is

the

essence

of

the

concept

independence,

and

dignity

among

sovereign

states,

shaped by P u f e n d o r f ' s d o c t r i n e o f guae invicem in statu naturali vivunt, i.e.,

15

coupled

with equals

perhaps as

Zouche's
7 6

idea

o f pax civilis, by Vattel's

"between

states"
7 7

and

finally

positive notion of state equality. The states

commitment o f most s t a t e s t o t h e n o t i o n o f immunity o f who followed

stems from t h e w r i t i n g s o f modern scholars influence

Bodin and Hobbes, and t h e i r for the determination

72

had l a i d t h e f o u n d a t i o n

o f s t a t e e q u a l i t y based on t h e f o l l o w i n g

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , n. 46 a t pp. 87-105. I b i d . , a t pp. 88-91. 0 ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . , n. 46, p. 842. D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , n. 16 Ibid. Ibid.

7 3

74

75

7 6

7 7

17

f a c t o r s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law: (2) The dignity of states;

(1) The (3) The

independence o f s t a t e s ; f o r comity; (4) The

need

l e g a l nature of sovereign p r o p e r t y ; and qua i n t e r n a t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y . The literature on jurisprudence

(5) D i p l o m a t i c f u n c t i o n

shows

clearly

as

has

a l r e a d y been s t a t e d elsewhere, t h a t Hobbes's b e n t o f was i n antithesis of of absolute legal t o both Grotius also and Montesquieu. counter to In

reasoning Hobbes' Locke's reality,

notion theory

sovereignty and political

runs

sovereignty.

t h e r e f o r e , the n o t i o n o f absolute s o v e r e i g n t y has favour w i t h modern p u b l i c i s t s . In fact,

7 8

f a l l e n out o f

i t i s h i g h l y d o u b t f u l as exponents o f a b s o l u t e criticism. The

t o whether today

the

views be is

expressed by allowed

sovereignty theory that

would

without

sovereignty

unlimited,

indivisible,

inalienable, imprescriptible, and

ultra-

comprehensive and must be the 20th

e x c l u s i v e i s open t o q u e s t i o n

therefore so before the

r e l e g a t e d t o the background. century,

79

Perhaps i t was had control

when t h e

sovereign

over

p o l i c e and judge theory and as

army and was the executor.

80

a l s o a t t h e same t i m e Modern s t a t e s w i l l view of

t h e lawmaker, a not accept theory the of the

i t stands
81

in

Montesquieu's

s e p a r a t i o n o f powers.
7 8

This i s perhaps c o r r e c t i n s o f a r as 42.

L a s k i , op. c i t . , n. Ibid.

7 9

80

George Sabine, Thomas Thorson, L a s k i . Federalist Papers (American

Montesquieu, op. c i t . , The c l a s s i c s about government) (1981).

81

18

sovereign and

has t o conform t o c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s w e l l i n modern democratic countries.

8 2

entrenched I t may be

respected

contended, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i n these modern times t h e argument i n support of absolute sovereignty i s non sequitur and perhaps

a n a c h r o n i s t i c , g i v e n t h e changes t h a t have taken place both i n m u n i c i p a l law and i n t e r n a t i o n a l The sentiments expressed law. by
83

modern

writers

against t h e

a b s o l u t e n a t u r e o f s o v e r e i g n power have been canvassed o f l a t e b e f o r e domestic c o u r t s . common l a w Union. Act,

85 8 4

This tendency f i n d s expression i n both

8 6

and c i v i l

law c o u n t r i e s

except

i n former

Soviet

I n Great

Britain,

f o r example, t h e Crown Proceedings

1947, p r e p a r e d
87

t h e way f o r s u i t s t o be f i l e d against t h e i n c o n t r a c t i n t h e U n i t e d States against

government.

Actions

the s t a t e a r e p o s s i b l e as a r e s u l t o f t h e enactment o f the Court Claims A c t 1855 . respect

82 88

And q u i t e r e c e n t l y , l e g a l proceedings o f U.S. c o u r t s have been

with

t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n

flexibly (1935).

A. D. L i n s a y , The e s s e n t i a l s o f democracy, Oxford

The European Convention on State Immunity and A d d i t i o n a l P r o t o c o l (1972); The U.S. Sovereign Immunity A c t (1976); U. K. Sovereign Immunity a c t (1978). C l a i m s b e f o r e U.S. c o u r t s and U.K. c o u r t s are on the r i s e and t h i s I b e l i e v e might have been i n f l u e n c e d by modern w r i t e r s on s t a t e immunity. But t h e r e i s an absence o f p r e c i s e p r e s c r i p t i o n s as t o t h e problem. C l i v e M. S c h m i t t h o f f , The c l a i m o f s o v e r e i g n immunity i n t h e law o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e (1958) 7 ICLQ 456-457.
8 6 8 5 84

83

I b i d . a t p. 457. (1957) 3WLR 884, 910. S c h m i t t h o f f , a t p. 457.

87

8 8

19

extended

and

this

culminated
89

i n t h e enactment o f

the Torts modern These

Claims Act o f 1946. times

I t i s possible t h e r e f o r e i n these t o submit t o i t s own courts.

9 0

f o r a sovereign

t r e n d s o f events

and t h e c a l l f o r l i m i t e d immunity

are gaining

ground and have i n f a c t , sit venia verbo, u n h a p p i l y I may say, created a Pandora's box o f d i f f i c u l t i e s
9 1

and u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n

t r a n s n a t i o n a l business t r a n s a c t i o n s .

I t i s s u b m i t t e d , however, forum and

t h a t t h e above argument i s e c l i p s e d by t h e v e r y f a c t t h a t law is vertical and thus the creature o f the sovereign

t h e r e f o r e cannot be a p p l i e d t o sovereign s t a t e s i n view p o p u l a r concept o f n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s .

of the

VI.

F i n a l Remarks At t h e onset o f t h i s study, a q u e s t i o n was p o s i t e d as t o

whether immunity

sovereign

state

can p o s s i b l y l i t i g a t e

sovereign To answer seas o f t o the

c l a i m successfully before a f o r e i g n c o u r t .

t h e q u e s t i o n a journey was taken through t h e u n c h a r t e d the history o f philosophy and law t o f i n d an answer

question. that every

The answer seems t o be p r e d i c a t e d on t h e p r i n c i p l e sovereign state has the o b l i g a t i o n to give due

8 9

Ibid. Ibid.

9 0

T r e n d t e x Trading Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1977) QB 529 Court o f Appeal I Congreso Del P a r t i d o (1988) AC 244 House o f Lords. Alcom L t d . v. Republic o f Colombia (1984) 2 A l l ER6.

91

20

r e s p e c t t o each o t h e r s ' concept clearly borrowed

independence, by Chief past

e q u a l i t y and d i g n i t y , Justice to

M a r s h a l l from the his Schooner ships.

philosophical Exchange

writings on

of state

the

support

decision

immunity

regarding public

Prima facie, J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s d e c i s i o n today, however, seemed t o run c o u n t e r t o L o r d Denning's o b s e r v a t i o n s i n Rachimtoola v. Nizam o f Hyderabad,
93

thus:

"It i s more i n k e e p i n g w i t h the d i g n i t y of a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n t o s u b m i t h i m s e l f t o t h e r u l e of law t h a n t o c l a i m t o be above i t , and h i s i n d e p e n d e n c e i s b e t t e r e n s u r e d by a c c e p t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f a c o u r t o f acknowledged i m p a r t i a l i t y t h a n by arbitrarily rejecting their jurisdiction."
9 4

Be

this

as

i t may, on

some l e a d i n g the

countries of

are now

modulating
95

their

positions while

question

state of

immunity,

and was

therefore,

successful l i t i g a t i o n

immunity

claim

f a i r l y easy i n t h e p a s t , a t l e a s t i n r e c e n t years t h e t r e n d has changed because the

96

modalities

of

restrictive

immunity

are

gaining currency.
92

0 ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . , note 46 a t pp. 842-845. (1958) AC In 379. v. Nizam o f Hyderabad (1957) 3 WLR 884,

93

9 4

Rachimtoola

910. T h i s i s v e r y common i n t h e Western Hemisphere, e s p e c i a l l y i n c o u n t r i e s such as t h e U.S., U.K., Canada, A u s t r a l i a , t o mention t h e main ones. R e p o r t o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission (1986) Yrbk ICL; see a l s o F i t z m a u r i c e (1957, 11) 92 Hague R e c u e i l ; Emanuelli (1984) 2 Canadian Yrbk; F o r e i g n Sovereign Immunity Act, FSIA (1976) . The S t a t e Immunity A c t , SIA (1978) reproduced i n ILR 64 (1983) p. 718; Canadian Sovereign Immunity A c t (1982); South A f r i c a n F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunity Act (1981); P a k i s t a n i Foreign Sovereign Immunity A c t (1981); F o r e i g n Sovereign Immunity Act o f Singapore (1981); A u s t r a l i a n Sovereign Immunity A c t (1979).
96 95

21

In

sum t h e s o u r c e s o f modern law o f immunity o f s t a t e s c a n

be t r a c e d back t o t h e days o f Bodin, Hobbes, A u s t i n , G r o t i u s and Vattel, thinkers strength of sates, to mention a few. And the d e s i r e of these days great gave

t o a m e l i o r a t e perhaps the problems o f t h e i r t o t h e thought t h a t because of t h e n o t i o n sovereign states be accorded absolute

of e q u a l i t y immunity i n For

t h e i r d e a l i n g s w i t h o t h e r s t a t e s , both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e . it will c e r t a i n l y be d i f f i c u l t state, two

t o l o r d i t over an " e q u a l , " i . e . , years ago i n view of the par

another

o r t h r e e hundred

ceaseless

s t r u g g l e s between n a t i o n - s t a t e s , hence t h e n o t i o n

in parem non habet imperium or par in non habet

jurisdictionem.

22

CHAPTER

TWO

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: A CLAIM AGAINST FRANCE BEFORE I T S AFTEREFFECTS

AMERICAN COURTS AND

The overnight

doctrine o r eo

of s t a t e instanti,

immunity b u t was

was

not s i m p l y gradually

conceived developed words,

rather

over a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e by m u n i c i p a l the concept became law s p e c i f i c a l l y

courts.

I n other

through j u r i d i c a l
1

evolution

t o t a l l y i n f l u e n c e d by j u r i d i c a l It found 1812.
2

philosophy.

a l l s t a r t e d when i n an

philosophical

writings court

of the decision

past of

expression This

American

municipal

d e c i s i o n i n due c o u r s e out to be a s o u r c e of the world.

3

became a cause of strong

celebre and other that courts there

4

therefore turned municipal courts

i n f l u e n c e on

Arguably,

the p r o p o s i t i o n

the d o c t r i n e

of s t a t e immunity i s a product of m u n i c i p a l i n view of the f a c t c a s e law on t h i s that

cannot e x - h y p o t h e s i be d i s p u t e d i s a considerable

amount o f m u n i c i p a l

subject.

^ i t z m a u r i c e (1933) 14 B Y I L ; S u c h a r i t k u l , S t a t e i m m u n i t i e s and t r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( 1 9 5 9 ) ; S i n c l a i r , 167 Hague R e c u e i l 113 (1980 I I ) ; Badr, S t a t e i m m u n i t y : An a n a l y t i c a l and P r o g n o s t i c view (1984) . The Schooner Exchange v . McFaddon 11 US 7 Cranch, 116, 3 ed 287 (1812) ; C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l a s can be g a t h e r e d from h i s r e a s o n i n g p e r t h e i s s u e o f immunity, r e l i e d on t h e w r i t i n g s of t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y e r a , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f V a t t e l . S e e S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , n. 1, pp. 121-134; I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (2nd e d 1990) v o l pp. 844-845.
4 3 2

O'Connell,

cit.,

S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , n. 1, pp. 51-162; S i n c l a i r , n. 1, pp. 121-134. 23

op.

In thoughts sovereign Justice

fact, and

American c o u r t s were the perhaps to It ruling give is

first to

to express the

their of

t r u e meaning indeed on worth the

doctrine that imperii

5

immunity. Marshall's

noting leges

Chief and order

focused

borrowed h e a v i l y from V a t t e l ' s to understand it to the

j u r i d i c a l philosophy.

In

r e a s o n i n g behind

Justice Marshall's decision, as

i s expedient l a y bare for from the

t h a t a thorough study of the c a s e be done so f o r c e and would not

6

thrust like Let

of i t s a u t h o r i t y and to us be now accused consider of

affects at the cases

thereto, flowers

one a

looking

horseback.

seriatim

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, i t s e f f e c t s and that followed i t s authority.

subsequent

I.

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l and H i s Groundbreaking The Schooner as the Exchange, fons such an et by of every the

Rule estimation modern and law can of be state not be

described immunity. doubted

origo

That been

attribute documented The case

i s proper in the

must of

had

well
7

writings to

modern can be in on of

international
5

lawyers.

alluded

above

A c a r e f u l reading of Chief J u s t i c e Marshall's t h e s i s t h e Schooner Exchange shows c l e a r l y i n p a r t t h a t he r e l i e d V a t t e l ' s thoughts or p h i l o s o p h y r e g a r d i n g the s u b j e c t m a t t e r s o v e r e i g n immunity. See Badr, op. c i t . , p. 12. T h i s i s a Chinese l e s s thorough work.
7 6

s a y i n g regarding

'piecemeal a t t e m p t s '

or

S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . n. 1; S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . ; O'Connell, op. c i t . ; J . Sweeney The International Law of Sovereign Immunity (1963); Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed. (1990) pp. 323-326; Hall, International law (8th ed. 1924). See also generally L a u t e r p a c h t , The problem o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f f o r e i g n 24

related Greetham, libel

thus: the

Two true

American owners of

citizens the

named

McFaddon filed

and a

Schooner

Exchange, of

suit

i n the

United

States

District

Court

Pennsylvania

claiming to the

t h a t , b a s e d on possession of

equitable the

p r i n c i p l e s , t h e y were e n t i t l e d Exchange of and that for they Spain had on

Schooner the port

title

to

i t when 1809;

i t left

Baltimore

October 27, the of s h i p was France,

t h e y s t a t e d f u r t h e r t h a t on the

December 30,

1810,

s e i z e d on in

o r d e r s o f Napoleon, then the of international law,

Emperor due

violation

without In the one

p r o c e s s or p r o p e r F r e n c h p r i z e c o u r t to was a l l these, now the in two partners also in

adjudication. intimated possession that of

addition vessel Dennis a

docked

Philadelphia

Begon.

I t must be p o i n t e d out, not

however, t h a t a t t h i s j u n c t u r e been f o r m a l l y issued against

decree of condemnation had s a i d v e s s e l by pleadings that of the vessel on a the U.S. any local

the

court.

They t h e r e f o r e the Court to the

prayed i n t h e i r take was possession damaged but Mr. of

t h e y be for

a l l o w e d by

restoration seas. at A

since

vessel was for

severely Dallas,

high

process time

issued, the

attorney

that

District

Pennsylvania, inter United driven alia

appeared and that a since public port of

filed

a b r i e f of

suggestion France

stating and had the been be

peace vessel

existed of the

between

States, into

Emperor which in any distress hesitation

the The

Philadelphia without

cannot

attached.

District

Court

dismissed

s t a t e s (1951) 28 B Y I L ; Harvey, Immunity of s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s when engaged i n commercial e n t e r p r i s e : A p r o p o s e d s o l u t i o n , Mich L Rev (1929); Brandon, C o r n e l l Law Q u a r t e r l y , 39 ( 1 9 5 4 ) . 25

the the

libel. Circuit

The

decision,

however,

was

thereafter

reversed

by

Court,

and then a p p e a l e d to the Supreme

Court; the were

i s s u e s t h a t f e l l b e f o r e t h e Supreme Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n as (1) follows: Whether or sued France being a sovereign i n h e r own name c o u n t r y can be court,

impleaded i . e . , U.S.

i n a foreign

courts. (2) Whether based on absolute or could classical arrest suit doctrine of

sovereignty resist (3) Whether

immunity F r a n c e

or p o s s i b l y

i f t h e need be an e x e c u t i o n Napoleon h a v i n g acquired

against her property. title by f o r c e could be

impleaded. Marshall, follows:

"A n a t i o n would j u s t l y be c o n s i d e r e d as v i o l a t i n g i t s faith, a l t h o u g h t h a t f a i t h m i g h t not be e x p r e s s l y plighted, w h i c h s h o u l d s u d d e n l y and w i t h o u t p r e v i o u s n o t i c e , e x e r c i s e i t s t e r r i t o r i a l powers i n a manner n o t consonant t o the u s a g e s and r e c e i v e d o b l i g a t i o n s of t h e c i v i l i z e d world. This full and a b s o l u t e territorial jurisdiction being a l i k e t h e a t t r i b u t e o f e v e r y s o v e r e i g n , and b e i n g i n c a p a b l e o f conferring extra-territorial power, would not seem to contemplate f o r e i g n sovereigns nor t h e i r sovereign r i g h t s as i t s objects. One s o v e r e i g n b e i n g i n no r e s p e c t amenable t o a n o t h e r ; and b e i n g bound by o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e h i g h e s t c h a r a c t e r n o t t o d e g r a d e t h e d i g n i t y o f h i s n a t i o n , by p l a c i n g h i m s e l f o r i t s sovereign r i g h t s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of another, c a n be s u p p o s e d t o e n t e r a f o r e i g n t e r r i t o r y o n l y under an express l i c e n s e , or i n the c o n f i d e n c e t h a t the immunities belonging t o his independent sovereign station, though not expressly s t i p u l a t e d , a r e r e s e r v e d by i m p l i c a t i o n , and w i l l be e x t e n d e d t o him."

Ch.J.

Delivered

the

opinion

of

the

Court

as

He c o n c l u d e d h i s judgment i n t h e f o l l o w i n g words:
" I f the preceding reasoning be c o r r e c t , the Exchange, being a public armed ship, i n t h e s e r v i c e of a foreign s o v e r e i g n , w i t h whom t h e government o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s a t

26

peace, and having entered an American port open for her r e c e p t i o n , on t h e terms on w h i c h s h i p s o f war are generally permitted to e n t e r t h e p o r t s o f a f r i e n d l y power, must be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g come i n t o t h e A m e r i c a n t e r r i t o r y , under an i m p l i e d promise, t h a t w h i l e n e c e s s a r i l y w i t h i n i t , and demeaning h e r s e l f i n a f r i e n d l y manner, she s h o u l d be exempt from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u n t r y . "

II.

A n a l y s i s of C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s There was no lex scripta, i.e.,

Thesis written law, on the when in he the of

question the order

of s t a t e immunity t o g u i d e C h i e f Exchange case was brought confines of

J u s t i c e Marshall before him.

8

Schooner

And

t o keep h i m s e l f w i t h i n t h e behind the on

of reasonableness, the w r i t i n g s of writings of and the

threw h i s e f f o r t s past,
9

authority the

but
1 0

specifically with the

philosophical precepts Hobbes

11

Vattel,

coupled

inherited by

social
12

contract,

cleverly

adumbrated

Rousseau.

I n f a c t , Schooner Exchange v . McFaddon can r i g h t l y be termed the l o c u s c l a s s i c u s or t h e f i r s t o f i t s k i n d t o d e l v e i n t o the j u r i s p r u d e n c e of s o v e r e i g n immunity. And b e f o r e t h i s c a s e was decided t h e r e was no l i t e r a t u r e on t h e s u b j e c t , i . e . , t h e r e was no lex non scripta on t h e s u b j e c t . M a r s h a l l t h e r e f o r e relied on philosophical writings of the past: see Schwarzenberger, Manual of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 4 t h ed. (1960). but i t appears c l e a r l y t h a t S c h w a r z e n b e r g e r got h i s i n f o r m a t i o n from the works of P r o f e s s o r Edwin D. Dickinson, a leading American l e g a l h i s t o r i a n . See s u p r a c h a p t e r one f o r an i n s i g h t i n t o the s t a t i s t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n p r e p a r e d by Dr. D i c k i n s o n . Emmerich de V a t t e l , Le d r o i t des gens, OU, P r i n c i p e s de l a loi n a t u r e l l e , appliques a l a conduite & aux affairs des n a t i o n e s & des s o u v e r a i n s (1758) t r a n s l a t e d by C.G. Fenwick, C l a s s i c s of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1916) 3 v o l s . ; Bynkershoek, De f o r o legatonun appeared i n 1702; and Q u a e s t i o n e s j u r i s p u b l i c i (1737).
1 0 9

V a t t e l , op.

c i t . , n. 9, and p e r h a p s e a r l i e r w r i t e r s . (10 ed. 1964)

pp.

B . R u s s e l l , A H i s t o r y of W e s t e r n P h i l o s o p h y 546-556.
1 2

I b i d . a t pp.

685-701.

27

Perhaps existence

i t

would

have

been

easier

on

him

if

there

was

in

cum

sensu,

i . e . , shared

feeling,

among judges

at that

time s l a n t e d towards a c l a s s i c a l sovereign subject is accorded at absolute

d o c t r i n e , according immunity

to which a of the was time

13

irrespective Justice

matter

issue.

Nevertheless,

Marshall

able to gather to s e t the pace

courage from the p o l i t i c a l f o r the evolution of the

c u l t u r e of h i s d o c t r i n e of

absolute

sovereign

immunity. freedom from domestic predicated upon the judicial will or a

For Marshall, a potentate's control power o f or subjugation court. cannot be

a local

Thus i n c o n s i d e r i n g the immunity of

f o r e i g n s t a t e much depends upon t h e w i l l of the l o c a l i n o t h e r words, t h e a b i l i t y and suit or resist jurisdiction

sovereign, arrest express

freedom of a s o v e r e i g n t o be derived from

1 4

must

the

consent as of can

o f t h e l o c a l s o v e r e i g n and n o t h i n g be gathered from h i s r e a s o n i n g p r e d i c a t e d on was trying

else.

T h i s immunity notion In a that

emanates from the innate superiority. best to postulate

sovereignty Justice

arguably Marshall

sense

his

sovereignty turn gives

entails meaning

e q u a l i t y , independence and to common rather sense that

d i g n i t y which i n equality
1 5

breeds reason

consensus
13

and

courtesy

than

subjection.

The

U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n i n whole or i n p a r t d i d i n f l u e n c e C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s t h e s i s i n t h e Schooner Exchange. See a l s o L a u t e r p a c h t w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s comments on t h i s i s s u e : op. c i t . , n. 7 a t p. 230. The d i g n i t y o f s t a t e s concept seemed t o have come from t h e V i r g i n i a C o n v e n t i o n of 1788. S c h o o n e r Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 US (1812).
1 5 14

7 Cranch 116 3 Ed

287

Ibid. 28

offered

by

Justice

Marshall

i n support

of

the

sovereign's from

w i l l i n g n e s s or consent t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s the general jurisdiction of domestic courts

c a n be s t a t e d a s

follows:
"The world being composed o f d i s t i n c t s o v e r e i g n t i e s , p o s s e s s i n g e q u a l r i g h t s and e q u a l i n d e p e n d e n c e , whose m u t u a l b e n e f i t i s promoted by i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h e a c h o t h e r , a n d b y an i n t e r c h a n g e o f t h e s e good o f f i c e s w h i c h h u m a n i t y d i c t a t e s and i t s wants r e q u i r e , a l l s o v e r e i g n s have c o n s e n t e d t o a r e l a x a t i o n i n p r a c t i c e , i n c a s e s under c e r t a i n p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o f t h a t a b s o l u t e and complete j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t e r r i t o r i e s which s o v e r e i g n t y c o n f e r s . T h i s consent may i n some i n s t a n c e s be t e s t e d b y common usage, and by common o p i n i o n , growing o u t o f t h a t u s a g e . "
1 6

Chief

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s bent

of thinking i n t h i s

respect that

t a k e s us unto a h i g h e r l e v e l o f r e a s o n i n g , the w o r l d different accepted exercising acrimony states,

where he a r g u e s

which i n v o l v e s t h e i n t e r c h a n g e between ambassadors o f states usage. detests Thus an action state not goes i n consonant to the extent that with of

i f a

i t s territorial

powers

i n a manner

generates

and d i s r e p u t e , w i t h o u t then such a state faith

any r e g a r d

t o t h e d i g n i t y of t h e terms stipulated.
1 7

blatantly

violates

o f an His not

i m p l i e d agreement or thesis also tells

not s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e power
1 8

us t h a t

o f one s o v e r e i g n i n logical states have

is

amenable precision obligation

t o another to the idea

sovereign that

which

terms

adds

sovereign

the highest

t o guard a g a i n s t b e i n g

subjected to the j u r i s d i c t i o n

1 6

I b i d . a t p. 136. Ibid. Ibid.

1 7

1 8

29

of

other

s t a t e s . 19 can be

One

important

ingredient

of

Marshall's

reasoning endeavour

l i k e n e d unto t h e to protect their

proposition dignity

t h a t s t a t e s must being damaged.

always

from

T h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t the law of immunities of states i n h i s days, a l t h o u g h not r e s e r v e d by c l e a r l y or s p e c i f i c a l l y i m p l i c a t i o n and stated

i n s t a t u t e books, was be r e s p e c t e d The

t h e r e f o r e must
2 0

so a s t o promote c o m i t y among s t a t e s . of the reasoning behind

foundation

the

Schooner

Exchange i s t h a t t h e the of context of an

essence

of s o v e r e i g n t y

must be

seen w i t h i n spheres supreme laws

independent or

s t a t e ' s supremacy i n i t s and given the innate

operation, of the

putative

real,

license but

s t a t e , i t cannot be uti. the has

2 1

subjected

t o any

other

i t s own, is

suis legibus in

Technically, therefore, a state eyes of the world is ipso iure

which

independent and

sovereign in local

logically which the

overall authority to Chief

suprema Justice

potestas Marshall the

matters, to

according of

gives

support

allowance states. with not

2 2

immunity t o is of an

s t a t e s from element for of

j u r i s d i c t i o n of other and truism associated

There line

logic an

his

thought

such

approach w i l l but which

19

certainly

v i o l a t e sovereign intercourse had been and

r i g h t s of s t a t e s natural into equality, juridical

rather two

enhance centuries

mutual earlier

introduced

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 30

20

21

22

philosophy

by

Thomas Hobbes.

23

In r e a l i t y ,

however,

exemptions from gives

from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a domestic c o u r t a r e t r u l y d e r i v e d the concept of suprema potestas which by i t s very nature

consent to the

express

or i m p l i e d based on l o c a l a u t h o r i t y i n doctrine the of equality of states

deference upon the of

accepted of

necessity

promoting

needed

indispensable

ingredient

comity and good w i l l among n a t i o n s . Without opinio doubt to there i s certainly relative an element of communis the

doctorum

support

sovereignty,
24

i.e.,

l i m i t a t i o n o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law on s o v e r e i g n power, seems c l e a r the said t h a t a t the time t h a t C h i e f judgment, of the idea of Justice

however, i t wrote its

Marshall power and

sovereign and

attributes had

absoluteness, eclipsed the

inalienability precepts power.

25

indivisibility law no been

totally

of There

international was therefore had

limitation evidence at

upon that

sovereign historical

epoch whereby

any
2 6

nation

s u b j e c t e d t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a n o t h e r s t a t e . to the decision he handed down in the

However, p r i o r Exchange, i t

Schooner

Law The

E d w i n D i c k i n s o n , The E q u a l i t y o f S t a t e s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l (1920) pp. 69-89. See a l s o Thomas Hobbes c l a s s i c a l works, L e v i a t h a n , ed. by A.K. W a l l e r , Cambridge, 1904.
24

23

K o r o w i c z , R e c e u i l des Cours

(1961

1) pp.

27-29. trans, by Dickenson,

S e e Bodin, The S i x Books of R i c h a r d K n o l l e s , London (1606). See op. c i t .

2 6

25

a Commonweal, also generally

T h i s i s an i m p l i c i t p r o p o s i t i o n , f o r e v e r y t r e a t i s e on i n t e r n a t i o n a l law d i d mention the Schooner Exchange a s t h e Fons et origo on t h e s u b j e c t . See B r i g g s , The Law o f N a t i o n s (2nd ed. 1962) p. 413. 31

would appear t h a t " M a r s h a l l C . J . h i m s e l f i n 1788 i n t h e debates preceding to the adoption of the V i r g i n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n had a p p l i e d that he was t o

the s t a t e s

o f t h e Union

t h e same d o c t r i n e
2 7

apply l a t e r t o f o r e i g n This writings

states."

shows c l e a r l y of e a r l y

t h a t n o t o n l y was he i n f l u e n c e d by t h e on sovereignty and t h e w r i t i n g s o f

writers

classical international influenced affective debates, If have by American

l a w s c h o l a r s b u t was t o some e x t e n t a l s o political culture and possibly an

c o g n i t i o n o f t h e dynamics and more i m p o r t a n t l y , this be true, other then way

o f American C o n s t i t u t i o n a l
2 8

t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n . Chief Justice of Marshall

c o u l d not of t h e

ruled

any

i n view

the influence

Revolutionary e r a coupled i n England

with the popular

maxim commonly known

29

and A m e r i c a , t h a t t h e K i n g

c a n do no wrong. thus:

I t was

t h e r e f o r e n o t a s u r p r i s e a t a l l when he r e a s o n e d
"In precedents r e l y much founded on

e x p l o r i n g an u n b e a t e n p a t h , w i t h few, i f any from o r w r i t t e n law, t h e c o u r t h a s found i t n e c e s s a r y t o on g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s and on a t r a i n o f r e a s o n i n g , c a s e s i n some d e g r e e a n a l o g o u s t o t h i s .

The j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c o u r t s i s a b r a n c h o f what w h i c h i s p o s s e s s e d by t h e n a t i o n a s an i n d e p e n d e n t s o v e r e i g n power. The j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y i s n e c e s s a r i l y e x c l u s i v e and a b s o l u t e . I t i s s u s c e p t i b l e o f no l i m i t a t i o n n o t imposed by i t s e l f . Any r e s t r i c t i o n upon i t , deriving validity from an e x t e r n a l source would imply a

0'Connell, n. 7, p. 230.
2 8

2 7

op. c i t . , n. 3, p. 844; L a u t e r p a c h t ,

op. c i t . ,

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t .

S e e R. D o r s e y W a t k i n s , The s t a t e a s a p a r t y l i t i g a n t (Johns Hopkins, 1927), chapters 1, 11, 12; L . Van Praag, J u r i s d i c t i o n e t D r o i t I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i c (1915); s e e a l s o the Supplement ( 1 9 3 5 ) . 32

29

d i m i n u t i o n of i t s s o v e r e i g n t y to the e x t e n t o f t h e r e s t r i c t i o n , and an i n v e s t m e n t o f t h a t s o v e r e i g n t y t o t h e same e x t e n t i n t h a t power which c o u l d impose such r e s t r i c t i o n . A l l e x c e p t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e , to the f u l l and c o m p l e t e power of a n a t i o n w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r i e s must be t r a c e d up t o t h e consent of the nation itself. They flow from no other legitimate source.
3 0

There proposition be semantic

is

inherent

in

the

above

contention be

clever to

of a b s o l u t e as

immunity which must not other than

mistaken to

t o mean a n y t h i n g

a quest

offer a a

cogent e x p l a n a t i o n t o support

the reason why

j u r i s d i c t i o n over

f o r e i g n s t a t e be d e c l i n e d or waived. True, M a r s h a l l ' s argument can be c o n s t r u e d M a x i m j u r i s d i c t i o inhaeret, habet judicium. to f a l l cohaeret in line

w i t h the Roman Law par in parem non

imperio the

Essentially,

however,

overall

t h r u s t o f h i s argument i n the

Schooner Exchange, be i t the

t h e o r e t i c a l or p r a c t i c a l ,

seemed to f o l l o w t h e p r a c t i c e of

"time when most s t a t e s were r u l e d by p e r s o n s o v e r e i g n s who, i n a v e r y r e a l s e n s e , p e r s o n i f i e d the s t a t e . . . . I n such a period, i n f l u e n c e d by t h e s u r v i v a l of the p r i n c i p l e of f e u d a l i s m , the e x e r c i s e of a u t h o r i t y on the p a r t of one s o v e r e i g n o v e r a n o t h e r i n e v i t a b l y i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r the s u p e r i o r i t y o f o v e r l o r d s h i p o r t h e a c t i v e h o s t i l i t y o f an e q u a l . The p e a c e f u l i n t e r c o u r s e o f s t a t e s c o u l d be p r e d i c a t e d o n l y on t h e b a s i s of r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r s o v e r e i g n s . . . ."
31

As regards

fundamental

point

of

departure,

i t would

appear

as

s t a t e p r a c t i c e t h a t a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n immunity p e r s i s t s judgment time.

today b e c a u s e of C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s w e l l r e a s o n e d w h i c h seems to have found favour w i t h many j u d g e s of h i s

30

(1812)

7 C r a n c h 116.

p.136-137. Courts

in

H a r v a r d r e s e a r c h d r a f t Convention on Competence of Regard t o F o r e i g n S t a t e s (1932) a r t i c l e 7, p. 527. 33

31

Again,

Marshall's

deference

for

the

supremacy

of

the

s o v e r e i g n i s e x e m p l i f i e d when he

s t a t e d c l e a r l y as f o l l o w s :

" E q u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e i s i t t o c o n c e i v e , w h a t e v e r may be the construction as to private ships, that a prince who s t i p u l a t e s a p a s s a g e f o r h i s t r o o p s o r an a s y l u m f o r h i s s h i p s of war i n d i s t r e s s , s h o u l d mean t o s u b j e c t h i s army or h i s navy t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n . And i f t h i s c a n n o t be presumed, t h e s o v e r e i g n o f t h e p o r t must be c o n s i d e r e d a s h a v i n g c o n c e d e d t h e p r i v i l e g e t o t h e e x t e n t i n w h i c h i t must have been u n d e r s t o o d t o a s k . "
3 2

In

short,

i t can

be

argued

that

the

principle

of

waiver

on of

b e h a l f of a f o r e i g n s t a t e i s presumed a s " g i v e n " i n the l i g h t the a c c e p t e d

l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l usage of g i v e and t a k e i n o r d e r But t h i s power discretion of of can and

to a v o i d a s p e c t r e of d i s r e p u t e o r t e n s i o n . waiver of j u r i s d i c t i o n can a l s o be denied

a t the

the r e c e i v i n g s o v e r e i g n . easily be relegated to

Thus t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s t a t e d above the background

3 3

based

on

the

whims

c a p r i c e s of t h e l o c a l Strictly postulate that

sovereign.

speaking, Justice three

therefore, Marshall's

one thesis

can in to

appropriately the Schooner

Exchange e n t a i l s

interrelated and the

exceptions

the e x e r c i s e

of t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , (1) The exemption of

these exceptions person of the

are: sovereign
3 4

from

a r r e s t or detention w i t h i n a f o r e i g n (2) The immunity

3 5

territory.

which

a l l civilized

nations

allow

to

foreign m i n i s t e r s .
32

S c h o o n e r Exchange v . McFaddon 11 US Ibid. I b i d . a t p. I b i d . a t p. 137. 138. 34

7 Cranch

(1812).

3 3

3 4

3 5

(3)

The

cession i s where

of he

portion

of

his of

territorial a foreign

jurisdiction

a l l o w s the
36

troops

p r i n c e t o p a s s through These principles i f put

h i s dominions. offer

together

an

enlightened

theory

t h a t t h e s o u r c e of i m m u n i t i e s functionaries international Thus, nature agents Thus, of s t a t e s and

enjoyed by i n t e r n a t i o n a l s o v e r e i g n s stem from t h e the in territory principle to they are

political legal and

3 7

p e r s o n a l i t y of immunities

represent.

diplomatic and are

derivative or

in

t h e r e f o r e granted

ambassadors

diplomatic state. of
3 8

because every

t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a r e c o g n i s e d state, must be small accorded perhaps or the big, irrespective and

the

circumstances respect.

same j u r i d i c a l before

natural handed

These

ideas

existed

Marshall

down h i s famous d e c i s i o n , however, i t would not have been shaped into municipal other municipal law i f c o u n t r i e s of the world, had challenged facie, concept the of the and particularly the

courts,

a u t h o r i t y of of

Schooner decision states, to

Exchange. was based on

Prima the

heart

Marshall's immunity of

absolute But

i f not more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of i t . that he never envisaged

i t i s plausible will carry

3 9

argue

his thesis

much

weight

i n t o t h e 20th c e n t u r y as t o c r e a t e u n c e r t a i n t i e s .

3 6

I b i d . a t p.

139. cit., n. 1, p. Report on 24. Diplomatic Immunity

3 7

S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. Ibid., ICLQ. Michael

3 8

Brandon,

(1952)
39

Schreuer, State immunity, some developments (1988); F e l l e r , Procedure i n C a s e s I n v o l v i n g Immunity of F o r e i g n S t a t e s i n C o u r t s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (1931) 25 Am J . I n t L. Pugh and 35

Dr. Badr i n h i s i n t e r e s t i n g and that

"The Schooner Exchange can be

i l l u m i n a t i n g book d e c l a r e d
rightly said t o be the harbinger the

of the r e s t r i c t i v e

t h e o r y of immunity r a t h e r t h a n , theory."
4 0

a s commonly m a i n t a i n e d ,

s t a r t i n g p o i n t of a b s o l u t e

He

further stated that,

" I t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the said early decisions did distinguish, a s we already pointed out, between a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n ' s p u b l i c a c t s on t h e one hand and h i s p r i v a t e a c t s on t h e o t h e r , s t a t i n g i n no u n c e r t a i n terms t h a t the l a t t e r e n j o y e d no immunity f r o m t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e local courts. The c o n t i n u e d c i t a t i o n o f t h e s e e a r l y d e c i s i o n s i n support of t h e a b s o l u t e t h e o r y o f s t a t e immunity i s t h e r e f o r e a c u r i o u s phenomenon, due p e r h a p s t o a h a s t y p e r u s a l o f t h o s e d e c i s i o n s o r t o second-hand knowledge o f them."''
1

Although

Dr.

Badr' s

contention

in

this

light

is

well that

taken, I would beg

to d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t to h i s statement rightly said t o be the

"the Schooner Exchange can be of the a restrictive statement theory is too of

harbinger that

immunity." and

I t i s submitted not

such

dramatic

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a r g u a b l y got h i s S i r Ian Sinclair

Marshall's t h e s i s .

Dr.

Badr, i t would appear,

i n s p i r a t i o n from a p a s s i n g argument o f f e r e d by

McLaughlin, J u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f f o r e i g n s t a t e s 41 NYUL Rev 25 (1966); C a r l , F o r e i g n governments i n A m e r i c a n c o u r t s : The U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t i n p r a c t i c e , Southwestern L J 33 (197 9 ) ; S o r n a r a j a h , Problems i n a p p l y i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y of s o v e r e i g n immunity (1982) 31 ICLQ 664; Fox, Enforcement jurisdiction, foreign state property and d i p l o m a t i c immunity 34 (1985) ICLQ; H i g g i n s , C e r t a i n u n r e s o l v e d a s p e c t s of the law o f s t a t e immunity 29 (1982) NILR; Brower, L i t i g a t i o n of s o v e r e i g n immunity b e f o r e a s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body and the department o f S t a t e : t h e J a p a n e s e Uranium Tax Case 72 (1977) A J I L ; M a r k e s i n i s , The changing law o f sovereign immunity 36 (1977) Cambridge Law J o u r n a l .
40

B a d r , op.

cit.,

n. 1, p.

13.

4 1

I b i d . a t pp.

18-19. 36

in

h i s general to on

course that

i n 1980 . such a

42

With t h e g r e a t e s t r e s p e c t , I position be i s i n error and t h e

venture flowers

state

t h e way

will

soon

so b e a u t i f u l

as to e n t i c e

s c h o l a r s who f o l l o w t h e s a i d r e a s o n i n g t o pause and dismount f o r a more c a r e f u l r e a p p r a i s a l o f t h e Schooner Exchange. that I t i s true

t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e Schooner Exchange can be s u b j e c t e d t o interpretations the cardinal the r e a l i t i e s but one must be careful not t o Thus to

different overlook unveil

principles behind

o f t h e judgment. of Chief by of

the reasoning

Justice

Marshall, seemingly immunity.

43

i t i s apposite growing

not t o be of

seduced

the c u r r e n t restrictive

acceptance

the doctrine a dense

For there with

i s always

f o g of m y s t i f i c a t i o n by M a r s h a l l with

associated

the semantic

approach

taken

r e s p e c t t o h i s s a g a c i o u s r e a s o n i n g i n the s a i d c a s e and t h i s h a s given b i r t h his decision As but to occasional radical

4 4

o r dramatic

interpretation of

t o mean many t h i n g s . court, two

we a l l know t h e c a s e was r e v e r s e d i n t h e c i r c u i t on a p p e a l , could and t h e main possibly issue a

affirmed

was =whether foreign

American state

citizens

implead

sovereign

before

U.S. c o u r t s

and t h e answer t h a t was o f f e r e d gave derived every other

deference

t o t h e a b s o l u t e immunity o f France c a r e f u l l y , thought i n support of t h e n o t i o n i s equal

from m e t a j u r i d i c a l state, small

that

o r b i g , weak o r s t r o n g ,

to every

4 2

Sinclair,

op. c i t . ,

n. 1, p. 122.

4 3

I b i d . a t pp. 197-217. B a d r , op. c i t . , pp. 17-18. 37

44

nation

i n the s o c i e t y of n a t i o n s .

4 5

This

I b e l i e v e might

have

prompted P r o f e s s o r O'Connell t o c o n c l u d e a s f o l l o w s :
"from this theory the deduction i s made that a l l s o v e r e i g n s b e i n g e q u a l no one o f them c a n be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e jurisdiction of another without surrendering a fundamental right. T h i s view r e f l e c t s t h e d o c t r i n e w h i c h d e v e l o p e d from Bodin through t o A u s t i n and H e g e l t h a t t h e l a w i s t h e c r e a t u r e of s o v e r e i g n t y and t h a t a s between e q u a l s t h e r e c a n o n l y be consensus, not s u b j e c t i o n . "
1 1 6

These i d e a s i n due c o u r s e absolute contend and a

influenced other
4 7

courts

to follow the be u n f a i r t o Frederik,

4 8

immunity d o c t r i n e . that Lord Stowell's

I t will reasoning

certainly

i n the Prins be t a k e n

many o t h e r s who f o l l o w e d hasty perusal and a

him t o d a t e ,

to represent

secondhand

knowledge

o f t h e Schooner immunity was t h e of France

Exchange. main r e a s o n and

In fact

the d o c t r i n e

of absolute to rule recently. Dr. Badr

which prompted M a r s h a l l

i n favour
4 9

i t has remained supreme u n t i l that the contention by

I t i s therefore that t h e Schooner than t h e

submitted

Exchange gave b i r t h absolute

to the r e s t r i c t i v e

theory

rather

immunity d o c t r i n e

i s n o t h e l p f u l and t h e r e f o r e must be runs counter in his

r e l e g a t e d t o t h e background f o r h i s p o s i t i o n s i m p l y
45

S e e the a n a l y s i s o f f e r e d by C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l c e l e b r a t e d r u l i n g i n t h e Schooner Exchange v . McFaddon.

46

0 ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . , p. 842.

T h e P r i n s F r e d e r i k (1820) 2 Dods 451; The P a r l e m e n t B e i g e (1880) 5 PD 197; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; s e e g e n e r a l l y S t r o u s b e r g v. R e p u b l i c o f C o s t a R i c a (1880) 44 LT; Manning v . S t a t e o f Nicaragua, 14 How P r 517 ( 1 8 5 7 ) ; H a s s a r d v . Mexico, 29 M i s c NY 511 (1899); De Haber v . Queen o f P o r t u g a l (1851) 17 QB 171.
48

47

The Prins F r e d e r i k

(1820) 2 Dods 451.

"Sinclair,

op. c i t . , n. 1, pp. 146-196. 38

to

every

scholar

who

had w r i t t e n

on t h e s u b j e c t . dicta

Perhaps

he

misconstrued Exchange

J u s t i c e Marshall's t h e main

orbiter issue

i n t h e Schooner Obviously-

to represent

of the case.

s u c h a p o s i t i o n i s ex-facie

erroneous.

Ill.

Factors that Influenced Chief J u s t i c e Marshall's Before J u s t i c e Marshall decision, lex

5 0

Decision cited and

handed scripta

down with

h i s most regard

celebrated immunity

non By

to

absolute that the

never

existed.

implication

i t appears

international along the way

law p r i n c i p l e s of diplomatic might have influenced

5 1

i m m u n i t i e s somewhere of the

t h e development Thus, i n view

doctrine sensu of as

of immunities

of s t a t e s .

of t h e cum the b i r t h i n so f a r

as regards

diplomatic

i m m u n i t i e s among judges,

s t a t e immunity was i n e v i t a b l e and not by a c c i d e n t the l e g a l p o s i t i o n of t h e d i p l o m a t i c state. behind Marshall's decision

agent i s d e r i v a t i v e o f

the s o v e r e i g n The predicated (1) That of

philosophy

can

be

on t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : s t a t e immunity can be t r a c e d t o t h e Roman law maxim inhaeret, cohaeret, adhaeret imperio par

jurisdiction

in parem (2)

non habet

judicium. t h e a c t i v e h o s t i l i t y o f an
5 2

That i t i s expedient t o prevent equal i n order

t o promote p e a c e f u l c o e x i s t e n c e o f s t a t e s .

S u c h a r i t k u l , Immunities of f o r e i g n s t a t e s before n a t i o n a l authorities, 149 Hague Recueil (1976 1) . See g e n e r a l l y S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , n. 1.

5 1

5 0

Sucharitkul,

op. c i t . , n. 1, pp. 24-50. (1812) pp. 136-132.

52

S c h o o n e r Exchange v. McFaddon 1 C r a n c h 39

(3)

That

the p r i n c i p l e of e q u a l i t y law, t h e s t a t e was t h e r e f o r e of

of s t a t e s and

i s grounded

on

natural Marshall and (4)

nature

natural

equality.

i n f l u e n c e d by b o t h Vattel.
5 j

the n a t u r a l i s t s

the e c l e c t i c s , p a r t i c u l a r l y

That t h e p o l i t i c a l c u l t u r e o f h i s c o u n t r y , and when the fact the t h a t t h e U.S. was o n l y Exchange to follow at came state

i . e . , t h e U.S., years old,

thirty-six up for

Schooner Marshall

adjudication i n order to

prompted avoid

immunity

serious

disputes

diplomatic

level that

(see the o f Hamilton

position

of the F e d e r a l i s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y 81]).
5 4

[ F e d e r a l i s t paper No. (5) That

t h e w r i t i n g s o f e a r l y w r i t e r s on influenced Marshall o f ipso

sovereignty

(i.e., i n the with

superanus) light

cannot be d i s p u t e d , iure sovereign

o f the concept

coupled

t h a t o f suprema (6)

potestas. i s noteworthy an i n d i v i d u a l

That t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n can be seen i n terms o f t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t

cannot sue a s o v e r e i g n

w i t h o u t i t s c o n s e n t , e.g., t h e 1 1 t h (1798),
5 5

Amendment of t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n

See a l s o H i c k s , American J I L (1908), 11, 530-561; The r u l i n g i n M i g h e l l v. S u l t a n of Johore, LR (1894) 1 QB, 149 i s a p p r o p r i a t e or i n o r d e r s i n c e i t l a i d emphasis on e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s p e r t h e question of j u r i s d i c t i o n . " E m e r i c k de V a t t e l , Le d r o i t des g e r s VII.
54

(1758) Book I V , Chap.

Papers

S e e t h e c l a s s i c American l i t e r a t u r e (1981), No. 81 by Hamilton. (1793) 2 D a l l , 419. 40

of

the F e d e r a l i s t

" C h i s h o l m v. Georgia

(7)

That

h i s background

as

diplomat,

S e c r e t a r y of approach.

State

and a lawmaker m i g h t have i n f l u e n c e d h i s

IV.

The

I n f l u e n c e of

Justice

Marshall's

Judgment

on

English

Courts A. E n g l i s h C o u r t s and t h e S o v e r e i g n Immunity Q u e s t i o n Eight years after the decision i n the Schooner Exchange,

an E n g l i s h C o u r t a l s o had question Frederik, of

5 6

i t s first

o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e a l w i t h the i n t h e c a s e of The Prins

jurisdictional

immunities

t h e r e a p u b l i c w a r s h i p l a w f u l l y owned by the King of embarked on on board a voyage from t h e c o a s t of B a t a v i a cargo of s p i c e s and other valuable

the Netherlands to Texel, goods. the

carrying

During

t h e c o u r s e o f t h e j o u r n e y i t s u f f e r e d damage o f f of Scillies by who and t h e r e f o r e was brought to an

rough

waters

English port the British The

for respite brig Court Howe

t h e h e l p of the m a s t e r by an implied

and crew of claimed issue

authority

salvage.

o f A d m i r a l t y t h u s was jurisdiction of the King

f a c e d w i t h the

a s t o whether i t had against the property by of the

t o d e c i d e a c l a i m of s a l v a g e of N e t h e r l a n d s . Having been and the very

influenced writings interesting given up

a u t h o r i t y of the

the

Schooner litigation

Exchange

Bynkershoek,

produced

arguments a s t o whether t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n be individual acquisition and this as a matter of

for

l o g i c was as sacra,

t a k e n i n t o a s e m a n t i c domain, religiosa publicapublicis

c h a r a c t e r i s i n g the s h i p usibus destinata, and

5 6

(18 2 0 ) 2 D o c t s .

451. 41

therefore claims men, and

totally

out

of r e a c h

of p r i v a t e r i g h t s and

individual of

t h a t i f a l l o w e d to f a l l w i t h i n be diverted from i t s p u b l i c

the p r i v a t e r i g h t s
5 7

will

use.

Although

clear state Sir the from was Dr.

determination with was not

respect

to the d o c t r i n e at least, to to
5 8

of immunity o f the refusal a ruling by on

specifically Scott of (later

stated, Lord

William question Chief

Stowell)

give

jurisdiction Marshall's

appeared thesis.

take The But

i t s authority case, however,

Justice

r e f e r r e d to a r b i t r a t i o n f o r s e t t l e m e n t . Arnold,
5 9

the argument o f

on b e h a l f

of the A d m i r a l t y C o u r t i n s u p p o r t o f

absolute immunity

immunity, t h u s l a i d the groundwork f o r the a l l o w a n c e o f i n the Parlement B e i g e . one

60

Admittedly, followed the

can

clearly

see

that

the

said

groundwork in 1812

principle laid

down by

Justice Marshall

when he o b s e r v e d t h a t
"a . c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n i s to be drawn between t h e r i g h t s a c c o r d e d t o p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s or p r i v a t e t r a d i n g v e s s e l s , and t h o s e a c c o r d e d t o p u b l i c armed s h i p s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e a p a r t o f t h e m i l i t a r y f o r c e of the n a t i o n . I t seems, t h e n , t o t h e C o u r t , t o be a p r i n c i p l e of p u b l i c law, t h a t n a t i o n a l s h i p s o f war, e n t e r i n g t h e p o r t of a f r i e n d l y power open f o r t h e i r r e c e p t i o n , a r e to be c o n s i d e r e d as exempted by t h e c o n s e n t o f t h a t power from i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . "
6 1

5 7

A t p.

468. c t . , p. 844. 123.

58

S e e O ' C o n n e l l , op. Sinclair, op.

5 9

c i t . , n. 1, p. 197. 116. 42

6 0

(1880) LR 5 PD (1812) 7 C r a n c h

6 1

The Exchange

logical thesis

power

of

reasoning crossed

behind

the

Schooner unto t h e

apparently Isles
6 2

thus

the A t l a n t i c

shores of t h e B r i t i s h reasonableness. good working

b e c a u s e o f i t s p o s i t i v e a p p e a l and

I t t h e r e f o r e gave m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n England a a s t o how

63

tool

t o shape

t h e development

of the

doctrine of s t a t e immunity. that an attempt towards was made

I t i s worth p o i n t i n g out, however, by Phillimore J . to derail of this state

movement

the establishment
64

of the doctrine

immunity i n E n g l a n d . man with by

A l t h o u g h he took a p o s i t i o n worthy o f a h i s efforts, in the however, were

65

conviction, Brett LJ

defeated A

on

appeal

Parlement

Beige.

similar Campbell and

preference in

f o r absolute

immunity was promoted by L o r d

6 6

De Haber v . Queen

of Portugal

i n a positive

response

support

of S i r W i l l i a m S c o t t ' s approach i n the P r i n s F r e d e r i c k . Phillimore J . , to contest i n t h e case of the C h a r k i e h , t h e l e g i t i m a c y behind

6 7

Again, another

made

attempt

the absolute

s o v e r e i g n t y d o c t r i n e by e s p o u s i n g There, a vessel because owned by

t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity r u l e . o f Egypt was refused was not Beige

t h e Khedive

immunity
62

of the contention Frederik (1820) 2

that Dods;

the prince

(1880)

The P r i n s 5 PD 197.

The Parlement

cit.,

" S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , n. a t pp. 847-853.

6 4

1,

pp.

121-127;

O'Connell,

op.

1 8 8 0 LR 5 PD 197. Ibid. ( 1 8 5 1 ) 17 QB 171 a t pp. 212-213. 1 8 7 3 LR 4 and E 59. 43

6 5

66

67

endowed w i t h time thus: in

sovereign

power as J's

to be

a c c o r d e d immunity a t can be

the

issue.

Phillimore

famous p o s i t i o n

stated

"No p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, and no d e c i d e d c a s e , and no d i c t u m o f j u r i s t s of which I am aware, has gone so f a r a s to a u t h o r i z e a sovereign p r i n c e to assume the c h a r a c t e r o f a t r a d e r , when i t i s f o r h i s b e n e f i t ; and when he incurs an o b l i g a t i o n t o a p r i v a t e s u b j e c t to throw o f f , i f I may so speak, h i s d i s g u i s e , and a p p e a r as a s o v e r e i g n , claiming for h i s own b e n e f i t , and t o t h e i n j u r y of a p r i v a t e p e r s o n , f o r t h e first t i m e , a l l t h e a t t r i b u t e s of h i s c h a r a c t e r . "
6 8

Furthermore, absolute the

an

authoritative law

expression i n the

of

the

rule case

of of

immunity i n E n g l i s h Beige took a in bold

occurs as in

classic stated

Parlement J

which step

already denying

elsewhere to a mail

Phillimore

immunity

p a c k e t l e g i t i m a t e l y owned by the B e l g i a n by the commissioned s e r v a n t s of the

K i n g and

duly o f f i c e r e d the ground acts

Belgian the

Navy on

that

i t somewhat took i t s e l f domain of was

outside

domain of On appeal of

public

i n t o the J

commercial a c t i v i t y .
6 9

Phillimore's independence,

decision

reversed

on

the

strength

d i g n i t y and

comity o f s t a t e s as

follows:

"The p r i n c i p l e t o be deduced from a l l t h e s e cases is t h a t , a s a c o n s e q u e n c e of the a b s o l u t e independence o f e v e r y sovereign authority, and of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l comity which induces every sovereign s t a t e to r e s p e c t the i n d e p e n d e n c e and d i g n i t y o f e v e r y o t h e r s t a t e , each and e v e r y one d e c l i n e s to exercise by means of i t s courts any of its territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p e r s o n of any s o v e r e i g n o r ambassador o f any o t h e r s t a t e , o r o v e r the p u b l i c p r o p e r t y o f any s t a t e w h i c h is destined to public use, or over the property of any ambassador, though s u c h s o v e r e i g n ambassador or p r o p e r t y be

A t pp.

99-100. 5 PD 197. 44

( 1 8 8 0 ) LR

w i t h i n i t s t e r r i t o r y and t h e r e f o r e , subject to j u r i s d i c t i o n . "

7 0

but

f o r the

common agreement

Thus, which ships

Parlement immunity with truly

Beige to

established

forceful inter

precedent lia public the

extends

warships

including

associated not

public delve

activities. into specific

Technically, questions

decision did

regarding and effect notice

trading a c t i v i t i e s thereto. But

coupled with the

i t s public character of the decision

arguably

kernel

gave

w i t h r e s p e c t t o the a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e Prior to B r e t t LJ's d e c i s i o n was somewhat an uncertainty to the

7 1

r u l e of s t a t e immunity. Parlement Beige, of how to of deal a of there with

i n the respect of the

in

issues

relating

exemption

property

foreign Duke of to

power from a Brunswick v. exercise

local

jurisdiction.
72

Thus i n the

case

King of Hanover, in dealing

the

House of L o r d s took p a i n s the issues in the

caution

with

following

f o r m u l a t e d manner p e r L o r d Cottenham LC.

" T h a t a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n coming i n t o t h i s c o u n t r y c a n n o t be made r e s p o n s i b l e h e r e f o r an a c t done i n h i s sovereign c h a r a c t e r i n h i s own c o u n t r y ; w h e t h e r i t be an a c t r i g h t o r wrong, whether a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h a t c o u n t r y or not, t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s c o u n t r y c a n n o t s i t i n judgment upon an act of a sovereign, effected by virtue of his sovereign a u t h o r i t y abroad, an a c t not done a s a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t , but supposed t o be done i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f h i s a u t h o r i t y v e s t e d i n him as s o v e r e i g n . "
1 3

70

A t pp.

214-215 per B r e t t L J . op. 171. 212-213. 45 c i t . , n. 1, a t pp. 56-57.

7 1

Sucharitkul, 1851 17 QB I b i d . , pp.

72

7 3

The

House

of

Lords'

attempt

to

follow

implicitly

the

thesis a

presented clear

i n the

Schooner Exchange of i t s d e f e r e n c e

i s amply demonstrated by

illustration

f o r s o v e r e i g n power and i t s

a t t r i b u t e s of d i g n i t y and e q u a l i t y . E n g l i s h c a s e law shows t h a t the Porto A l e x a n d r e final onward march to a complete acceptance immunity of when the in English in law. The
75 74

marks t h e of the well the his

of the other Beige

doctrine words, became

absolute influence grounded reasoning colleagues reasoning. ship 1917, of was as

In

judgment J,

Parlement himself

Hill

declared

totally

bound
7 6

by And

behind

i t s absolute

immunity

doctrine. on appeal

i n v i e w of o t h e r
7 7

authorities Alexandre, by the

followed h i s owned in

I n the

Porto

a German p r i v a t e l y Portuguese But p r i o r i t had prize

lawfully totally court

adjudged

court

condemned i n v a l u e . intimated that

to the d e c i s i o n earlier only on to been be

the

i t was by the

requisitioned

Portuguese

government

relinquished later,

and had

s i n c e then been i n v o l v e d e x c l u s i v e l y A w r i t i n rem was f i l e d a g a i n s t the the thus

i n commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s . s h i p , but case, Hill J , although

exposed to some doubts r e g a r d i n g by setting aside the writ,

declined

jurisdiction

e m b r a c i n g an a b s o l u t e view of immunity on the q u e s t i o n of p u b l i c

7 4

(19 2 0) p. Sinclair, (1920) p. (1920)

30. op. 30. cit., n. 1 a t p. 126.

7 5

7 6

7 7

P a t 34 p e r Bankes L . J . 46

ships.

7 8

L e t us

now

turn

to

the

consideration of Europe.

of

an

aspect

of

early jurisprudence

on the c o n t i n e n t

V.

Civil It

Law

Countries to ever say

and

the S o v e r e i g n the

Immunity Q u e s t i o n thesis of Chief civil

i s hard

whether

classical into the

Justice Marshall law

found i t s way

p r a c t i c e of

c o u n t r i e s , but these

i t a p p e a r s somehow t h a t i t s p h i l o s o p h y might food for thought.

79

have g i v e n is

countries

This

contention the

b e i n g made b e c a u s e w h i l e of stare up to laws. decisis, the

80

common law civil law of

countries countries, the

adhere t o on the system

principle hand,

other for

look

authority

codified

shaping t h e i r

Precedent t h e r e f o r e does not the development of m u n i c i p a l O r i g i n a l l y French immunity Cessation and this
82

play

any

considerable law

role in
8 1

laws i n c i v i l followed the

countries.

courts

d o c t r i n e of by the

absolute Cour de v.

was

clearly

enunciated later case

i n 1849.

However, i n a

of C h a l i a p i n e

7 8

(1920) P a t p.

31.

Government E s p a g n o l v. C a s a u x , 22 Jan., 1849 Dalloz; H e l l f e d Case (1910) Z e i t c h r i f t f u r I n t e r n a t i o n a l e s R e c h t v o l . 20. See g e n e r a l l y H a r v a r d R e s e a r c h D r a f t a t p. 620; M i l i t a r Liquidierungsamt (1922) Weekblad No. 10928; German I m m u n i t i e s i n Poland Case, S Ct 31.8.1938 C l u n e t 66 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . S e e Lawson and u n i n t e n t i o n a l harm i n (1982).
8 1 80

79

Markesinis, t h e common

1 tortious law and the

liability for civil law 19

I b i d . ; S.A. B a y i t c h , C o d i f i c a t i o n i n Modern Times, i n C i v i l Law i n the Modern World (ed. A.N. Y i a n n a p o u l o s ) , Baton Rouge, L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ( 1 9 6 5 ) .
8 2

2 2 Jan

(1849) D a l l o z ,

1849, 47

n.

5.

USSR,

83

the

Court

of C a s s a t i o n to an

was

quick

i n denying a p l e a of

for

immunity w i t h Again Export, a in

8 4

respect de

action USSR

f o r a breach v.

copyright. of France

Societe the French

Gostorget

Association

c o u r t r u l e d t h a t a s t a t e owned e n t e r p r i s e or be accorded immunity. France time the

85

state

i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y cannot

t h e r e f o r e a d o p t e d the p r a c t i c e o f a b s o l u t e and restrictive immunity a t o t h e r restrictive between

86

immunity a t one

t i m e s , but i t appears t h a t i s w e l l nigh of

move t o w a r d s Holland and

the

doctrine the In

complete.

i s torn

concept Weber v.

absolute USSR,
87

immunity courts the

restrictive the

immunity. of

its

affirmed Second

principle War in

state

immunity,

however,

after

World

1947,

i t changed

i t s p o s i t i o n by

jumping

onto t h e bandwagon of the r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d the theory of l i m i t e d immunity. countries Austria,

8 3 8 8

I t s practice therefore in which

89

i s not

clearcut. is

Civil

law are

the

restrictive Greece, 1937,

90

doctrine

followed
9 1

Germany,

and

Switzerland 63. See

whereas

D a l l o z periodigne

P a r t i p. 125.

Annual Digest, ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 292-331.

8 5

84

1926-26 No.

Hamson i n BYBIL

27

S c h m i t t h o f f , The c l a i m s of s o v e r e i g n o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e (1958) ICLQ 4 60.

8 6

immunity i n t h e

law

Ibid.,

a t p.

461. 1919-42 Supp. V o l . , Case No. 74.

87

Annual Digest,

Hoffman v . D r a l l e (May 10, 1950, 3 I n t . Law Q (1950), 576579) . See g e n e r a l l y S e i d l - H o h e n v e l d e r n , S t a t e immunity: (1979) NYBIL 74. "Republic (1953) 358.
9 0

88

W4

o f L a t v i a Case ( R e s t i t u t i o n Chamber of B e r l i n ) R2 See g e n e r a l l y , L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . , a t p. 266. op. c i t . , a t p. 48 256.

See Lauterpacht,

Sweden, immunity

has

remained Dr.

steadfast Eleanor

in Allen

following after a

the

absolute and

doctrine.

thorough

l e a r n e d study concluded i n 1933

that

"a growing number o f c o u r t s a r e r e s t r i c t i n g t h e immunity t o i n s t a n c e s i n which t h e s t a t e has acted in i t s official c a p a c i t y as a sovereign p o l i t i c a l e n t i t y . The c u r r e n t i d e a t h a t this distinction i s p e c u l i a r t o B e l g i u m and I t a l y must be e n l a r g e d t o i n c l u d e S w i t z e r l a n d , E g y p t , Rumania, F r a n c e , A u s t r i a and G r e e c e . "
93

It perhaps way or

i s instructive, the the

94

however, t o n o t e t h a t , b e f o r e most countries the of the

1900,

or one

First other, except

World War,

world, of

might have f o l l o w e d perhaps the Italy First

doctrine and

absolute the not

95

immunity,

Belgium

probably did

Netherlands f o r before show any inclination therefore,

World War

Dutch c o u r t s state

of one

recognising can say

immunities. candour

Arguably, exactitude absolute made

no

with

much

or the been

as t o p r e c i s e l y when a l l t h e s e and

c o u n t r i e s adopted

immunity d o c t r i n e the

whether a f o r m a l change has of the doctrine of

towards

acceptance

restrictive end of the of

immunity.

Thus i t i s q u i t e

cumbersome t o p r o v e t h e and

g e s t a t i o n of an o l d r u l e ,

i . e . , c u s t o m a r y law,

the b i r t h

18,

S o v e r e i g n M i l i t a r y o r d e r o f M a l t a v . S o c i e t a Camaina, 1953. See g e n e r a l l y L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . a t p. 257.

92

91

Nov.

T h e Rigmor, Annual Diges, 1941-42, C a s e No.

63. National

93

Courts

E.W. A l l e n , The p o s i t i o n of F o r e i g n S t a t e s b e f o r e C h i e f l y i n Europe, New York (1933) p. 301.

I b i d . , S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . ; S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . ; Dunbar, op. c i t . , n. 85; L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ; but see generally F i t z m a u r i c e (1933) B Y I L ; Badr, S t a t e Immunity, op. c i t .
9 5

9 4

cit.,

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. a t pp. 250-273.

c i t . at 49

pp.

156-258,

Lauterpacht,

op.

a new

one.

The

difficulty

i s t h a t the

h i s t o r y on

the p r a c t i c e
9 6

of s t a t e s i s s c a n t y and Germany, b e f o r e of t h e d o c t r i n e it is crystal

not a t a l l e a s y or First World War

straightforward. followed the

the

precepts
9

of a b s o l u t e late, or

immunity w i t h o u t any problems, ' but t h a t i t s e a r l i e r p o s i t i o n had abandoned Convention when of 1926 Germany by gave been its it

c l e a r of

completely blessings

neutralized to
9 8

the

Brussels

ratifying

accordingly.

VI.

R u s s i a and The

the Sovereign

Immunity Q u e s t i o n not

p r a c t i c e o f c o u r t s i n p r e - r e v o l u t i o n a r y R u s s i a was with

t h a t c l e a r but submitted assuming commercial for a that

r e s p e c t t o i t s m o n a r c h i c a l background, i t i s with absolute actions

100

i t started off over

immunity

99

before as

jurisdiction in nature, until

state

characterised This

i . e . , jure the

gestionis.

continued the

while

Communist

Revolution

changed

s u p e r s t r u c t u r e o f t h e m a c h i n e r y of government and ushered i n the absolute

9 6

immunity d o c t r i n e .

1 0 1

The

p r a c t i c e of absolute 268-272. Sinclair,

immunity

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. I b i d . a t pp. 130-132.

c i t . , a t pp. See

9 7

266-268.

generally

op. c i t . ,

a t pp.
98

S e e g e n e r a l l y S e i d l - H o h e n v e l d e r n , S t a t e Immunity, F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany (1979) NYBIL 66. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . D r . A l l e n , op. European p r a c t i c e .

1 0 0 99

c i t . , where

good

survey

was

made

of

L a u t e r p a c h t , op.

c i t . , a t p.

259. Soviet 23 v i v

S e e M. Boguslavsky, Foreign S t a t e immunity: d o c t r i n e and p r a c t i c e (1979) NYBIL 167; Osakwe (1982) J . I n t . 13. 50

1 0 1

thereafter and (if finally this

by R u s s i a was f o r c e d made t h e a c c e p t e d

on former Warsaw

Pact

members world

p r a c t i c e o f t h e Communist The official

designation

i s appropriate).

Russian

p o s i t i o n c a n be s t a t e d t h u s :
"The p o s i t i o n o f t h e S o v i e t S t a t e , e x p r e s s e d i n n o r m a t i v e documents, p r a c t i c e and d o c t r i n e , has always c o n s i s t e d of recognition f o r the State and i t s property of full jurisdictional immunity derived from the principles of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law c o n c e r n i n g s o v e r e i g n t y , s o v e r e i g n e q u a l i t y a n d n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the a f f a i r s of other s t a t e s . "
1 0 2

R e c e n t t r e n d s show c l e a r l y still steadfastly

103

t h a t R u s s i a and t h e T h i r d World of absolute totally sovereign between The

follow

the doctrine

immunity, adherents ranks of

hence we a r e l e f t w i t h a w o r l d

torn

o f a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n t y and r e s t r i c t i v e the
1 0 4

immunity.

restrictive

immunity

a r e , however,

swelling

considerably.

VII.

I s Sovereign (1) A

Immunity an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Custom?

Controversy

F o r sometime now, w r i t e r s have a r g u e d b a c k and f o r t h a s t o whether

102

sovereign

immunity

is a

binding

lex

non

scripta

or

I L C R e p o r t , F o r t i e t h S e s s i o n , p. 82.

C a r l , F o r e i g n Governments i n A m e r i c a n C o u r t s : The U n i t e d States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Practice, S o u t h w e s t e r n L J (1979) 33; H i g g i n s , The Death T h r o e s o f A b s o l u t e Immunity, The Government o f Uganda b e f o r e E n g l i s h C o u r t s (1979) 73 A J I L ; The A s i a n - A f r i c a n L e g a l C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee 3 r d t o 17th S e s s i o n ; s e e a l s o t h e I L C r e p o r t Y B I L L 1982 11-1, e t c . , where t h e p o s i t i o n o f T h i r d World C o u n t r i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t o f A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , seems t o move i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a b s o l u t e immunity. S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , a t pp. 197-217, Dr. A l l e n op. c i t . ; L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ; Badr, op. c i t . ; S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . ; Dunbar, op. c i t . 51
1 0 4

1 0 3

customary

international

law.

But i n r e a l i t y

i t i s expedient to law b e f o r e an of custom

l a y b a r e t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l objective comprises generality analysis duration, of practice can be made. The

elements of

uniformity, and opinio

consistency juris sive

practice,
105

necessitatis.

What t h e n i s custom o r customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l defines customary law as

106

law?

Roberto Ago i n the

"spontaneous

law,

emerging that

c o n s c i e n c e o f members."

P r o f e s s o r Tunkin says

"A customary norm of international law arises in consequences of t h e r e p e a t e d a c t i o n s of s t a t e s . The element of r e p e t i t i o n i s b a s i c t o t h e formation of a r u l e of conduct. In majority of i n s t a n c e s the r e p e t i t i o n of s p e c i f i c actions i n analogous situations can lead t o t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f such practice as a rule of conduct."
1 0 7

Customary practice

international or usage

law by

therefore opinio

presupposes juris passed

general on from

aided

g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n b a s e d on good c o n s c i e n c e and m o r a l i t y . Professor Josef Kunz explained basis; the that the reason by "custom-produced customary general of

international "pacta sunt

law

i s the is

principle

servanda" international in the

for validity treaty

of a l l
108

particular Judge Read

law

created case

procedure."

Fisheries

explains of

that the

"customary practice of

international

law

i s the

generalization

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . a t pp. 4-1; A k e h u r s t , Source o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1974-75) 4 BYBIL.

106

1 0 5

Custom

as a

K u n z , The n a t u r e o f customary law (1953) 47 A J I L 664-65. Tunkin, Theory p. 114. of International Law (1976) t r a n s l a t e d by

107

Butler,
108

K u n z , The n a t u r e o f customary law (1953) 47 A J I L 665. 52

states."

1 0 9

So by

i n f e r e n c e , any m e t a j u r i d i c a l c o n c e p t

shaped regarded

i n t o g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e and a i d e d by opinio juris c a n be as customary l a w . If can these said

1 1 0

explanations that

be e x p e d i e n t immunity

and c o n v i n c i n g , i s a norm of

then

i t be

sovereign

general

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law? Judge L a u t e r p a c h t answered i n t h e n e g a t i v e by contending that law sovereign and that from be immunity does not form part of of and His

international immunity of

the d e r i v a t i o n o f the principle of

the notion equality

111

states of

independence authority,

states

thoroughly

reexamined.

however, a c c o r d i n g t o P r o f e s s o r L i s s i t z y n ,
1 1 2

i s offset

by t h e p o s i t i o n h e l d by Judge J e s s u p . was further made known when he

Judge J e s s u p ' s p o s i t i o n the reporter of the States, part of

became

restatement in which he

o f t h e F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s Law o f t h e U n i t e d concluded law.

1 1 3

that

immunity

of s t a t e s

forms

international The

notion

that

absolute

sovereign

immunity

has

become

p a r t o f g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s p l a u s i b l y p r e d i c a t e d on t h e fact that historically applied the by rule became entrenched courts and was any

predominantly

municipal

without

1 0 9

I C J Reports

(1951), 191.

1 1 0

S e e g e n e r a l l y Kunz, op.; c ; i t . a t p. 228. ed.,

u l

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ,

Lissittzyn, i n Friedmann, Henkin, and L i e s i t z y n , E s s a y s i n Honour o f P h i l i p C. J e s s u p (1972) pp. 189-201. The American Institute Restatement R e l a t i o n s Law o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 5 ) . 53
113

1 1 2

of

the

Foreign

opposition several without

1 1 4

from

other

nation-states asserted

and in

secondly,

i t was

on

occasions any

vigorously of said

diplomatic or

circles
115

problems i t can made be a

disagreement that although change

acrimony. have

Furthermore, recent times

some c o u r t s to

in the

momentous least of

embracing

restrictive authority objective absolute

immunity, a t the

t h e i r reasoning wholly takes i t s state immunity. postulate heights of Thus that based on

from

concept could

a n a l y s i s one immunity n e v e r of t h e

possibly the

in

reality accepted

attained

being

by a l l c o u n t r i e s law or r u l e . opinio

w o r l d a s a canon of p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l of how

However, i t would appear i t d i d a t t a i n a s t a t u s juris generalis. But the argument as to

generalis

w e l l grounded t h e law it the i s not be

p r a c t i c e must be

i n o r d e r t o become customary law, This

111

clearcut. not of

International unanimous. pactum a

116

however, demands notion then It

that

only general consent to theory note

destroys

taciturn.

i s instructive having serve this in as is

therefore general a good

that eo

local

court's
1 1 8

decision,

a t t a i n e d an source of

ipso f u n c t i o n

ex hypothesi law.

can And

public

international

c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d by

Lammers as

follows:

1 1 4

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. I b i d . a t pp.

c i t . , pp.

355-359.

1 1 5

285-304. T e a c h i n g and Practice c i t . , generally.

1 1 6

(1982)
117

B i n Cheng, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law: a t pp. 2 2 7 - 2 2 9 , b u t s e e Kunz, op. K u n z , op. c i t . a t p. Indian 666. Journal of

1 1 8

B i n Cheng, 5,

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

(1965)

p.

251.

54

" I t has f u r t h e r been m a i n t a i n e d t h a t p r i n c i p l e s g e n e r a l l y recognized at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l a r e not just principles of n a t i o n a l law t o be a p p l i e d by analogy to i n t e r s t a t e d i s p u t e s , or i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the body of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, but actually c o n s t i t u t e p r i n c i p l e s of law i n g e n e r a l , o f a l l law, n a t i o n a l as w e l l as i n t e r n a t i o n a l . "
1 1 9

If doubt

the

statement court's of

above be decision to

correct could

or

sound, as

then

without and the

municipal

serve and

formative likely

persuasive

source

law

other

courts

most

i n t e r n a t i o n a l community. Indeed, immunity was and harvested found i f a l l are agreed that the doctrine of absolute planted which

the p r o d u c t o f a m u n i c i p a l c o u r t , in the legal into fields of the

a product States,

United of

later and and not had a

i t s way

the the

jurisprudence

other

countries yardstick i t will

s i n c e remained on logical basis common law.

1 2 0

i n t e r n a t i o n a l plane as a s t a t e of affairs, that it then is

for

current to

offend

sense The that of

postulate

customary from

international the out law plausible of the

thrust

of t h i s argument emanates immunity became a

notion

sovereign the

reality

interaction of laws)

p r e c e p t s of p r i v a t e public international

international law, and its in but Dr.

(conflict

and

l e g a l i n s p i r a t i o n and recent rather times, a t modified least to

authority

although had had not

been c h a l l e n g e d been abandoned time.

1 2 1

i t s influence move in

abreast

with

Lammers i n K a l s h o v e n , Kuyper and Lammers i n honour of Haro F. van Panhuys (1980), p. 61. Cheng, op. c i t .
1 2 0

119

(eds.), Essays See a l s o B i n

J e s s u p , Has the Supreme Court A b d i c a t e d one of F u n c t i o n s ? (1946) 40 Am J I n t 168. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , 359.

121

its 355-

The

present

trend

where
55

most

leading

industrialized

Sucharitkul s

forceful

argument

is

in

consonant

with

the

p o s i t i o n a l l u d e d t o above t h a t
"the doctrine of s t a t e immunity, a s f a r a s c a n be a s c e r t a i n e d , was s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e p r a c t i c e of states to j u s t i f y i t s claim t o become a p r i n c i p l e o f international law i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h century. The o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n , a s s t a t e d by C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l i n t h e Schooner Exchange v . McFaddon i n 1812 i s g e n e r a l l y considered t o be representative of absolute immunity.
1 2 2

At t h i s j u n c t u r e by which g e n e r a l

i t i s appropriate

to explore the c r i t e r i a A

i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w c a n be s a i d t o s u b s i s t . a method t h i s elusive will many

quest t o d e v i s e difficult question or task

c e r t a i n l y be q u i t e a may dismiss i t as a

and i t i s p o s s i b l e

t h a t s h o u l d be r e l e g a t e d The l i t e r a t u r e ,

t o the confines however, shows

of metaphysics that leading be a

jurimetrics.
1 2 3

scholars

a r e agreed t h a t

i t i s not necessary

that

there

t o t a l unanimity among s t a t e s b e f o r e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s made o r created.

1 2 4

Thus t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e juris generalis as on a particular to

o f opinio

generalis issue

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law communis of juris these

i s sufficient
125

opposed

opinio

generalis.

I n the l i g h t

of the force

and s t r e n g t h

countries a r e moving towards the restrictive immunity i s i n d i c a t i v e of t h e f a c t t h a t they a r e not i n a c t u a l f a c t doing away w i t h a b s o l u t e immunity b u t r a t h e r t r y i n g t o a d j u s t t h e i r p o l i c i e s t o move i n a b r e a s t o f w i t h p r e s e n t - d a y demands. And secondly t o f o s t e r t r a n s n a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n . See S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , and Dunbar, op. c i t . , M a r k e s i n i s , The c h a n g i n g law o f s o v e r e i g n immunity (1977) 36 Cambridge Law J o u r n a l .
1 2 2

Sucharitkul,

op. c i t . a t p. 3 5 5 .

123

Kunz, op. c i t . ; B i n Cheng, op. c i t . B i n Cheng, op. c i t . a t p. 227. Ibid. 56

1 2 4

1 2 5

c o n c e p t s , one law can grow

1

can p o s s i b l y c o n c l u d e t h a t customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l overnight approach customary too

1 2 6

or

be

generated in the Law

instantly.

1 2 7

Judge of the state

Lauterpacht s existence immunity of

therefore

determination in respect His of

international and of

seemed the

rigid

unorthodox.

admonition, reexamined
128

however, t h a t is well taken. on the

doctrine

absolute

immunity be

While Judge J e s s u p ' s bent of r e a s o n i n g , o r o t h e r hand is a falls norm the by in line of with the majority

194 6 that law

1 2 9

thesis

sovereign because and of

immunity the fact

general

international

that

r u l e was

f o r some time courts to

accepted the world the of to

predominantly
1 3 0

applied

many m u n i c i p a l therefore

over.

Jessup's vote. on

position in

appears of fair jury, much the and

carry

majority

Arguably, this subject, i n the not

the

light be

multitude expedient

literature leave for the

i t will

verdict is the

hands o f human

the

i . e . , the less a

reader, in

perfection With

virtue,

virtue

judges.

greatest

respect,

however,

it is

submitted

1 2 6

Ibid. Ibid. L a u t e r p a c h t , op. J e s s u p , op. c i t . c i t . , a t p. 228.

1 2 7

1 2 8

1 2 9

S e e g e n e r a l l y Dr. S u c h a r i t k u l ' s t h e s i s , op. c i t . , on t h e whole s u b j e c t m a t t e r ; see also Sinclair, for h i s thorough a n a l y s i s o f the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s both i n the common law w o r l d and t h e c i v i l law w o r l d ; t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r i s of the v i e w t h a t s o v e r e i g n immunity i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l norm because i t has two c o n s t i t u t e elements t h a t i s an o b j e c t i v e element corpus, and a s u b j e c t i v e element animus. See B i n Cheng, op. c i t . , s u p r a n o t e 148 a t pp. 249-251.

1 3 0

57

that

Judge

Lauterpacht

position

(as

he

then

was)

on

this

p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t r a t h e r found f a v o u r w i t h t h e m i n o r i t y . That respect to there the is a considerable above weight can of authority with

p o s i t i o n taken

h a r d l y be

questioned.

H i s L o r d s h i p once s t a t e d t h a t
"The b a s i s o f t h e r u l e i s t h a t i t i s b e n e a t h t h e d i g n i t y o f a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n government t o s u b m i t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f an a l i e n c o u r t , and t h a t no government s h o u l d be f a c e d w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f e i t h e r submitting t o such i n d i g n i t y or l o s i n g i t s p r o p e r t y " (1954) 3 WLR 531, 533.

The

spirit

of

Lord

Jewitt's

statement by

above

appears

not

different in the

from the

thesis

enunciated in 1812.

Chief Justice after 142

Marshall years the

Schooner

Exchange

Thus

persuasive application practice conclude

force behind

Justice Marshall's decision s t i l l There

found of to The and cannot the

i n E n g l i s h law. this law as to

i s therefore sufficiency a reasonable person

of

persuade

t h a t s o v e r e i g n immunity i s an of the absolute remarkable or immunity

i n t e r n a t i o n a l norm. d o c t r i n e by in the the U.K.

acceptance U.S. courts

with be

inflexibility disputed. And

past

exhypothesi fact of

challenged

this

supports

that sovereign before

immunity was Second

w e l l grounded i n t h e War. I n other words

practice it was

states

the

World JURIS.

supported

by USUS and OPINIO

58

CHAPTER THREE THE RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES OF STATES IN FOREIGN

COURTS:

A STUDY OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF STATES

A.

General

Observations denotes independence and c o e r c i v e power, and,

Sovereignty

e v e r y S t a t e , whether l a r g e or s m a l l , powerful or developing, enjoys equality in law.

1

or weak, d e v e l o p e d relations and by

international

e v e n more so i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l other states as having colonial

A s t a t e once r e c o g n i s e d freedom or and

acquired control

political is

complete ipso iure can

2

exemption

from

independent

s o v e r e i g n , w h i c h means t h a t such a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e has what be The known a s suprema potestas i n d e p e n d e n c e and within i t s territorial states

boundaries.

sovereignty of

t h e r e f o r e cannot

be of is of and

compromised or g i v e n away, f o r i n t e r n a l s o v e r e i g n t y , i n s p i t e certain believed influence. the limiting to be factors absolute on and i t s power perpetual in modern times,

within

i t s spheres

I n t h e l i g h t of t h e s e t h e o r e t i c a l pronouncements attendant the world consequences on over record other of these ideas, from of

purported of of

some the the

countries exercise

have

refrained

jurisdiction

c o u n t r i e s because

p r i n c i p l e s o f e q u a l i t y and the independence of s o v e r e i g n

states.

T h e Schooner Exchange v. McFadden and o t h e r s (1812) 7 C r a n c h , Edwin D i c k e r s o n , The E q u a l i t y of S t a t e s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1920) pp. 68-187; Coleman P h i l l i p s o n , The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and Custom of A n c i e n t Greece and Rome, London (1911) V o l . 2, pp. 11-113.
2

Marek K o r a w i c z ,

101 Hague R e c u e i l 10-12 59

(1961 1) .

The

refusal

t h e r e f o r e by courts a

a s t a t e to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n not to exercise jurisdiction presupposes immunity from

J

or

to

persuade the

i t s local of the

without general in par the in

consent of

foreign of and

state

the which maxim

acceptance main parem takes

concept

absolute strength

i t s authority imperium. is or a less

the

non habet That

there more

perceptible in the

measure notion of of

of

relativity sovereignty,

expressed

independence and cannot ex

d i g n i t y of s t a t e s i n r e s p e c t be doubted. meaning
4

s t a t e immunity force the and

hypothesi to the of

For

i t

gives and

authority

true the to

of

immunity

logical for be if the

justiciability immunity or allowed immunity to is

p r a c t i c e whereby a jurisdiction or if the

s t a t e could and may

plead thus is of

submit arrest

i f need be worse

suit

comes,

that

denied,

resist

execution

irrespective

circumstances. The ideas alluded to above can clearly be understood that

a

by

making r e f e r e n c e t o what Joseph B e a l e s a i d sometime ago,

"The w h e t h e r by court power of a s o v e r e i g n legislation, by jurisdiction."
5

to a f f e c t

the

r i g h t s of

persons

executive

decree,

o r by

judgment o f

i s called

T h e Schooner Exchange v. McFadden and others (1812) 7 C r a n c h 116. The Parlement B e i g e (1880) 5 P D 197; M i g h e l l v. t h e S u l t a n of Johore (1894) I Q B; S t r o u s b e r g v. R e p u b l i c of C o s t a R i c a (1880) 44 L T 199; Manning v . S t a t e o f N i c a r a g u a (1857) 14, How P r . 517; The P o r t o A l e x a n d r e (1920) p. 30. Sompong S u c h a r i t k u l , Immunity o f S t a t e i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law: Achievements and P r o s p e c t s (1991) 327, 327-4 6. E d i t e d by M. B e d j a o u i .
5 4

See

(1923) 36 Harvard Law

Review 60

241.

This

power

of

jurisdiction

arguably

can

be

l i k e n e d unto coupled

the with and one can A over

making and

enforcement

of laws

i n a given

country

t h e need o f t h e r u l e d or t h e c i t i z e n r y t o r e s p e c t t h e s e laws to give a l l e g i a n c e question exercise sovereign every that that must to the potentate be over given living within grappled another or t h e sovereign. an But equal no!

with

i s whether

dominion state,

equal.

Certainly, has

i t s attributes,

jurisdiction

individual take place to the

under i t s p r o t e c t i o n and i t s territorial of customary exercise

over a l l a c t s
6

boundaries.

However, law, it

according cannot in

precepts by

international jurisdiction in

reality that

license

certain and of

circumstances, property are

i s , when a or

foreign state,
7

i t s agents, non-assertion

concerned in such

involved.

The be

jurisdiction comity

circumstances

may

due

to

courtesy, law. Judge

and t h e n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l The principle of s t a t e immunity i s c l e a r l y s t a t e d by

Hackworth i n h i s v e n e r a b l e d i g e s t a s f o l l o w s :
"The p r i n c i p l e t h a t , g e n e r a l l y speaking, each s t a t e i s supreme w i t h i n i t s own territory and that i t s jurisdiction extends t o a l l p e r s o n s and t h i n g s w i t h i n t h a t t e r r i t o r y i s , under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s u b j e c t to e x c e p t i o n s i n favour p a r t i c u l a r l y of f o r e i g n f r i e n d l y s o v e r e i g n s , t h e i r a c c r e d i t e d d i p l o m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . . . and t h e i r p u b l i c v e s s e l s and p u b l i c p r o p e r t y i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f and d e v o t e d t o t h e s e r v i c e of the s t a t e . T h e s e e x e m p t i o n s from t h e l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e t h e o r e t i c a l l y b a s e d upon t h e c o n s e n t , e x p r e s s or i m p l i e d , of the l o c a l s t a t e , upon t h e p r i n c i p l e o f e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s i n the e y e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, and upon t h e n e c e s s i t y of y i e l d i n g

S e e J.H.C. M o r r i s , The C o n f l i c t of Laws

(1993) pp.

60-102. in of 113

G.G. F i t z m a u r i c e , S t a t e Immunity from Proceedings Foreign Courts (1933) 14 B Y I L . J.M. S i n c l a i r , The Law S o v e r e i g n Immunity, R e c e n t Developments, 167 Hague R e c u e i l (1980 I I ) . 61

the l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n these r e s p e c t s a s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e f a c t o r i n t h e conduct of f r i e n d l y i n t e r c o u r s e between members o f the f a m i l y of n a t i o n s . While i t i s sometimes s t a t e d t h a t t h e y a r e b a s e d upon i n t e r n a t i o n a l comity o r courtesy, and w h i l e t h e y d o u b t l e s s f i n d t h e i r o r i g i n t h e r e i n , t h e y may now be s a i d t o be b a s e d upon g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d custom a n d u s a g e , i . e . , i n t e r n a t i o n a l law."
8

This

view

i s t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, t h e accuracy of Judge Hackworth's position

9

however,

seemed t o Arguably, to the

run c o u n t e r t o t h e 1951 t h e s i s o f Judge L a u t e r p a c h t . if what i s declaratory of one s c h o l a r runs

counter

d e c l a r a t i o n s of a multitude minority right. other

of s c h o l a r s , then c e r t a i n l y both the d e c l a r a t i o n c a n n o t a l l be and t h e c a n be

d e c l a r a t i o n and t h e m a j o r i t y

A t l e a s t one must be w e l l founded and c o n v i n c i n g n o t s o weighty. Judge Hackworth's p o s i t i o n of municipal court thus

described therefore and in

as representative corroborative,
1 0

d e c i s i o n s and o f judges

back then

o f t h e cum sensu

scholars. this light

L o g i c a l l y , t h e r e f o r e , Judge Hackworth's p o s i t i o n i s the correct representation of t h e law a t that war.

11

time, i . e . , b e f o r e
8

1900 and i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e g r e a t

393,

D i g e s t o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1946), V o l . 8.169.

I I , Chap. V I I , p.

L a u t e r p a c h t , The Problem F o r e i g n S t a t e s (1951) 28 B Y I L .

10

of J u r i s d i c t i o n a l

Immunities of

T h e Parlement Beige (1880), M i g h e l l v. the Sultan of Johore ( 1 8 9 4 ) , IQB. The Porto A l e x a n d r a (1920) p. 20; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485 p e r Lord W r i g h t ' s B e n z z i B r o s . Co. v . SS P e s a r o (1926) 271 US 562. Ex p a r t e P e r u (1943) 318 US 578. R e p u b l i c o f Mexico v. Hoffman (1945) 324 US 30. The n o t i o n o f a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n c l e v e r l y e n u n c i a t e d by C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l i n 1812 seemed t o have paved t h e way f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f cum sensu o f j u d g e s i n t h e common law w o r l d . S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , S t a t e I m m u n i t i e s and T r a d i n g A c t i v i t i e s (1959). Sinclair, op. c i t . N.C.H. Dunbar, C o n t r o v e r s i a l A s p e c t s o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t h e C a s e Law o f S t a t e s (1971) 62
11

True, public

the

t r e n d s which law

are already c l e a r with respect to

i n the the

study

of of new

international

concept

sovereign legal of

immunity l o g i c a l l y These trends

a r e not mere b i r t h i n the r e a l will

pangs of a

order.

sense are the one after

harbinger another in

fundamental

problems

which

arise

search for a l e g a l juris attempt the world

s o l u t i o n t h a t perhaps over. It is

will

command the opinio that any piecemeal

submitted

or halfway

house a t t e m p t

t o r e s o l v e t h e problem of s t a t e

immunities

and c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e , not eclectically, will be will consume so much time some would concern cannot in be

u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y but and say, resources equally that

little

left

for other, of

pressing law.

legitimate contention

problems ex

international

This

hypothesi

d i s p u t e d i n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t o n l y v e r y few international law of recent memory have

topics in public rise to a

given

m u l t i t u d e of l i t e r a t u r e and sovereign immunity. Six years

12

c o n t r o v e r s y more t h a n t h e s u b j e c t of

after

the

Second

World

War

leading

English

a u t h o r i t y , Dr. L a u t e r p a c h t , p u b l i s h e d a l e a r n e d and article analysis on the as of above s u b j e c t i n which the difficulties immunity, of states the he

illuminating in-depth with of the state

o f f e r e d an associated legal basis an

regards

application immunity and

restrictive

the p r a c t i c e

coupled

with

admonition

132 Hague R e c u e i l
1 2

197. European Convention on S t a t e Immunity

S e e I.M. S i n c l a i r , (1973) 22 ICLQ 154.

63

as t o how t o d e a l w i t h the problems o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l of sovereign states.

1 3

immunities

So f a r i t a p p e a r s h i s a d m o n i t i o n s were an ex-cathedra to modify abandon gospel the f o r i t has of the

not a l l o w e d t o p a s s away l i k e prompted absolute many countries

14

either

doctrine

immunity

or t o c o m p l e t e l y
1 5

i t t o embrace

r e l a t i v e immunity r u l e . world non-uniformity of absolute

Arguably, however, t h e r e e x i s t s i n t h e of s t a t e s This as regards of the

i n the p r a c t i c e immunity.
16

doctrine between

dichotomy

policy rather this

sovereign

states

d i d not s o l v e

t h e problem b u t
1 7

brought u n c e r t a i n t i e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n l i t i g a t i o n . certainly the c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d of the state management, postal to the f a c t that

And

in this

century

functions

i n terms o f n a t i o n

building, i . e . , shipping, services, undergone

public airline health

economic

developmental economics, banking, railway have

services, care, road

18

services, town

building,

planning,

dramatic changes.

Thus w h i l e i n some c o u n t r i e s c e n t r a l p a n n i n g

1 3

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . , pp.

220-272. Appendix t o t h i s o f s t a t e s i n some

I b i d . a t 250-272. S p e c i f i c a l l y the a r t i c l e g i v e s a good i d e a about the p r a c t i c e countries.

1 5

1 4

416.
1 6

I . B r o w n l i e , P r i n c i p l e s of P u b l i c I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 4 t h Ed. p. 326-329. Ibid.

(1990)

S u c h a r i t k u l , 149 Hague R e c u e i l (1976, 1) 51-103. Later, S o v e r e i g n Immunity: S u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f C l a i m (1955) 4 ICLQ 469475; Cohn, Immunity of F o r e i g n T r a d i n g Governments (1957) 73 LQR 26-40. B. F e n s t e r w a l d , Sovereign Immunity and S o c i e t y T r a d i n g (1949-50) 63 H a r v a r d LR 614.
18

1 7

S e e B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . ,

a t pp. 325-332. 64

i s preferred, market panning

others

follow

d e c e n t r a l i s e d planning with

b a s e d on to

free

economy. are

The

manifestations expressed greater in the

respect USSR

central the

clearly

former

where

p u b l i c s e c t o r was planning.
19

given

prominence i n n a t i o n a l idea i s also

economic the free and or

This

c e n t r a l planning

common i n

T h i r d World or d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , enterprise therefore takeoff. It existence Revolution world in is of of fact i n s t r u c t i v e to the 1917, did former note can be said needed to be at

where t h e their panning

elements of stage

embryonic until

perhaps

central

maturity

that, as a

before result

the of

coming

into

USSR,

the

Socialist of on the any ever

governments o f not engage in

the v a r i o u s commercial

countries activities

considerable ready states, prior to be to

s c a l e or a p p r e c i a b l e immunity jure of
2 0

degree, hence s t a t e s were to a l l acts of

offer

in

respect or

sovereign Thus

i t acta the

imperii many State

acta jure

gestiones.

advent absolute. in

centrally controlled owned t r a d i n g world War, and and

economies, thus World have of

immunity was grew

corporations the Third may

rampantly

the the

Communist Second to

particularly

after

World

this

prompted some c o u n t r i e s immunity. thus. Be this as

embrace the

restrictive

doctrine

i t may,

S i r F i t z m a u r i c e argued f o r c e f u l l y

0sakwe (1982) 23 V i r g i n i a J I n t Law 13; T.A. P e t e r s o n and H.W. Hoyt, F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t y C o m m u n i t y and S o c i a l i s t Organizations (1979) 9 G e o r g i a J o u r n a l of I n t and Cont Law, 111.
20

19

cit.,

See Sucharitkul, note 7.

op.

c i t . , note

11;

and

Sinclair,

op.

65

" I t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t the f a c t t h a t judgments rendered against states cannot i n p r a c t i c e be enforced without the c o n s e n t o f t h e s t a t e concerned and t h a t t h e y a r e , moreover, v i r t u a l l y w i t h o u t even a moral e f f e c t , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a fundamental w e a k n e s s e s i n the d o c t r i n e which s e e k s t o draw a d i s t i n c t i o n between v a r i o u s c l a s s e s of s t a t e a c t s . The t r u t h i s t h a t a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e does not c e a s e t o be a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e b e c a u s e i t p e r f o r m s a c t s which a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n might p e r f o r m . C o n s e q u e n t l y , any a t t e m p t t o make i t a n s w e r a b l e f o r i t s a c t i o n s , of whatever kind, i n c o u r t s o t h e r than i t s own courts, i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s s o v e r e i g n t y , and t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s made e v i d e n t by t h e c o m p l e t e i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e judgments rendered."
21

S i r F i t z m a u r i c e i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t a s t a t e i n r e a l i t y be will effectively and this as impleaded he or indirectly impleaded to the and of

cannot

against i t s nature of

eloquently

attributed and of

sovereignty, cannot wither

being away

perpetual

absolute the nature

therefore the act

irrespective

performed by t h e Another immunity and

state. scholar in his exposition offered the on absolute following

English

restrictive

immunity

explanation.
"The d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n which i s a n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h e r u l e o f a b s o l u t e immunity i s compounded by t h e f a c t t h a t s t a t e s a p p l y i n g the r u l e of a b s o l u t e immunity e n j o y no corresponding immunity from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s o f other states which apply the rule of relative immunity. A l t h o u g h i t might be t h o u g h t t h a t the e x i s t i n g p o s i t i o n was more satisfactory for states which apply the rule of relative immunity, t h i s i s not n e c e s s a r i l y so. States applying the r u l e o f r e l a t i v e immunity o f c o u r s e e n j o y an u n c o v e n a n t e d b e n e f i t i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o p l e a d and t o be accorded immunity from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t s o f s t a t e s a p p l y i n g the rule of absolute immunity i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where the ' a b s o l u t e immunity' s t a t e would not, i n the m i r r o r - i m a g e c a s e , have been e n t i t l e d t o a s s e r t immunity from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c o u r t s o f t h e r e l a t i v e immunity s t a t e .
2 2

21

S e e F i t z m a u r i c e , op. See S i n c l a i r , op.

cit.,

note 7 a t pp.

120-121.

22

cit.,

note 12 a t pp. 66

254-255.

It

is

observed order

that

international the presence

law of

operates a

on

horizontal

without

legitimate

s u p r a n a t i o n a l power o r a u t h o r i t y and t h e p r o s p e c t of m a i n t a i n i n g order by subjecting a sovereign state i t s consent tension to the jurisdiction of a

foreign court without problems of political

i s likely

to c r e a t e attendant acrimony.
23

and

possibly

The

h o r i z o n t a l n a t u r e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t h e r e f o r e g i v e s c o u n t r i e s the grounds to e i t h e r i g n o r e judgments or s i m p l y argue t h a t be accorded immunity. This can rightly be derived from they the
2 4

p r i n c i p l e of independence, t h e e q u a l i t y and d i g n i t y of These states are simply peer therefore claiming civilized equal states

states.

rights based

ex on

hypothesi,

i n the

community o f law.

the p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l

B.

The R a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n A state as having an been

o f S t a t e Immunity endowed with

2 5

coercive enjoys

powers immunity

and in

recognised

international from s u i t

person and

r e s p e c t of i t s p r o p e r t y , of other s t a t e s .
2 6

e x e c u t i o n o f the c o u r t s cannot be impleaded The

T h i s means t h a t

a state

i n the c o u r t s of a n o t h e r s t a t e w i t h o u t i t s e x p r e s s c o n s e n t .
2 3

Sornarajah

(1982) 31 ICLQ

664.

De Haber v. The Queen o f P o r t u g a l (1851) 17 QB 171; The Parlement B e i g e (1880) 5PD 197; Principality of Monaco v . M i s s i s s i p p i (1934) 292 313; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International B l i x , 130 Hague R e c u e i l 587 ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 1 ) ; Chen, The Law of R e c o g n i t i o n ( 1 9 5 1 ) ; B r o w n l i e (1982) 53 B Y I L
26 25

24

Law (1947) ; International 197. (1938) AC

The J u p i t e r

(1924)

p.

236,

No.

1;

The

Cristina

485. 67

state

i s a means

t o an end, hence

state

immunity e x i s t s

as a i t is

v e r i t a b l e consequence o f s o v e r e i g n t y , and f o r t h a t m a t t e r , not dependent upon any tenuous in its conditions local

as to v i t i a t e i t s and on the

absolute

power

both

setting

international

plane.

Argument (1) The Supremacy o f t h e L o c a l Local to make sovereign backed power may by Sovereign be s a i d to represent powers t h e power to

laws

a l l the coercive

i t cares

employ. in local

T h i s means t h a t t h e s o v e r e i g n has t h e suprema matters and a s such has superior

potestas

a u t h o r i t y over i t s

powers

o f command.

I t i s submitted

t h a t t h e Roman v e r s i o n o f

s o v e r e i g n t y d i d not o f f e r any l i m i t a t i o n s on the libertas o f t h e state, the

2 7

b u t i t would appear t h a t Bodin i n h i s s t u d i e s s u b j e c t e d to certain an which

2 9

power o f t h e s o v e r e i g n for "that of the example, nation any

important important

limitations. definition

2 8

Proculus, follows: government expressed

offered i s free

as

i s not s u b j e c t The Romans by its

t o any

other

nation." of

therefore endowed

essence

sovereignty

characteristic state, suis

o f independence s u b j e c t o n l y t o t h e norms o f t h e legibus uti. The Roman concept relating to

sovereignty

a s t h e a b s o l u t e power o f t h e s t a t e over

i t s people,

27

K o r o w i c z , op. c i t Ibid
r

note 2 a t pp. 7-8.

28

pp. 8-9.

29

I b i d , a t p. 6, c f . K o r o w i c z . 68

territory, from any

and

governmental power can

machinery, be likened

without unto

any the

limitation principle K i n g can do

earthly

princeps no

legibus solutusor equally

t h e E n g l i s h maxim, "The associated with

wrong," almost

the h i s t o r i c a l

epoch

i n which most s t a t e s were r u l e d by k i n g s and s o v e r e i g n s who These

queens o r p e r s o n a l state. of
3 0

by e v e r y measure p e r s o n i f i e d t h e primacy to the

ideas give

supremacy

the

local

s o v e r e i g n as f o l l o w s : (1) That own (2) constitutionally court. a king cannot be sued in his

That no organ o f t h e s t a t e c a n e x e r c i s e dominion over the crown through any j u d i c i a l means. be a difficult process efforts

(3)

That i m p l e a d i n g t h e K i n g w i l l

where one would s i m p l y be t h r o w i n g h i s o r h e r

unto u n c h a r t e d s e a s w i t h o u t any n a v i g a t i n g f o r c e . The rule of sovereign and immunity i s t h e r e f o r e the of the local byproduct of
3 1

constitutional And this

innate

supremacy the

sovereign. that if

i s p r e d i c a t e d on cannot be be sued

implicit then the

notion i t s local

the

sovereign

locally, unto

determinate plane for

superiority

extended

also

international

d e Haber v. Queen o f P o r t u g a l (1851) 17 QB 196; Mighen v. S u l t a n of Johore (1894) 1 QB; Kingdom o f Rumania v . Guaranty T r u s t Co. (1918) 250 Fed. 341; Matsuyama and Sano v. The R e p u b l i c of China (1928) Supreme C o u r t o f J a p a n . George Sabine and Thomas Thorson, A H i s t o r y o f P o l i t i c a l Theory (1973) pp. 348-385; Thomas Hobbes, The L e v i a t h a n London (1651); B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l , A H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y (1964) pp. 54 6-557; Nassbaum, A C o n c i s e H i s t o r y o f t h e Law o f N a t i o n s (1962). 69
31

30

the

sake of i t s d i g n i t y

and

independence. amounts to

Thus to i m p l e a d an reducing for i t s absolute the practical ideas

independent authority. necessity prima of

sovereign state There state were is

therefore to by

demand

immunity

avoid disrepute. Chief Justice

These

facie

reinforced

Marshall i n the
33

Schooner Exchange illustration

and l a t e r on approved

i n English law.

A good LJ in

i s clearly

a f f o r d e d by t h e dictum p e r B r e t t

t h e P a r l e m e n t B e i g e , as f o l l o w s :
"It has been frequently stated that an independent s o v e r e i g n c a n n o t be p e r s o n a l l y sued, a l t h o u g h he has c a r r i e d on a private trading adventure. I t has been held that an a m b a s s a d o r c a n n o t be p e r s o n a l l y sued, a l t h o u g h he had t r a d e d ; and i n b o t h c a s e s b e c a u s e s u c h a s u i t would be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the independence and the equality of the s t a t e which he represents. "
3 4

As c a n be g a t h e r e d from t h e above p a s s a g e , B r e t t L J was a r g u i n g that immunity be g r a n t e d t o p e r s o n a l s o v e r e i g n s and of the s o v e r e i g n t y of of the independent immunity ambassadors and the of

because

state in

purported

notion

transferred

respect

ambassadors. Again absolute thus.

" I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , i t i s q u i t e c e r t a i n , upon g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , and upon t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e c a s e o f t h e Duke o f B r u n s w i c k v . K i n g o f Hanover, r e c e n t l y d e c i d e d i n t h e House o f L o r d s , t h a t an a c t i o n c a n n o t be m a i n t a i n e d i n an E n g l i s h c o u r t

in

De

Haber

v.

Queen

of

Portugal,

the

rule

of CJ,

immunity was

strongly

e x p r e s s e d by

L o r d Campbell

L . Oppenheim, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law D i c k i n s o n , op. c i t . , pp. 100-188. The Parlement (1880) 5 PD.

3 4 33

3 2

(1912, 2nd e d . ) , V o l . 168;

Beige

(1880)

5 PD

197;

V a v a s s e u r v.

Krupp

( 1 8 8 0 ) 5 PD 197, a t p.

220. 70

a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n p o t e n t a t e f o r a n y t h i n g done o r o m i t t e d t o be done by him i n h i s p u b l i c c a p a c i t y a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the n a t i o n of which he i s t h e head; and t h a t no E n g l i s h c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n any c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t him i n that capacity. . . . To c i t e a f o r e i g n p o t e n t a t e i n a m u n i c i p a l court for any complaint a g a i n s t him in his public capacity, is contrary to the law of n a t i o n s and an insult w h i c h he is e n t i t l e d to r e s e n t . "
3 5

The domestic statesmen insult to

p r a c t i c e whereby a f o r e i g n s t a t e i s i m p l e a d e d b e f o r e a court and the in the 19th century for of did not find favour to be with an are

judges a l i k e , regal

i t was the

believed sovereign.
3 6

then

dignity

There

therefore of

i n the main adequate r e a s o n s founded on to j u s t i f y immunity from s u i t s , i n i t s own U.S.

the a t t r i b u t e s

sovereignty

s a v e where under r i g h t s submits i.e., or the

s p e c i a l circumstances waives Eleventh the said

the s o v e r e i g n The

immunity. totally

Constitution, by federal

Amendment,

influenced

principles affords And

g e a r e d towards the p r o t e c t i o n an indisputable foundation

of the S t a t e s o f t h e Union the concept of

for

immunity. that
to
3 1

t h i s i s c l e a r l y supported by Hamilton when he

"It i s inherent in the nature of amenable to the s u i t o f an

asserted
not

sovereignty,

be

i n d i v i d u a l without i t s consent."

Indeed, t h e s e i d e a s i n r e s p e c t of the can be traced and to the

3 8

supremacy o f t h e Bodin, writings Hobbes, of these

sovereign Proculus, scholars

writings Although

of the

Grotius

Vattel.

3 5

(1851) 17 QB 121 Ibid.

a t pp.

206-207.

3 6

S e e The F e d e r a l i s t P a p e r s , no. t h e o r y on the s c i e n c e of government).

3 8

37

81

(a

classic

American

S e e Dickinson,

op. c i t . 71

did

not

cover

specifically

sovereign

immunity,

at

least f o r the

i m p l i c i t l y t h e i r p h i l o s o p h i e s c l e a r e d the maxim jurisdictio the fore, for inhaeret serious cohaeret,

unbeaten path

adhaeret and

imperio to come to analysis before

consideration t o be

municipal law.
39

c o u r t s , and

finally

received into international

C. (2) D i p l o m a t i c Necessity essence envoy. i s to

I m m u n i t i e s and

State

Sovereignty i t s true of an

i s t h e b a s i s of d i p l o m a t i c immunity and be found i n the law

representative functions confers state, on

International

therefore o f another The

diplomats, the

immunity from t h e consequence immunities credited position diplomats can be of

jurisdiction

because of of

state back

sovereignty. to ancient

principle Grotius

diplomatic thus the for be

dates with of

times.

may on

his the

thought-provoking embassy
40

expositions

legal giving

and

the

logical

reasons

immunity.

T h i s i d e a of d i p l o m a t i c immunity l o g i c a l l y the in concept respect of t r a n s f e r r e d immunity. of this subject offers And an

p r e d i c a t e d on O'Connell

Professor

insightful explanation

thus.

"An a l t e r n a t i v e t h e s i s , w h i c h a p p e a l e d t o t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s t h a t t h e immunity of a d i p l o m a t i s a t r a n s f e r r e d i m m u n i t y o f h i s s o v e r e i g n , and i s t o be e x p l a i n e d as a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of sovereign d i g n i t y . The d i p l o m a t s t a n d s f o r t h e s o v e r e i g n , a s h i s a g e n t and s u b s t i t u t e i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n of

T h e S c h o o n e r Exchange v. McFadden and O t h e r s (1812) 7 C r a n c h ; The P a r l e m e n t B e i g e (1880) 5 PD 197; Le Governement Espagnol v. Cassaux 22 Jan. 1849 c. 1849, 1-5, 7; The C o n s t i t u t i o n (1879) 4 PD 39.
40

39

S e e O ' C o n n e l l , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law,

Vol. 2

(1970) p.

888.

72

a c t s o f s t a t e , and hence i s i n v e s t e d w i t h p r i v i l e g e a s t h e p r i n c e whom he r e p r e s e n t s . "

t h e same
4 1

degree of

O'Connell's

thesis

thus

alluded

t o seemed

not d i f f e r e n t

from t h e argument p o s i t e d said that,

by Dr. S u c h a r i t k u l

i n 1959, when he

"The relation between these principles finds occasional expression i n the theory that t h e immunities enjoyed by s o v e r e i g n s and ambassadors b e l o n g u l t i m a t e l y t o t h e s t a t e s t h e y r e p r e s e n t which i s f u r t h e r r e f l e c t e d i n t h e case o f d i p l o m a t i c a g e n t s i n t h e r u l e t h a t d i p l o m a t i c i m m u n i t i e s c a n o n l y be w a i v e d by an a u t h o r i s e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e f o r e i g n government a n d with the l a t t e r ' s authorisation."
4 2

I f t h e p o s i t i o n s taken by t h e s e

s c h o l a r s be c o r r e c t a n d l o g i c a l ,

t h e n common s e n s e c e r t a i n l y w i l l r e v o l t i f immunity i s d e n i e d t o sovereign s t a t e s which, a c c o r d i n g t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w , a r e t h e Thus i f ambassadors a s envoys of states also

s o u r c e o f t h e appointment o f ambassadors. of

S t a t e s were accorded immunity i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y or foreign sovereigns,

4 3

states

then by i m p l i c a t i o n

ought t o be a c c o r d e d o r g i v e n t h e same degree o f i m m u n i t y f o r i n r e a l i t y these therefore ambassadors a r e a p p o i n t e d by t h e s o v e r e i g n and c a n countries immunity eyes of

be removed, r e c a l l e d o r r e a p p o i n t e d t o o t h e r A fortiori, in the

a t t h e whim and c a p r i c e o f t h e s o v e r e i g n . cannot be denied to the "power" that

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s the l e g i t i m a t e ambassadors. of diplomatic

source of t h e appointment of

T h i s argument i s b e i n g p u t f o r t h b e c a u s e t h e r u l e immunity i s w e l l n i g h s e t t l e d .

4 1

Ibid. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , note 22, a t p. 24. Ibid. 73

4 2

4 3

Historically, precedes regulated influence which the by on

the of

principles immunity

of of

diplomatic states
4 4

immunity although had some

45

concept somewhat the has

and have

different of

principles, the law of

development given rise

state

immunity, argument

i n turn

to the foundational manifested by

of

transferred

immunity,

singularly

the

accepted

notion of sovereign d i g n i t y . it i s submitted

By t h e weight

of t h e s e arguments,

t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f t h e law o f s o v e r e i g n immunity from t h e d e c i s i o n s o f m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s and

derives s i g n i f i c a n t l y

p a r t l y a l s o from t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s c l e a r l y d e r i v e d from the law o f d i p l o m a t i c immunities.

4 6

L o r d Hewart C J i n an a t t e m p t t o s e t t h e r e c o r d s t r a i g h t i n Dickinson foreign driven v. Del Solar,

4 7

where

suit

was

brought by

against a

mission by the

for personal Secretary law does of

injury

caused

a c a r owned and ruled that "legal

the Peruvian accord

Legation,

international liability"

not

immunity

from

but only

g i v e s allowance

o f immunity from t h e l o c a l t o a diplomat the power and of is a the given

jurisdiction. privilege, sovereign not by

And t h a t t h e immunity a c c o r d e d of i t s own he i s by power law but duly of

whom
4 8

recognised

accreditation.

The ambassador i n t h i s l i g h t i s r e g a r d e d as the

4 4

I b i d . a t 23. Ibid. Ibid. (19 3 0) 1 KB 376. Ibid. 74

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e the rules of

s o v e r e i g n and

therefore impleading law simply

him

by to

customary

international
4 9

amounts

impleading 1815

the s o v e r e i g n .

This theory f i n d s e x p r e s s i o n i n the Congress,

Congress of V i e n n a 1915).

(Annex X V I I of the A c t s of t h e

19 March

D.

Comity of N a t i o n s , R e c i p r o c i t y and P e a c e f u l The

Coexistence immunity finds the

c l a s s i c a l n o t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n

where immunity i s g i v e n i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s expression patent i n the of customary r u l e s of international by the need law for

and

rule

reciprocity states. Justice

backed

peaceful

c o e x i s t e n c e of Thus

Chief

Marshall,

when

confronted

with

the

q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o mutual b e n e f i t and p e a c e f u l c o e x i s t e n c e of states, took a p e r s u a s i v e and a p p e a l i n g s t a n c e a s f o l l o w s :

"This p e r f e c t e q u a l i t y and absolute independence of s o v e r e i g n s , and t h i s common i n t e r e s t i m p e l l i n g them t o m u t u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , and an exchange of good o f f i c e s w i t h e a c h o t h e r , have g i v e n r i s e t o a c l a s s of c a s e s i n w h i c h e v e r y s o v e r e i g n i s understood t o w a i v e the e x e r c i s e of a p a r t o f t h a t c o m p l e t e e x c l u s i v e t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , which has been s t a t e d t o be the a t t r i b u t e of every n a t i o n . "
5 0

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s r e a s o n i n g , prima the quest f o r promoting p e a c e f u l with an appeal

facie, i s i n c o n s o n a n t mutual

with

and

i n t e r c o u r s e among entente friendly

states, cordiale.

coupled

f o r mutual

r e s p e c t and over a

Thus t h e

assumption of j u r i s d i c t i o n

4 9

cit.,
50

0'Connell, note 11 a t

op.

c i t . , at 24-29.

pp.

887-998;

Sucharitkul,

op.

S c h o o n e r Exchange v. McFaddon and 136-137.

Others

(1812)

Cranch

75

nation

amounts

to

blatant

d i s r e s p e c t or

disregard

for

the

d i g n i t y of t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e , w h i c h i n p o l i t i c a l and c o u l d be in construed t o mean a v i o l a t i o n of an

legal

terms

established faith of

comity o r the

r e l e g a t i o n t o t h e background of t h e r i g h t s W h i l e on to the the o t h e r hand, the states of comity without with the

the s t a t e of

i n question. immunity on

principle doubt is of

offering

foreign notion

absolutely

grounded

the

hope

promoting f r i e n d l y

relations

i n order
5 1

to avoid

possibility

of c o n f r o n t a t i o n o r d i s r e p u t e . domestic

Furthermore,

t h e o b l i g a t i o n of

c o u r t s not t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over f o r e i g n s t a t e s sufficiently has r e s p e c t e d and w h o l l y d e r i v e d from then become customary state

i s a matter practice, law.

52

which

since

international

An doctrine

important of

argument

usually posited is that

in

support

of to

the the

absolute

immunity

according

p r e v a i l i n g r u l e s o f p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o enforce in execution case the by means o f seizure against a foreign jurisdiction will be an state, empty

which

e x e r c i s e of

attempt of doing

t h e i m p o s s i b l e , even i f t h e r e a s o n s

for taking gestionis.

53

j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e r a t i o n a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d on a c t s jure Judge L a u t e r p a c h t , in offering an argument

i n support

of

the d o c t r i n e of immunity o f s t a t e s , had t h i s t o s a y .

5 1

Ibid. T h e Porto A l e x a n d r e ( 1 9 2 0 ) , p. (1921) 77 F 473; S u c h a r i t k u l , op. op. cit., a t 222-226. 76 30 (The I n g b e r t ) ; The c i t . , n o t e 11 a t 355.

52

Pesaro

"Lauterpacht,

"The main argument i n f a v o u r o f a b s o l u t e immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s been t h e v i e w t h a t what has been c o n s i d e r e d t h e only alternative to absolute immunity, namely, e x e r c i s e of jurisdiction based on the d i s t i n c t i o n between acts jure g e s t i o n i s and a c t s j u r e i m p e r i i , i s i m p o s s i b l e o f d e f i n i t i o n and therefore of a p p l i c a t i o n . Apart from the fact that i t disregards the third alternative, namely, the general abandonment o f immunity, t h a t argument appears t o be, and probably i s , decisive. Courts of d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s and o c c a s i o n a l l y c o u r t s o f t h e same c o u n t r y have t r e a t e d t h e same k i n d of a c t i v i t y i n d i f f e r e n t ways."
54

It between immunity ground

must

be borne

i n mind,

however, that

that

the d i f f e r e n c e to absolute breeding and

the jurisprudence and r e s t r i c t i v e f o r making

of states immunity

adhere

i s likely of

t o be a

enforcement

judgments

difficult

frustrating, matter,

and g i v e n

the u n c e r t a i n t i e s regarding t h i s state will simply ignore

subject

t h e defendant

t h e judgment i n One

o r d e r t o p r o t e c t i t s d i g n i t y among t h e community o f s t a t e s . p o s i t i v e impact, the p o s s i b i l i t y negotiation, comity which however, o f such attempts o f t h e whole matter

c o u l d be l i k e n e d u n t o

g i v i n g way t o a d i p l o m a t i c
5 5

f o r the dispute upon

t o be r e s o l v e d . the patent to the r u l e

The n o t i o n of

of

i s conditioned i n turn lends

concept

reciprocity immunity,

support

of absolute

whereby an atmosphere o f g i v e and t a k e i s promoted and p r e s e r v e d in t h e name of among humanity. states, I This ideal notion have of peaceful

intercourse

presume,

might

influenced

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l t o r u l e i n favour of France.

54

I b i d , a t 222-223. Ibid.

77

E.

The E q u a l i t y One

of S t a t e s

i n t h e Sphere

of I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Law

viable r a t i o n a l foundation essential nature of state

o f s o v e r e i g n immunity stems equality t o have any or

5 6

from law. must

the

in

international

But i n o r d e r f o r t h i s coalesce with such

concept factors

legal basis, i t as sovereignty, attribute attained Thus an

ideas The

independence and d i g n i t y of the state the as an

of s t a t e s .

fundamental cannot be

international of there the above be

person

without without

presence

mentioned no state

factors. and without

sovereignty

will

independent a state

s t a t e t h e r e w i l l be no to achieve plane, equality it must be

s o v e r e i g n t y power. with other states

Hence f o r on with the a

international determinate

ultra-comprehensive no

supreme power, w h i c h

means t h e r e must be

higher

power over t h e s t a t e b o t h it

from w i t h i n and w i t h o u t . that

In reality, an

i s by v i r t u e of t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s

a s t a t e i s accorded

international personality

or r e c o g n i s e d by a community of law. to
57

states

as e q u a l to o t h e r s t a t e s i n t h e e y e s o f t h e True, equal.
5 8

an

equal

cannot

put

pressure

bear

on

another

Any

attempt by a s t a t e t o downplay t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s can lead to serious consequences of political

proposition

5 6

S u c h a r i t k u l , op.

c i t . , note 53 BYIL

17 a t

117. International Law of

B r o w n l i e (1982) R e c o g n i t i o n (1951) .
58

57

197;

Chen,

S c h o o n e r Exchange v. McFadden and O t h e r s (1812) 7 Cranch; The Parlement B e i g e (1880) 5 PD 197; M i g h e l l v. S u l t a n of Johore (1894) 1 QB; The Porto A l e x a n d r e (1920) p. 30 (The I n g b e r t ) ; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; The A r a n t z a z u Mendi (1939) AC 256. 78

e m b a r r a s s m e n t and par in parem The writings his and non

political habet of

tension

or p r o t e s t ,

hence the

maxim

imperium. equality was first analysed in the in

theory of the

natural

famous E n g l i s h

philosopher,

Thomas Hobbes, studied,

book, The further

Leviathan, developed

which t h e r e a f t e r was by Pufendorf.

59

followed fact

This

historical

a p p e a r s t o have been o v e r l o o k e d o r m i s c o n s t r u e d by who, having relied on a less authentic

6 0

some s c h o l a r s attributed the

source

o r i g i n of the error for

p r i n c i p l e to G r o t i u s . Grotius to flirted

Any with that

such c o n c l u s i o n the he idea, was as the

i s in be of

although

i t will father

historically the concept.

untenable A

postulate reading his

6 1

careful

of

Hobbes

already

stated that and

e l s e w h e r e would show t h a t of the system of

s y s t e m was as

i n a n t i t h e s i s to his methods

Grotius,

regards

principles. Pradier-Fodere, in his writings to did

6 2

a leading not but

19th

century expert the

on

Grotius, of state Grotius of selfof

attribute rather of

principle that

equality

Grotius, on the

intimated the

concentrated preservation, states.

5 9

recognition the

rights

p r o p e r t y and

l e g a l p o s i t i o n of the

embassy

Ward, i n h i s s t u d y of t h i s s u b j e c t , concluded t h a t : c i t . , a t pp. 75-84.

D i c k i n s o n , op. Ibid. a t pp.

6 0

35-67. 70, 69-75, 75-86.

6 1

I b i d . a t p.

Ibid. at 51. (See p a r t i c u l a r l y Dr. Dickinson's explanation in footnote 2 in respect of the controversy r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of G r o t i u s to the n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e theory.)

6 2

79

"This theory, though often stated, and beautifully a m p l i f i e d by the a n c i e n t p o e t s , seems f i r s t t o have been thought of as the f o u n d a t i o n o f a s y s t e m of law, by Hobbes, i n h i s famous book c a l l e d The L e v i a t h a n , i n w h i c h t h e r e i s so much t o admire and so much t o condemn. I t was a d o p t e d , and c o n s i d e r a b l y e n l a r g e d by Pufendorf, and i n s t a n t l y a p p r o v e d o f by writers w i t h o u t number."
63

Professor concluded

Dickinson that:

in

thorough

study

of

the

subject

also

"The t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r y o f n a t u r a l e q u a l i t y i n t o t h e law o f n a t i o n s o r i g i n a t e d w i t h and was first definitely s t a t e d by t h e n a t u r a l i s t s , whose i n s p i r a t i o n was found i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f Thomas Hobbes and whose l e a d e r i n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y was Samuel Von P u f e n d o r f . "
64

The

position

thus

a l l u d e d to

i s implicitly

supported

by

P r o f e s s o r Dunning as f o l l o w s :
" P u f e n d o r f ' s s y s t e m r e v e a l s most d i s t i n c t l y t h e i n f l u e n c e of h i s two g r e a t p r e d e c e s s o r s , and i n g e n e r a l i t may be s a i d t o be d i r e c t e d toward a c o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n g v i e w s . Where h i s p h i l o s o p h y i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s of e t h i c s , he c l e a r l y l e a n s t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f G r o t i u s ; where he t a k e s up more p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l t o p i c s , t h e H o b b e s i a n d o c t r i n e assumes t h e more c o n s p i c u o u s p l a c e .
6 5

It

i s instructive

to note

that

Pufendorf

was

greatly

aided i n

t h e development of the p r i n c i p l e o f s t a t e e q u a l i t y a s f a r a s t h e law of n a t i o n s i s concerned by t h e H o b b e s i a n p r e m i s e s or Hobbes' anthropomorphic d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t a t e . l i k e n e d the concept was

6 6

F o r Hobbes a r g u a b l y i n h i s system scientific

of t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e , w h i c h

presumed t o e x i s t i n a community o f men,

unto t h e

I b i d . , 80-81 (refer from Dr. D i c k i n s o n ' s work.

64

6 3

particularly

to

footnote

2),

cited

I b i d , a t p.

69. H i s t o r y of York, 1905, a t p. 80 79. Political p. 318. Theories from

I.N.A. Dunning, A L u t h e r t o Montesquieu, New

66

65

D i c k e n s o n , op. c i t . ,

reasoning logically equality for "men"

b a s e d on or of

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t a t e s which i n t u r n uncovered the d o c t r i n a l precepts words of

semantically states.
6 7

Thus by

s u b s t i t u t i n g the

"states" s t a t e of to of

i n h i s s y s t e m based on natural right of and the natural

s u c h t h e o r i e s as the equality, of

nature, lay the

Hobbes managed rights

foundation follows:

doctrine

fundamental

s t a t e s as

"Which s p e a k i n g o f t h e duty of s i n g l e men we c a l l n a t u r a l , b e i n g a p p l i e d t o whole c i t i e s and n a t i o n s , i s c a l l e d t h e r i g h t of nations. And t h e same e l e m e n t s o f n a t u r a l law and r i g h t , which h a v e h i t h e r t o been spoken of, b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d t o whole c i t i e s and n a t i o n s , may be t a k e n f o r t h e e l e m e n t s o f the laws and the r i g h t s of n a t i o n s . "
6 8

Arguably t h e law this have law, was

Hobbes and

opinion

appears

to

follow

the

idea

that and

of nature

t h e law of n a t i o n s were the same t h i n g subscribed to to by Pufendorf. These

absolutely

ideas

markedly

contributed

the

development

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l regards

e s p e c i a l l y i n the

a r e a of t h e p r a c t i c e of s t a t e as t r e a t m e n t of developed de states. by Wolff,

6 9

t h e r u l e of law These theories

i n r e s p e c t of e q u a l further

p r i n c i p l e s were favour with

whose his but

found

Emerich the

Vattel. line of

Like

predecessors,

Vattel

followed

same

thinking

p e r h a p s i n a more f o r c e f u l manner t h u s :
" S i n c e n a t i o n s a r e f r e e , i n d e p e n d e n t , and e q u a l , and e a c h h a s t h e r i g h t t o d e c i d e i n i t s c o n s c i e n c e what i t must do t o f u l f i l i t s d u t i e s , t h e e f f e c t of t h i s i s t o produce, b e f o r e t h e w o r l d a t l e a s t , a p e r f e c t e q u a l i t y o f r i g h t s among n a t i o n s i n

67

Ibid,

a t 75-76, 75-89. xiv, 4, in English Works, II 186 (cf.

"Dominion, pp. D i c k e n s o n ) , p. 75.

69

D i c k e n s o n , op.

c i t . , a t p. 81

97.

the conduct of t h e i r a f f a i r s and i n the p u r s u i t of their policies. The i n t r i n s i c j u s t i c e o f t h e i r c o n d u c t i s a n o t h e r m a t t e r which i t i s not f o r o t h e r s t o p a s s upon f i n a l l y : so t h a t what one may do another may do, and t h e y must be r e g a r d e d i n t h e s o c i e t y of mankind a s h a v i n g e q u a l r i g h t s . "
7 0

The the

contention past found

that p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g s of s t a t e application in ex case be law of the

equality in or view 20th of

19th in other

centuries

cannot

hypothesi

disputed and

developments i n c a s e law i n America, E n g l a n d countries. The

European

T h i s i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e d by C J M a r s h a l l ' s t h e s i s i n followed partly or

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, where he t h e w r i t i n g s of the n a t u r a l i s t and

wholly thus.

eclectics

of the p a s t

"The world being composed of distinct sovereignties p o s s e s s i n g e q u a l r i g h t s and e q u a l i n d e p e n d e n c e , whose m u t u a l b e n e f i t i s promoted by i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h e a c h o t h e r , and by an i n t e r c h a n g e of t h o s e good o f f i c e s w h i c h h u m a n i t y d i c t a t e s and i t s wants r e q u i r e a l l s o v e r e i g n s have c o n s e n t e d t o a r e l a x a t i o n , i n p r a c t i c e , i n c a s e s under c e r t a i n p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o f t h a t a b s o l u t e and complete j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t e r r i t o r i e s which s o v e r e i g n t y c o n f e r s . This perfect e q u a l i t y and absolute independence of s o v e r e i g n s and t h i s common i n t e r e s t i m p e l l i n g them t o m u t u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , and an exchange of good o f f i c e s w i t h e a c h other have g i v e n r i s e t o a c l a s s o f c a s e s i n w h i c h e v e r y s o v e r e i g n i s understood t o waive the e x e r c i s e o f a p a r t o f t h a t c o m p l e t e e x c l u s i v e t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n w h i c h h a s b e e n s t a t e d t o be t h e a t t r i b u t e of e v e r y s t a t e . "
7 1

Similar

expressions

regarding

the

equality

of

states

in

international c. Cassaux

law can a l s o be
7 2

found i n Le Gouvernement

Espagnol of

i n 18 4 9

and t h e r e a f t e r a l s o i n t h e c l a s s i c dictum

7 0

C f . Dickenson (1812)

a t p.

98.

7 1

7 Cranch 1849

136-137. D a l l o z 1849, 82 p. 5.

72

22 January

B r e t t L J i n t h e P a r l e m e n t B e i g e of 1 8 8 0 . of the c o n c e p t

73

A l t h o u g h ample t r a c e s

c a n w e l l be d i s c e r n e d i n a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of
7 4

municipal court d e c i s i o n s , t h a t the concept the p r i n c i p l e s principles support has of cannot

i t i s appropriate to e x p l a i n further i t s own without the support of

s t a n d on

s o v e r e i g n t y and coalesce in

independence. terms in

Thus a l l t h e s e order The to add

must

logical

to the

legal

b a s i s of a b s o l u t e immunity. consequences and states the

said idea by

two-dimensional measure to

that i s , i t attributes same r i g h t s of and

every

sovereign states Every

the

i n turn and

imposes upon perhaps

these

same measure according these the to

obligations

duties.

state, but

these

principles, seen as a orderly states

t h e r e f o r e has general

equal

rights, geared

r i g h t s must be

limitation

towards The

p r e s e r v a t i o n of sovereign

conduct o f from and suit

sovereign

states. a

immunity o f of

i s therefore

matter

give-and-take, usage and

technically international

p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d by culture.

law,

political

F.

B e n e f i c i a r i e s of S t a t e Having dealt with order so as the

Immunities rational to foundation the of sovereign of

immunity, these

i t i s in

now to

explore bare

beneficiaries what

immunities,

lay

under

specific

73

(1920) p.

30,

The

Ingbert. c i t . , note 11; Sinclair, op. c i t . ,

See note 7.

74

S u c h a r i t k u l , op.

83

conditions

f o r e i g n s t a t e be

accorded

immunity o r be

exempted

from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l o c a l c o u r t . Generally procedural and speaking, state immunities are considered confines of

therefore primarily f a l l

w i t h i n the

p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. of a domestic jurisdiction a question

I n o t h e r words, t h e power

c o u r t or a l o c a l forum t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t has over of a particular legal international the controversy i s prima law and this at facie is is

private on

notion issue

wholly

predicated

whether

s u b j e c t matter
75

properly a s s o c i a t e d with a foreign element. immunity which emanates from the

Thus t h e p l e a f o r of public the

principles

international lex fori, a

law would have to be e x p l o r e d w i t h concept law. a l l too well associated

r e s p e c t to with

private where

international

T h i s then

t a k e s us unto a n o t h e r

plane

a t t e n t i o n must be

drawn to immunity ratione state i s directly

personae, involved as to a

that i s , regards process

when a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n suits and

immunity ratione materiae,

which r e f e r s

whereby a f o r e i g n s t a t e ' s p r o p e r t y i s a t i s s u e .

S e e C h e s h i r e and North, P r i v a t e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (12th ed. 1992); D i c e y and M o r r i s , C o n f l i c t of Law ( 1 2 t h ed. 1 9 9 3 ) ; B e a l , T r e a t i s e on the C o n f l i c t of Laws ( 1 9 3 5 ) .
"The c o n f l i c t of laws i s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t o f t h e l a w o f e v e r y c o u n t r y b e c a u s e d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s have d i f f e r e n t l e g a l s y s t e m s c o n t a i n i n g d i f f e r e n t l e g a l r u l e s , w h i l e p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law seeks primarily to regulate relations between different sovereign states. Nevertheless, some overlap exists, for example, t h e t o p i c s of s o v e r e i g n and d i p l o m a t i c i m m u n i t y from s u i t s and government s e i z u r e of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y "

75

by the l a t e Dr. M o r r i s , by J.D. McClean.

Conflict

of Law

(1993)

pp.

1-2.

Edited

84

The

lex

fori,

alluded since

to

above,

must

be

considered light refers from

in to the

regard to j u r i s d i c t i o n , the exemption of the

immunity i n t h i s of the

person state,
7 6

sovereign that

jurisdiction be granted

of a n o t h e r

hence t h e n o t i o n has that nothing

immunity local

to s t a t e s laws. state

specifically Which means

t o do

with

substantive rules of t h e to

procedural

and

remedial important

and

public

policy

are rather very with issues

factors

c o n s i d e r when

confronted

i n r e s p e c t of

s o v e r e i g n immunity, i . e . , p r i v a t e i n domestic c o u r t s . Immunities wide but rightfully

claims against foreign states

a c c o r d e d t o s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s cover a of institutions and persons. as a l r e a d y states must in by qua have

interesting

spectrum

These i m m u n i t i e s stated, invicem due in to

t e c h n i c a l l y are accorded e s p e c i a l l y , the attributes naturali as the of the state. in For

statu rights And

vivunt, equal

reality

fundamental

regards

treatment

foreign states i n the be

jurisdictions. in

enjoyment of e q u a l t r e a t m e n t must the be

foreign j u r i s d i c t i o n s of reciprocity

r e c i p r o c a t e d , because of comity will

absence

effect

simply

r e l e g a t e d t o t h e bottom o r d e s t r o y e d . S t a t e immunity may an indication that the be extended t o s t a t e s even indirectly i f there i s impleaded, In this

state

i s being

i . e . , when t h e s t a t e i s n o t b e i n g sued i n i t s own respect, one i s alluding to suits a g a i n s t the

name.

government, i t s

P o r t o A l e x a n d r e (1920) p. 30 (The I n g b e r t ) ; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America and R e p u b l i c of France v. D o l l f u s Mieg e t C i e SS v. Bank of E n g l a n d 1952 AC 582. 85

7 6

head

of s t a t e ,

ministries, and

s u b s i d i a r y organs, other institutions in the

state

agencies or can be of

instrumentalities, characterised everyday that degree personae the as

that

government

entity

performance noting enjoy states,

governmental

functions. or

I t i s worth of states to

therefore the same

personal of

sovereigns

heads

immunities

normally

extended

ratione
7 7

and ratione materiae. a potente a young

I n M i g h e l l v. S u l t a n of J o h o r e , been prayed sued in for his a breach

defendant, to

having lady,

of that

promise

marry

defence as a

immunity be of Johore,

g r a n t e d t o him because o f h i s p o s i t i o n then a B r i t i s h certification protectorate. by the foreign I t was

Sultan the as

held

that office

conclusive

colonial

regards the s t a t u s court from

o f t h e s u l t a n as a s o v e r e i g n , p r e c l u d e d t h e jurisdiction, although i t was clear the

exercising

t e r r i t o r y r e f e r r e d t o was not t o t a l l y independent crown. cannot This decision be impleaded

of the

British

shows i n r e a l i t y t h a t a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n in English courts. This same line of

r e a s o n i n g found a p p l i c a t i o n i n the Duke of B r u n s w i c k v. t h e K i n g o f Hanover, Portugal, different Convention

7 9 78

and

was

further

extended

i n De

Haber v. Queen

of

respectively. turn.
8 0

The law, however, o f l a t e has t a k e n a reading of the Harvard of Draft states

careful

shows

i t i n c l u d e d s o v e r e i g n s and

heads

7 7

(1894) 1

QB. 13 L J .

7 8

(1844) c h . 107 (1851) 17 QB (1976) 2 I MLR

7 9

196. 214.
86

8 0

under

one r u b r i c ,

that

i s , the "state."

This

aspect

of the

s u b j e c t thus was made s i m p l e state f u n c t i o n a r i e s , which

i n r e s p e c t of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of means s o v e r e i g n immunity and s t a t e But

immunity can a p p r o p r i a t e l y be r e f e r r e d t o i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . one of must be e c l e c t i c the

8 1

i n v i e w o f t h e concept of dual p e r s o n a l i t y concept clearly introduced after into Italian

state,

practice had

somewhere favour

i n 1882, w h i c h most judges

t h e second w o r l d war i n Continental

found

with
8 2

and w r i t e r s

European c o u n t r i e s . State

immunity h a s a l s o This aspect uniformity the years

been

extended

to representatives

of government. have attained over

o f t h e law i s much o l d e r and might and may some have i n many on the

of practice, exercised
83

respects

influence

development o f s t a t e i m m u n i t y . as diplomatic agents,

Government r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s such of s p e c i a l missions, delegates consular

members

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e s t a t e on i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , officers the and many o t h e r of foreign state institutions affairs, directly

r e l a t e d to accorded

conduct

are therefore

duly

immunities i n r e s p e c t o f a c t s p e r f o r m e d on b e h a l f they represent. In consider this regard i t would the degree be apposite

of the s t a t e s

or appropriate

to

or e x p l o r e

t o which

the concept

of s t a t e

immunity has been c o v e r e d

b y t h e r u l e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, o r

81

S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , n o t e 11 a t 233. Ibid. I b i d . a t 23-24.

87

8 2

8 3

more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,

by c o n v e n t i o n s .
8 4

The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e a r e a s

so f a r c o v e r e d by c o n v e n t i o n s . (1) Brussels rules Convention to

f o r the immunity

unification of

of

certain vessels

relating

state-owned

(1926) . (2) (3) (4) The V i e n n a C o n v e n t i o n on D i p l o m a t i c R e l a t i o n s The New York C o n v e n t i o n on S p e c i a l M i s s i o n (1961) .

(1969).

The V i e n n a C o n v e n t i o n on the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s t a t e s in their relation to international (1975) , and organization the of

universal

character

European protocol

Convention on s t a t e immunity w i t h a d d i t i o n a l (1972), It above, would thereto. that a l l these Convention, conventions give due

appear

referred

to the

e x c e p t t h e European

regard to

use of s t a t e p r o p e r t y s i t u a t e d i n foreign s t a t e s f o r the purpose of conducting foreign a f f a i r s , receiving state. enjoy custom state is
8 5

w i t h o u t any i n t e r f e r e n c e from t h e

These r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of government t h e r e f o r e in their personal capacity, on the duration which of by

immunities specifically
86

predicated immunities

their it is of a

appointment. officially waiver, a

These by

remain

intact I n the

unless absence

waived state of

the

sending s t a t e . cannot state.

representative the receiving

be made amenable Furthermore,

to

the

jurisdiction

immunity

84

S e e J . Bouchez Ibid.

(1979) NYIL, V o l . 10, p. 3.

8 5

8 6

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . ,

note 17 a t pp.
88

121-124.

ratione

materiae,

covering

the

performance

of

governmental

d u t i e s by an envoy o r government r e p r e s e n t a t i v e u s u a l l y s u r v i v e s the tenure of t h e i r appointment.

87

I n short, and t h u s

i t i s denoted o r d e r i v a t i v e of t h e

referred state. One

to as d i p l o m a t i c

immunity

other

area

that

deserves

to

be

mentioned aspects

is of

jurisdictional

immunities

and t h i s

covers

not only

immunities from t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s such important areas of a as immunities domestic

of a s t a t e , but a l s o from the exercise of

covers of a l l

juridical judicial or

powers review

court

i n respect

official

or examination

of issues relating "a

to the s t a t e orders,

i t s representatives,

f o r example,

process,"

appearance a s a w i t n e s s , a l o c a l law. court based

88

and judgment o f c o u r t s

i n v i o l a t i o n of

What i s b e i n g p u t a c r o s s on rules relating to

here i s that the l o c a l immunity, be i t

sovereign

t r a n s f e r r e d o r not, c a n n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n state.

over a f o r e i g n

There i s t h e r e f o r e a r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e immunity from t h e courts. immunity and t a x that the

j u r i s d i c t i o n of domestic c o u r t s or l o c a l These i m m u n i t i e s a l s o c o v e r from e x e c u t i o n , privileges.

8 9

immunity from a r r e s t , and i n v i o l a b i l i t y argue

immunity from So i n essence

search one

can c l e a r l y

s u b m i s s i o n t o a l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n does n o t mean t h e p r o p e r t y o f a f o r e i g n s t a t e can be a t t a c h e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f s a t i s f y i n g an

8 7

I b i d . , O ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . , a t pp. 887-938. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , n o t e 17 a t p. 122. I b i d . a t pp. 122-123.

89

8 8

8 9

a d v e r s e j u r i d i c a l d e c i s i o n , for such a process and totally to of an affront of to the dignity

9 0

can be cumbersome the state being no

of

subjected measure sovereign the

measures execution can be

execution. the

Granted properties

this, of a

then

against allowed

foreign given But i t their in

state

under

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law,

t h r u s t and appear

f o r c e of t h e d o c t r i n e that some there states is no

of s t a t e immunity. are now modulating

would

positions,

although

clear-cut

authority

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t o s u p p o r t s u c h a c t i o n s .

P r a c t i c e i n t h e M a t t e r o f Sovereign

Immunity

Sovereign

I m m u n i t y C l a i m s t o Immunity i n E n g l i s h

Courts

Overview Once absolute respect This upon a time to the English letter courts without applied any the rule of in
9 1

immunity of

qualifications

a c t i o n s both i n personam and that at common law, or indirectly 19th a

i n rem,

respectively. not

means

foreign

s t a t e could

be

impleaded its

directly
9 2

before century

English courts and perhaps f o r

without almost

consent.
90

Thus i n t h e

T h e law i n t h i s r e s p e c t was m a i n t a i n e d as an a u t h o r i t y u n t i l r e c e n t l y when t h e T a t e l e t t e r was i s s u e d i n the United S t a t e s f o l l o w e d by t h e 1976 FSIA, which i n c l e a r terms does not f o l l o w t h e s a i d a u t h o r i t y anymore. The I L C r e p o r t s seemed not c l e a r on t h i s s u b j e c t , but appear t o have d e a l t w i t h i t i n g r e a t detail. I n s h o r t , however, member c o u n t r i e s a r e not a l l a g r e e d as to whether a foreign s t a t e ' s property be subject to execution. S e e S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , note 7 a t pp. 121-127; The P o r t o A l e x a n d r e (1920) p. 30; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; Kahan v. P a k i s t a n F e d e r a t i o n (1951) 2K 13 1003.
92 9 1

Duke o f B r u n s w i c k v. K i n g o f Hanover (1844) 6 Beav 1, 2HLC

90

the

g r e a t e r p a r t o f t h e 20th

century

the doctrine of absolute

immunity became t h e order o f t h e day whereby f o r e i g n s t a t e s were accorded total immunity i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether the a c t i v i t i e s In

i n q u e s t i o n be governmental, non-governmental o r c o m m e r c i a l . o t h e r words, what appears

t o be embraced by E n g l i s h c o u r t s stems stance t h a t recognised s t a t e s of have t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s r e s o l v e d hence t h e to avoid

from a r e a s o n a b l e and a p p e a l i n g e q u a l s t a t u s and s t a n d i n g cannot or canvassed proposition disrepute. law.

93

i n the l o c a l

c o u r t s o f one o r t h e o t h e r , to foreign states

t h a t immunity be g i v e n

These r u l e s have s i n c e become p a r t o f E n g l i s h common however, that efforts i n chartering

I t i s t o be noted,

t h e unbeaten path t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s o l u t e immunity d o c t r i n e was not clear-cut, but was rather met with doubts and

uncertainties.

(1)

A Survey,of E a r l y E n g l i s h P r a c t i c e The two most w e l l c i t e d a u t h o r i t i e s i n support of absolute

immunity i n E n g l i s h l e g a l p r a c t i c e were The P a r l e m e n t B e i g e and The Porto Alexandre. I n The Parlement Beige, the court of

appeals

r e v e r s e d S i r Robert

Phillimore's

d e c i s i o n a t the f i r s t

i n s t a n c e thus:
"As a consequence o f t h e a b s o l u t e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f e v e r y sovereign s t a t e to r e s p e c t t h e independence and d i g n i t y o f e v e r y o t h e r s o v e r e i g n s t a t e , e a c h and e v e r y one d e c l i n e s t o e x e r c i s e by means o f i t s c o u r t s any o f i t s t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e person o f any s o v e r e i g n . "
9 4

1. "Cristina
9 4

(1938) AC 485.

(18 8 0 ) 5 PD 197, 217.

91

The equality states as

court of can

of

appeals sovereign

thus in

laid the

much

emphasis of

on

the

every be

association but by the

civilised in

gathered to be

from i t s r a t i o , was

decision

Parlement decision got

Beige i n The

sure

influenced

Lord

Towell's

P r i n s F r e d e r i k , which as a m a t t e r of p r i n c i p l e J u s t i c e Marshall's known,

95

i t s i n s p i r a t i o n from C h i e f as i t i s well

thesis. foundation

The for

Porto Alexandre, the

laid

the

triumph of a b s o l u t e

immunity.

The

c a s e concerned a German which by some and was

privately means got thereafter later

owned v e s s e l p r e v i o u s l y l a w f u l l y adjudged by r e q u i s i t i o n e d by to be the

named Ingbert, Portuguese

the

P r i z e Court

P o r t u g u e s e Government, but employed In in view bound

determined in Hill the J,

exclusively of

commercial of by this the by

activities evidence,

carriage however,

freight.

declared

himself

P a r l e m e n t B e i g e a u t h o r i t y and setting aside the w r i t i n rem

therefore declined jurisdiction against the said ship.

Absolute in English decisions be it of

immunity i n rem law.

96

thus

appeared t o be

clearly

settled two

I t must, however, be

explained

t h a t these and be.

were handed down by reversed by the

t h e c o u r t of a p p e a l s of Lords i f need

therefore could Furthermore,

House

would a p p e a r c o n s i d e r a b l e the decision. did the I n other not

s c e p t i c i s m loomed l a r g e i n r e s p e c t ratio decidendi the majority the i n The

words, the with

Porto In of

Alexandre spite of

f i n d favour

at

large.

considerable

doubts

expressed,

principle

9 5

S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. P o r t o Alexandre

c i t . , note 11 a t 66-71. 20.

9 6

(1920) p.

92

a b s o l u t e immunity was made t h e o r d e r o f t h e day o r more confirmed arguably personam. absolute

y7

readily Courts, in

on numerous slanted

subsequent

occasions in rem

by E n g l i s h than

towards

actions

actions

The acceptance continued

9 8

o r adherence o r was more Cristina

t o the d o c t r i n e of clearly dealt debated with and

immunity

stated i n the C r i s t i n a . concerning ownership,

The

issues

possession

and c o n t r o l . There

L e t us f o r a

moment c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . Cristina, belonging to a duly

a ship c a l l e d the Spanish shipping registered

constituted

company, Compania N a v i e r a

Vascongado

w h i c h h a d been

and c a r r y i n g on b u s i n e s s a t B i l b a o , was soon t o dock a t t h e p o r t of C a r d i f f . I t so happened t h a t shortly before the a r r i v a l of

t h e s a i d s h i p but a f t e r she had s t a r t e d h e r voyage from t h e p o r t of Spain, a decree was passed by the Spanish Government In

requisitioning a l l vessels registered a t the port of Bilbao. t h e l i g h t o f t h i s decree, and a c t i n g on t h e e x p r e s s of the Spanish a t that government, time, went the Spanish on b o a r d consul,

instructions resident at

Cardiff

the C r i s t i n a

and by t h e

a u t h o r i t y reposed i n him by t h e s a i d d e c r e e d i s m i s s e d t h e m a s t e r and p u t a new master appellants claiming Spanish thereupon possession government i n h i s p l a c e or i n charge of t h e s h i p . issued a writ in as rem sole challenging owners. The or The

of t h e C r i s t i n a , i n response thereto

entered

a conditional

See H i g g i n s , Recent Developments i n Law o f Immunity i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (1977) A J I L 71, p. 423.

9 8

Sovereign

(1938) AC 485.
93

appearance that The in and his the

a s t h e r i g h t f u l owner of t h e C r i s t i n a and gave n o t i c e writ be s e t a s i d e f o r i t impleaded a foreign state. ruled

House of L o r d s h a v i n g t a k e n p a i n s t o r e v i e w the i s s u e s

f a v o u r o f t h e S p a n i s h government, t h u s s e t t i n g a s i d e the w r i t a l l other judgment subsequent analysed the proceedings d o c t r i n e of thereof. absolute Lord Atkin, i n s o v e r e i g n t y of

states,

as f o l l o w s :

"The f o u n d a t i o n f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e w r i t and a r r e s t o f t h e s h i p i s t o be found i n two p r o p o s i t i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w e n g r a f t e d i n t o our d o m e s t i c law which seem t o me t o be w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d and t o be beyond d i s p u t e . This f i r s t i s t h a t t h e c o u r t s o f a c o u n t r y w i l l not i m p l e a d a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n , t h a t i s , t h e y w i l l not by t h e i r p r o c e s s make him against his will a p a r t y to l e g a l proceedings whether the proceedings i n v o l v e p r o c e s s a g a i n s t h i s person or seek to r e c o v e r from him s p e c i f i c p r o p e r t y o r damages. The second i s that they w i l l not by t h e i r process, w h e t h e r t h e s o v e r e i g n i s a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s or not, s e i z e o r d e t a i n p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s h i s o r of w h i c h he i s i n possession or c o n t r o l . T h e r e has been some d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r a c t i c e o f n a t i o n s a s t o p o s s i b l e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s second p r i n c i p l e a s t o w h e t h e r i t e x t e n d s t o p r o p e r t y o n l y u s e d f o r the commercial purposes of the s o v e r e i g n or to p e r s o n a l p r i v a t e property. I n t h i s c o u n t r y i t i s i n my o p i n i o n w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i t a p p l i e s to both."
9 9

This was

formulation

of

the

law

regarding

s o v e r e i g n immunity and hence was that

a c c e p t e d by

t h e House o f L o r d s cases.
1 0 0

as d e f i n i t i v e i t appears

applied

i n subsequent

But

very clear

n o t a l l t h e i r l o r d s h i p s were r e a d y t o go a s f a r a s L o r d A t k i n i n his e x p o s i t i o n of the s u b j e c t was hesitant, while in issue. Lords L o r d Maugham, i t would and Macmillan

appear,

Thankerton

"Ibid.
1 0 0Jc

See N.C.H. Dunbar,

132,

Hague R e c u e i l

203

(1971)

258-

350.
94

q u e s t i o n e d the based avoid this on

authority

of The
101

Porto Alexandre, whether i t Lord Macmillan, head, in order issue of

was to with the

adequate his

reasoning. heart as to to

allowing elusive of

control

his

took

question public

whether law

the

application to

precept

international

relating

absolute

immunity i s j u s t i f i e d or w e l l s e t t l e d i n the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s . He t h e n warned t h a t

"It i s manifestly of the h i g h e s t importance t h a t the c o u r t s o f t h i s c o u n t r y b e f o r e t h e y g i v e t h e f o r c e o f law w i t h i n this realm to any doctrine of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law should be satisfied that i t has the h a l l m a r k s o f general assent and reciprocity. "
1 0 2

The different adjudged absolute decision,

decision from t h a t most

handed of H i l l in

down

by

Lord

Atkin an in to

seemed earlier respect justify

not case of his

J i n the English Hill J, in

Jupiter, practice attempt

important

immunity. ruled thus:

There,

"The m o t i o n to s e t a s i d e the writ i s b a s e d on the a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e J u p i t e r i s the p r o p e r t y o f t h e U n i o n . . . . The w r i t i s a w r i t i n rem . . . i t i s a w r i t w h i c h c o m p e l s t h e owner e i t h e r t o appear and submit t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r to a l l o w judgment a g a i n s t h i s p r o p e r t y t o go by d e f a u l t . In these circumstances, t h e s h i p b e i n g R u s s i a n and t h e R u s s i a n Sovereign a s s e r t i n g p r o p e r t y i n her and b e i n g u n w i l l i n g t o s u b m i t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the c o u r t , t h i s c o u r t has no j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n proceedings against that property or to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t the s h i p i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e Russian Sovereign."
1 0 3

1 0 1

Cristina I b i d . at

(1938) AL 497.

485.

1 0 2

p.

The J u p i t e r 290.

103

(1924) p.

236,

no.

1,

c f . Dunbar,

op. c i t . ,

95

On Bankes L J J, thus

appeal (as he

the

judgment

of

Hill

was

duly

affirmed. Hill

t h e n was)

s u p p o r t e d the p o s i t i o n

t a k e n by

" H i l l J has s e t a s i d e t h e w r i t , i n my o p i n i o n r i g h t l y , the grounds w h i c h he e x p r e s s e d , I t h i n k a c c u r a t e l y . "

1 0 4

on

Scrutton

L J a l s o supported the

s a i d d e c i s i o n without question

in

the f o l l o w i n g

f o r m u l a t e d manner.

" I t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e Union has been r e c o g n i s e d de j u r e and de facto by t h e B r i t i s h Government. I t appears to me w i t h o u t g o i n g any f u r t h e r , without i n v e s t i g a t i n g whether the c l a i m i s good o r bad, t h a t t h e c o u r t on h e a r i n g t h a t s t a t e m e n t made t o i t must d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n . "
1 0 5

Thus

in

view by

of the

the

fact

that

the

Soviet

Union

has

been

recognised the the

British proof of

government c o u p l e d w i t h t h e ownership of the Jupiter,

fact that persuaded the

USSR o f f e r e d court to

decline of

jurisdiction. courts sovereign on

These c a s e s in declining

illustrate to the 1880

consistency

English

exercise doctrine case of

j u r i s d i c t i o n over f o r e i g n of a b s o l u t e

s t a t e s b a s e d on i n the

immunity e a r l i e r

established

the Parlement B e i g e . It doctrine since i s of of the greatest i n t e r e s t t o note, however, t h a t shaky after 1938 as and can the has be

absolute time been

immunity became fighting a

that

losing the

battle, relative

but or

recalled,

i t took some t i m e b e f o r e

restrictive

104

C . F . Dunbar, op.

c i t . , p.

291.

I b i d . a t 292. See g e n e r a l l y the d e c i s i o n handed down by A t k i n L J i n t h e J u p i t e r d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h ownership c o n t r o l and p o s s e s s i o n (mere a s s e r t i o n was t h e watchword).
96

1 0 5

doctrine law.
1 0 6

of

immunity was

given

i t s rightful

place

in

English

A Look a t Post-Second Britain doctrine not take of d i d not

World War give up

Cases i t s continued the war. of Many acceptance However, the in of the

a b s o l u t e immunity a f t e r before the

i t did of

long

shortcomings
107

doctrine fact

absolute

immunity

became

apparent.

started and

q u e s t i o n i n g t h e r a t i o n a l e behind the a b s o l u t e immunity r u l e whether i t s l e g i t i m a c y could T h i s was possibly be supported by as

cogent regards

reasoning.

f o l l o w e d by a g r a d u a l d i s q u i e t a b s o l u t e immunity. the unbeaten that path as

t h e u n c h a l l e n g e d r u l e of In elusive still order issues, to clear

regards cases

these that to

i t i s suggested

early

post-war

followed e a r l i e r

authorities

in English

practice

need

be c o n s i d e r e d . The q u e s t i o n a s t o whether a p u b l i c c o r p o r a t i o n can be as a public or the the entity to be truly accorded so

incorporated was the

108

immunity v. Tass of

subject There

issue

of c o n t e n t i o n i n K r a j i n a a be careful accorded an

Agency. all

Court ruled having

of Appeal a f t e r that immunity

review to

the

evidence, Cohen L J , that

Tass case

Agency.

been i n f l u e n c e d by

American

law, argued
106

T h e P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l (1977) AC 373 JC; T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) QB 529 (CA); I C o n g r e s o d e l P a r t i d o (1981) 3 WLR 329 (HL) .
107

The P h i l i p p i n e Admiral (19 4 9 ) 2 A l l E R 274.

(1977) AL 373

JC.

1 0 8

97

"A s o v e r e i g n government may s o i n c o r p o r a t e a p a r t i c u l a r department o f s t a t e a s t o make i t p l a i n t h a t i t i s t o be an o r d i n a r y t r a d i n g , c o m m e r c i a l o r b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y and n o t t o be p a r t o f t h e s t a t e s o t h a t i t c a n c l a i m immunity, b u t I t h i n k i t would be wrong t o i n f e r from t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , and I s h o u l d not, w i t h o u t f u r t h e r argument, be p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t t h e view, t h a t i t n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w e d t h a t , because a department of s t a t e was g r a n t e d i n c o r p o r a t i o n , i t was d e p r i v e d t h e r e b y o f t h e r i g h t to a s s e r t i t s s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s . "
1 0 9

He f u r t h e r s t a t e d c l e a r l y t h a t
" I t h i n k t h a t t u r n s upon what I have a l r e a d y s a i d , t h a t , i n my v i e w , t h e d e f e n d a n t s do e s t a b l i s h t h a t T a s s was, and i n essence i s , a department o f s t a t e t o t h e n e c e s s a r y e x t e n t t o s h i f t t h e onus o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e y were a s e p a r a t e l e g a l e n t i t y to the p l a i n t i f f . T h a t onus, i n my o p i n i o n , he h a s f a i l e d t o discharge. For these reasons I t h i n k t h a t the d e c i s i o n of Birkett J was r i g h t and o u g h t t o be a f f i r m e d . "
1 1 0

In the l i g h t

o f t h e t o n e o f t h e judgment, one i s c o n v i n c e d

to the f u l l e s t e x t e n t t h a t t h e judgment h e r e i n s t a t e d appears t o f o l l o w a w e l l s e t t l e d E n g l i s h l a w i n r e s p e c t o f t h e law r e l a t i n g to domestic be corporations, f o r nothing by any o t h e r i n t h e judgment seemed t o independent except factors in

influenced

pertinent Agency

ruling

i n favour

of the Tass

t h e a u t h o r i t y of

English Acts of Parliament

o r p e r h a p s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law and t h e i n issue, i . e . , USSR. of the doctrine of

i n t e r n a l laws o f t h e c o u n t r y Again i n this case

t h e shortcomings

a b s o l u t e immunity were made known by S i n g l e t o n L J .

" I c o n f e s s t h a t I do n o t know what t h o s e words mean. They a r e n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o s a y i n g t h a t T a s s i s a l e g a l e n t i t y . I f t h e y were, t h e p o s i t i o n m i g h t be d i f f e r e n t . So f a r a s I c a n s e e t h e r e i s no p r e c e d e n t f o r e x t e n d i n g immunity t o a c o r p o r a t e body c a r r y i n g on b u s i n e s s i n t h i s c o u n t r y , and I s h o u l d w i s h f o r

109

(1949) Ibid.

2 A l l E R 274.

98

further argument extended."

1 1 1

before

deciding

that

it

could

be

so

As simply earlier

can

be

gathered to be

from

the

above passage, with the

Singleton

LJ

appears on

taking

issue

existing and

authority cases

e s t a b l i s h e d i n The

Porto

Alexandre

other

that followed i t s authority. radical position. Another United and the important case

H i s argument thus seemed t o t a k e a

worthy

of

consideration

is

the

S t a t e s and

the Republic
112

of France v. D o l l f u s Mieg e t C i e the h e a r t of t h e i s s u e the UK and for the the United before States of

t h e Bank of E n g l a n d . court set was up whether a

There

France,

having

Tripartite

Commission

restitution

monetary g o l d f o r e n f o r c i n g t h e terms of P a r t I I I of a agreement s i g n e d by 18 Allied

purported the

the d u l y c o n s t i t u t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f after the war could possibly

governments

assert the at the the

immunity i n view o f the demand made by 64 gold bars in issue stayed the of be returned.

the p l a i n t i f f s J . , the to

that judge avoid

Jenkins

first

instance,

a l l proceedings right the of

i n order and

interference choses Dollful the in

with action

possession sovereign the

c o n t r o l of

three to

states of

involved. where of the On a was

Mieg

thereupon of the

appealed judge

court

appeals

judgment

trial

was

reversed

i n view

mistaken further

d i s p o s a l o f 13 o f t h e appeal

64 gold b a r s

i n question. judgment

t o the House of Lords,

Jenkins J's

X 1 1

lbid. (1951)

a t 274, ch. 33.

279.

1 1 2

99

restored. following

Lord light.

J o w i t t took time t o c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e s

i n the

" I agree w i t h J e n k i n s J . i n t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t the f o r e i g n governments h a d t h e i m m e d i a t e r i g h t t o p o s s e s s i o n o f the 64 bars made i t impossible, consistently with the e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e o f E n g l i s h l a w r e l a t i n g t o s t a t e immunity, f o r r e l i e f t o be g i v e n i n t h i s a c t i o n by o r d e r i n g t h e d e l i v e r y up of the b a r s o r by g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g t h e bank from p a r t i n g w i t h t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n ; f o r i f e i t h e r o f t h e s e c o u r s e s were t a k e n i t would be necessary f o r the foreign governments t o t a k e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c o u n t r y i f t h e y wanted to recover the gold here. The d o c t r i n e o f immunity s h o u l d n o t , I t h i n k , be c o n f i n e d to those cases i n which the f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n was either directly i n possession of property by h i m s e l f o r a t least i n d i r e c t l y by h i s s e r v a n t s , f o r i f i t were so c o n f i n e d t h e d o c t r i n e would not be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e o f any b a i l m e n t . I can find nothing i n any d e c i d e d case to support any such limitation. We h a v e been r e f e r r e d t o c e r t a i n A m e r i c a n c a s e s , which I have c o n s i d e r e d w i t h c a r e , b u t I do n o t t h i n k t h a t any of t h e s e c a s e s a f f o r d s a n y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s u c h a l i m i t a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y a s i s h e r e sought t o be introduced.
1 , 1 1 3

He then went on by a r g u i n g

thus:

" I f i t were so l i m i t e d t h e r e s u l t w o u l d be t h a t i f t h e f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n d e p o s i t e d h i s bag o r h i s j e w e l l e r y w i t h t h e r a i l w a y o r w i t h t h e h o t e l o r w i t h t h e bank, p r o c e e d i n g s c o u l d be taken a g a i n s t the b a i l e e , c l a i m i n g t h e d e l i v e r y of the a r t i c l e which had been d e p o s i t e d by o r on b e h a l f o f t h a t s o v e r e i g n .
1 , 1 1 4

P r o f e s s o r Dunbar the

in his collected

course

a t t h e Hague

analysed seems

D o l l f u s Mieg c a s e and i n c o n c l u s i o n s a i d

that "there
115

t o be no tertium quid f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f i m m u n i t y . " r e s p e c t who i s right, P r o f e s s o r Dunbar or Lord Earl

In this A

Jowitt?

(1952) AC of L o r d s ) .
1 1 4

1 1 3

605; t h a t i s when t h e c a s e was a p p e a l e d

(House

I b i d . a t 67. S e e Dunbar, op. c i t . , a t p. 333.

100

115

d e b a t e on

this

issue

certainly will

g i v e an i n t e r e s t i n g

reading

but t h a t s h o u l d not d e t a i n us a t t h i s j u n c t u r e . The to but was apply E n g l i s h j u d i c i a r y over t h e y e a r s have had the o c c a s i o n the d o c t r i n e of immunity w i t h o u t any qualifications, way or the other

i t would appear t h a t questioned

i t s a u t h o r i t y i n one

i n t h e c a s e of Juan
1 1 6

Ysmael and Co. v. Government t o be of

o f t h e R e p u b l i c of I n d o n e s i a . considered by the of a be Privy

T h e r e the i s s u e t h a t f e l l Council was what degree or

substantiation in property

foreign state's or

c l a i m to t i t l e in order

interest to grant failed

accepted held that

recognised

immunity. to

I t was

the Government of I n d o n e s i a

p r o v e i t s i n t e r e s t i n the Steamship impleaded hence the a p p e a l

T a s i k m a l a j a as to w a r r a n t a c c o r d i n g l y was stayed and

her being

t h e judgment of t h e A p p e a l Court o f Hong Kong was an admonition that Lord the other questions r a i s e d

set aside with be

i n the a p p e a l

considered. explanation.

J o w i t t i n h i s judgment o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g

"The v i e w t h a t a b a r e a s s e r t i o n by a f o r e i g n government o f i t s c l a i m i s s u f f i c i e n t has t h e advantage of b e i n g l o g i c a l , and s i m p l e i n a p p l i c a t i o n , but i t may l e a d to a very grave i n j u s t i c e i f t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d by t h e f o r e i g n government i s i n f a c t n o t m a i n t a i n a b l e and t h e v i e w o f S c r u t t o n L J has not found f a v o u r i n subsequent c a s e s . "
1 1 7

In

quest

to

explore

the

issues

at

stake

Lord

Jowitt

cited

Compania N a v i e r a Vascongado v. SS C r i s t i n a i n which L o r d W r i g h t had expressed h i s doubts obiter with the authority in issue,

116

(1955) AC Ibid. 531.

72 r e p o r t e d i n I L R , 1954,

p.

95.

117

101

coupled thesis. present and the

with

Lord

Maugham

candid

rejection

of

the

Scrutton on t h e

In a further i s s u e Lord Ltd. thus the

1 1 8

attempt

to offer

an e x p o s i t i o n

Jowitt

referred to Haile

S e l a s s i e v. Cable refused to stay by L o r d as a

Wireless action, in

where t h e C o u r t

of Appeal

accepting

the view c a n d i d l y
1 1 9

expressed proof

Maugham

Cristina,

requiring

more

prerequisite

to claiming

immunity.

For Lord

Maugham

"a mere

c l a i m by a f o r e i g n government i s n o t enough." a stage further i n embracing Godden

T h i s was c a r r i e d i n the

L J ' s position Judge

A r a n t z a z u Menai c a s e

where t h e l e a r n e d

( a s he t h e n was)

s t a t e d more c l e a r l y t h a t
"Where a c l a i m f o r immunity i s made by sovereign i t i s n o t enough t h a t h i s c l a i m s h o u l d a s s e r t i o n o f r i g h t o r a mere c l a i m . "
1 2 0

a be

foreign a bare

The

judicial

d i s q u i e t expressed

i n Juan

Ysmael

& Co. L t d .

v.

Government o f t h e R e p u b l i c manifested

of Indonesia

a l l u d e d t o above c l e a r l y del Trigo.

1 2 1

i t s e l f i n Baccus SRL v . S e r v i c e N a t i o n a l

I n t h a t c a s e although a c l a i m o f immunity was u p h e l d , LJ took i s s u e w i t h t h e judgment o f J e n k i n s

Singleton L J as

L J and P a r k e r

follows:
"I cannot find that i t h a s been almost u n i v e r s a l l y recognised that i f a government sets up a legal entity, something w h i c h may c o n t r a c t on i t s own b e h a l f a s a l i m i t e d company does i n t h i s c o u n t r y , i t can succeed i n a claim for

1 1 8

(1938) 1 Ch 545 No. 1 (1938) A 485. (1939) AC 256. (1957) 1 QB 438. 102

1 1 9

1 2 0

1 2 1

s o v e r e i g n immunity i n or e n t i t y . "
1 2 2

respect

of

the

activities

of

that

company

Lord managed on the

Denning

in

one

of

his

sagacious to the of

legal

reasonings, reliance

somehow t o shaky

draw a t t e n t i o n of the

unreasonable

authority

doctrine

a b s o l u t e immunity i n same r e s u l t as of the the

English rest of

practice, his

a l t h o u g h he on the

a r r i v e d a t the bench in

colleagues At

respect

issues

b e f o r e them. English

l e a s t he was in regard

a b l e to b r e a k the myth s u r r o u n d i n g to
123

authorities

absolute

immunity.

Thus

in

Rahemtoola v.

Nizam of H y d e r a b a d , t o a debt can to the be

the main i s s u e was

whether a court, the

beneficial t i t l e where t h e sovereign does debt. respect not

investigated

by a l o c a l that

legal t i t l e state

debt i s s i t u a t e d ,

is, if

in issue to of lay

c l a i m s immunity even though i t c l e a r l y claim to the beneficial claim was Lord of an title to the in the

purport The of House the of

Lords that

upheld

the

immunity agent of

fact

the Again,

appellant although

Government the

Pakistan. he

Denning critical

reached judgment absolute

same c o n c l u s i o n ,

offered

a f o r c e f u l and

questioning the

legitimate

b a s i s of the E n g l i s h r u l e of

s o v e r e i g n t y i n t h i s w e l l f o r m u l a t e d manner.
" T h e r e i s no a g r e e d p r i n c i p l e e x c e p t t h i s : t h a t each state ought to have proper respect for the dignity and independence of other s t a t e s . Beyond t h a t p r i n c i p l e t h e r e i s no common g r o u n d . I t i s l e f t t o e a c h s t a t e t o a p p l y the p r i n c i p l e i n i t s own way: and e a c h has a p p l i e d i t d i f f e r e n t l y .
1 , 1 2 4

Ibid.

a t p.

461. ER. 461. 103

(1957) 3 A l l

" i b i d , a t p.

Furthermore, thus:

one

f i n d s g r e a t s t r e n g t h i n L o r d Denning's argument

" I n a l l c i v i l i z e d c o u n t r i e s t h e r e has been a p r o g r e s s i v e t e n d e n c y towards making t h e s o v e r e i g n l i a b l e t o be s u e d i n h i s own c o u r t s n o t a b l y i n E n g l a n d by t h e Crown P r o c e e d i n g s Acts, 1947. Foreign sovereigns should not be i n any different position. There i s no r e a s o n why we should grant to the d e p a r t m e n t s or a g e n c i e s of f o r e i g n governments an i m m u n i t y w h i c h we do not g r a n t our own, provided always t h a t the matter in d i s p u t e a r i s e s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f our c o u r t s and i s p r o p e r l y c o g n i z a b l e by t h e m . "
125

For

Lord

Denning, he

was

trying

t o b r i n g up

some p o i n t s
1 2 6

which

w i s e r heads i n the f u t u r e may In Mellinger of v. New

attempt t o s e t t l e . Development of

Brunswick a claim

Corporation, immunity

1 2 7

the the an New

court

appeal

upheld

sovereign

on

ground t h a t the defendant arm of the government

c o r p o r a t i o n was

duly proved

t o be of

in question,

i . e . , the

province

Brunswick. In Pakistan, authority Thai-Europe

1 2 8

Tapioca again

Service

Ltd

v. his

Government erosion of his of

of the

Lord of

Denning

continued in

absolute in which

immunity he

respect the

obiter of the

observations restrictive it d i d not

explored

modalities the

doctrine. speak w i t h clearly

Although t h e one voice. their

court dismissed Lawton and

appeal LJ's i t

Scarman on

would

appear

based

reasoning one

conventional

grounds t h a t the c l a i m or s u i t b e i n g

o f a c t i o n i n personam

1 2 5

Ibid. I b i d . a t p. (1971) 1 WLR 464. 64.

1 2 6

1 2 7

1 2 8

(19 7 5 ) 3 A l l ER. 104

cannot be c a n v a s s e d i n t h e c o u r t s o f E n g l a n d . the o t h e r hand issues t o o k a more r a d i c a l a s he

L o r d Denning

on

approach i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e v . t h e Nizam of

i n the case; as f o l l o w s :

d i d i n Rahimtoola

Hyderabad

"If a foreign government i n c o r p o r a t e s a l e g a l entity w h i c h buys c o m m o d i t i e s on t h e London market, o r i f i t h a s a s t a t e d e p a r t m e n t w h i c h c h a r t e r s s h i p s on t h e B a l t i c Exchange, i t thereby enters into t h e market places o f t h e w o r l d , and i n t e r n a t i o n a l comity r e q u i r e s t h a t i t s h o u l d abide by t h e r u l e s of the m a r k e t . "
1 2 9

Although above

L o r d Denning one will

d i d not o f f e r presume that

any a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e he was again making

statement,

p o i n t s a s he once heads."

stated,

t o be s e t t l e d i n t h e f u t u r e by " w i s e r however, h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s immunity. represents a fundamental i n English appear t o

By e v e r y measure,

s h i f t towards t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e l a t i v e The departure practice. to follow Philippine from Admiral

1 3 0

i n fact

the doctrine Council

of absolute

immunity

The P r i v y

i n the P h i l i p p i n e Admiral decided or relative immunity because they

1 3 1

the r e s t r i c t i v e appears

believe In that whether

i t clearly

"more i n consonant w i t h

justice."

c a s e t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e i s s u e o f immunity be g r a n t e d t o a government owned v e s s e l purely

u s e d f o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s and s e c o n d l y whether t h e b r e a c h o f contract in issue could be designated or c h a r a c t e r i s e d as a

commercial a c t i v i t y .

I t must be made c l e a r i n p a s s i n g t h a t when

1 2 9

I b i d . 966. (1977) AC 373 (JC) . See Higgins (1982) 29 N I n t LR 266. 105

1 3 0

1 3 1

t h e c a s e was justice of

first Hong

l i t i g a t e d and the

l a t e r brought

before the

chief A

Kong,

c l a i m of was Lord

immunity was when

allowed.

different before had to the

result, Privy

however, Council. both

reached Cross

i t was

litigated result Porto by the that that

i n reaching t h i s Beige and The down

deal

with

The

Parlement

Alexandre, Court of

which appeal.

were The

earlier Privy

authorities C o u n c i l was

handed of the

opinion ruled

although

the C o u r t

of Appeal i n The

Parlement

Beige

s o v e r e i g n immunity be a p p l i e d to p u b l i c p r o p e r t y o f a r e c o g n i s e d sovereign state, c l e a r l y d e s t i n e d f o r p u b l i c use, t h a t a s t a t e owned v e s s e l i t d i d not used wholly go or

as f a r a s t o c o n c l u d e

s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e c o u r s e of commerce must be d u l y t a k e n t o be properly decision destined i n the for public use. A careful reading of the

P h i l i p p i n e Admiral

shows i t c l e a r l y that the

sided with reasoning per the

the m a j o r i t y view in Porto

expressed i n the C r i s t i n a had been Beige, wrongly

Alexandre

interpreted

a u t h o r i t y of t h e Parlement not to apply i t i n the

and t h e r e f o r e t h o u g h t case. Lord Cross

i t wise the

present

stated

p o s i t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h u s :
"Lastly, t h e i r Lordships themselves think that i t is wrong t h a t i t s h o u l d be so a p p l i e d . I n t h i s c o u n t r y a n d no doubt i n most c o u n t r i e s i n the w e s t e r n w o r l d t h e s t a t e c a n be s u e d i n i t s own c o u r t s on commercial c o n t r a c t s i n t o w h i c h i t h a s e n t e r e d and t h e r e i s no a p p a r e n t r e a s o n why foreign states s h o u l d not be e q u a l l y l i a b l e to be sued t h e r e i n r e s p e c t o f s u c h transactions.
1 , 1 3 2

(1976) WLR

232. 106

In Nigeria, of
1 3 3

Trendtex

Trading

Corporation

v.

Central

Bank

of

t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y decisions regarding the doctrine

to take of

stock

i t searlier

absolute

immunity. that,

There Lord

Denning i n a v e r y

thorough a n a l y s i s r u l e d

" I f a government d e p a r t m e n t goes i n t o t h e m a r k e t p l a c e s of t h e w o r l d and b u y s boots o r cement as a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n , t h a t government s h o u l d be s u b j e c t e d t o a l l r u l e s o f the market p l a c e . The s e l l e r i s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p u r p o s e t o w h i c h t h e p u r c h a s e r i n t e n d s t o p u t t h e goods."

He f u r t h e r r u l e d t h a t
"The l e t t e r o f c r e d i t was i s s u e d i n London t h r o u g h a London bank i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f c o m m e r c i a l d e a l i n g s . I t i s completely w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of our c o u r t s . I do n o t t h i n k i t i s open t o t h e Government o f N i g e r i a t o c l a i m
134

sovereign

immunity i n

respect of i t . "

A g a i n L o r d Denning e x p l a i n s

that

"Many c o u n t r i e s have now d e p a r t e d from the rule of a b s o l u t e immunity. So many have d e p a r t e d i t t h a t i t c a n no l o n g e r be c o n s i d e r e d a r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . I t h a s been r e p l a c e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. The d o c t r i n e g i v e s immunity t o a c t s o f a government n a t u r e , described i n L a t i n a s j u r e imperii, b u t no immunity t o a c t s o f a c o m m e r c i a l nature j u r e gestionis."
135

Both Shaw L J and Denning L J were the law two rationes decidendi,

s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n agreement on the place of international o f whether t h e

namely,

i n English municipal

l a w and t h e q u e s t i o n

s t a t u s o f t h e C e n t r a l Bank i s one o f an a l t e r ego o f t h e f e d e r a l government of Nigeria. Stephenson L J on t h e o t h e r hand took

3 3

(1977) QB 529 CA. I b i d . a t 558. I b i d . a t 555. 107

3 4

3 5

i s s u e with

the f i r s t

r a t i o but e q u a l l y a c c e p t e d the

second

ratio

i n r e s p e c t of the One

s t a t u s of the C e n t r a l Bank. t h a t was, in the however, r e l e g a t e d Trendtex of the and seemed cement i f so to to the be

important question or on not whether as

background predicted can be

considered the an act acta

i n breach jure

contract whether

regarded should

imperii, to the

immunity

have been

granted

Nigerian

government. Partido, with

1 3 6

T h i s i s s u e was, in which the

however, r a i s e d i n the I Congreso d e l House of Lords ruled that be when given faced t o the

such of

difficult

c o n t r a c t u a l problems r e g a r d

nature

t h e c o n t r a c t and After the the

the n a t u r e of the b r e a c h . 1978 in State Immunity Act Trading del was v. passed, Central and given of the to in of of

decisions and

Trendtex of I

Corp.

Bank

Nigeria

that of

Congreso

Partido,

many thought

whole q u e s t i o n rest. 1983,

sovereign case 171

immunity appeared s e t t l e d o r p u t of C o l o m b i a , of the of up (3) . of

137

However, the reopened the

of Alcom v. R e p u b l i c years Pandora's box

doctrine the for

1 3 8

absolute exceptions

immunity i n which problems i n r e s p e c t enunciated e.g., was in the 1978 13 the (2) bank Act and came 3

scope

serious The main

consideration, issue mission in Alcom

Sections whether

account

diplomatic The

u s e d i n the r u n n i n g of the m i s s i o n

can be a t t a c h e d .

1 3 6

(1983) 1 AC (1984) AC

244

(House of L o r d s ) . (HL) . (1983)

1 3 7

580

S e e Fox (1985) 34 ICLQ 115, but see a l s o C r a w f o r d 54 B Y I L 75 f o r h i s r e a c t i o n t o the d e c i s i o n . 108

1 3 8

Court

of Appeal

ruled

that

the

account

be

attached while

the

House of Lords took the o p p o s i t e v i e w by of the Court of A p p e a l s . The Law Lords

r e v e r s i n g the thus

decision

f o l l o w e d a method

whereby e v e r y i s s u e i n r e s p e c t o f Alcorn was in order to promote a modicum of

c a r e f u l l y considered Lord Diplock

fairness.

e x p l a i n e d the p o s i t i o n of t h e Law

Lords as f o l l o w s :

"Such e x p e n d i t u r e w i l l , , no doubt, i n c l u d e some moneys due under c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e s u p p l y o f goods o r s e r v i c e s t o t h e m i s s i o n . . ., b u t t h e a c c o u n t w i l l a l s o be drawn upon t o meet many o t h e r i t e m s o f e x p e n d i t u r e w h i c h f a l l o u t s i d e even the extended d e f i n i t i o n o f " c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s " f o r w h i c h S e c t i o n 17(1) and S e c t i o n 3 ( 3 ) p r o v i d e . The d e b t owed by t h e bank t o the f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n s t a t e and r e p r e s e n t e d by the credit b a l a n c e i n t h e c u r r e n t a c c o u n t k e p t by t h e d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n o f that s t a t e as a p o s s i b l e s u b j e c t matter of the enforcement jurisdiction of t h e c o u r t i s , however, one and indivisible u n l e s s i t can be shown by t h e judgment c r e d i t o r who i s s e e k i n g to a t t a c h t h e c r e d i t b a l a n c e by g a r n i s h e e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h a t t h e bank a c c o u n t was e a r m a r k e d by t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e s o l e l y ( s a v e f o r de m i n i m i s e x c e p t i o n ) f o r b e i n g drawn upon t o s e t t l e l i a b i l i t i e s i n c u r r e d i n commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s . . i t c a n n o t be s e n s i b l y brought w i t h i n S e c t i o n 1 3 ( 4 ) . "
1 3 9

True, a b s o l u t e immunity r e a c h e d and has since remained an

i t s peak i n the Porto i t was

Alexandre

authority until

overruled i n and

P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l , and t h u s was the I Congreso del Partido,

r e a f f i r m e d both i n T r e n d t e x respectively. However,

i t is be

submitted t h a t i t has r e i n c a r n a t e d i n Alcorn and c o u l d perhaps seen i n the g u i s e o f a "dead man walking." Law

Some A s p e c t s o f E a r l y A m e r i c a n Case

The P r a c t i c e of S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n A m e r i c a n C o u r t s As already stated elsewhere, a careful r e v i e w of A m e r i c a n

p r a c t i c e shows t h a t i t was

initially

i n f l u e n c e d by C h i e f J u s t i c e

1 3 9

(1984) AC 580,

604

(HL) . 109

Marshall's as follows:

c l a s s i c d e c i s i o n i n The

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon

"One s o v e r e i g n b e i n g i n no r e s p e c t amenable to a n o t h e r ; and b e i n g bound by o b l i g a t i o n s o f the h i g h e s t c h a r a c t e r not t o d e g r a d e the d i g n i t y of h i s n a t i o n , by p l a c i n g h i m s e l f o r i t s sovereign rights within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a n o t h e r , can be s u p p o s e d t o e n t e r a f o r e i g n t e r r i t o r y o n l y under an express l i c e n s e , or i n t h e c o n f i d e n c e t h a t the i m m u n i t i e s b e l o n g i n g t o his independent sovereign station, though not expressly s t i p u l a t e d , a r e r e s e r v e d by i m p l i c a t i o n and w i l l be e x t e n d e d t o him."
1 4 0

This sovereign States. Marshall in the

often

cited

case

thus in the

established practice decision of

the the

absolute United Justice issues this

immunity Exactly had the

doctrine years

twelve

a f t e r the again to

Chief same
1 4 1

opportunity v.

consider

the

United

States

Planters thus.

Bank of

Georgia,

but

time i n a l o c a l s e t t i n g

"When a government becomes a p a r t n e r i n any t r a d i n g company, i t divests itself, so f a r a s c o n c e r n s the t r a n s a c t i o n s o f that company, o f i t s s o v e r e i g n c h a r a c t e r , and t a k e s t h a t of a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n , i n s t e a d o f communicating to the company i t s p r i v i l e g e s and prerogatives."
1 4 2

Justice Planters the fact

Marshall

handed

down

this

decision

in

reaction

to of

Bank d e f e n c e , that the State

that of the

i t be Georgia

granted was

immunity b e c a u s e to the is

a partner in the se case to

said obiter

transaction. because problems, it at

Although dealt least with

language

issues

r e l a t i n g per to

interstate

i t drew a t t e n t i o n

a d i s t i n c t i o n between

1 4 0

(1812) 7 C r a n c h 9 Wheaton I b i d . a t p. 904. 907.

136-137.

1 4 1

1 4 2

110

public federal It way for

and

private functions

of

quasi

local

sovereign

in

setting. i s i n s t r u c t i v e to note t h a t q u i t e a p a r t from p a v i n g the establishment Marshall's of the absolute laid immunity down a the

doctrine, by

Chief

Justice

thesis

also

tradition

which the e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h was regarding sovereign falls

g i v e n t h e power t o make d e c i s i o n s although the such a function And the The the

immunity, i n t o the or of

traditionally reason Foreign was to

domain o f

judiciary.

prevent Law

avoid the

political

embarrassment. in support of

Relations

United

States

above a l l u d e d statement

r e a d s as f o l l o w s .

"The immunity of s t a t e s from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the courts of another state i s an e s t a b l i s h e d and undisputed principle of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Chief Justice M a r s h a l l found t h a t i t was r o o t e d i n t h e p e r f e c t e q u a l i t y and a b s o l u t e independence of s o v e r e i g n s . The S c h o o n e r Exchange, 11 US (7 Cranch) 116 136 (1812) . S u c h i m m u n i t y has been j u s t i f i e d a l s o as n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e c o n d u c t o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e r c o u r s e and t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s . "
1 4 3

The

theory

of

absolute

immunity

prevailed until

1926

without

q u e s t i o n but came under a t t a c k a t t h e t r i a l Berizzi Brothers by the v. Steamship name Pesaro Pesaro, was
1 4 4

c o u r t i n t h e c a s e of a merchant by ship the

there and

registered

owned

operated

government of I t a l y f o r t h e b u s i n e s s o f c a r r y i n g m e r c h a n d i s e f o r hire. dealing, I t so happened that to in the course cargo filed of i t s commercial Italy to New said

the v e s s e l

failed

deliver writ was

from

York wherefore a l i b e l

i n rem

a g a i n s t the

143

R e s t a t e m e n t , C h a p t e r 2, I n t r o d u c t o r y Note. (192 6 ) 271 US 562. Ill

1 4 4

vessel the

f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e terms of t h e d e l i v e r y c o n t r a c t . the Italian government relied on

As

was

practice,

the d i p l o m a t i c But to

c h a n n e l w i t h t h e hope t h a t the w r i t would be d i s m i s s e d . their surprise, be was was The denied

the S t a t e Department recommended t h a t the P e s a r o But on appeal the decision of Judge Mack Pesaro

immunity.

r e v e r s e d by an Italian

the Supreme Court on t h e ground t h a t the government p r o p e r t y used for a public

purpose.

c o u r t reasoned as f o l l o w s .
"We t h i n k t h e p r i n c i p l e s s t a t e d i n t h e Schooner Exchange a r e a p p l i c a b l e a l i k e t o a l l s h i p s h e l d and used by a government for a public purpose, and that when, f o r the purpose of a d v a n c i n g t h e t r a d e of i t s p e o p l e o r p r o v i d i n g revenues f o r i t s t r e a s u r y , a government a c q u i r e s , mans and o p e r a t e s s h i p s i n t h e c a r r y i n g o f t r a d e , t h e y a r e p u b l i c s h i p s i n the same s e n s e t h a t warships are. We know o f no i n t e r n a t i o n a l usage which r e g a r d s t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and advancement o f t h e economic w e l f a r e of a p e o p l e i n t i m e o f peace a s any l e s s a p u b l i c purpose t h a n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and t r a i n i n g of a N a v a l f o r c e . "
1 4 5

The

Supreme

Court

thus

established

i t s position

as

the

h i g h e s t c o u r t o f the l a n d by a p p l y i n g t h e r u l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, a s c o n s i d e r e d p r o p e r a t t h e t i m e t h e s a i d c a s e came up f o r although denied the State of Department fact that had the argued Pesaro that was

adjudication, immunity be

i n view

the

p u r e l y engaged i n commerce. Before the Second World War and subsequently thereafter,

s o v e r e i g n immunity i s s u e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s were i n t h e main treated respect, or a considered country as a "political immunity or question." denied In this based the

i s given

immunity

upon a S t a t e Department recommendation, r a t h e r than through

4 5

I b i d . a t p. 574,

46 S C t a t 112

612.

formal t r a d i t i o n a l means of a d j u d i c a t i n g l e g a l courts. T h i s does not, however, mean t h a t

i s s u e s before the

t h e f u n c t i o n of the I t o n l y means a first to

j u d i c i a r y was t o t a l l y reduced

i n these matters.

f o r e i g n government was g i v e n t h e o p t i o n o r o p p o r t u n i t y litigate i t s claim f o r immunity before the State

Department
1 4 6

before canvassing i t s i n t e r e s t i n the f e d e r a l c o u r t s . Ex Parte Republic of of Peru, to

1 4 7

Thus i n a be

the

State

Department Court,

offered to

suggestion

immunity

the

District

only

r e j e c t e d by the Court on the grounds t h a t t h e Government o f Peru had w a i v e d immunity. judgment suggestion of the given On a p p e a l , Court State t h e Supreme C o u r t on the reversed the that the be

District by the
1 4 8

authority that

Department

immunity

g r a n t e d was c o n c l u s i v e . In

the R e p u b l i c o f Mexico v. H o f f m a n ,

149

the Supreme

Court

d e n i e d immunity t o a merchant v e s s e l owned b u t n o t i n p o s s e s s i o n of the Mexican i n issue appeared Government. was owned by Here i t was intimated government that but the the

vessel vessel

the Mexican

somehow i n p o s s e s s i o n

or c o n t r o l of a On

private normal

company, under a duly e x e c u t e d

commercial c o n t r a c t .

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e S t a t e Department would h a v e made a s u g g e s t i o n that immunity be granted, however, in this important case the

T h e p r a c t i c e e x i s t e d b e f o r e t h e S e c o n d World War and i t appears the d e c i s i o n i n t h e Schooner E x c h a n g e might have i n f l u e n c e d i t s c r e a t i o n and p r a c t i c e .

1 4 7

146

(19 4 3 ) 3 1 8 US 578. I b i d . a t pp. 588-89. (1943) 324 US 30. 113

1 4 8

1 4 9

State respect without

Department of the

refrained

from

expressing the

any

opinion

in

c l a i m f o r immunity on possession of the

q u e s t i o n of

ownership The

real

said

merchant

vessel.

Supreme C o u r t

i n t h e absence of e x p r e s s

recommendation from t h e

e x e c u t i v e r u l e d as f o l l o w s :
" I t i s not f o r t h e c o u r t s t o deny an immunity which our government h a s s e e n f i t t o a l l o w an immunity on new grounds w h i c h t h e government has seen f i t t o r e c o g n i z e . The j u d i c i a l s e i z u r e o f p r o p e r t y o f a f r i e n d l y s t a t e may be r e g a r d e d as such an a f f r o n t t o i t s d i g n i t y and so may a f f e c t our r e l a t i o n s w i t h i t , t h a t i t i s an a c c e p t e d r u l e o f s u b s t a n t i v e law g o v e r n i n g the e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s t h a t t h e y a c c e p t and follow the executive determination that the v e s s e l s h a l l be t r e a t e d a s immune. But r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e c o u r t s of an immunity upon p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h t h e p o l i t i c a l d e p a r t m e n t o f government has not s a n c t i o n e d may be e q u a l l y e m b a r r a s s i n g t o i t i n s e c u r i n g the p r o t e c t i o n o f o u r i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and f o r r e c o g n i t i o n by other n a t i o n s . "
1 5 0

The

Supreme C o u r t a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t

"And t h a t i t i s t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t s i n a m a t t e r so i n t i m a t e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h our f o r e i g n p o l i c y and w h i c h may profoundly a f f e c t i t , n o t t o e n l a r g e an immunity t o an e x t e n t which t h e government, although often asked, has not seen f i t to recognize. "
1 5 1

It Republic

i s instructive of Peru and

to

note

that

the

decisions in

Exparte

t h e R e p u b l i c of Mexico v. Hoffman prompted a r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d by which granted. Surprisingly, this be

t h e S t a t e Department t o f o r m u l a t e immunity t o standard known as of foreign states review Tate was can be

formulated The

through a l e t t e r , effect of the

soon to Tate

the

letter.

letter

undoubtedly t h u s changed t h e s t r i c t a d h e r e n c e t o the d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e immunity i n American p r a c t i c e .

l b 0

Ibid. Ibid.

a t pp. a t pp.

35-36. 34-36. 114

1 5 1

It America in

could

be

said

that

after

the Tate

letter,
1 5 2

courts i n but faith still and

have f o l l o w e d the r e l a t i v e immunity d o c t r i n e c a s e s a l l o w e d immunity b a s e d

some c l e a r c u t

on good

good c o n s c i e n c e . purely Republic of

That i s , when t h e t r a n s a c t i o n
153

i n issue London taken

i s not

commercial. of Cuba,

In

Alfred

Dunhill

of

I n c . v. cognisance federal a large now the the of a

154

the Supreme C o u r t , letter

having with

t h e import

of t h e Tate

coupled

earlier that

court decisions,

denied immunity b a s e d

on t h e f a c t

number of f o r e i g n s t a t e s i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community have accepted modalities the of doctrine t h e Tate again that of relative was immunity. being v. be duly While reviewed,

letter

still Bank not state

Supreme C o u r t China,
1 5 5

i n National C i t y immunity will

the Republic allowed limited in

ruled by

counterclaim

a foreign sovereign

to the

e x a c t amount i n i s s u e a r i s i n g out o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . One effect of would therefore conclude that as a result of the

of t h e famous Tate l e t t e r ,

the a u t h o r i t y of the d o c t r i n e reduced. Sovereign of the seen stand

a b s o l u t e immunity has been s u b s t a n t i a l l y has long been e n t r e n c h e d

immunity w h i c h

i n the p r a c t i c e

U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s now been r e j e c t e d . as

But i t r e m a i n s

t o be

t o whether t h e c u r r e n c y of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity c o u l d

the t e s t of time.

1 5 2

S e e S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , I b i d . a t pp. 163-170. (1976) 425 US 682. ( 1 9 5 5 ) 348 US 356.

Note 7 a t pp.

161-163.

1 5 3

1 5 4

155

115

The

Issue of Sovereign The jurisprudence

Immunity and t h e Mixed C o u r t s o f t h e Mixed C o u r t s

o f Egypt

o f E g y p t as regards immunity prima

its

jurisdiction

qua t h e d o c t r i n e

of absolute

facie was d e r i v e d

from t h e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d B e l g i a n p r a c t i c e of
156

the d o c t r i n e o f r e l a t i v e o r r e s t r i c t i v e i m m u n i t y . this preliminary that observation, i t i s important

Having made more was

to state Courts

clearly

although

t h e composition

o f t h e Mixed

made up o f f i v e f o r e i g n e r s and t h r e e E g y p t i a n s ,

the jurisdiction

of t h e s e c o u r t s were i n r e a l i t y e s s e n t i a l l y n a t i o n a l and t h i s ex hypothesi courts cannot be disputed i n view of t h e f a c t that these

rendered

justice

n o t i n t h e name o f any o t h e r sovereign. and

1 5 7

sovereign as i t from

s t a t e , but t h a t o f t h e Egyptian may be recalled western were

These judges drawn

qualified

specifically European

leading nations.

nations,

preferably

and Anglo-Saxon o f t h e mixed

I n t r y i n g t o l a y bare said:

the composition

c o u r t s i n 1931, Judge B r i t o n

"The l e a d i n g c a s e i n t h e Mixed C o u r t s was d e c i d e d by t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n 1 9 2 1 . A t t h a t time a chamber o f t h e c o u r t was composed of eight members, five foreigners and three Egyptians. I n t h i s c a s e t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Chamber was Judge L a r g e r , a P o r t u g u e s e , t h e o t h e r f o r e i g n j u d g e s b e i n g a n American Judge Tuck, a n I t a l i a n a n d a S w i s s . "
1 5 8

The

Mixed

Courts

in

their

deliberations

regarding

l i m i t a t i o n s on s t a t e immunity have a l w a y s f o l l o w e d the p r a c t i c e o f t h e B e l g i u m and I t a l i a n

1 5 6

t o the l e t t e r The s t a n d a r d

courts.

1 5 9

Sucharitkul, Brinton, Ibid., Ibid.

op. c i t . , note 17, a t pp. 137-140. Foreign States (1931) A J I L 50, 52.

1 5 7

S u i t s Against

1 5 8

a t p. 5 2 .

1 5 9

116

that

was

followed

by

these

judges

was

predicated

on

the

d i s t i n c t i o n s between p u b l i c a c t s and Thus where the activities

commercial a c t s of

states. be

of a s t a t e appear c r y s t a l W h i l e on commercial was

c l e a r to

commercial, the c o u r t denied immunity. if the activities to be acta in issue are not

the other in

hand, or The thus

nature

appear

jure

imperii,

immunity

allowed.

a p p l i c a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity by the Mixed C o u r t s was done on case before by the case basis, was where every available based the

evidence on the

brought statute

court proviso
1 6 0

c a r e f u l l y reviewed court b a c k e d by

of g e n e r a l

of the

precepts

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . Serious on the high

litigation seas truly

i n r e s p e c t of c a s e s

involving and

collision government a foreign accorded occur state or

between p r i v a t e l y owned a s s o c i a t e d with more often

ships

owned s h i p s state in
161

the armed f o r c e s of not were duly

Egypt, This

than

immunity.

applies and

a l s o to that of of

accidents cars their driven

which might by foreign

between p r i v a t e officials sovereign Dr. explained in

cars the
1 6 2

exercise

diplomatic

duties

duties.

Sucharitkul that

in

his

exposition

on

the

Mixed

Courts

"The Mixed C o u r t s have adopted e v e r y p o s s i b l e l i m i t a t i o n of immunity a s e v o l v e d through t h e p r a c t i c e of I t a l i a n and B e l g i u m courts. These l i m i t a t i o n s include the v a r i o u s d i s t i n c t i o n s

1 6 0

Ibid. Sucharitkul, I b i d . , a t p. op. 139. 117 c i t . , note 17 a t p. 138-141,

1 6 1

1 6 2

between s t a t e a c t s , c o m m e r c i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n , i m p l i e d s u b m i s s i o n and e x e c u t i o n o f judgment a g a i n s t f o r e i g n g o v e r n m e n t s . "

163

good

example

of

engrafting Egyptian

the

doctrine

of

the

restrictive

immunity onto

p r a c t i c e i s t o be found i n
1 6 4

Palestine State Railways

Administration.

There t h e c o u r t

held

t h a t t h e government o f P a l e s t i n e cannot be immune i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t was p e r f o r m i n g a f u n c t i o n than an a c t o f s o v e r e i g n t y . the government of administration rather

The c o u r t went on t o c o n c l u d e t h a t signed a contract b a s e d on unto

of P a l e s t i n e having

the p r i n c i p l e o f consensus the domain o f acta jure

ad idem had i n f a c t t a k e n gestiones and t h e r e f o r e

1 6 5

itself

cannot

escape

the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Mixed In the well

Courts.

1927 t h e C o u r t o f R e f e r e e s Government villa

i n C a i r o d e n i e d immunity t o that the renting as an of a

Sudanese

on t h e grounds n o t be within appear

furnished

could falls

designated the confines without

a c t of jure

government gestionis, villa was

but r a t h e r although to be

of acta

i t would used as

question in

that the the said

government

premises

receiving

country.

1 6 6

his

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , n o t e 11 a t p. 252. T h i s i s from 1959 t h e s i s w h i c h he p r e s e n t e d f o r a D . P h i l , degree (Oxon).

164

C . F . L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . a t p. 255. State Railways A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Annual D i g e s t , Volume, Case no 7 8 ] .

1 6 5

[In re Palestine 1919-42, Suppl.

Ibid.

C . F . B r i t o n , op. c i t . a t p. 56; Z a k i Beyy Gabra C o n t r e R.E. Moore e s q u a l i t e e t a u t r e . Feb. 14, 1927. G a z e t t e V o l . X V I I p. 104.

166

118

It

i s instructive

on

the other hand a l s o t o note

that

the

mixed c o u r t s on some o c c a s i o n s have simply d e c l i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n if there i s clearcut evidence t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s

101

of

the

state
1 6 a

i n q u e s t i o n a r e acta jure imperii. Russian Government was accused

Thus i n t h e SS C o s t i , seizing the SS Costi

the the and

of

on

h i g h s e a s and a l s o f o r h a v i n g taken i t to the p o r t o f Odessa confiscated. against The

owners o f the s a i d v e s s e l i n t u r n f i l e d a w r i t a f f o r d e d the right then

the R u s s i a n Government, so as to be s h i p s belonging

t o s e i z e the two

to the R u s s i a n Government

docked a t the p o r t o f A l e x a n d r a . a plea that Alexandra, i t be given

The R u s s i a n Government o f f e r e d the D i s t r i c t of Court of

immunity and

h a v i n g c a r e f u l l y reviewed the i s s u e s , declining even to take jurisdiction into the of

ruled i n favour the of controversy piracy in

of R u s s i a by at stake,

without

delving

issue

r e s p e c t of the True,

Costi. an e x p r e s s acceptance of the doctrine of

t h e r e was

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity by t h e Mixed Courts and t h i s was i n f l u e n c e d by t h e I t a l o - B e l g i a n p r a c t i c e . at the same time was

1 6 9

But n e v e r t h e l e s s , j u r i s d i c t i o n Mixed Courts could be

d e c l i n e d i f the

convinced Courts of

of a t r u e c a s e o f s o v e r e i g n a c t . Egypt were abolished in 1947,

Although the its

Mixed in

decision

1 6 7

Ibid.,

S u c h a r i t k u l , op.

cit.,

note

11.

C . F . , B r i t o n , op. c i t . , a t pp. 56-57; The National N a v i g a t i o n Co. o f Egypt Congre T a v o u l a n d i s and c i e e s q u a l i t e e t autres. Nov. 9, 1927. G a z e t t e , V o l . XIX, p. 251. Ibid., respectively.
1 6 9

168

Sucharitkul,

op.

cit.,

note

11

and

17,

119

accepting restrictive p r a c t i c e to

the

Italo-Belgian

practice

of

the

doctrine on

of

immunity had date.

1 7 0

remained a l a s t i n g imprint

Egyptian

The

I s s u e of S o v e r e i g n Immunity B e f o r e South A f r i c a n South A f r i c a p r i o r to the e n a c t m e n t of 1981, in

Courts States

i t s Foreign the

Immunities Act doctrine of

on

20

November immunity

followed which a

traditional state is

absolute

foreign

accorded immunity from t h e courts irrespective of the

j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l o c a l or nature of the

municipal
1 7 1

transaction.

The

notion f i r s t and later

found a p p l i c a t i o n forcefully

i n E n g l a n d i n The and in confirmed The de the

Parlement Beige in The Porto in the

supported

Alexandre, c a s e of These

and

thereafter v.

extended

C r i s t i n a and Trigo, years Africa a

Baccus SRL

Servico

National over of

respectively. became until path well

172

English in

authorities the

thus

entrenched In other

jurisprudence South African

South

1981.

words,

courts

followed

albeit

s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r to t h a t of the Thus court felt in De Howorth v. the The

British SS

practice.
1 7 3

India,

the by

South the

African Court of

bound by

authority

established

S e e g e n e r a l l y The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commissions R e p o r t on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and T h e i r P r o p e r t y (1983, 1984, 1986, e t c . ) . S e e Botha, Some Comments on t h e F o r e i g n S t a t e Act 87 of 1981, The C o m p a r a t i v e and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law South A f r i c a 15 (1982) 334.
1 7 2 171

170

Immunities Journal of

I b i d . a t pp. (1921) CDD

334-335. 451.

1 7 3

120

Appeal

i n England,

upheld

a plea

f o r immunity i n r e s p e c t

of

P o r t u g u e s e merchant s h i p g a i n f u l l y used f o r commerce. J simply followed that the cum sensu of the among judges vessel for the Ex in at that

Gardiner time was by to

reasoning

the

use

commerce The Sulman in du

specifically authorities Quite a

generate were a g a i n

revenue followed can

state. Parte

above case.
1 7 4

i n the also be

similar of

reasoning the

detected

Parkin Congo

v. and

Government another, fight

1 7 5

Republique

Democratique

t h e r e the a p p l i c a n t entered a mercenary the for the

i n t o an o r a l agreement t o of Congo. It so

as

Government

happened t h a t w h i l e he was

a p p l i c a n t was He

on p a t r o l i n August sued fixed the sum

1966, of as

s e r i o u s l y wounded. demanding that The he be

therefore for a

Republic of the the money

Congo

paid

compensation. of employment, was

court

after (1)

c a r e f u l l y reviewing "The money h e l d which by

contract second to a l l 2 of

ruled held

that for

respondent property of the

public

purposes

applied

of a f o r e i g n sovereign Diplomatic

s t a t e provided for i n S e c t i o n (NO 71 of 1951) f o r heads

P r i v i l e g e s Act

s t a t e a p p l i e d a fortiori t o f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n In P r i n t i c e Shaw and

1 7 6

states." Republic appointed of an

S c h i e s s v. Government of t h e a surveying for company, was

of B o l i v i a , in 197 6 as

the a p p l i c a n t , a quantity

surveyor

the

construction

1 7 4

(1942) CPD

407. (W), (1983) I n t Law Reports Vol 64 p 668,

(1978) 668-684.
1 7 6

1 7 5

ISA 269

( 1 9 7 8 ) 3 SA

938

(W),

(1983) I n t Law

Reports Vol

64 p

685-

689.

121

Embassy f o r the R e p u b l i c to affidavits duly

of B o l i v i a . to the

The

appointment, showed

according the said

submitted

court, d'

appointment was Before project long, had

made through i t s charge arose the

affairs

in Pretoria. the

a dispute received The

as t o w h e t h e r t h e work done on prior approval of the

Bolivian any

Government. indebtedness on the

said

government

therefore

denied

to the a p p l i c a n t as r e g a r d s that to the the plan used had

t h e work a l r e a d y done, not of been the submitted project. leave to sue for The the

ground prior

approval applicant, respondent

commencement

i n an

ex parte

a p p l i c a t i o n , sought

f o r the

8,926 Rand a l r e a d y

expended on

the p r o j e c t , confirm

c o u p l e d with an o r d e r

of a t t a c h m e n t so a s t o be I t was of

able to

t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . dispute falls within the

h e l d t h a t the a c t i v i t y i n governmental act, i . e . , immune from attempt to

confines

jure imperii, and t h a t t h e Government o f B o l i v i a was jurisdiction. consider the The court even theory did of not make any

restrictive a stage have to

sovereign

immunity.

Thus,

even i f taken Bolivia would law

f u r t h e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h e ambassador of the inviolability effect of principle the law under in

invoked

diplomatic question. It

n e u t r a l i s e the

suit

would appear t h a t South A f r i c a

s t a r t e d questioning

the

a u t h o r i t y of the d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e Lord Denning's crusade to expose or

immunity when t h e echo of limit the

1 7 7

doctrine

of

a b s o l u t e immunity became known i n S o u t h A f r i c a .

Thus i n I n t e r

177

B o t h a , op.

c i t . , a t p.

335.

122

Science Popular signed of

Research

and Development
178

Services

Pty L t d v. R e p u b l i c

De Mocambique, a contract

the Colonial

Government of Mocambique

w i t h a company named ETLAL f o r t h e development and the water resources i n Mocambique. under

agriculture which

areas

ETLAL, the the

happens

t o be a l o c a l

company i n c o r p o r a t e d

local

c o l o n i a l laws, subcontracted the purported c o n t r a c t t o (Inter (RPM) Science the Research Independent & D.S. Pty L t d . ) . Popular In de

applicant 1974

September Mocambique certain and

Republica

"movement"

came i n t o power and i n October 1975 took that resulted i n the n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n I n other

d r a s t i c measures

t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f ETLAL i n t o t h e RPM government. ETLAL ceased to e x i s t . of ETLAL. So i n e s s e n c e The RPM RPM

words, business

assumed t h e further

activities that

government

declared the 1975. light

the subcontract

i n dispute

was n u l l

and v o i d i n

of the force applicant

and t h r u s t o f Decree Law 27 o f October, quickly sought leave t o implead t h e RPM

The

Government f o r damages s u f f e r e d prior

i n respect

of s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d followed the

t o t h e n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f ETLAL. of r e s t r i c t i v e i n part, ruled

The c o u r t

doctrine to

immunity by g i v i n g e f f e c t t o t h e a c t i o n an o r d e r of attachment. of r e s t r i c t i v e review of The

proceed

thus allowing that

court

finally

the doctrine
1 7 9

immunity the case,

applies however, law

i n South

Africa.

careful more

shows t h a t

i t involves

complicated

international range

i s s u e s than miss the eye.

These e l u s i v e problem a r e a s

1 7 8

(1983) I n t Law R e p o r t s V o l 64 p 6899-709. Ibid.

1 7 9

123

from state might

act

of

state,

state

succession, and to in said

state

responsibility, These any concerns claims

immunity, r e c o g n i t i o n have prompted Margo J the

decolonisation. deny the

applicant because the be

respecting failed to

expropriation the

issue

applicant considered

show cause why

expropriation On

j u r e gestionis the many

i n s t e a d of jure imperii.

t h e whole, however, so the to has

judgment seems to be u n c o n v i n c i n g and important were issues that cut deep

unbalanced because the heart of

into thus

dispute

simply

treated

casually,

rather

bringing

the f o r e the o l d argument p o s i t e d by L o r d been a change i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Co. court that (Pty) Ltd v. Government doctrine for of of the

Denning t h a t t h e r e

Again i n K a f f r a r i a Republic of

Property
180

Zambia,

the

c o n f i r m e d the immunity be

restrictive

immunity by to US

ruling $43,715

denied

demurrage

amounting

coupled with by the

f u r t h e r damages of of Zambia the for

$20,000 f o r a failing to

delay speedily

occasioned aid for in the the the the

Republic of

process

furnishing freight

necessary to be

letter paid as

of

credit provided

agreed-upon

charges

agreement e n t e r e d carriage It of

into with

Westfield United

Shipping States

Company f o r to

fertilizer

from t h e

South A f r i c a . not ad be is

i s submitted, however, t h a t one

i m p o r t a n t i s s u e t h a t was whether the attachment the juris. fertilizer The can

analysed fundan

t o i t s l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n was dam by no. 709 (ECD) , (1983) jurisdictionem usus backed as by regards opinio

sustained certainly
1 8 0

answer

(1980) 2 SA 708-717.

Int

Law

Reports Vol

64

124

That i n S o u t h A f r i c a , the with application of the

t h e h i s t o r y of t h e c o u r t s as of absolute immunity

regards coupled truly

doctrine

i t s momentous change a t i t s z e n i t h f o l l o w e d a j o u r n e y i s without doubt c l e a r l y

s i m i l a r to t h a t of B r i t a i n

exemplified

by t h e t h r u s t and i m p o r t o f t h e F o r e i g n of 1981.
181

S t a t e s Immunities A c t 87

In fact, as a true in so

t h e South A f r i c a n A c t c a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y be carbon copy o f t h e E n g l i s h S t a t e the Act can be seen as Immunity a true

described Act of

1978,

f a r as

embodiment o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e l a t i v e wholly conditioned on

or r e s t r i c t i v e Act.
1 8 2

immunity,

S e c t i o n 4 ( 1 ) , o f t h e 1981

The

Introduction

of Sovereign

Immunity

into

t h e Courts

of O l d

and New

B r i t i s h Commonwealth S t a t e s : i s without as doubt scant

Some P r e l i m i n a r y Thoughts evidence of i n the p r a c t i c e of absolute immunity.

There African

states

regards

the

doctrine

While t h e r e in these

i s no d i r e c t

information those

on m u n i c i p a l countries

court r u l i n g s by private their

countries, i n foreign

at least courts

sued

companies

have p r o t e s t e d

and e x p r e s s e d

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the currency immunity.

183

o f t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e i n the p r i n c i p l e i n different of s t a t e degrees

Thus

the modification

immunity w h i c h i s becoming w e l l r e c o g n i s e d

t h e w o r l d o v e r h a s n o t been so f a r w e l l r e c e i v e d or embraced i n

1 8 1

S e e g e n e r a l l y Botha, op. c i t . Ibid. a t pp. 336-343.

1 8 2

See N.A. Ushakov in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission Yearbook ( 1 9 8 3 ) , V o l . I I a t p. 55; The N i g e r i a envoy a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e Cement C o n t r a c t s i n t h e Courts of UK, USA and Germany d i d p r o t e s t v e h e m e n t l y .

1 8 3

125

Commonwealth A f r i c a . be standing on

1 8 4

I n o t h e r words, t h e p r i n c i p l e a p p e a r s t o l e g as f a r a s Commonwealth Continent except Africa i s in such

one

concerned

and more

so t h e whole

c o u n t r i e s a s Togo, Egypt, Lesotho, Madagascar, and S o u t h A f r i c a , which have t o t a l l y doctrine.

1 8 5

jumped onto t h e bandwagon o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e

Most

Commonwealth

African

countries

i n principle

have

accepted t h e a u t h o r i t y of the d o c t r i n e this i n t h e main that

of absolute

immunity and

c a n be c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c a t e d existed between Britain

on t h e c o l o n i a l and her former

relationship

c o l o n i e s now independent. Judge T.O. E l i a s , while commenting on t h e t r u e nature of

E n g l i s h law i n A f r i c a n c o u r t s , s a i d t h a t
"The r e c e i v e d E n g l i s h l a w c o v e r s b o t h c i v i l a n d c r i m i n a l l a w s a s w e l l a s t h e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e and t h e p r o c e d u r e s i n c e , a s M a i t l a n d once observed, 'the E n g l i s h Common Law r u l e s a r e embedded i n t h e i n t e r s t i c e s o f p r o c e d u r e . ' The r u l e s o f c i v i l law e x i s t , b o t h i n j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s and i n s t a t u t e s w h i c h h a v e been r e e n a c t e d w i t h o r w i t h o u t m o d i f i c a t i o n s , i n l o c a l s t a t u t e s w h i c h a r e t o be found i n e v e r y Commonwealth t e r r i t o r y i n a s e t o f R e v i s e d E d i t i o n s o f t h e Laws p u b l i s h e d a t p e r i o d i c i n t e r v a l s . This s e t o f publications of enacted law c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s t a t u t e book o f e a c h t e r r i t o r y . I n t h e f i e l d s o f t r a d e a n d commerce, English mercantile and commercial laws predominate. This company l a w , p a r t n e r s h i p , c o n t r a c t s a n d agency, s a l e o f goods, c a r r i a g e o f goods by l a n d and s e a , s h i p p i n g laws, negotiable instruments, banks and b a n k i n g laws a r e t h e most i m p o r t a n t t h a t we need enumerate h e r e . Another a r e a o f c i v i l l a w r e g u l a t e d by E n g l i s h Common Law p r i n c i p l e s a r e t h e l a w o f t o r t , t h e l a w o f trust and equity, industrial law and t h e c o n f l i c t o f laws ( p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w ) . A l t h o u g h some o f t h e s e l a w s a r e b a s e d upon t h e E n g l i s h Common Law a n d S t a t u t e s , t h e r e a r e y e t

S e e The I L C Report on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and T h e i r P r o p e r t i e s , 1983 and 1986, r e s p e c t i v e l y ; a n d t h e (1960) AALCC r e p o r t . T h e I L C Report on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s T h e i r P r o p e r t y , 1983 and 1986, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
185

1 8 4

of

States

and

126

l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s a n d p e c u l i a r i t i e s d i c t a t e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e time and p l a c e . The e l e m e n t o f E n g l i s h law i s l e s s s t r o n g i n t h e f i e l d o f j u r i s p r u d e n c e and l e g a l t h e o r y a s w e l l , a s o f p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, a l t h o u g h t h e former i s i n i t s l o c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s t i l l h a u n t e d by t h e g h o s t o f A u s t i n and the d o c t r i n e o f j u d i c i a l p r e c e d e n t w h i l e i n p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t h e l o c a l p r a c t i c e i s s t i l l b a s e d on t h e t e a c h i n g s o f t h e Dualist School, despite the growing tendency towards independence which i s discernible i n t h e new c o n c e p t and p r a c t i c e o f c o n t e m p o r a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w , e s p e c i a l l y t h e law of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . "
1 8 6

In conclude and

the l i g h t that

o f t h e above

analysis

one i s prompted t o of equity at a

the English of general

Common Law, t h e d o c t r i n e s application time i n England applied

statutes

perhaps

named d a t e

or a t a p a r t i c u l a r Kenya, Uganda, thereof,

and s t i l l

apply i n some

Ghana, N i g e r i a , minimal permit.

S i e r r a Leone,

Gambia, w i t h

modifications This

as f a r as l o c a l

c o n d i t i o n s may behind t h e

i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e d by t h e a u t h o r i t y Section I I I , thus:

Ghana C o u r t s A c t o f 1971,

"(1) Until provision i s o t h e r w i s e made by law, t h e Statutes of England s p e c i f i e d i n the f i r s t schedule t o t h i s Act shall continue t o apply i n Ghana as statutes of general application (a) t o t h e extent indicated i n t h e f i r s t schedule to t h i s A c t , a n d n o t f u r t h e r o r o t h e r w i s e ; and (b) s u b j e c t t o s u c h v e r b a l amendment n o t a f f e c t i n g t h e s u b s t a n c e a s may be n e c e s s a r y t o e n a b l e them t o be c o n v e n i e n t l y a p p l i e d i n Ghana. (2) The S t a t u t e s of England r e f e r r e d t o i n subsection (h) o f t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be t r e a t e d a s i f t h e y formed p a r t o f the Common Law p r e v a i l i n g o v e r any r u l e t h e r e o f o t h e r t h a n a r u l e o f c u s t o m a r y l a w i n c l u d e d i n t h e Common Law under any enactment p r o v i d i n g f o r the assimilation o f such rules of customary l a w a s a r e s u i t a b l e f o r g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n . "
1 8 7

T.O. E l i a s , (1975) pp. 13-14.

1 8 7

186

The J u d i c i a l P r o c e s s

i n Commonwealth A f r i c a

S e e The Ghana C o u r t s A c t o f 1971,

Section I I .

127

The

f a m i l i a r echo o r common f e a t u r e of t h e e a r l i e r one f i n d s expression its

Ghanaian

Act Act

o r the p r e s e n t of 1967 which

i n the Kenya J u d i c a t u r e from The the East be

took

inspiration of 1902.

African said of

Protectorate

Order i n C o u n c i l

same can

t h e Act of S i e r r a Leone 1888, and the March S(2) and 4, 1863 Act

the J u d i c a t u r e A c t o f Uganda of the Old

1 8 8

1902, S

Settlement The reception

of of

Lagos

45(1), law in

S(3), respectively. Africa

English an

Commonwealth

therefore

followed

practically that

invariable law was by the

f o r m u l a which

supports the

proposition

English created the T.O. law

e s t a b l i s h e d and English Crown.

a p p l i e d i n e v e r y c o l o n y t h a t was English law as the in a way thus

became

means by Elias

which l a w s were e n f o r c e d
1 8 9

clearly

s u p p o r t e d by of English

in his analysis

regarding

reception

i n Commonwealth A f r i c a . Granted received the into this, then the doctrine of absolute upon by the the immunity authority Privy was of

Commonwealth S t a t e s
1 9 0

based decided

Anonymous C a s e ,

which . . .

was

Council

somewhere i n 1722

thus

"An uninhabited c o u n t r y newly found out and i n h a b i t e d by the E n g l i s h t o be g o v e r n e d by the laws of E n g l a n d . A conquered country t o be g o v e r n e d by such l a w s a s t h e c o n q u e r o r will impose: but u n t i l t h e conqueror g i v e s them new l a w s , t h e y a r e t o be g o v e r n e d by t h e i r own laws, u n l e s s where t h o s e l a w s a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w s o f God or t o t a l l y s i l e n t . "
1 9 1

188

T.O. E l i a s , Ibid.

op.

c i t . , pp.

1-6.

1 8 9

1 9 0

(1722) 2 PWMS 75. Ibid.

1 9 1

128

This

ruling

simply

confirms
1 9 2

Holt

CJ's

decision

i n an

earlier

c a s e of B l a n k a r d v. G a l d y on was this subject was

i n 1694,

i n which Thus

a clear authority Parlement Beige Porto the

established. and was

i f The

decided

i n 1879 The

subsequently then per

f o l l o w e d i n The the authority of

Alexandre

and

Cristina,

Anonymous, t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity became p a r t laws of a l l E n g l i s h C o l o n i e s a s o f 1879.

of the of

Hence t h e p r a c t i c e

E n g l i s h law a s r e g a r d s t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity became ex h y p o t h e s i p a r t and other former of t h e l a w s British New o f Commonwealth A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s

193

dominions Zealand,

such

as

India, Ceylon,

Pakistan, Bermuda,

Australia, Barbados,

Canada,

Jamaica,

Hong Kong, S i n g a p o r e ,

Tonga, e t c .

The above d i s c u s s i o n s w a r r a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : 1. That in sovereign the immunity s e r v e s an is important purpose well

inter-state

system

without

doubt

grounded. (1) I t s application sovereign (2) It would would avoid the harassment of

states. promote comity and the diplomatic

functions of (3) Its

states. certainly law. will promote

application

stability in international

1 9 2

(1694) 2 S a l k

411. in

See J.E.S. Fawcett, The British Commonwealth I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; and T.O. E l i a s , op. c i t .

193

129

2.

That

forum law i s t h e c r e a t u r e equals, only what

of sovereignty is understood applied.

and and

between

acknowledged a s law among s t a t e s must be 3. The g r a n t i n g organizations of absolute immunity t o

international of their

i s expedient

i n the l i g h t

s p e c i a l functions 4. That w i t h against legatio that tool. 5. That t h e s t a t e person Italian untenable law to can be theory respect

i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. t o employment c o n t r a c t s and s u i t s imediatur and f o r

s t a t e s / e m b a s s i e s , t h e concept o f ne completely reduces t h e n a t u r e immunity i n t o test,

matter

restrictive

an unworkable

never acts supported of dual

as a j u r i d i c a l by t h e argument of

or n a t u r a l that states the is

personality

f o r there

i s no e v i d e n c e that

i n international the functions and of

support be d i v i d e d

the notion into

states civile. 6.

potere

politico

persona

Execution of state

forcee property disputes

o r saisie lacks among

conservatoire

i n respect may lead at to the

usus and t h u s states

serious

(i.e.,

diplomatic

level).

130

CHAPTER FOUR THE CHANGING LAW OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN U.S. AND U.K. COURTS: A LOOK AT THE R E S T R I C T I V E IMMUNITY RULE

131

True, relegate to

hasty the

climbers

have a sudden f a l l , an established

and

one

does for

not mere or

background

authority

speculative principle, aspirations convincing immunity immunity

reasons, h u r r i e d l y derived nor or i s i t w i s e t o adopt a new generalisations. deriving the from

from a g e n e r a l law based on there must

theory

simplistic be of very state

Hence

reasons and over from

well-known

problems of

demonstrated immunity

superiority in

restrictive problems of

sovereign

resolving

jurisdictional before

immunities i n respect of the world

of commercial be fully

transactions justified in

countries

would

t h r o w i n g t h e i r e f f o r t s unto the currency of the doctrine of are

uncharted seas restrictive

of the

purported For at a l l

immunity. not

unqualified

generalizations

a l w a y s dangerous and

h e l p f u l e s p e c i a l l y when c o n s i d e r i n g

a subject t h i s e l u s i v e .

(1)

Background Scholars are agreed that planted and the and concept harvested of in relative or

restrictive Europe,

immunity was i n Belgium

Continental in Italy.
1

first

immediately t h e r e a f t e r J u s t i c e Marshall obiter was

However, i t would appear C h i e f judges classic to deal with the The

the f i r s t

of

said subject

dicta in his McFadden i n was

long 1812,

judgment of the

Schooner Exchange v.

inasmuch as

c e n t r a l i s s u e b e f o r e the

court

immunity i n

"^Sompong Sucharitkul, State immunities and Trading Activities i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1959) pp. 233-251. See g e n e r a l l y a l s o h i s c o l l e c t e d c o u r s e s a t the Hague Academy.

132

respect occasion

of a French twelve

p u b l i c v e s s e l damaged a t s e a . after the decision in

On a n o t h e r the Schooner i n which underlying immunity as

years

Exchange, he took

Justice Marshall a bold behind step the

rendered a unique explaining of the

judgment basic

in

principles follows:

doctrine

restrictive

"When a government becomes a p a r t n e r i n any t r a d i n g company, i t d i v e s t s i t s e l f , s o f a r a s c o n c e r n s t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s of t h a t company, o f i t s s o v e r e i g n c h a r a c t e r and t a k e s t h a t o f a private citizen. I n s t e a d o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g t o t h e company i t s p r i v i l e g e s and p r e r o g a t i v e s , i t d e s c e n d s t o a l e v e l w i t h t h o s e w i t h whom i t a s s o c i a t e s i t s e l f , and t a k e s t h e c h a r a c t e r w h i c h belongs t o i t s a s s o c i a t e s and t o t h e b u s i n e s s w h i c h i s t o be transacted.
3

Without doctrine formulated, rather than of

doubt

t h e fundamental immunity

principles relating are herein

to the

restrictive

succinctly nature

however, a case

the case with

i n point

was o f a l o c a l hence

a foreign

element,

many on t h e

i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e n e v e r took n o t i c e o f t h e t h r u s t and f o r c e o f its legal reasoning and p u r p o r t e d move t o w a r d s the r e s t r i c t i v e

approach. The be preceding examination, mentioning early although the important, of would n o t and of

complete who

without were

names

Heffter

Gianzana,

also
4

proponents

of the doctrine Gianzana

restrictive first acta

immunity.

I t i s believed

that

was t h e

t o formulate t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis i n 1884 notwithstanding the fact that

( 1 8 1 2 ) 7 Cranch. 9 Wheaton 904 a t p. 907. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , a t p. 265.

133

Heffter 1881. in
5

might Be t h i s

have

touched

on t h e s u b j e c t a l i t t l e

earlier in

a s i t may,

G i a n z a n a ' s approach was w e l l r e c e i v e d the foundation f o r t h e development

Italy

and t h e r e f o r e l a i d in Italian

of t h e c o n c e p t this

practice.

I t i s instructive also at that the doctrine of de Droit had

j u n c t u r e to take immunity in

note was

of the f a c t adopted long by after

6

restrictive International

the

Institut

1891,

not

early

proponents

considered the s u b j e c t i n t h e i r

writings.

(2)

E a r l y P r a c t i c e i n Belgium and I t a l i a n Belgian and Italian on courts,

Courts rejected developed a earlier rather the of

having

doctrinal appealing problems

precepts but

absolute

immunity

perhaps

middle-ground

approach

i n tackling

relating

to state

immunity and t r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s

s t a t e s by o f f e r i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n between acts jure gestiones and acts jure gestionis. The said approach although appealing to

B e l g i a n and I t a l i a n door in other flirted it.

7

c o u r t s took a l o n g time countries.

g e t t i n g through t h e appear some

European with

I t would

countries adopting The 1840

the notion but f e l l

short of completely

notion the

of r e s t r i c t i v e Belgian Court

immunity was f i r s t of Appeal, by

presented i n the procureur

8

before

general

b u t h i s argument

d i d not f i n d

favour with

the c o u r t .

Ibid. Ibid.

1),

I b i d . a t pp. 162-255; S u c h a r i t k u l 149, Hague R e c u e i l (1976 126-183. Sinclair, The Law of Sovereign 134 Immunity, Recent

It

was,

however, the

followed concept was

in

subsequent in

cases
9

after The

the

myth of

surrounding restrictive

broken

1857.

doctrine the

immunity was

first
10

c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d by where the a clearcut court was

Court to

of A p p e a l i n The assume

Havre C a s e , based of on

persuaded of The

jurisdiction on the part

showing

commercial court, it the the

activity

the

state

i n question.

would appear, r a t i o n a l i s e d the e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r said matter from the forum d a t a specifically derived from

objective The

test. doctrine of r e s t r i c t i v e Gaspari

1 1

immunity was and also

1 2

a g a i n extended i n the famous c a s e courts of in

Government Ottoman c.

in

Monroyer e t B e r n a r d c. E t a l F r a n c a i s . 1888 and took a s t e p private

Belgian

f u r t h e r by making a d i s t i n c t i o n between of the c. state. Col de M. Thus in Societe de la

public pour la de

activities de the

Fabrication Bulgarie,
1 3

Cartouches Tribunal

Ministre was

Guerre

Civil

Bruxelles

quick to

assume the

j u r i s d i c t i o n over B u l g a r i a on the e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t sovereign act in issue was duly ad compatible idem, II) with a

civil

t r a n s a c t i o n and Development, 167

9

the maxim consensus Hague R e c u e i l 113

(contract) 132.

i n which

(1980

Ibid. Cf. Sucharitkul, op. c i t . , n o t e 1 a t p. 243 (PB, 1876-11-

1 0

175) .
1X

P B 1911-111-1094, c f . S u c h a r i t k u l ,

op.

c i t . , note 1 a t

p.

244.
12

P B 1927-111-129, c f . S u c h a r i t k u l , 1 3 Jud 1889, p. 244. Col 383; PB

op.

c i t . , p.

244. op.

13

1889-111-62, c f . S u c h a r i t k u l ,

cit.,

135

parties terms. of the

to The

the court of

stated

obligation

are

strictly

bound

by

its out

f u r t h e r r e a s o n e d t h a t B u l g a r i a took i t s e l f sovereign acts unto the the domain of a

domain and

private of the

person court. of its

therefore case

cannot law a

escape

jurisdiction

Belgian

as can be high

seen d e m o n s t r a t e s i n r e s p e c t of consistency
14

jurisprudence

degree

in

the

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Italian courts also followed by the doctrine of one

restrictive could simply in Corte the di the

immunity t o t h e argue that

l e t t e r and courts the said

i t s track record, also been In

its of de

have

consistent 1882, the

application Cessazione theory

doctrine.

Torino

i n Morellect

c. Governo Danese a n a l y s e d

of d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y of s t a t e s t h u s :
" I t b e i n g i n c u m b e n t upon t h e s t a t e t o p r o v i d e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c body f o r t h e m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s , i t must a c q u i r e and own p r o p e r t y , i t must c o n t r a c t , i t must s u e and be sued and i n a word, i t must e x e r c i s e c i v i l r i g h t s i n l i k e manner a s 'un a l t r a corpo moral o p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l qualunque.'"
15

The

logical

implication from t h e one was

of

this

thesis

or

literature has

seemed t o be two separate

derived

basic p r i n c i p l e that a state being political and by the

identities, This notion Firenze in

other di

"corpo moral." Cassezione immunity was de

a p p l i e d i n 1886 c.

the Corte
1 6

Gutterieres

Elmilik

in

which

d e n i e d on

t h e grounds t h a t i f a government descends

1 4

Sucharitkul, Cf.

op.

c i t . , a t p. Collected

245. Works, Hague Academy, at p.

1 5

Sucharitkul,

127.
1 6

C f . S u c h a r i t k u l , p.

127. 136

unto t h e market p l a c e by s i g n i n g c o n t r a c t s w i t h p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s entities, attributes i t thus r e l e g a t e s t o t h e background i t s sovereign

and t h e r e f o r e must be t r e a t e d a s any i n d i v i d u a l i n solely

t h e market p l a c e and t h a t " i n such c a s e i t i s a q u e s t i o n of p r i v a t e a c t s t h e jus

and o b l i g a t i o n t o be governed by t h e r u l e s o f
11

commune."

A s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n was a g a i n made i n 1887 b y t h e c o r t e d'Appello di Lucca in a case relating

1 8

to

the

commercial

a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Bey de T u n i s i The same principles were

(Tunisia). also

followed

by t h e C o r t e d i
1 9

Cassazione d i Napoli i t was h e l d t h a t :

i n Typaldos

c . Manicomio d i A v e r s a ,

there

"The s t a t e becomes s u b j e c t t o c o u r t s i n s o f a r a s i t o p e r a t e s w i t h i n t h e s p h e r e o f c i v i l t r a n s a c t i o n s , and i t h a s n e v e r been o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e sovereignty of t h e s t a t e has been injured t h e r e b y ; whereas t h e r a t i o n a l i t y o f t h e l a w would s u f f e r from t h e o p p o s i t e t h e o r y whereby i t would c l a i m t h e power t o p u r s u e i t s r i g h t s a s p l a i n t i f f , w h i l e r e m a i n i n g beyond t h e r e a c h o f s u c h a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f o t h e r s . "
2 0

In

a somewhat
21

recent

case

of P e r r u c c h e t t i c. Puig

Cassauro

(1928),

which i n v o l v e d a Mexican ambassador, c o v e r s a c o n t r a c t of an immovable p r o p e r t y t o be used i n t h e form o f

signed f o r t h e purchase a b u i l d i n g duly

designated

f o r the performance of

diplomatic functions.

The c o u r t f o l l o w e d i t s e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s

1 7

Ibid. C.A. L u c c a , 1887, F. I t 1887-9-474 a t 485-486.

18

1 9

G i n I t . 1886-1, 1-223, 239. I b i d . a t p. 229. pp. 521-527

2 0

F . I t . 1929-1-112 e t seq.; R i v i s t a 20 (1928) c f . S u c h a r i t k u l C o l l e c t e d Course H. p. 129. 137

2 1

by assuming j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r office although logically

t h e ambassador d u r i n g h i s terms o f d i r e c t l y or

the contract i n question legati.

i n d i r e c t l y t o u c h e d on an instrumentus that the contract i n question law and falls

I t was l a t e r h e l d

into the p r e c i n c t of private of p r i v a t e r i g h t s on b e h a l f of t h e

transaction for the ultimate acquisition therefore jurisdiction cannot be waived

Mexican line

ambassador. the precepts principle

The d e c i s i o n appears

strange

and out o f

with

of public international of diplomatic

law b e c a u s e t h e privileges and

cardinal immunities entrenched In Egyptian appear the

i n respect on

i s predicated

inviolability

and t h i s over.

i s well

i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s t h e world of the s t r i c t adherents

spite

of I t a l i a n ,

B e l g i a n and i t would

courts

to the r e s t r i c t i v e c o u n t r i e s such before the

theory

or r u l e ,

other

leading States

as the United World

Kingdom and remained

United

Second

War

steadfastly only

i n support

of absolute

immunity. taken

I t was, however, steps i n making

recently that to their

these statute

c o u n t r i e s have books, that

changes

i s , i n 1976 and 1978,

respectively.

(3)

A Move Towards R e s t r i c t i v e The tendency immunity

Immunity t o modulate development a long have time t h e concept in of

for countries i s of recent

absolute countries,

common law Some

b u t seemed t o have and of courts,

taken

coming.

governments bandwagon

however,

now

jumped of

onto t h e restrictive

clearly

accepting

the doctrine

138

immunity. currency. was with their

22

I n o t h e r words, the r e s t r i c t i v e In fact,

approach i s g a i n i n g War

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a f t e r t h e Second World

the f i r s t the idea

of c o u n t r i e s to o f f i c i a l l y e x p r e s s of giving in immunity to foreign

2 3

dissatisfaction governments And this thus: and is

agencies

engaged

trading a c t i v i t i e s .

e v i d e n c e d by the s t r e n g t h and import of the T a t e l e t t e r

" I t i s thus e v i d e n t t h a t with the p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom l i t t l e support has been found e x c e p t on t h e p a r t o f t h e S o v i e t Union and i t s s a t e l l i t e s f o r c o n t i n u e d full a c c e p t a n c e of t h e a b s o l u t e t h e o r y of s o v e r e i g n immunity. There are evidences that British authorities are aware of i t s deficiencies and ready for a change. The reasons which obviously motivate s t a t e trading countries i n adhering to the t h e o r y w i t h p e r h a p s i n c r e a s i n g r i g i d i t y a r e most p e r s u a s i v e t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s h o u l d change i t s p o l i c y . Furthermore, the g r a n t i n g of s o v e r e i g n immunity to f o r e i g n governments i n t h e c o u r t s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s most i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a c t i o n o f t h e Government o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n s u b j e c t i n g i t s e l f t o s u i t i n t h e s e same c o u r t s i n both c o n t r a c t and t o r t and w i t h i t s l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c y of not c l a i m i n g immunity i n f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n s f o r i t s merchant v e s s e l s . F i n a l l y , t h e Department f e e l s t h a t t h e w i d e s p r e a d and i n c r e a s i n g p r a c t i c e on t h e p a r t o f governments o f e n g a g i n g i n commercial a c t i v i t i e s makes n e c e s s a r y a p r a c t i c e w h i c h w i l l e n a b l e p e r s o n s doing b u s i n e s s w i t h them t o have t h e i r r i g h t s d e t e r m i n e d i n the c o u r t s . For these reasons it will h e r e a f t e r be t h e Department's p o l i c y t o f o l l o w t h e r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y o f s o v e r e i g n immunity i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f requests of f o r e i g n governments for a grant of sovereign immunity."

As was

result and been

of

the

Tate

letter

the

restrictive policy and

doctrine this of has the

embraced then

entrenched firmly

i n American by

since

confirmed Immunities

the

enactment The

American F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Court also

A c t of 1976. in Alfred

Supreme of

gave i t s b l e s s i n g s to the A c t

Dunhill

22

S e e The

ILC Report

(1982, 1984, Letter

1986). of May 19 (1952), State

S e e The Famous T a t e Department, 26 BULL 984.

23

139

London I n c . v. R e p u b l i c o f C u b a , passed through Congress. The

24

i n t h e same y e a r t h a t t h e A c t this doctrine are of such

m o d a l i t i e s of

d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y countries Singapore that s t i l l as and the

reflected Kingdom,
2 5

i n the recent p o l i c i e s Canada, Australia,

United

Pakistan,

South A f r i c a .

However, i t must not be f o r g o t t e n i t difficult t o g i v e up t h e o l d

other c o u n t r i e s f i n d

o r d e r and t h e r e f o r e have n o t abandoned t h e p r i n c i p l e o f a b s o l u t e immunity. historic

26

I t must a l s o be

remembered t h a t a t l e a s t b e f o r e Philippine Admiral, i n which

the the

landmark c a s e o f

The

Privy Council followed the r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e , B r i t a i n i n f a c t had this i n the policy past of maintained Britain a policy to the of absolute have immunity and some

seemed

influenced

commonwealth c o u n t r i e s t o m a i n t a i n

same p o s i t i o n .

Perhaps influence that some and

27

B r i t a i n ' s change o f p o l i c y t h e r e a f t e r a l s o had s i m i l a r on the Old Commonwealth, notwithstanding the fact

commonwealth A f r i c a n still

c o u n t r i e s have

remained

conservative

s t e a d f a s t l y support t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e immunity. Canada followed the United Kingdom

28

in

adopting

the

restrictive

immunity d o c t r i n e i n 1 9 8 2 ,

but

i t appeared

Canada was

s t r u g g l e d w i t h t h e i d e a f o r some t i m e b e f o r e a f o r m a l change

2 4

(1976) 425 114 See Brownlie,

682. Principles of Public I n t . Law (1990) at p.

25

328.
2 6

I b i d . a t pp.

329-336; I L C R e p o r t

(1982, 1983,

1986).

I L C Report (1982, 1984, 1 9 8 6 ) . ^ Brownlie, op. c i t . at p. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1986) p. 110.

8

2 7

328;

Rebecca

Wallace,

140

made. for

The

shift to and

i n p o l i c y by become a the
2 9

the U n i t e d to

Kingdom paved t h e the 1926

way

Britain

party 1972

both

Brussels on State was to the

Convention Immunity, provide

that

of

European of

Convention

respectively.

The

object

the

Convention

a u n i f o r m method i n d e a l i n g w i t h immunity. of the

30

i s s u e s c e n t r a l to

problem of sovereign In the light

move

towards effect

the on

doctrine the

of

restrictive world States as

immunity and as the

i t s attendant the have

Communist United by

well

T h i r d World, countries

former USSR, t h e resolved to

and

many

other

accept

t r e a t y a genuine w a i v e r of immunity i n m a t t e r s c o v e r i n g and trading activities. In reality,

shipping be

however, i t r e m a i n s t o

s e e n whether t h e s e p o s i t i v e p o l i c i e s based on compromise between t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e immunity and r e s t r i c t i v e immunity would

promote harmony i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l commercial i n t e r c o u r s e , i n v i e w of the fact to that the some by countries leading
3 1

have

remained

adamant

or

obstinate

call

Western i n d u s t r i a l

countries,

t h a t immunity be

restricted.

(4)

R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity and It i s true that i n the last "an

I t s Implications has no and dominion o v e r an perhaps i n much equal." earlier

equal

However,

twenty

years

2 9

B r o w n l i e , op. Ibid.

c i t . a t p.

337.

3 0

S e e I L C Report (1986) where B r a z i l , B u l g a r i a , China, Ecuador, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Sudan, Syria, T h a i l a n d , T r i n i d a d and Tobago, USSR, Venezuela have expressed t h e i r d e s i r e to s t i l l f o l l o w t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e immunity. 141

3 1

times i n C o n t i n e n t a l European be swinging towards the

countries acceptance

t h e pendulum appears t o of the doctrine of

restrictive

immunity i n t h e Western

w o r l d and t h i s

particularly

may be due t o t h e p r e s s i n g need o f s t a b i l i t y , and substantial

3 2

e q u i t y , good f a i t h of commercial given

justice

i n contemporary

world

transactions. this a

A c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f eminent thus suggested t h a t acta jure

writers,

s t a t e of a f f a i r s ,

t h e p r a c t i c e whereby and acta jure

distinction

i s made between

imperii

gestionis be i n s t i t u t e d a s a p r e l u d e t o e s t a b l i s h i n g immunity. be Thus a s t a t e a c t i n g a s a p r i v a t e immunity and hence must under be

restrictive

i n d i v i d u a l must n o t subjected to
3 3

accorded

equally

liability

a s would an i n d i v i d u a l

similar circumstances.

Although i t appears t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f l e a d i n g l e g a l s c h o l a r s i n international there law have a l l agreed t h e problem that immunity be r e s t r i c t e d ,

i s w i t h o u t doubt

o f developing a uniform o r a workable and p r a c t i c a l

34

a c c e p t a b l e means by which criterion The likely

t o promote

t o command t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f a l l and s u n d r y . between acta jure imperii quite and acta

distinction

jure

gestionis,
32

although

i n t h e o r y may

appear

a t t r a c t i v e and

The increase i n state participation in commercial transactions throughout the world prompted the c a l l f o r r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n o r d e r t o promote j u s t i c e i n t h e market place. See g e n e r a l l y , B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , pp. 323-345; Higgins (1982) 29 NILR 265. S e e Mann, The S t a t e Immunity A c t 1978 (1979) 50 p. 43; Brownlie, op. c i t . , pp. 332-345; L a u t e r p a c h t (1951) 28 B Y I L ; Reoovodd (1986) V. 200 Hague R e c u e i l ; Badr, S t a t e Immunity (1984) . S e e I L C Report ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; S o r n a r a j a h , Problems i n A p p l y i n g the R e s t r i c t i v e Theory o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity, 1982 ICLQ 31 p. 661; I L C Report (1986), e.g., S t a t e P r a c t i c e . 142
34 33

apposite,

however,

in

reality

it
35

is

difficult The

to

define of

and the

perhaps very principle on the of

cumbersome t o a p p l y . restrictive that

acceptance some e x t e n t act as

immunity i s t o do not

predicated a "public act i n

reasoning

states

always

p e r s o n " and its capacity the

3 6

that there as a

are instances person,

i n which a s t a t e may arguably falling

private of to

completely

outside

confines In reply

traditionally the above

acceptable

governmental Professor

functions.

alluded

theory,

Hyde a l t h o u g h a proponent of the r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y argues t h a t ,

"A activity and s t a t e never a c t s in which in a private is capacity,
3 7

even when

the to

i t participates

one

commonly c o n f i n e d

c a r r i e d on by

the p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l . "

In with the

view

of

the of

difficulties restrictive as

and

uncertainties and apply test the the

associated fact that

doctrine are not

immunity to how to

scholars

a l l agreed

concept, want

prompted De

Paepe t o propose t h e

objective

which f o r
38

o f p r o p e r d i r e c t i o n was former judge of the Hague of the

l a t e r r e s t a t e d by A. W e i s s ,

a prominent

Permanent C o u r t of was

International Justice at President i n 1922, as

w h i c h he

appointed Vice

follows:
" I t w o u l d seem a s u r e r t e s t t o a d m i t t h a t the n a t u r e a l o n e o f t h e a c t s h o u l d be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . . . . Thus t h e distinctions just mentioned disappear; the judge need not consider i n t e n t i o n ; h i s duty becomes a s i m p l e on, since i t

3 5

L a u t e r p a c h t , op.

c i t . ; Fitzmaurice

(1933) B Y I L

XIV. Trendtex (CA) ; I

The P h i l i p p i n e Admiral (1977) AC 373 (JC) ; T r a d i n g v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) QB 529 C o n g r e s o d e l P a r t i c o (1983) 1 AC 244 (HL) .
3 7

36

S e e Hyde, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

(11-844, V o l .

1). les Cours (192)

38

Vol.

A c a d e m i e de D r o i t 1, pp. 545-6.

International, Recueil

143

i n v o l v e s merely a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t : An a c t p e r f o r m e d by a government i s presented for h i s j u d i c i a l appreciation; to determine whether he may p a s s upon i t , he h a s b u t one q u e s t i o n t o a s k : I s t h e a c t by i t s n a t u r e s u c h t h a t i n no c a s e c o u l d i t be performed by o t h e r t h a n by a s t a t e , o r i n i t s name; i n s u c h a c a s e i t i s an a c t o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y (puissance publique) ; i t i s a p o l i t i c a l a c t which may n o t , w i t h o u t i n f r i n g i n g upon t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f s u c h a s t a t e , be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e judgment o f a foreign authority. There i s a c l e a r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . On t h e c o n t r a r y , i f t h e a c t i s by i t s n a t u r e s u c h a s any p r i v a t e p e r s o n c o u l d engage i n , a s , f o r i n s t a n c e , a c o n t r a c t o r a l o a n , t h e a c t , whatever i t s purpose, i s a p r i v a t e a c t , and t h e f o r e i g n court has j u r i s d i c t i o n . And t h u s we must conclude that j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t be d e c l i n e d e v e n i f t h e c o n t r a c t i s t o u c h e d w i t h an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r , a s , f o r i n s t a n c e , i fi t c o n c e r n s t h e p u r c h a s e o f a w a r s h i p o r an o r d e r o f m u n i t i o n s , and arms f o r i t s a r s e n a l s . I t i s o f no i m p o r t a n c e t h a t a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n does not o r d i n a r i l y make s u c h c o n t r a c t s , o r on s u c h a s c a l e o r t o t h e same p u r p o s e . I f i t i s the question of a c o n t r a c t o r an a c q u i s i t i o n , t h a t i s enough. I t i s the nature and not t h e purpose t h a t i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d . "
3 9

The follows

objective

test

according

to

Judge

Weiss'

approach

the p r i n c i p l e

by which

issues

regarding

immunity a r e activity that

determined

by r e l i a n c e on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s t a t e
4 0

p r e c i p i t a t e d the l i t i g a t i o n .

Thus w h e t h e r t h e l o c a l forum w i l l

d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r n o t i s p r e d i c a t e d on t h e n a t u r e o r form of t h e a c t and i f need i n dispute. be, specifically on the commercial determines

activity

The t e s t ,

i t i s suggested,

whether t h e t r a n s a c t i o n be or

e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e s t a t e

can p o s s i b l y

denoted a s one by i t s v e r y n a t u r e o r form t o be a s o v e r e i g n non-sovereign act (i.e., private jure act). Thus then i f i ti s

characterised

a s one o f acta

imperii
4 1

according to

Judge Weiss immunity must be a l l o w e d .

While

on t h e o t h e r hand,

39 I b i d .
4 0

Ibid. Ibid. 144

4 1

if

the

activity person

i s one would

by

i t s very nature then

an a c t i v i t y

that
42

any In

private

undertake,

immunity be

denied.

t h i s regard a d i s t i n c t i o n jure imperii e a s y and and

i s s i m p l y b e i n g suggested between acts But i s such a d i s t i n c t i o n be

a c t s jure gestionis. I t h i n k not,

realistic?

f o r s u c h an approach would judge.

q u i t e c o n f u s i n g and The and the

l i k e l y to pose d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r the

most f o r c e f u l argument i n s u p p o r t plea to abandon was the distinction s t a t e d by

of a b s o l u t e immunity between sovereign and

non-sovereign (as he t h e n

acts was).

clearly

S i r Geral

Fitzmaurice

"The d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s o v e r e i g n and non s o v e r e i g n a c t s o f a s t a t e i s a r b i t r a r y and u n r e a l , and which i s not e a s y t o a p p l y i n p r a c t i c e and which might become much more d i f f i c u l t t o a p p l y i f s t a t e s c a r e t o t a k e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e measures; one w h i c h , m o r e o v e r , must a l w a y s l e a v e a s o r t o f no man's l a n d of actions capable of being regarded as coming w i t h i n either category. The c o n c l u s i o n seems t o be t h a t t h e o n l y sound c o u r s e i s t o a d h e r e t o t h e s t r i c t d o c t r i n e o f c o m p l e t e immunity, any departures from i t in specific cases being regulated by i n t e r n a t i o n a l convention."
4 3

It by

i s hard

today to take

issue

with

the argument p o s i t e d the

S i r Geral Fitzmaurice, for i n r e a l i t y doctrine i s not at

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of given the

restrictive difficulties the Lord question Denning

a l l easy

attendant and

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h modern-day a c t i v i t i e s of s t a t e s of indirect made a impleading. similar Twenty-four years

later v.

also

observation

i n Rahimtoola

Nizam o f the the

Hyderabad i n which he of the

expressed

h i s doubts as According But

regards to in him the

modalities restrictive

restrictive i s "a most

doctrine. elusive

theory

test."

4 2

Ibid. op. cit., a t pp. 145 101-122.

"Fitzmaurice,

same

judgment

he

also into

advocated

that

the law of

absolute

immunity had f a l l e n unsatisfactory. shortcomings Many

4 4

d i s f a v o u r and t h e r e f o r e d e c l a r e d i t i t d i d not take long before the apparent. this be

I n fact,

of t h e d o c t r i n e of s t a t e questioning

immunity became the rationale

therefore started concept

behind

ancient supported

and w h e t h e r reasoning.

i t s legitimacy
4 5

can p o s s i b l y second

by cogent

Those h a v i n g

thoughts,

t h a t i s , judges and s c h o l a r s , d o c t r i n e s t a r t e d a new c r u s a d e relative theory of immunity. were t h r o w i n g

47

about t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h i s
4 6

i n support of the r e s t r i c t i v e or First efforts i t appeared a s though t h e

proponents

their

unto t h e u n c h a r t e d s e e s . activities before call

But of l a t e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n commercial by sovereign states and the multitude over has given of

litigation

domestic

courts the world

impetus

to t h e i r

f o r a complete o r p a r t i a l immunity, companies

4 4 48

abandonment o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a t e whereby while the r i g h t s of p r i v a t e in

to avoid are

t h e problem upon

trampled

countries

involved

(1957) 3 A l l ER 404. See S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , a t pp. 113-284; I L C Report (1986).

45

S e e L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ; S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . ; Dunbar, C o n t r o v e r s i a l A s p e c t s o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t h e Case Law o f Some S t a t e s (1971) 132 R e c u e i l d e s Cours 203-351. A good example o f t h e c r u s a d e c a n be s e e n i n t h e E n g l i s h p r a c t i c e where Lord Denning mounted a c r u s a d e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e E n g l i s h approach of a b s o l u t e immunity. See Lord Denning s d e c i s i o n i n Trendtex Trading v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1977) 1 A l l ER 881. 0 f l a t e many companies have sued c o u n t r i e s i n E n g l i s h and American c o u r t s . C o u n t r i e s such as N i g e r i a , Zaire, L i b y a , P a k i s t a n , T a n z a n i a , Morocco, Uganda, e t c . , have been sued i n foreign courts. 146
4 8 47 1

46

commercial

transactions

hide

behind

the

doctrine

of

absolute

immunity t o i n s u l a t e t h e m s e l v e s The adherents be due to debate between

from l i a b i l i t y . of state immunity this and may

adherents

of r e s t r i c t i v e the

immunity i s f a r from o v e r and nature of the

horizontal

international

order, of

which

i n t h e main a l s o makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n immunity. be

49

the r e s t r i c t i v e rule that

Thus even i f a domestic the enforcement

court should of the to said

immunity

denied,

judgment, i . e . , execution and may in most cases

forcee, would be d i f f i c u l t create acrimony and

execute among in

disrepute state

nation-states. respect of t h i s

Furthermore, a r e a of t h e

i t would appear law i s s c a n t y and

practice

quite unsettled. immunity.

T h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e no

usus i n support of r e s t r i c t i v e

(5)

The Change of H e a r t i n American P r a c t i c e The United States decision of 1812 after having struggled with the Supreme

Court's suddenly

i n t h e Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, issued

changed i t s p o s i t i o n i n 1952 when the department

t h e famous T a t e l e t t e r , immunity. That Alfred the import

t h u s abandoning the d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e

of

the

Tate

letter

found of

expression i n Cuba cannot ex

D u n h i l l of

London,

I n c . v.

Republic

h y p o t h e s i be doubted when t h e Supreme Court, n a r r o w l y though i t may appear, that endorsed the the d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e of a commercial immunity, cannot and be

ruled

repudiation

debt

4 9

S o n a r a j a h , op. c i t . 147

c h a r a c t e r i s e d as an a c t of s t a t e and

t h e r e f o r e s u c h an a c t i o n

be

d e n i e d immunity i n view o f t h e p r e v a i l i n g change i n t h e p r a c t i c e of some s t a t e s . The c o u r t went on t o a r g u e as follows:

"We d e c l i n e t o e x t e n d t h e a c t o f s t a t e d o c t r i n e t o a c t s committed by f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n s i n the course of t h e i r p u r e l y commercial o p e r a t i o n s . B e c a u s e t h e a c t r e l i e d on by r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h i s c a s e was an a c t a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e c o n d u c t by Cuba's agents i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f c i g a r b u s i n e s s f o r p r o f i t , t h e a c t was not an a c t of s t a t e . "
5 0

The

court of

was

also

persuaded

by

the

fact

that have

an

increasing the

number

Western

industrialised

countries

accepted

d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Further, ushered in the the leading method by case in American public practice activities under that were the

which

s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s restrictive General took a de theory was Victory y Transport

5 1

Inc.

v.

Comisana the court

Abastecimientos approach

Transportes, based on

i n which

reasonable

e c l e c t i c i s m to follows:

designate

which p u b l i c a c t s must be a c c o r d e d immunity as (1)

I n t e r n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t s , s u c h as e x p u l s i o n alien.

of

an

(2) (3) (4) (5)

L e g i s l a t i v e a c t s , such as n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Acts c o n c e r n i n g Acts c o n c e r n i n g Public loans. t h e armed f o r c e s . diplomatic activity.

5 0

(1976) 4 2 5 US (1964) 336

682,

p.

318. 2nd Civ. 148

5 1

F. 2d 354

This courts
5 2

method and

of d i s t i n c t i o n was

h a s found

favour

with

other in

therefore
5 3

followed

without

hesitation

subsequent restrictive takes Act.

cases.

The p r e f e r e n c e presently from

given

to the d o c t r i n e o f courts, Sovereign however, Immunity

immunity

i n American Foreign

i t s authority

t h e 197 6

L e t us c o n s i d e r seriatim

some o f i t s m o d a l i t i e s .

(6)

Sovereign The

Immunity A c t o f 1976; US Law S i n c e t h a t Time of l e g i s l a t i o n in the t o regulate the question States simply cannot of be

adoption immunity

sovereign questioned, much

United

i n the l i g h t to restore

of the fact the

t h a t such of

l e g i s l a t i o n was U.S. courts to

needed

competence

adequately private

r e v i e w c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h commercial d i s p u t e s between and foreign sovereign states, a function

entities

c l e a r l y a l l o c a t e d t o t h e S t a t e Department p r i o r t o t h e enactment of t h e FSIA. To United

5 4

be p r e c i s e ,

the Foreign

Sovereign

Immunity A c t o f t h e

S t a t e s i n great d e t a i l c o d i f i e s the r e s t r i c t i v e theory of The A c t s e t s f o r t h a

i m m u n i t y a c c o r d i n g t o American e x p e r i e n c e .

5 2

1976

S e e Von Mehien, The F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n (1978) 17 Colum J T r a n s n a t i o n a l L 33.

Immunities

Act of

R o v i n S a l e s Co. v. S o c i a l i s t R e p u b l i c o f Romania (1975) 403 F . Supp. 1298, 1302 MD I I I ; I s b r a n d t s e n Tankers I n c . v . P r e s i d e n t o f I n d i a 446 F.2d 1198 (2d C i r . ) c e r t , denied, (1977) 404 US 985; T r a n s p Corp v . T S/T Manhattan (1975) 405 F.Supp. 1244, 1246 SDNY. S e e S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . , a t pp. 161-169; C a r l , Foreign Sovereigns i n American Courts; The U n i t e d States Foreign S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t i n P r a c t i c e (1979) 33 SWLJ p. 1009 (now SMU Law R e v i e w ) ; Feldman (1986) 35 ICLQ p. 302. 149
5 4

5 3

federal claims

long-arm against courts the

statute foreign (1608);

and

other

procedures and their

for

adjudicating before in the

governments i t further in

agencies or vests as to

American judiciary certain (1602); in

provides

overall of

authority foreign

determining are

whether or not

activities the Act of

states

commercial legislative legal action Act

also in every venue

respect for

gives

guidance against provides foreign to

respect

provisions their

taking

foreign inter

s t a t e s and alia for in the

agencies

(1391(f)) . of judgments

The

enforcement clearcut of a

against

governments violate the

certain

cases

adjudged

unlikely law, in

principles of

public

international (1010) ; a the

e.g., short of but

commercial generally in in of rem turn in and

property provides quasi

sovereign 1609-1611

Act

through i n rem

complete

elimination states, in
5 5

jurisdiction over a

over

foreign

allows

jurisdiction jurisdiction.

foreign

sovereign

respect

personam

(7)

Jurisdiction Primarily

of

the 28

Federal USC

Courts of the FSIA clearly any confers limit

Section

1330

jurisdiction whatsoever is the on

on the of

federal amount

district in dispute. foreign

courts

without 1604

Section states, forth Thus

specifically exceptions 1605in

source to

immunity t o of

however, under

leading 1607,

denial and

immunity a r e

set

Section

1605

1606,

respectively.

Congress

succeeded

28

USC

1609-1611.

150

putting in

to rest

questions

regarding Section in

absolute 1330(a)

sovereign f o r example

immunity grants civil

American

practice.

subject action without granted personal

matter against doubt

jurisdiction a that foreign

respect

of

non-jury

sovereign

state

where cannot

i t appears claim o r be that has i s

the state Section be taken

i n question 1330(b)

immunity.

gives

allowance prima facie

jurisdiction under

i f the court and

5 6

jurisdiction provided A

Section under

1 3 3 0 (a)

service

of process

or allowed foreign

Section by

1608.

state

which

agreement

or

impliedly

waived

immunity w i l l is in

be s u b j e c t e d

to jurisdiction. be r e c a n t e d

Thus once a w a i v e r o r withdrawn except

made b y a c o u n t r y

i t cannot

a manner a s r e q u i r e d

b y t h e command o f S e c t i o n

1605 (a) o f t h e

FSIA. Given sued that such FSIA the strength of Section 1605, a f o r e i g n s t a t e may b e

i n the United the activities exceptions there was

5 7

States,

i f a claimant state

c a n l e g i t i m a t e l y show i n issue fall within of the

of the foreign

s e t out i n 1605. no clearcut

P r i o r t o t h e enactment of securing opened in

means

personam

jurisdiction. certain the

However, giving of rise

t h e FSIA

h a s now

t h e gate f o r

claims

t o damages i n t o r t s activities.
5 8

t o b e made w i t h i n however,

meaning

commercial

Arguably,

See Gray v. Congo t o t h e U n i t e d

5 6

Permanent M i s s i o n o f People's Republic of N a t i o n s ( 1 9 7 8 ) SDNY 4 3 3 F . S u p p . 8 1 6 , 8 2 1 .

" C a r l , o p . c i t . S e e a l s o P e n n o y e r v . N e f f ( 1 8 7 7 ) 95 US 714 which deals in detail with the subject matter under consideration, i.e., jurisdiction.
5 8

2 8 USC 1 6 0 5 ( a ) 5.

151

sufficient determine the

minimum the

contact

test

must

be

followed

or

applied conduct

to in

relationship States, in

between the order to

foreign states satisfy

S 9

United

the

due

process

requirement

u n d e r t h e U.S.

Constitution.

(8)

Preliminary Issues with Respect Section 1609 and under FSIA

t o Commencement o f totally of the Thus

Action

eliminates attachments

prejudgment of a

attachments foreign property followed; have to

jurisdictional i n the state, to

property to attach

state of a

situated foreign example, filed

United proper

States.

the be

juridical end, federal this a

methods

must

for be and by

achieve Rule 3

this of

complaint rules matter of

would civil be

under

procedure, effected Section

service following I f by must be

of p r o c e s s one of

regarding the

must

options

enumerated state i s

under

1608(a). regard duly

chance the be made given on to an

defendant Section officer e.g., used as

indirectly means the

impleaded, service can

1603(b) or

which of

manager

instrumentality

or agency i n q u e s t i o n , rogatory c o u l d be

state-owned a means o f

airline serving

or p o s s i b l y l e t t e r s the defendant Section post judgment state. 1610(a)

1608(b). of the of FSIA the touches property on matters of the relating to

attachments

foreign

state

(defendant). a prima facie

S e c t i o n 1610(a) case that the

permits property

execution

only

i f there i s i s used in

in controversy

I n t h i s l i g h t , s t r i c t adherence to U.S. Constitution is required; see Constitution.

5 9

t h e due p r o c e s s o f t h e generally the U.S.

152

commercial as a

or t r a d i n g a c t i v i t y of principle a

i n the United linkage can

States, possibly

i . e . , where be proved

matter

between hand, States

t h e c l a i m and judgment. attachment where

Section 1610(b), activity

on t h e o t h e r i n the United to

allows

commercial

i s at issue

without

giving

exception

to i t srelation

t h e c l a i m on w h i c h

t h e judgment i s t o be

determined.

(9)

Commercial A c t i v i t y The foremost deals although

under

FSIA i s Section 1605(a). And the I t term

p r o v i s i o n of the FSIA with "commercial

specifically commercial, sovereign by in

activity."

difficult

to define or explore i n regard to by t h e n a t u r e a c t i v i t y may i n issue test rather than

immunity,

i s determined
6 0

the purpose t e s t .

A commercial

t h u s be d e f i n e d as follows:

respect of the nature

of the a c t i v i t y

"A c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y means e i t h e r a r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f commercial conduct o r a p a r t i c u l a r commercial transaction or act. The commercial c h a r a c t e r o f an activity shall be d e t e r m i n e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o u r s e o f conduct o r p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s a c t i o n o r a c t , r a t h e r t h a n by r e f e r e n c e t o i t s purpose."
61

The

restatement, that

although

i n the real

sense

i s n o t law, o f f e r s

definition

c a n be h e l p f u l

to the courts thus:

"An a c t i v i t y i s deemed c o m m e r c i a l , even i f c a r r i e d out by a state instrumentality, i f i t i s concerned w i t h production, sale or purchase o f goods; h i r i n g or l e a s i n g of property; b o r r o w i n g o r l e n d i n g o f money; p e r f o r m a n c e o f o r c o n t r a c t i n g f o r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s e r v i c e s ; and s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e k i n d t h a t a r e c a r r i e d on by n a t u r e o r j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n s . The f a c t t h a t t h e goods, p r o p e r t y , money o r s e r v i c e s may be u s e d f o r public o r government p u r p o s e does n o t a l t e r t h e commercial character of the a c t i v i t y . "
6 2

6 0

See See

S e c t i o n 1605 (a) 2. S e c t i o n 1 6 0 4 (d) o f F S I A . 3rd of the Foreign Relations Law 453

6 1

"Restatement

153

Although helpful, a

it

appears

these

definitions shows

will that

certainly i t cannot

be be

further applied and and

r e f l e c t i o n , however, in certain difficult acts of

adequately the public

cases, a

especially state

where are a

commercial almost

foreign to

intertwined particular associated

simultaneously goal. or These East

directed

achieving are

developmental with in

problems

commonly where level major general as to

developing promoting sector

European is at

countries its lowest

6 3

privatisation while the

development

public the be

assumes a dominant p o s i t i o n . definition the test of is that

The is

problem and how to

with

restatement able to stand

i t

would not to

giving

guidance best be

adequately

formulate a

criterion

that and on

could

used of is

distinguish states.

between The and

governmental definition, m u s t be

commercial the other on the

acts hand,

foreign simply basis nature

FSIA

mechanical in of order to

therefore

applied

case-by-case horizontal parallel sovereign to jure

avoid

problems. order and

Arguably, the the

international of the

attendant doctrine of

possibilities

reasoning of the to

behind

immunity i n c o u n t r i e s consider imperii than and the acts

world are

more i n t r i g u i n g i s s u e s between of acts

need jure

simply .

distinguish
6 4

gentionis

The

heart

the

problem

[Comment B ] . See Friedman, Changing Social Arrangements T r a d i n g S t a t e s a n d t h e i r E f f e c t on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Law and Contemporary Problems 350. See also S o r n a r a j a h , op. c i t .
6 4 6 3

in State (1959) 24 generally

See

Sornarajah,

op. c i t .

154

seems dispute resolve state

to

be at

predicated hand and the how

on

the best a

proper local theory from

identification forum based on could the

of

the

possibly notion of of

or

apply

restrictive as The derived

responsibility law.
6 3

the

principles of

public the

international nature the FSIA of

suggested i s not of the

method

determining and thus

commercial a c t i v i t y partly in respect

realistic criteria

resolves under is not

problem

formulated

Section an

1605(a()2). American on the

Arguably

Section

1605(a)(2) which may

basically

self-imposed

limitation

c a r r y weight The

international followed in

plane. Victory Transport Inc. v. the

approach de the

Comisaria General application sovereign become the of a of and dead

Abastecimientasy Transportes, doctrine of restrictive were

regarding

immunity has

where now of

non-sovereign letter of the or FSIA

acts

differentiated in which the as the

perhaps

insignificant of 1976

light a

enactment its

legislation has

matter Victory

radical

approach

totally

eclipsed

Transport

authority.

(10)

Contacts Suits

and

Direct

Effect

Approach are FSIA, to now possible in the the

against

foreign the

sovereigns of the

United subject

States after matter

6 6

passing is

especially

when

in

issue

related

activities i f such

considered suits are

commercial.

Thus t h r e e

c o n d i t i o n s must e x i s t

6 5

Lauterpacht, See

op. c i t . of FSIA.

6 6

S e c t i o n 1603(d)

155

to

be

entertained in to a

the

United a

States foreign

courts.

The

first

is

related activity an

situation on

where

sovereign's
6 7

commercial covers with a

i s carried

i n the United i n the a United

States.

The

second

a c t duly

performed of

States i n connection state in some in

trading country.

activity
6 8

foreign may a or v.

sovereign a

third a

The

third of

encompass

situation has

which a

commercial or an

activity

sovereign effect

state in the

produced

direct
6 9

indirect

impact Corp.

United of

States.

In
7 0

National defendant imperium the

American state, in order

Federal the maxim

Republic par but in the

Nigeria, nom ruled

the habet that

invoked to in met FSIA. since loss avoid

parem court issue

liability, and the

transaction of credit of the

question the

central

regarding Section immunity in be

letters

direct

effect

criterion of of

under

1605(a)(2) should dispute noted v. be

Hence t h e d e f e n c e the beneficiaries United

sovereign the

denied

contract also

suffered a the gave

i n the

States.

I t must

that

minimum c o n t a c t t e s t strength to the

then

established The same

in Shaffer result Radio ears was and to

Heitner in

decision. v. National the Court

reached

Harris
7 1

Corporation

Framenn turned

Television. the call

However,

i t appears denied

deaf

that

i m m u n i t y be

i n the

Exchange

National

Bank

'"Carl,
6 8

op. c i t .

Ibid. Ibid. 4 4 8 F.Supp. (1982) 622 (1978) 634 SDNY. 1344.

6 9

7 0

7 1

1 1 t h C i r 691

F.2d

156

Case.

7 2

There notes

the did

court not with

simply in the actual

ruled fact as

that

non-payment a by

of

promissory sufficient FSIA.

produce required de

logically the SA 1976 v. by be of of

connection in
7 3

forum

Again Hall,

Helicopteros the court

Nationales a more United of

Colombia

Elizabeth ruling

took in the

cautious States

approach should in the not

that

mere as

purchases sufficient

characterised a purported

basis totally

jurisdiction to

respect cause

transaction

unrelated

action. An problems first effective could be and so approach resolved applying as the to by is the which to use these the apparently Act of the elusive by the falls

effectively the Act to

defining in

provisions whether

activity within in

issue

determine and is then

activity

the

domain o f

act, i t

c h a r a c t e r i s e the or

activity

controversy

whether

commercial acts jure i t is

governmental. and that acts jure

Although the gentionis practice In is

d i s t i n c t i o n between not at a l l the BV v. easy,

imperii

believed control. of in

constant

could

bring

problem under Central Bank state

Verlinden a a

Nigeria, the the

7 4

foreign as

company s u e d a an result alien of

foreign failed

sovereign

United

States,

cement

contract,

and

i s s u e was sue held a

whether foreign that the

prima state

facie in the

domiciled United

abroad States.

could I t was

sovereign

7 2

(1984) (19 8 4)

SDNY 595 104 S Ct US

F.Supp. 1868. 480.

502.

7 3

7 4

(19 8 3 ) 461

157

plaintiff direct

had

the of

right

to

sue

but

failed

to

show

sufficient States to

effect

the

commercial a c t i v i t y

i n the United

command j u r i s d i c t i o n In owned with Carey v.

under S e c t i o n 1605(a)(2) of the Oil Corp.'* the the of Libyan a

FSIA. Governmentsigned to not to had

National had

o i l company a New York

violated

terms The that

contract was

corporate on the

entity. ground but

court the to of

quick did f a r as

decline fulfil rule any on

jurisdiction the minimum the on

dispute go the as

contact

test, or

failed

whether

violation

the breach

contract

direct

effect

the parent of p i e r c i n g

company i n New the corporate

York. veil.

I t simply

avoided

the p r a c t i c e

(11)

Arbitration One other question of

Clauses area of worth mentioning or considering as is the the

thorny

arbitration

clauses

regards a

establishment company and light usually Earlier by in does a

transnational country.

contract The

between

plaintiff in this

defendant lay

United

S t a t e s law

not

bare with

clearly waivers

the in

jurisdictional

problem

associated cases
7 6

transnational contracts. c o u r t s seemed t o of an arbitration indicate clause been

so

f a r decided the be mere

i n U.S. presence to

implication that a c o n t r a c t must

construed

mean t h a t

immunity had
7 7

waived,

hence the domestic

court could take

jurisdiction.

7 5

(1978) See

SDNY 453

Supp.

1099. a t pp. 682-684.

7 6

S o r n a r a j a h , op. a t pp.

cit.,

7 7

Ibid.

682-683.

158

The minority, faulty appears therefore however, embrace of U.K., a and

reasoning however, highly its

alluded the

to

may simply

perhaps would

convince dismiss i t for usus

the as i t and are,

7 8

majority to

likely total

bring to

about run

disrepute, to

given not now new 1978. courts of

effect

counter

s u p p o r t e d by moving position Thus take the away

state practice. from their to to

American courts positions

earlier the argue a

to Act

quite

similar

State that

Immunity the

i t i s prudent jurisdiction

practice

whereby because

over an

dispute

automatically clause in for

existence be

of

arbitration or simply

transnational it

contracts

discontinued

discarded

compounds t h e

problem.

Expropriation (a) issue A

Claims foreign state will of property not be accorded immunity i f the in

i s in respect of

rights b l a t a n t l y expropriated This may and include

violation

international without cause as not or

law.

property that

expropriated could These claim be

compensation and

also takings

described

arbitrary that

perhaps but

discriminatory. do occur, For that a

situations are can clearly to be

common,

i f they

allowed however,

in United i t must the real United be

States borne

courts. i n mind of a the

this the

exception property States

apply, be a

must having

present clearcut in 684. 1605(a) the

in or

jurisdiction connection States by

United

with the

commercial state
7 9

activity
7 8

c a r r i e d on a t p.

foreign

Ibid.

7 9

See Section

of

the

FSIA.

159

"or

that or

property operated that

o r any by an

p r o p e r t y exchanged f o r such property i s agency or or instrumentality is of a foreign in a

owned state

and

agency

instrumentality United States."

8 0

engaged

commercial section without

activity

i n the

1605(a)(3).

This

i s s i m p l y a means t o r e d r e s s prompt law. or adequate

n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of as

property by

compensation

required

international

(b) this

Property a

rights are state

covered will

under be

1605(a)(4). given

Under i f are

section,

foreign

not

immunity States

"rights in

i n immovable p r o p e r t y I n order

s i t u a t e d i n the United

issue."

to take advantage of the a l l u d e d

provision, in

a plaintiff the land

must have a f f e c t i v e p o s s e s s o r y r i g h t s or i n t e r e s t i n the United States. In short, the lex

located U.S.

situs

must be

Non-Commercial Under tort

Torts 1605(a)(5), a foreign s t a t e i s not immune i n

Section as

actions,

follows:

" i n w h i c h money damages a r e sought a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n s t a t e f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r d e a t h , o r damage t o o r l o s s o f p r o p e r t y , o c c u r r i n g i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and c a u s e d by t h e t o r t i o u s a c t o r o m i s s i o n o f t h a t f o r e i g n s t a t e o r o f any o f f i c i a l or employee o f t h a t f o r e i g n s t a t e w h i l e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e scope o f h i s o f f i c e o r employment; e x c e p t t h i s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l not a p p l y t o : (A) any c l a i m b a s e d upon t h e e x e r c i s e or performance or t h e f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e or p e r f o r m a d i s c r e t i o n a r y function r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e d i s c r e t i o n be abused or

S e c t i o n 1 6 0 5 ( a ) (3) o f t h e F S I A . S p e c i f i c a l l y the property a n d a c t i v i t y m u s t a l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i n k e d w i t h t h e U n i t e d States.

8 0

760

(B) any c l a i m a r i s i n g out o f m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or i n t e r f e r e n c e with c o n t r a c t r i g h t s . "
8 1

The American S.145 Act

total Law

effect

of

this

section

seemed of to

to

follow

the Laws Torts would loci in

Institute's i s by by every

Second measure

Restatement identical

C o n f l i c t of the Foreign i t lex eclectic

which prepared

Canadian follows

commissioners. the reasoning courts the act must so

However, behind always the be

appear delicti. applying

1605(2) In this

sum,

American of

section

as

to

avoid

creating

acrimony or p o l i t i c a l

embarrassment.

Counterclaims Immunity is not available i f a foreign state of of initiates the the United FSIA,

proceedings against States, reads as duly met

a p r i v a t e e n t i t y i n the a counterclaim.

courts 1607

with

Section

follows:

" I n any a c t i o n b r o u g h t by a f o r e i g n s t a t e , o r i n w h i c h a f o r e i g n s t a t e i n t e r v e n e s , i n a c o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s or of a s t a t e the f o r e i g n s t a t e s h a l l not be a c c o r d e d i m m u n i t y w i t h r e s p e c t to any c o u n t e r c l a i m (a) f o r which a f o r e i g n s t a t e would n o t be e n t i t l e d t o immunity under S e c t i o n 1605 o f t h i s had s u c h c l a i m been b r o u g h t i n a separate a c t i o n a g a i n s t the f o r e i g n s t a t e or (b) e n s u i n g out of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e c l a i m o f t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e o r (c) to t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m d o e s not seek r e l i e f e x c e e d i n g i n amount o r d i f f e r e n t i n k i n d from t h a t sought by t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e . "
8 2

3 1

See Section
c

1605

(a)(5). deals with problems relating to

Section counterclaims.

82

1607

161

Given sued the

its

broad

import,

if

foreign

state

or state

agency i s answers

i n the United complaint

States

and the s a i d raising

defendant the

state

without

first

foreign

sovereign has waived Singapore

immunity the

defence,

the presumption

i s that

the state v.

defence Ltd
8 3

o f immunity. bears

The d e c i s i o n i n Aboydid similarity

Airline to

a striking review shows

to the position alluded City Bank v . perhaps seemed

above.

A proper of China,
8 4

of the case that

of National

Republic

i t s compromise

outcome

forms t h e b a s i s to limit an

of FSIA

1607(c), although counterclaim claim as

S e c t i o n 1607(c) regards made the by

unrelated

principal

amount state.
8 5

sought One

or the principal difficult

duly

the foreign with

lingering

problem,

however,

counterclaims unrelated

under

S e c t i o n 1607 c a n c l e a r l y

be seen

i n terms o f

counterclaims.

Attachment Prior long held

and Execution to that t h e enactment the property from of t h e FSIA, of a foreign arrest American sovereign and courts state had be
8 6

accorded

immunity

execution,

attachment.

8 3

( 1 9 8 6 ) 67 NY (1955)

2 d 4 5 0 , 5 0 3 NYS 2 d 5 5 5 , 494 NE 2 d 1 0 5 5 .

8 4

3 4 8 US 3 5 6 .

S e c t i o n 1 6 0 7 ( c ) m u s t b e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d a n d one m u s t a l s o b e e c l e c t i c when a p p l y i n g i t . S e e a l s o S e c t i o n 70 o f t h e R e s t a t e m e n t S e c o n d o f F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s Law w h i c h a l s o d e a l s w i t h some a s p e c t s o f a f f i r m a t i v e r e c o v e r y . E . g . , F i r s t N a t i o n a l C i t y B a n k v . B a n c o P a r a e l C o m e r c i a E x t e r i o r de Cuba (1983) 462 US 611 t o u c h e s o n v e r y s a l i e n t i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g c o u n t e r c l a i m s , w a i v e r s a n d a f f i r m a t i v e r e c o v e r y b e f o r e U.S. c o u r t s .

8 6

8 5

See

Sinclair,

op. c i t . , a t p. 2 2 2 .

162

Section position

1610 held

of by

the

FSIA

has,

however, Thus

changed subject to a

the to

prior certain state and the

American will

courts. not be

conditions, where used the

immunity property

available be in the the

foreign States

i s believed to activity, or

United

i n commercial of
8 7

where has

foreign state leave to

in

absence

any

pressure

thereof

taken

waive

immunity.

Agencies, from The the Act

having state,

attained are not

independent immune under

juristic the same as a

personality conditions. method be by

prohibits

prejudgment but the

attachment i t may,

which

jurisdiction i f the be

i s obtained, need be, or in to

however, of a

perfectly likely

used, to of a

satisfaction the has

claim

successful

protect state the

justified explicitly still in a and

expectation waived accords respect foreign

litigating 1610(d). immunity

party

i f the on

immunity. absolute

S e c t i o n 1611 to

o t h e r hand

international

organizations S e c t i o n 1610, attachment

of t h e i r property. state shall be

Thus n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g immunity from

accorded

execution i f
"(1) t h e p r o p e r t y i s t h a t of a f o r e i g n c e n t r a l bank o r monetary a u t h o r i t y h e l d f o r i t s own a c c o u n t , u n l e s s s u c h bank o r authority, or i t s p a r e n t f o r e i g n government, h a s explicitly w a i v e d i t s immunity from a t t a c h m e n t i n a i d o f e x e c u t i o n , o r from e x e c u t i o n n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e w a i v e r w h i c h t h e bank, a u t h o r i t y or government may p u r p o r t t o e f f e c t e x c e p t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e terms of t h e w a i v e r o r (2) the p r o p e r t y i s or i s i n t e n d e d t o be used in connection with a m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t y . "
8 8

Section 1610 of FSIA d e a l s w i t h execution which p r i o r to the promulgation f a v o u r w i t h t h e S t a t e Department.

8 8

8 7

problems relating to of t h e a c t n e v e r found

See

S e c t i o n 1611(a)

and

(2) o f

FSIA.

163

Many U.S.

commentators on

have

argued

strongly

i n support and this

of the ina l l

legislation

sovereign

immunity

probabilities the fact that

one w o u l d be h a r d p u t t o c h a l l e n g e prior t o t h e enactment i n one U.S. claims way

i n the light of

o f t h e A c t , t h e U.S. was t o restore the decide before issues U.S.

searching needed relating courts. i.e.,

8 9

desperately of

or the other to adequately

competence

courts against

to private

foreign still

states remain

Four major problems, political acts

however, of

unresolved, forcee, I n sum t h e to in

the

states,

execution

jurisdiction Act needs

and t h e thorny to be amended

issue in and with

of Act of State. respect of

i t s approach and seizure

jurisdiction, execution

arbitration

attachment usus

so a s t o be c u r r e n t

i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

The

Change o f H e a r t The

in British

Practice s t a t e s a r e accorded clearly and fifty entrenched years. with an absolute

p r a c t i c e whereby i n domestic over a

foreign was

immunity

courts

i n English That this

jurisprudence practice

hundred English be seen followed v. The

prevailed

in

courts

inexorable

inflexibility The Parlement

can t r u l y Beige,

i n the decisions by The Agency Porto

h a n d e d down i n Alexandre, The

Cristina ones. a
9 0

and K r a j i n e r The judgment of

Tass

t o mention

t h e main Agency a s

i n t h e Krajina, treated the Tass Soviet Union without any

department

the

independent

8 9

See See

Sornarajah, Sinclair,

op. c i t . , a t p. 685.

9 0

op. c i t . , pp. 121-128.

164

juridical fact,

personality decision

and was

allowed

the

claim

f o r immunity. and with

In thus the Lord the by

this

received on the

with

disfavour associated state

prompted continued Chancellor

public

disquiet

problems of

adherence to the modalities Earl of Jowitt, the paved

9 1

immunity. of

having

taken

cognizance of state up

shortcomings English

entrenched t h e way

practice for the

immunity of an

courts,

setting

Interunder Donald Hanson, and

Departmental Committee consideration. Somervell Sir Sir Eric Such

to study the s u b j e c t matter h e r e i n great names in the law as Sir

(chairman), Beckett, Speed The

S i r Hersch

Lauterpacht,

Professor

S i r Davis were

Dobson, S i r K e n n e t h R o b e r t s - W o r y to study work the on sovereign July as a 13, result n o t be

Robert
9 2

selected

immunity 1951, of and sharp

question.

committee

started

came o u t w i t h differences feasible law. officio,

i t s conclusion

i n 1953

that

i n the practice

of s t a t e s ,

i t would place was

legally

to c o r r e c t l y determine i t s exact status without of any the committee thus

in international declared functus

The
93

success. some t i m e t o make a momentous c h a n g e imminent law. men (of the somewhere law) in to after the

It the

took B r i t a i n of these of the

failure

clear the

unbeaten Council the

path

Then

1977

Privy of of

i n The P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l r e s o r t e d immunity
9 4

to the a p p l i c a t i o n that a claim 45.

restrictive
91

by s u p p o r t i n g t h e i d e a (1978)

Mann, The S t a t e Ibid. a t pp. a t p.

I m m u n i t y A c t 1978

49 B Y I L

9 2

45-46. 46. 78.

"ibid,
9 4

(19 7 6) 1 A I L E R

165

sovereign there

immunity

be d e n i e d indication
95

t o a foreign that

sovereign

state i f

i s a clear

the a c t i v i t y

i n issue i s

commercially based. the

The P r i v y C o u n c i l thus decided t o f o l l o w

r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e as many w i l l agree, because t h e concept justice."

9 6

c l e a r l y appears "more consonant w i t h idea as i t may be r e c a l l e d

This

radical

was p r e v i o u s l y w e l l a r t i c u l a t e d i n

Ralumtoola v. Nizam o f Hyderabad, by Lord Denning as f o l l o w s :

" I f the dispute b r i n g s i n t o question, f o r instance, the legislative or international transactions of a foreign government, o r t h e p o l i c y o f i t s e x e c u t i v e , the court should g r a n t immunity i f a s k e d t o do s o b e c a u s e i t does o f f e n d t h e d i g n i t y o f a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n t o have s u c h a d i s p u t e c a n v a s s e d in the domestic c o u r t of another country; but i f the dispute c o n c e r n s , f o r example, t h e c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s o f a f o r e i g n government (whether c a r r i e d on by i t s own departments o r a g e n c i e s o r by s e t t i n g up s e p a r a t e l e g a l e n t i t i e s ) a t i t a r i s e s properly within the t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdiction o f our c o u r t s , t h e r e i s no ground f o r g r a n t i n g i m m u n i t y .
97

Again the

Lord Denning r e a f f i r m e d h i s p o s i t i o n

i n support o f

r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e i n Thai-Europe Tapioca Services L t d . v. of Pakistan, Ministry Supplies. o f Food

98

Government

and

Agriculture,

Directorate of Agriculture t h i s case, w i t h o u t doubt, impact the world (i.e., over Lord

Lord Denning's d i c t a i n have a c o m p e l l i n g

continues t o s t i l l

and p a r t i c u l a r l y

i n t h e Commonwealth. were f u r t h e r made o f the

These ideas

Denning's p o s i t i o n )

known i n Trendtex

and a l s o a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e stages

l i t i g a t i o n i n I Congreso d e l P a r t i c o (a more complex c a s e ) .

95

H i g g i n s (1982) 29 Neth I n t LR 266. I d . a t p. 266 (1977) AC 373. (19 5 8) AC 377, 422. (1975) 3 A l l ER.
166

9 6

97

98

The U n i t e d Kingdom which up t o 1970 was o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity has now

a l e a d i n g exponent g i v e n up the o l d

o r d e r and thus embraced t h e r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e . is firmly expressed The i n Trendtex and

This p o s i t i o n

I Congreso d e l P a r t i c o ,

respectively.

q u e s t i o n of sovereign immunity i n t h e U n i t e d primarily the

Kingdom i n respect o f t r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e s has now become a statutory law." Ever since 1978,

however,

E n g l i s h c o u r t s have been made t o take another hard l o o k a t t h e t o t a l i m p o r t o f the d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

100

The

S t a t e Immunity Act o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom (1978) The law o f s o v e r e i g n immunity i n the U n i t e d Kingdom, as fact, was wholly
101

matter

of

or p a r t l y

designed

to r a t i f y f a r as

the to

European cover

Convention,

but

seemed t o have gone as

o t h e r i m p o r t a n t areas o f the law as t o promote a modicum foreign in

o f j u s t i c e or f a i r n e s s t o b o t h the p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t and sovereign states. The Act,

i t would appear, goes f u r t h e r in restricting

many r e s p e c t s than t h e s a i d convention to foreign states,

1 0 2

immunity and

but

clearly

follows

i t s language

i n s p i r a t i o n t o a degree.

"See 185; B i r d
100

The State Immunity Act (1978); Delaume (1979) 73 A J I L (1979) 13 I n t Lawyer 619. (1984) AC 580 (HL) ; See

Alcom v. Republic o f Colombia a l s o Fox (1985) 34 ICLQ 115.

101

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , p.

337.

102

See Delaume, op. c i t . ; Mann, op. c i t .

167

The immunity,

Act

l a y s down o r p r o v i d e s gives immunity to

albeit foreign

a general states

rule from

of the of the

which

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f E n g l i s h c o u r t s , s u b j e c t , however, t o a l i s t exceptions doctrine carefully of d r a f t e d t o promote t h e m o d a l i t i e s o f immunity. Section 1(1)

restrictive "A

f o r example of the

reads as f o l l o w s : the courts of the

s t a t e i s immune from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n Kingdom except as provided

1 0 3

United

in

following provisions of t h i s this

p a r t of the A c t . "

The

onus i n why of ten

regard, however, i s upon t h e p l a i n t i f f

t o show cause

the case by every e s t i m a t i o n f a l l s the listed exceptions of the Act

w i t h i n t h e domain o f one (SS 2-11) . There are

enumerated r u l e s o f e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e o f Arguably, only the first meaningful exception way of the Act

immunity. confers
1 0 4

jurisdiction exceptions

i n any

on E n g l i s h c o u r t s . remove immunity

These might Which

i n some r e s p e c t

only

which

l o g i c a l l y otherwise e x i s t i n respect of f o r e i g n s t a t e s . means t h a t t h e r e i s s t i l l

t h e need t o r e q u e s t leave i n o r d e r t o

serve n o t i c e o u t s i d e B r i t a i n under Order 11 o f t h e r u l e s o f t h e Supreme Court, serve the to t h a t i s , i f t h e r e i s no or to perhaps the i f the o t h e r way defendant of the available to in question of the

defendant submit

refuses

jurisdiction

courts

U n i t e d Kingdom. are much "wider"

These e x c e p t i o n s than
105

i n t h e Act s t r i c t l y generally

speaking the

those

approved

under

European
103

Convention.

The U n i t e d Kingdom S t a t e Immunity Act 1978, Ibid.

Section 1 ( 1 ) .

1 0 4

105

1978 Act S 3(1) a and a l s o i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g e x c e p t i o n s .

168

I t may be r e c a l l e d t h a t t h e 197 6 Sovereign the United States p u r p o r t s t o operate

Immunity A c t o f of a

on t h e p r i n c i p l e

f e d e r a l long-arm s t a t u t e as a means o f p r o v i d i n g or making t h e process less cumbersome i n respect o f questions regarding

adjudicatory jurisdiction. f o l l o w s a procedure following through a method diplomatic

The B r i t i s h Act, on t h e o t h e r hand,

q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f FSIA, by s i m p l y by which channels s e r v i c e o f process (Sec. 1 2 ( 1 ) ) . i s effected 12(7),

Section

however, p r o v i d e s t h a t s e r v i c e o f process

i n respect o f S e c t i o n

12 (1) " S h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d as a f f e c t i n g any r u l e s o f c o u r t whereby leave i s r e q u i r e d f o r s e r v i c e o f process

1 0 6

outside the

jurisdiction." the

Order 11 i s t h e r e f o r e n o t a f f e c t e d as f a r as

1978 A c t i s concerned i n view o f t h e import o f t h e s e c t i o n s

alluded t o . The
mechanical

British

Act

does

not

completely
jure imperii

eliminate
and acta

the
jure

d i s t i n c t i o n between acta

gestionis b u t t e c h n i c a l l y p u r p o r t s t o embrace common sense and flexibility in respect of interpreting Section 3(3) i n

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S e c t i o n 3(1) (2) .

Exceptions The

t o Immunity under t h e 1978 Act relevant portion o f these exceptions likely t o be

c o n t e s t e d i n most c o u r t s can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s :
"(2) A s t a t e may submit a f t e r t h e d i s p u t e g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s h a s a r i s e n o r by a p r i o r w r i t t e n agreement t h a t i t i s t o be g o v e r n e d by t h e l a w o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom i s n o t t o be r e g a r d e d a s a s u b m i s s i o n .

1 0 6

I b i d . , Section 12(7).
169

3 - ( 1 ) A s t a t e i s n o t immune a s r e s p e c t s p r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t i n g to (a) a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e s t a t e ; or (b) an o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e w h i c h by v i r t u e o f a c o n t r a c t (whether a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n o r n o t ) fails t o be p e r f o r m e d w h o l l y o r p a r t l y i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom. (2) T h i s s e c t i o n does n o t a p p l y i f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e dispute a r e s t a t e s o r have o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d i n w r i t i n g ; and s u b s e c t i o n 1 (b) above does n o t a p p l y i f t h e c o n t r a c t (not b e i n g a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n ) was made i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e s t a t e c o n c e r n e d and t h e o b l i g a t i o n i n question i s g o v e r n e d by i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law. I n t h i s s e c t i o n " c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n " means any c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s u p p l y o f goods o r s e r v i c e s ; any l o a n o r o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f f i n a n c e and any g u a r a n t e e o r i n d e m n i t y i n r e s p e c t of any s u c h t r a n s a c t i o n o r o f a n y o t h e r f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n ; and (c) any o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n o r a c t i v i t y (whether o f a commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , f i n a n c i a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l o r other s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r ) i n t o which a s t a t e enters or i n which i t engages otherwise than i n the e x e r c i s e of sovereign authority; but n e i t h e r paragraph of S u b s e c t i o n (1) above a p p l i e s t o a c o n t r a c t o f employment between a s t a t e a n d a n i n d i v i d u a l . (4) A s t a t e i s n o t immune a s r e s p e c t s proceedings r e l a t i n g to contract o f employment b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e and an i n d i v i d u a l where t h e c o n t r a c t was made i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom o r the work is. t o be w h o l l y o r p a r t l y p e r f o r m e d t h e r e .
1 0 1

(3) (a) (b)

The

above s t a t e d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t ,

as compared t o can be

o t h e r Acts, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f t h e European Convention, said t o be a l i t t l e broader i n respect

o f t h e corresponding
1 0 8

p r o v i s i o n s as regards commercial a c t i v i t i e s . Section financial will the 3(3) i n every respect

covers

c o n t r a c t s and

t r a n s a c t i o n s o f a l l k i n d s , hence t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s i n determining questions r e l a t i n g t o power or authority. Thus such

have no d i f f i c u l t i e s exercise

o f sovereign

See Section 3(1) (a) (b) 2, 3, and 4 ( 1 ) . See Section 3(1)a o f 1978 A c t .
170

problems Trendtex 3(3) (a) .

as t h e purpose case w i l l
1 0 9

and n a t u r e fall within

test

associated

with the

simply

t h e confines o f S e c t i o n

Again questions r e g a r d i n g l e t t e r s o f c r e d i t c o u l d be to fall under S e c t i o n 3(3)b. Agency,

l l u

construed down

The d e c i s i o n handed will not

i n t h e K r a j i n a v. Tass

f o r example,

s u r v i v e t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Act, s i n c e a s t r o n g showing o f governmental a c t i v i t y o r a u t h o r i t y i n r e s p e c t of t h e t o r t committed w i l l be r e q u i r e d . covered under "Activity" i s therefore types o f

well

3(3) (c) , as t o n e u t r a l i s e these

problems. The combined e f f e c t o f S e c t i o n 391) (b) and Section 3(1) (a)

can be c a r e f u l l y a p p l i e d by t h e c o u r t s o f United Kingdom t o deny immunity to foreign states in respect of non-commercial

t r a n s a c t i o n s or a c t i v i t i e s , will While be left standing 3(1) (b)

s i n c e i t would appear Section 3 ( 1 ) a any major impact.

on one l e g w i t h o u t given i t s clear

Section

import

can i n many A

r e s p e c t s be used t o determine

issues r e l a t i n g t o o b l i g a t i o n .

good example i s t h e i n t e r e s t i n g case o f Rayne, L t d . v. Dept. o f Trade

111

p e r Kerr LJ.

The A c t c e r t a i n l y w i l l

fall

f a r short of

p r o v i d i n g t h e r i g h t answers i n t h e I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o case, i n v i e w p a r t i c u l a r l y o f t h e t h o r n y q u e s t i o n regarding t h e Marble Islands and one wonders as t o whether Section 10 o f t h e A c t

See H a r r i s , (1991) p. 308.

1 1 0

109

Cases

and M a t e r i a l s

on I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Law

Ibid. (1989) Ch. 72 195.

171

1 1 1

could

possibly

produce

t h e needed

comfort

and

acceptable

guidance.

Indirect

Impleading i s invoked t o

At common law t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a t e immunity

p r o t e c t a f o r e i g n s t a t e from b o t h d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t i m p l e a d i n g i n terms o f proceedings a g a i n s t a p r o p e r t y i n i t s possession o r in which i t simply immunity, has a prima facie i n t e r e s t or c l a i m .
1 1 2

Sovereign

however, i s n o t a v a i l a b l e

t o s t a t e s under

S e c t i o n 10, and t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e as f o l l o w s :
"10(1) This section applies to

(a) a d m i r a l t y p r o c e e d i n g s and (b) p r o c e e d i n g s on any c l a i m w h i c h c o u l d be made t h e s u b j e c t o f a d m i r a l t y proceedings. (2) A s t a t e i s not immune a s r e s p e c t s (a) an a c t i o n i n rem a g a i n s t a s h i p b e l o n g i n g t o t h a t s t a t e ; o r (b) an a c t i o n i n personam f o r e n f o r c i n g a c l a i m i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s u c h a s h i p i f , a t t h e t i m e when t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r o s e , the ship was i n use or intended f o r use f o r commercial purposes. "
1 1 3

S e c t i o n 6(4) t o some e x t e n t deals w i t h one aspect i m p l e a d i n g as f o l l o w s :

of indirect

"A c o u r t may e n t e r t a i n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t a p e r s o n o t h e r than a s t a t e notwithstanding that the proceedings r e l a t e to property (a) which i s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l o f a s t a t e ; o r (b) i n which a s t a t e c l a i m s an i n t e r e s t , i f t h e s t a t e would n o t have been immune had t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e e n b r o u g h t a g a i n s t i t or i n a c a s e w i t h i n p a r a g r a p h (b) above, i f t h e c l a i m i s n e i t h e r a d m i t t e d nor s u p p o r t e d by prima facie e v i d e n c e . "
1 1 4

The Parlement Beige (1880) 5 PD 197; The J u p i t e r p. 236; The C r i s t i n a (1938) AC 485; The A r a n t z a z u Mendi AC 256.
113

112

(1924) (1939)

See The 1978 Act 10(1) and ( 2 ) . drafted

I b i d . 6(4) a, b. This aspect o f t h e A c t i s w e l l and w i l l c e r t a i n l y ease t e n s i o n and perhaps c o n f u s i o n .

172

1 1 4

The

q u e s t i o n t o answer here i s whether Section 6(4) could the p l a i n t i f f s i n D o l l f u s Mieg from prevailing.

have p r e v e n t e d No one can t e l l

i n r e t r o s p e c t as t o how t h e c o u r t would have

r e a c t e d i f t h e 1978 A c t had been i n e x i s t e n c e then, b u t i t would appear t h e d e c i s i o n c o u l d have gone e i t h e r way, i n t h e l i g h t o f i t s post-war f l a v o u r i n r e s p e c t o f an a c t i o n in personam a g a i n s t t h e t h r e e s t a t e s who were t h e b a i l o r s . Some s c h o l a r s
115

however i f the

are o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s would have f a i l e d said litigation took place today,

because o f Section 3 (3c) o f

the A c t . The 1978 A c t i n g e n e r a l embraces o r seemed t o support t h e

r e j e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e immunity r u l e o r t h e d e n i a l o f immunity i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l case coupled w i t h i t s c l e a r support o f t h e views e x p r e s s e d by Lord Denning i n t h e Thai-Europe Tapioca case, as regards a c t i o n s in personam.

Waivers o f Immunity and Counterclaims It i s clear

116

now

that

the rule today

i n Kahan v.

Pakistan

Federation direction submission but

will

n o t stand

i n view

o f the statutory means that

of

Section

2(2) o f

t h e A c t , which

to jurisdiction

today can o n l y be done before a c o u r t Section 2(1) o f the Act, as for

n o t by any o t h e r provides that

means. "A

example,

state

i s n o t immune i t has

respects t o the

proceedings

i n respect

o f which

submitted

115

See H a r r i s , op. c i t . , a t p. 308; Mann, op. c i t . , n. 92. (1951) 2 KB 1003 (CA) .

173

1 1 6

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e courts o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom."

117

The s t a t e t o the

i n one way o r t h e other i s p e r c e i v e d t o have s u b m i t t e d

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f U.K. c o u r t s i f i t has i n s t i t u t e d t h e a c t i o n o r has i n t e r v e n e d o r taken any steps i n the a c t i o n i n respect o f a c l a i m on i t s m e r i t s .

making a c l a i m known or by defending

These p r o v i s i o n s do c l e a r t h e way f o r t h e c o u r t s t o be i n a p o s i t i o n t o make o r draw i n f e r e n c e s from t h e conduct o f a s t a t e r a t h e r than i t s commercial a c t i v i t y . Section 2(3) subject t o (4) and (b) , Convention

s t r i c t q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n respect o f (a) s u b s e c t i o n Subsection (5) a l l correspond to t h e European

A r t i c l e s 1 ( 1 ) , 3 and 13, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Execution The Act i n general as regards execution follows a

p r i n c i p l e s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e European Convention. 13(2) clearly

118

Section European

corresponds

to Article

23

of

the

Convention.

Thus even i f a s t a t e can n o t q u a l i f y f o r immunity

i n r e s p e c t o f one o f t h e exceptions, i t s p r o p e r t y i n r e a l terms is n o t t o be subjected t o execution

119

i n satisfaction

of a

judgment o r a r b i t r a t i o n award. such e s s e n t i a l exceptions secondly

117

This i s , however, s u b j e c t t o consent i n w r i t i n g and

as t o g i v i n g

i f t h e r e i s a c l e a r showing t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i n i s s u e

See S e c t i o n 2(1) attempts t o s i m p l i f y t h e r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o e x c e p t i o n s t o immunity i n t h e U.K. and i t s dominions.

118

Delaume, op. c i t . , p. 194.

I b i d . ; S e c t i o n 13(2) c l e a r l y corresponds t o t h e European Convention, i . e . , A r t i c l e 23, a l t h o u g h i t w i l l appear t h e l e g a l drafting style i s different.

174

1 1 9

i s i n t e n d e d o r b e i n g used f o r commercial p u r p o s e s . bank i s , however, given a

120

A central 14(4) as

s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n under

follows:
" P r o p e r t y o f a s t a t e ' s c e n t r a l bank o r o t h e r monetary a u t h o r i t y s h a l l n o t be r e g a r d e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f S u b s e c t i o n (4) o f S e c t i o n 13 above a s i n u s e o r i n t e n d e d f o r u s e f o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s ; and where any s u c h bank o r a u t h o r i t y i s a separate e n t i t y Subsections (1) t o (3) o f t h a t S e c t i o n shall a p p l y t o i t a s i f r e f e r e n c e s t o a s t a t e were r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e bank o r a u t h o r i t y . "
1 2 1

In

practice,

however, t h e p r o p e r t y o f a c e n t r a l

bank w i l l

be

s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n i f t h e r e i s a waiver evidenced

by w r i t i n g .

This aspect o f t h e a c t promotes a f a i r b a l a n c i n g o f r i g h t s and a modicum o f f a i r n e s s t o a l l . It careful facts will be r e c a l l e d , f o r example, t h a t as a r e s u l t o f a t o the justice

interpretation

o f commercial purpose e x c e p t i o n o f Colombia,

122

i n t h e case o f Alcorn v. Republic to prevail, account thus

was a l l o w e d embassy 13(4) ) . bank

preventing execution

against the (Section

of

t h e Republic

o f Colombia

Supplementary P r o v i s i o n s :

Persons E n t i t l e d t o Immunity

S e c t i o n 14(1) p r o v i d e s inter alia t h a t

"The this immunities and p r i v i l e g e s c o n f e r r e d o r commonwealth by t h i s p a r t state other of Act apply t o any f o r e i g n than

120

See S e c t i o n 13 (4) .

See t h e supplementary p r o v i s i o n o f t h e 1978 A c t , Section 14(4). Where a c l e a r meaning o f Subsection 4 o f S e c t i o n 13 i s g i v e n t o a v o i d c o n f u s i o n and m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n t h i s case t h e c o u r t t o o k t o a road o f e c l e c t i s m w i t h the aim o f a n a l y s i n g t h e f a c t s o f t h e case o b j e c t i v e l y . Alcorn c l e a r l y shows w i t h o u t doubt t h a t t h e debate on sovereign immunity i s f a r f r o m over.
175
1 2 2

121

the to

U n i t e d Kingdom; and r e f e r e n c e s (a) t h e s o v e r e i g n capacity; or other

to a s t a t e include head of that

references in his

state

public

(b) t h e government o f t h a t s t a t e ; and (c) any department o f t h a t government, b u t n o t t o any entity ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as a separate e n t i t y ) which i s d i s t i n c t from t h e e x e c u t i v e organs o f t h e government o f t h e s t a t e and c a p a b l e o f s u i n g o r b e i n g s u e d . "
1 2 3

States more o f t e n than n o t have used t h e p r o t e c t i v e s h i e l d under t h i s A c t t o a v o i d b e i n g impleaded. I n f a c t , i t had s u c c e s s f u l l y

worked i n favour o f some c o u n t r i e s b u t had f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e claim o f other countries. the Federal Republic I n t h e Trendtex case, f o r example, forcefully that the

o f N i g e r i a argued

Central state

Bank, a c c o r d i n g t o i t s domestic

law, was p a r t o f t h e person. The

and n o t a t a l l an independent

juridical

c o u r t , however, r e j e c t e d t h e c l a i m and thus r u l e d i n f a v o u r o f the p l a i n t i f f s without offering any c o n v i n c i n g answers t o t h e

argument p o s i t e d i n respect o f t h e s t a t u s o f t h e s a i d C e n t r a l Bank. ground future. of This aspect o f t h e Act arguably i s bound t o be a b r e e d i n g f o r a more complex state immunity litigation i n the

A r t . 27(1) o f t h e European Convention A c t seemed t o f o l l o w

and S e c t i o n 14(1) but i t

t h e U.K.

t h e same p r i n c i p l e s

would appear t h e U.K. A c t i s more t i g h t l y d r a f t e d .

Miscellaneous

Considerations t h e Queen ( o r Her

A p r o v i s i o n i s h e r e i n made whereby Majesty)

c o u l d t h r o u g h an Order i n C o u n c i l r e s t r i c t

or extend

See S e c t i o n 14(1) o f t h e A c t 1978; t h i s p r o v i s i o n has t h e same i m p o r t and e f f e c t as t h a t o f t h e European Convention b u t i n some r e s p e c t s appears more e x p l i c i t .
176

123

immunities

to foreign states. 15(1).

The

r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n of the

Act

provides as f o l l o w s :

"(1) I f i t appears to her Majesty t h a t the immunities and p r i v i l e g e s c o n f e r r e d by t h i s p a r t o f t h i s A c t i n r e l a t i o n t o any s t a t e (a) e x c e e d t h o s e a c c o r d e d by t h e law of t h e s t a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e U n i t e d Kingdom; o r (b) are less than those required by any treaty, c o n v e n t i o n o r o t h e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement t o w h i c h t h a t s t a t e and the U n i t e d Kingdom a r e p a r t i e s . "
1 2 4

It

i s worth

mentioning

Section

21 (a)

for i t explicitly conclusive

denotes a c e r t i f i c a t e

from t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e as to

evidence on any q u e s t i o n r e l a t i n g

"(a) "whether any c o u n t r y i s a s t a t e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p a r t 1 of t h i s Act, w h e t h e r any territory is a constituent t e r r i t o r y o f a f e d e r a l s t a t e f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s o r as t o the p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s t o be r e g a r d e d f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s a s the head or government o f a s t a t e . "
1 2 5

Section restrict

1 5 ( 1 ) , which

a l l o c a t e s powers t o Her arguably

Majesty

to or

or extend

immunities, of Chief

seemed t o resemble

f o l l o w some aspects

J u s t i c e Marshall's

t h e s i s i n the to

Schooner Exchange i n r e s p e c t l i m i t or extend immunity.

o f t h e power o f t h e sovereign

The S t a t e Immunity A c t o f U.K. to be accorded The immunity British and the Act

makes c l e a r when a s t a t e i s factors t o consider does not to deny

immunity. jurisdiction
124

therefore
1 2 6

confer in a

on E n g l i s h c o u r t s e x p l i c i t l y .

Rule 12(7)

S e c t i o n 15(1) d e a l s w i t h the e f f e c t o f the Order i n Council, which can be used a t any time g i v e n t h e circumstances. S e c t i o n 21(a) a l t h o u g h f a l l s under a miscellaneous and supplementary r u b r i c g i v e s a c l e a r e x p l a n a t i o n as t o t h e meaning of a f e d e r a l government i n r e s p e c t o f p a r t 2 o f t h e 1978 A c t . See S e c t i o n 1(1) o f t h e Act 680.
177
126 125

1978;

Sormarajah, op. c i t . ,

p.

way

requires a p l a i n t i f f

t o satisfy

t h e command o f o r d e r 11

which deals w i t h t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and s e r v i c e o f process in litigation involving sovereign relies states.

1 2 7

The

American of the Whether be more

approach,

on t h e o t h e r hand,

on t h e a u t h o r i t y respectively. a t hand would

international the English than

shoe and S e c t i o n 1603(e), approach that t o t h e problem

feasible However, based

o f t h e United the B r i t i s h

States

i s open

t o debate. objectively

i t appears

approach i s more cumbersome

and w i l l

certainly

minimize

jurisdictional

problems and perhaps a v o i d resentment

from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s ever

ready t o c h a l l e n g e t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t approach c l e a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e U.S. A c t .

1 2 8

For i t i s hard t o f i n d any r u l e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t o s u p p o r t the direct effect approach clearly entrenched i n American

practice. In sum, one can c e r t a i n l y d e t e c t some major d i f f e r e n c e s The U.S. A c t i n r e s p e c t

between t h e U.S. A c t and t h e U.K. Act.

t o many e s s e n t i a l issues r e l a t i n g t o s t a t e immunity appears l e s s explicit and less forthright i n terms of definitions of

commercial a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e s and p a r t i c u l a r l y problems l i k e l y to face the courts i n respect of state property used f o r favour t h e

commercial purposes.

The scorecards

on t h e whole

E n g l i s h A c t 1978. The E n g l i s h Act i n many r e s p e c t s i s t h e r e f o r e (19 5 7 ) 3 A l l ER 4 64. See a l s o r e a c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f t h e issues r e l a t i n g (1981) 3 WLR a t p. 345.
128 127

Lord W i l b e r f o r c e s t o t h e I Congreso

See t h e U.S. A c t 1605(a)(2) where two a l i e n s t r i e d t o have t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s r e s o l v e d before t h e U.S. f e d e r a l c o u r t .

178

b e t t e r d r a f t e d and covers more grounds than t h e U.S. European Convention.

Act and t h e

I n V e r l i n d e n BV. 1284 (SDNY 1980)

v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a , 488 considered elsewhere, the

F.Supp. District

casually

Court h e l d t h a t
"The Act imposes a s i n g l e , federal s t a n d a r d t o be applied u n i f o r m l y by b o t h s t a t e and federal courts hearing claims brought against foreign s t a t e s . I n c o n s e q u e n c e , e v e n though t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m i s one grounded upon common law, t h e c a s e i s one t h a t ' a r i s e s under' a f e d e r a l law b e c a u s e t h e c o m p l a i n t compels t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Uniform Federal Standard governing assertions of sovereign immunity. I n s h o r t , t h e I m m u n i t i e s A c t r e j e c t s an e s s e n t i a l f e d e r a l element i n t o a l l s u i t s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t f o r e i g n s t a t e s . "

The D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d i n f a v o u r o f N i g e r i a and thus the complaint filed by V e r l i n d e n BV,

dismissed

a Dutch c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h

i t s principal offices i n EuropeNetherlands. The question to ask is whether a foreign company

i n c o r p o r a t e d i n EuropeThe N e t h e r l a n d s c a n sue a f o r e i g n s t a t e in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Although the p r i v a t e c l a i m was allowed plaintiff

a g a i n s t N i g e r i a , t h e y made i t c l e a r t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e

had the r i g h t t o sue as a r e s u l t o f t h e f a i l e d cement c o n t r a c t , it of f a i l e d t o show or o f f e r e v i d e n c e o f s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t the commercial a c t i v i t y under i n issue 1605(a) (2) i n the of United FSIA. effect to can broad

States As

command j u r i s d i c t i o n

the

c l e a r l y be seen, t h e language o f t h e 1976

Act appears t o o

and could l e a d t o u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n r e s p e c t o f q u e s t i o n s t o j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e defendant t o be f o r e i g n e r s .

relating

a l l happen

179

Lord Government

Denning's

test

o r approach (1975)

i n The Thai-Europe 966-67 seemed

v. most

o f Pakistan

3 A l l ER

a p p e a l i n g and c o n v i n c i n g than t h e FSIA Section 1605 (a) ( 2 ) , thus

" T h i s t e s t would a p p l y t o a l l t h e e x c e p t i o n s w h i c h I have stated. I would s t r e s s p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t t h e d i s p u t e should arise properly within the t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdiction of our courts. By t h i s I do n o t mean m e r e l y t h a t i t can be b r o u g h t w i t h i n t h e r u l e f o r s e r v i c e o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n under RSC and 11, v . 1. I mean that t h e d i s p u t e s h o u l d be concerned with property actually situate within the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f our c o u r t s o r w i t h commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s h a v i n g a most c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E n g l a n d s u c h t h a t , by t h e p r e s e n c e o f p a r t i e s o r t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d i s p u t e , i t i s more p r o p e r l y c o g n i s a b l e here than elsewhere."

Anyone

would

be h a r d p u t i n t a k i n g

issue

with

t h e argument

advanced by Lord Denning f o r he touched w i s e l y on t h e d i f f i c u l t problems litigation. relating to jurisdiction gives qua sovereign effect immunity t o the

1978 A c t c l e a r l y

statutory

v i e w s expressed by Lord Denning i n t h e Thai-Europe Tapioca case.

Some D i f f i c u l t i e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Theory of R e s t r i c t i v e o r R e l a t i v e Immunity Sovereign whereby immunity or state immunity denotes foreign state of a a process from t h e national

immunity and

i s granted enforcement

to a

prescriptive

jurisdiction

a u t h o r i t y o r a domestic c o u r t . absolute immunity from being

I n t h i s respect a s t a t e i s g i v e n impleaded without i t s consent

b e f o r e t h e domestic c o u r t s o f another s t a t e . law prevailed times i n many many have states called without

Before 1900 t h i s however, in

question,

recent

f o r the r e l e g a t i o n
129

to the

background t h e c u r r e n c y o f s t a t e immunity, L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ; op. c i t . ; Mann, op. c i t .

129

thus s u g g e s t i n g i n op. c i t . ; Feldman,

Sucharitkul,

180

i t s place the t h e o r y o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. of to

These proponents

t h e t h e o r y o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity, however, have f a i l e d formulate a c r i t e r i o n by which judges can be a i d e d i n i t s

a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h o u t d e v i a t i n g from g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o r the law o f n a t i o n s . The major problem which t h e c o u r t s would have t o face i s t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y depends w h o l l y on a method whereby governmental mechanically and commercial distinguished acts o f states to determine are a b s t r a c t l y whether to or

accord

immunity or n o t . elusive. have

So f a r t h e approach has become cumbersome and a given sovereign state quest to formulate a

Even domestic c o u r t s w i t h i n i n their reasoning or

differed

reasonable standard l i k e l y t o be a c c e p t a b l e t o a l l and sundry. And some m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n a g r e a t number o f c o u n t r i e s have not even had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o consider the subject. argue, This

s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , one would the the

i s r i g h t l y responsible f o r of states. Most o f immunity from the

p e r s i s t e n t divergence i n t h e p r a c t i c e

s t a t e s t h a t have r e c e n t l y f o l l o w e d t h e r e s t r i c t i v e are leading industrialised countries

surprisingly West,
130

w h i l e on t h e o t h e r hand a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g immunity,
131

c o u n t r i e s f o l l o w o r embrace t h e m o d a l i t i e s o f s t a t e

perhaps because o f shared a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e i n n a t e s u p e r i o r i t y of the state, underdeveloped economic systems and the value

p l a c e d , on s t a t e organs and e n t i t i e s as r e g a r d s l e g a l a u t h o r i t y ,

130

See B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , a t pp. 323-45; ILC Report (1986). See g e n e r a l l y t h e ILC Report
181

131

(1982, 1984, 1986) .

ownership developing controlled national imperii

and

representation. where the and the

In

other

words, sector is

to

these totally in jure or that

countries by the

public given

sovereign planning, jure

greater

prominence acta

economic and acta

distinction is

between

gestionis the

simply t h e n can

meaningless i t be said

inconsequential.

I f t h i s be

case,

t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity has juris generalise I think not, for I

a t t a i n e d opinio stand in

generis of

support

Professor Brownlie's p o s i t i o n thus:

"There is certainly a trend toward a restrictive p r i n c i p l e , but the p i c t u r e c o n t a i n s c o n t r a r y elements. At l e a s t sixteen still accept the p r i n c i p l e of absolute immunity, a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h immunity i s g r a n t e d e x c e p t i n c a s e s i n which the defendant state has consented to the exercise of jurisdiction. Many s t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e U.S. and U.S.S.R., a g r e e by t r e a t y t o w a i v e immunity i n r e s p e c t of s h i p p i n g and other commercial a c t i v i t i e s , and i t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t such t r e a t i e s assume a b r o a d d o c t r i n e o f immunity or they a r e p a r t o f a contrary trend. R e f e r e n c e to t r e a t y p r a c t i c e s h o u l d i n c l u d e mention of the B r u s s e l s Convention of 1926, which subjected v e s s e l s engaged i n t r a d e owned or o p e r a t e d by f o r e i g n s t a t e s t o t h e l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a s i f t h e y were p r i v a t e p e r s o n s . This C o n v e n t i o n r e c e i v e d o n l y t h i r t e e n r a t i f i c a t i o n s and cannot be regarded as of general s i g n i f i c a n c e . "
1 3 2

Lord

Denning

also

argued is

forcefully no is uniform no

i n Rahimtoola v. practice. there."

Nizam is

of no

Hyderabad uniform

that rule.

"there So

There Dr.

there

help

Helmut

Steinberger

i n h i s l e a r n e d a r t i c l e a l s o argued t h a t

" S i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s , w i t h some v a r i a t i o n s , i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , B r i t i s h and C a n a d i a n A c t s ( r e s p e c t i v e l y , s e e 1605 ( a ) , S e c . 5 and Sec. 3 ) , however, i f a p p l i e d t o c o n d u c t j u r e imperii of t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e w i l l meet o b j e c t i o n s u n d e r g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. So f a r , d e s p i t e l o w e r c o u r t d e c i s i o n s under the United S t a t e s A c t i n L e t e l i e r v. R e p u b l i c o f C h i l e , 488 F.Supp. 665, 688 DDC 1980 and De Sanchez v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i c a r a g u a , 515 F.Supp. 900, 914, s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n does n o t have the support o f

Brownlie,

op.

c i t . , a t p. 182

329.

state practice sufficiently universal general international law."

1 3 3

to allow

derogation

from

In horizontal couched lacking

view

of

the

fact
1 3 4

that

the

international of state by

order

is

in structure,

an i m p o s i t i o n wholly

legislation sentiments

in simplistic

terms

influenced will

of s u f f i c i e n t state p r a c t i c e In this respect order there

prompt r e s e n t m e n t and t o be a conflict I f this on

disrepute. between

i s bound

the horizontal

and t h e v e r t i c a l o r d e r . of an international difficult. U.K.,

1 3 5

persists, sovereign legislation Australia, restrictive therefore

the r a t i f i c a t i o n immunity passed Singapore doctrine will in

agreement The

become the

various Pakistan, of the and

U.S.,

Canada, in respect

and lack

South

Africa

sufficient

universal

practice

cannot be c h a r a c t e r i s e d

as representing

t h e new o r d e r

or t h e l a w o f n a t i o n s by which a l l n a t i o n s o f t h e w o r l d c o u l d be bound, i n a s much as the d o c t r i n e international lacks t h e two constituent and

elements animus.
136

o f customary

law, t h a t lacks

i s corpus

The concept, a r g u a b l y

therefore

a hallmark of

c o n s e n s u s on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

plane.

Encyclopedia of Public
1 3 4

International

Law

(1987) p. 440.

S o r n a r a j a h , op. c i t .

S o f a r i t i s becoming q u i t e d i f f i c u l t f o r a l l c o u n t r i e s to a g r e e a s t o how immunity i s t o be r e s t r i c t e d . The 1986 I L C R e p o r t s u p p o r t s t h i s argument. S e e B i n Cheng 249-250.

1 3 6

1 3 5

(1965),

5 Indian

Journal

o f I n t . Law, pp.

183

Some

Specific States

Difficulties

Normally

Associated

with

Political

A c t s of

Political terms of

acts

of

independent and

foreign

sovereign policies

states cannot

in be

legislation or acts

unilateral upon by

questioned political therefore

pronounced of states

domestic

courts. of

These state into and the

fall

under the courts

r u b r i c act

preclude

domestic

from the

inquiring

v a l i d i t y of t h e s e s a i d a c t s done w i t h i n states. of The Act of State, to rights is

t e r r i t o r y of apply i n or

foreign respect serious

however, would not against

issues of

relating human

crimes where

humanity

violation universal recalled, Nacional violated was not

international assured. was

j u r i s d i c t i o n or As it in may be

jurisdiction the de Act Cuba of v.

readily

State

doctrine
1 3 7

applied it

Banco Cuba

Sabbatino law. as to But be

although in this

appeared

international that The serious court,

l i g h t , the as

violation jus

characterised changed

violating in

cogens. Hill,

however,

i t s position two cases

Alfred

n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the
1 3 8

f a c t t h a t the s p i t e of the

appear s i m i l a r the restrictive of

i n many r e s p e c t s . doctrine

In

fact that applied The

i s gaining

ground,

i t cannot be

i n respect

i s s u e s r e l a t i n g to p o l i t i c a l on s t a t e s to improve t h e states

a c t s of s t a t e s . of lives of

growing demand has the

quality in the

their citizens world and in

prompted

most

developing

centrally controlled

economies to become s t a t e t r a d e r s ,

where by

1 3 7

( 1 9 6 4 ) 376

US

398, 682.

428.

1 3 8

(19 7 6 ) 4 2 5 US

184

some happenstance

political

and commercial

d e c i s i o n s more o f t e n

than not g e t i n t e r t w i n e d . sovereign doctrine, doctrine

I n t h i s regard the concept o f or merges w i t h effective the a c t of of state the

immunity i n t e r a c t s thus weakening

the

application based de

of r e s t r i c t i v e between

immunity which jure imperii

i s wholly (actes

on t h e puissance

distinction publique)

acta

and acta jure gestionis

(actes de gestion).

Professor

F a w c e t t e x p l a i n s t h e problem as f o l l o w s :
"First imperium denotes legal capacity, under c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l , t o p e r f o r m an a c t o f s t a t e o r c o n c l u d e an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement; b u t t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n o n - s o v e r e i g n act jure gestionis may a l s o be i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f a public function.
1 , 1 3 9

Here

Fawcett

i s suggesting

that

the "demarcation of the s t a t e a state be

between

the p o l i t i c a l blurred." foreign towards

1 4 0

and economic a c t i v i t i e s Granted this, then taken can

have become sued was before geared

courts

i f a policy

in i t s territory

t h e p r o t e c t i o n of i t s c i t i z e n s

and t h e r e f o r e amounts t o

acta jure imperii but a t t h e same time a l s o amounts t o a b r e a c h ? The answer i s i n t h e n e g a t i v e b u t t h e House seemed to r u l e o t h e r w i s e . that the l e t t e r of credit of Lords and the

Court of Appeals Trendtex commercial shipment destroyed governmental shows

A c a r e f u l reading of was prima facie a

a c t , however, t h e government p o l i c y t o s l o w down t h e

o f cement t o Lagos i n o r d e r t o a v o i d t h e cement b e i n g by sea act. water and thus rendered useless was a up

The i s s u e r a i s e d h e r e i n was a l s o

brought

139

Fawcett Ibid.

(1948) xxv BYIL, p. 35.

1 4 0

185

in

the

case

of

I that

Congreso

d e l Partido;

there

the

Cuban

government argued

t h e d i s p u t e d i d not have any s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B r i t a i n and t h a t t h e a r r e s t i n q u e s t i o n was i n fact which House prompted cannot by an a c t j u r e be q u e s t i o n e d ruled that imperii o f t h e Cuban government
1 4 1

i n the courts immunity nature be

of B r i t a i n .

The

of Lords looked
1 4 2

denied the

t o Cuba, but contract or

somehow

beyond which

the

of

transaction, immunity

Dr. Mann

had r e f e r r e d

t o a s "a type o f of a But

ratione

materiae

et personae,

a sancrosanctity
143

foreign a c t of s t a t e in reality

i n t h e g u i s e o f p e r s o n a l immunity." t h e House of L o r d s

a s i t may be r e c a l l e d

was j u s t

t r y i n g t o be o b j e c t i v e the judgment. Arguably,

i n i t s q u e s t t o o f f e r cogent

reasons f o r

i n t h e absence

o f a coup

d'etat

i n C h i l e , the

Cuban government would n o t have i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e d e l i v e r y of the cargoes. perhaps Similarly, without a coup gone i n Nigeria against very well
144

Gowan,

e v e r y t h i n g would The d e c i s i o n s

have

with the and i n IAM acts

cement c o n t r a c t . v. OPEC
145

i n S p a c i l v. Crowe relating

show how d i f f i c u l t can be.

issues

to p o l i t i c a l

of s t a t e s in

The p o s i t i o n

t h a t was t a k e n by L o r d Denning followed the

Rahimtoola

v . The Nizam

o f Hyderabad, a l t h o u g h

1 4 1

Congreso d e l P a r t i d o (1977)

1 L l o y d s Rep 536.

1 4 2

Ibid. (1982) 31 ICLQ 573, 574.

143

Mann

1 4 4

(1974) 480 F.2d 614. (1981) 469 F.3d 1354. 186

1 4 5

doctrine

of

restrictive

immunity,

but

somewhat

seemed

a t the and the of jure

same time t o s u p p o r t i n v a r i a b l y the d e c i s i o n s o f Judge Choy Wisdom complex political imperii it J, respectively. of of these
1 4 6

I t i s submitted and

that

given question acta

nature acts

cases the

the t r o u b l i n g between

states,

distinction

and a c t a jure

gestionis

appears w o e f u l l y

inadequate f o r require, judicial

i s simply would

a h a l f w a y house l e g a l d o c t r i n e say, albeit a high

w h i c h may of

some

standard

statesmanship.

Some

Preliminary

Thoughts

on

Nationalization

and

Restrictive

Immunity It of i s cumbersome i f not i m p o s s i b l e immunity to the a c t of to apply taking the doctrine by a

restrictive

PROPERTY

sovereign

s t a t e i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , because t h e e s s e n c e i s t o prevent validity of

of the

a c t of s t a t e d o c t r i n e one state
1 4 7

t h e making o f an i n q u i r y by the public area acts of another

into

the

state.

Modern developments i n t h i s

o f t h e law a r e f a r decisions must be

from c e r t a i n and some c o u r t s have r e n d e r e d c o n f l i c t i n g not i n the l e a s t helpful. One important issue that

carefully a foreign

grappled with, sovereign

however,

i s whether n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n by

country

can be c h a r a c t e r i s e d a s c o m m e r c i a l court. This problem, as a

act

or sovereign

a c t i n a foreign

S p a c i l v. Crowe 469 F.3d 1354.

1 4 7

1 4 6

(1974) 480 F.2d 614;

I AM

v . OPEC

(1981)

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . a t pp. 507-8; See a l s o Munch, 98 Hague R e c u e i l (1959 I I I ) ; R. W a l l a c e , op. c i t . a t pp. 48-50; S t a r k e , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 1994, c h a p t e r 4. 187

matter thought

of

fact,

has

given E n g l i s h

and

American c o u r t s food

for

but w i l l

c e r t a i n l y n o t f a d e away.

An argument or t h e o r y
1 4 8

which has f a i l e d t o f i n d f a v o u r w i t h s c h o l a r s c o u r t s i s t h a t n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n be based on the p r e s u m p t i o n to the investment or

and perhaps

some act
1 4 9

r e g a r d e d as a commercial agreement g i v i n g is the

t h a t the i n i t i a l transfer of

birth sole the

technology

u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r t h a t must be meeting

considered, since i t e n t a i l s

of the minds r a t h e r t h a n t h e p o l i t i c a l

a c t i n r e s p e c t of

the n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n . The rights issue." in

1 5 0

FSIA,

f o r example,

denies of

immunity

to

states law

"where are in

property

in violation

international

A s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n was i n an earlier
151

t a k e n by L o r d Denning i n t h e I Uganda Co. Holdings Ltd v.

Congreso but

case of J

Government of Uganda,

Donaldson

f o l l o w e d t h e m o d a l i t i e s of specifically i n Uganda. v.

the a c t of s t a t e by r e f u s i n g t o e x p r e s s any o p i n i o n on And the v a l i d i t y i n 1978 of the purported legislation passed

Duff J d i s m i s s e d a c h a r g e
1 5 2

a g a i n s t L i b y a i n Carey the

National O i l Corporation was jure simply to

i n which the

t h e q u e s t by action

plaintiff as acta are to

characterise These from

Libyan

i n issue

gestionis. far

issues and

regarding there

nationalisation a u t h o r i t y as

therefore

settled

i s no

S o r n a r a j a h , op.
1 4 9

c i t . a t pp.

671-676.

I b i d . a t pp. FISA:

673-675.

1 5 0

S e c t i o n 1605 ( a ) ( 3 ) . 488. (SDNY) . 188

1 5 1

(1979) 1 L l o y d s LR 481, (1978) 453 F.Supp. 1097

1 5 2

w h e t h e r t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e judges clearly in respect of governmental their

immunity can be actions of

of h e l p

to

foreign

states I

taken

within

borders.

These

difficulties,

b e l i e v e , might have prompted S o r n a r a j a h to argue t h u s :

" A m e r i c a n j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n i s d i v i d e d on whether immunity s h o u l d be a t t a c h e d t o a f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n d e c r e e . The FSIA's d i r e c t i o n t h a t a ' t a k i n g i n v i o l a t i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law' s h o u l d not be p r o t e c t e d by immunity i s not h e l p f u l f o r t h e o b v i o u s r e a s o n t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e u n a n i m i t y a s t o what amounts to s u c h t a k i n g . "
1 5 3

The

application

of r e s t r i c t i v e is simply means

i n determining and test

issues respecting likely coupled to create the

nationalisation harassment, distinction totally

inadequate the nature

which

with

between s o v e r e i g n and or

governmental a c t s have become So the

1 5 4

redundant in

ineffective. resolving

far

it

appears of

that

legislation immunity resort to has

r e s p e c t of with

problem Thus, to an

sovereign

met

difficulties. without

i f a l l states international would forum

legislation

acceding

agreement, what then becomes of the world? be conflict of l a w s and perhaps

The end r e s u l t

i t s a t t e n d a n t problems o f

shopping.

I t i s p o s s i b l e a l s o t h a t e v e r y c o u n t r y would

develop acts

a d i f f e r e n t method or approach i n c l a s s i f y i n g governmental and commercial a c t s . day.

I n t h i s r e g a r d , c o n f u s i o n would become t h e

order of the

S o r n a r a j a h , op.
1 5 4

c i t . at

673.

S e e f o r example S e n a t o r M a t h i a s ' b i l l S . 1071 [131 Cong Rec S 5370, 3 May 1 9 8 5 ] . See a l s o Mr. Glickman's b i l l on 31 J u l y 1985. See a l s o Fox (1985) 34 ICLQ 115 f o r h e r thorough a n a l y s i s o f the problem. See a l s o g e n e r a l l y (1986) F i n a l R e p o r t o f Dr. S u c h a r i t k u l . 189

Furthermore,

which

of

the

many

interrelated

governmental

organs or e n t i t i e s can be c a t e g o r i s e d i n t o s e p a r a t e compartments to qualify for immunity and what of about states? are the thorny question be most of

regarding expedient

indirect

impleading court

I t would given a

i f municipal

judges

latitude

freedom to put t h e i r

legal

r e a s o n i n g t o work -so a s t o a l l o w t h e them by the e f f e c t of r e g i o n a l

law to grow i n s t e a d o f l i m i t i n g

and l o c a l l y couched l e g i s l a t i o n g e a r e d t o w a r d s the i n d i v i d u a l of restrictive not t r a d e r or corporations. of

the p r o t e c t i o n o f the d o c t r i n e and

Arguably, careful these

immunity i s i n need a panacea by to

development complex

therefore apparently states. the

resolving increase in

problems of bare

created

the

trading Denning

activities in laying in

The

approach of

f o l l o w e d by absolute

Lord

shortcomings

sovereign
1 5 6

immunity'"

English

practice, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Trendtex the development of the law of

will

c e r t a i n l y h e l p promote immunity. Given the

sovereign

difficulties restrictive

a s s o c i a t e d with the a p p l i c a t i o n immunity, common sense will

o f the d o c t r i n e o f certainly not be

offended to c o n c l u d e t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e depth study before states can be

immunity needs f u r t h e r i n justified in throwing

duly

t h e i r support b e h i n d i t . In that the the U n i t e d 1976 States, f o r example, Immunity Act t h e r e had be been a call

Sovereign S 107

amended. 3 May 1985)

Senator and Mr.

Mathias' b i l l ,

(131 Cong Rec

S 5370,

1 5 5

Sinclair, (1977) QB

op.

c i t . a t pp.

150-159.

1 5 6

529 C o u r t o f A p p e a l p e r L o r d Denning. 190

Glickman's

bill

on

31

July

1985

are

s i g n s of the drawbacks Act. Alcorn

or

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s a i d 1976 In the United Kingdom, and the issue in

undoubtedly hard look been

prompted B r i t i s h at

judges

s c h o l a r s to take another And this

t h e p r o s p e c t s of l e g i s l a t i o n . analysed by Lady Fox,

i n the main has the

well

i n her

e x p o s i t i o n on the

problem.

Furthermore Law

i t i s on

record that

members of the

International rule rule

Commission have d i s a g r e e d on

q u e s t i o n whether the as a

o f a b s o l u t e immunity be d i s c a r d e d o r a l l o w e d to e x i s t of customary international law. The draft articles

therefore

r e p r e s e n t a compromise between a b s o l u t e and r e s t r i c t i v e immunity doctrines. state Africa, In short, in and law the the USA, legislative UK, instruments passed on

immunity Canada

Singapore, in

Pakistan, many

South how

Australia is

represent in are of

respects

international legislative predicated t h e r e f o r e be It

understood which

these now in

countries. place and

These wholly cannot law.

instruments on the

doctrine

restrictive

immunity

a c c e p t e d as e v i d e n c e therefore, that

of g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l a distinction be

i s apposite,

drawn between thus other

t h e s e n a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s and customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, while is one i s vertical facie, i n nature, i . e . , domestic law, mind, law, and the

prima

public

international to a the candid opinio

therefore

horizontal instruments generalis sum, the

i n nature. simply each of

Thus

these n a t i o n a l juris In

represent the seven

individualis

of

c o u n t r i e s mentioned above. is a doctrine of

restrictive

immunity

dubious

191

provenance

coupled

with

lot

of

uncertainties.

Certainly

m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s w i l l be b e t t e r o f f w i t h o u t i t .

192

CHAPTER F I V E PRIVATE SUITS AGAINST AFRICAN COUNTRIES IN FOREIGN COURTS

Preliminary The

Observations of the concept of restrictive or relative

currency

immunity seemed not t o have found f a v o u r w i t h A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , except appeal the very of the few,
1

c u r r e n t l y seduced by t h e seemingly theory, which has now

growing well Most to

restrictive

become
2

grounded i n t h e p r a c t i c e

of s t a t e s

i n t h e Western w o r l d .

o f t h e s e A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s have t u r n e d d e a f e a r s t o the c a l l

c r o s s c a r p e t because of the f a c t t h a t municipal courts i n these c o u n t r i e s have not relating to had ample chance t o c o n s i d e r the main immunity and incidentally or appears issues the not own

restrictive of these

jurisprudence to

c o u n t r i e s remains

silent

g i v e room o r a l l o w a n c e
3

t h a t t h e s o v e r e i g n be sued i n her claims in these countries of

court.

Some

private

late, own

however, have been p r e f e r r e d a g a i n s t s o v e r e i g n s b e f o r e t h e i r courts specifically i n the spheres of c i v i l rights, tort

claims

^ e e The C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e of Egypt, South A f r i c a , Malagasy and Togo: But i t would appear Egypt was t h e f i r s t of c o u n t r i e s i n A f r i c a t o embark on t h e bandwagon of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. See the Report 1979-1988.
3 2

of The

International

Law

Commission:

From

J . H . P r i c e , P o l i t i c a l I n s t i t u t i o n s of West A f r i c a (1975); S a n d e r s , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J u r i s p r u d e n c e i n A f r i c a n Context (1979); Nkrumah K., C l a s s Struggle i n A f r i c a (1981): Premobilised authoritarian government became more pronounced in Africa coupled with m i l i t a r y dictatorship: The Amin Regime, t h e E t h i o p i a n R e v o l u t i o n , e t c . , a r e good examples; Dubois, W.E.B., The World and A f r i c a ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 193

and

declaratory

adjudication, popular silenced

4

b u t i t would i n these

appear since

that

such

claims the

a r e not t h a t o f being

countries

one r u n s of the external a very

risk

by t h e c o e r c i v e knows no

apparatus or

power

of the sovereign, In fact,

which most

internal

superior. conservative because law these

African

countries of

have state

view o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n countries believe

immunity

steadfastly that

international clearly

i s b a s e d on t h e p a t e n t p r i n c i p l e s o f s t a t e e q u a l i t y from t h e concept o f s o v e r e i g n t y position of the T h i r d World

derived The

but not s u b j e c t i o n . was w e l l sent a r t i c u l a t e d by to i t s foreign

Venezuela

i n a reply

to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

m i n i s t r y by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission

thus:

"Venezuela a l s o e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Commission had opted for a system which allows numerous exceptions to the sovereign immunity o f s t a t e s and t h e i r property. T h i s d e t r a c t s from t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t s t a t e s a r e immune among t h e m s e l v e s and, i n t h e o p i n i o n o f V e n e z u e l a , i s p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , where o w i n g t o t h e l a c k o f p r i v a t e c a p i t a l t h e s t a t e has t o u n d e r t a k e d i v e r s e a n d v a r i e d a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l economy a n d c o m m e r c i a l relations. In this connection, i t was s t r e s s e d that the d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s s h o u l d endeavour t o e n s u r e t h a t , i n t h e f i n a l t e x t , t h e e x c e p t i o n s t o o r l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e s o v e r e i g n immunity o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y a r e f e w e r i n number o r l e s s e r i n scope."
5

Given the Second

the p o l i t i c a l World War

changes with

that

have

taken

place

after i n the

coupled

the r a d i c a l

change

functions

o f t h e s t a t e p a r t i c u l a r i t y i n t h e T h i r d World, most o f

Minogue, M., and Molloy, J . (ed) , A f r i c a n Aims and Attitudes: S e l e c t e d Documents (1974); T.O. E l i a s , A f r i c a and the Development of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1988), pp. 106-117; Nkrumah, Dark Days i n Ghana (1967) ; J . Waddis, A r m i e s and P o l i t i c s (1977). international p. 90. Law Commission's Report V o l . I I part one

1988

194

these of

s t a t e s have t a k e n capital The

to trading

i n the l i g h t

of the paucity of t h e i r a

finance

i n order

t o promote t h e w e l f a r e by Venezuela

citizens. correct

position

taken

i s therefore

representation

or a true

picture

o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of

t h e T h i r d World. traders the because

T h e s e T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s have become s t a t e governments o f goods i n these countries

6

a r e regarded as one would a r e not affairs, but a l s o

sole providers that

and s e r v i c e s . in this affairs, of

Indeed, connection foreign education

argue

governmental to only of

functions

limited

military justice

administration encompass banking, important clearly given such

and m a t t e r s as trading

functions airline

i n goods

and s e r v i c e s , other are

shipping,

services, postal These

s e r v i c e s and manifestations

commercial

activities.

expressed

i n African

countries

where t h e government i s economic planning except

greater

prominence

i n national

p e r h a p s i n S o u t h A f r i c a , where c a p i t a l amply supported by

7

i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e and capital market and

her well Efforts to

established therefore

economic

structure. in

t o a c c e l e r a t e economic stability t h e reason can be why t h e

prosperity designated
6

order

promote

political

logically

as the

d r i v e behind

T h i s i s common w i t h most T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s hence t h e p o s i t i o n a d v o c a t e d by V e n e z u e l a i s a c o r r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s . L a c k o f c a p i t a l and t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f p r e m o b i l i s e d p o l i t i c a l systems may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e dominance o f t h e government i n a l l s p h e r e s o f commercial life. S o u t h A f r i c a h a s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d s t o c k market and c a p i t a l market and many c o u n t r i e s have i n v e s t e d h e a v i l y i n t h i s country. The s a n c t i o n s l e v i e d on South A f r i c a and t h e number of c o u n t r i e s w i t h i n v e s t m e n t s i n t h e c o u n t r y c o u l d be taken a s an example. See Dugard, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 1994 p. 20. 195
7

T h i r d World and p a r t i c u l a r l y A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s have e n t e r e d t h e market place. I f this be logically tenable, then one will

c e r t a i n l y be h a r d p u t t o take i s s u e w i t h countries sovereign to point have become very

the reason in the

why A f r i c a n call that

conservative

immunity be r e s t r i c t e d . out that, i n addition

I t i s worth n o t i n g , to the Third

however, some

World,

c o u n t r i e s i n t h e West and t h e E a s t have a l s o t a k e n a means o f p r o v i d i n g explained thus: revenue f o r t h e i r t r e a s u r i e s . of Professor Friedmann

to trading as This i s well he argued

i n t h e words

when

"The principle of international law that foreign government c a n n o t be h e l d s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f any m u n i c i p a l court o f another country, because such a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n would v i o l a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s o v e r e i g n e q u a l i t y of the nations, has i n c r e a s i n g l y been strained, as one government a f t e r a n o t h e r has p r o c e e d e d t o engage i n c o m m e r c i a l transactions with international r a m i f i c a t i o n s . Such a c t i v i t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e x t e n d f a r beyond t h e S i n o - S o v i e t bloc. F o r example, t h e major s h i p p i n g l i n e s o f I t a l y a r e g o v e r n m e n t c o n t r o l l e d ; and i t i s almost f o r g o t t e n t h a t d u r i n g a n d f o l l o w i n g World War I , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Merchant Navy was s t a t e - o w n e d . Certainly, t h e once p r e v a l e n t t h e o r y that a state exercised government a c t i v i t i e s p r o p e r o n l y a s l o n g a s i t d i d n o t e n t e r t r a d e h a s l o n g been abandoned. Even i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , i t has been r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e o f e c o n o m i c and c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n s i s a s much a p r o p e r g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i v i t y a s any o f t h e more t r a d i t i o n a l government f u n c t i o n s . "
8

True,

the doctrine

of absolute

immunity became an u n c h a l l e n g e d o f most Western countries o r thrown until into

jurisprudence quite doubt

9

i n the courts

r e c e n t l y when i t s c u r r e n c y i n America, B r i t a i n ,

was c h a l l e n g e d

Canada, A u s t r a l i a , Canada,

Pakistan,

S i n g a p o r e and South A f r i c a , due perhaps t o t h e g r e a t

increase i n

Friedmann 352.
9

(1959),

Law and Contemporary Problems, V o l . 24,

Lauterpacht

(1951) B Y I L . 196

commercial a c t i v i t i e s equity and fairness

of on

nation the

states

1 0

and

the need t o c r e a t e in respect of

international
1 1

plane

transnational business t r a n s a c t i o n s . jurisprudence available other or of these countries only for

I t i s now

clear is while

from the readily on the acts,

that

immunity acts

recognised i t is not

sovereign for non

hand,

recognised
1 2

sovereign

essentially of

commercial i n outlook. prompted t h e West the

Thus w h i l e t h e

g r e a t wind to

change had

t o make a momentous change T h i r d World had of

1 3

embracing its

restrictive

theory, in

consolidated although

conservative views

support

state

immunity,

occasionally flexible the

and

reasonable

i n a quest

t o accommodate t h e o r y by of a the

self-generated preference industrialised

f o r the r e s t r i c t i v e A good

Western

countries.

example

Third

World c o n s e r v a t i s m i s w e l l e v i d e n c e d by C h i n a ' s questionnaire regarding exceptions to state

r e p l y t o the I L C in these

immunity

c a r e f u l l y formulated

words.

"The C h i n e s e Government m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunity o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y i s a l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d and u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law b a s e d on the s o v e r e i g n e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s . The d r a f t a r t i c l e s on t h e subject formulated by t h e Commission need t o s p e l l out the s t a t u s o f t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. "The d r a f t a r t i c l e s s h o u l d a f f i r m t h e p r i n c i p l e m e n t i o n e d above and, on t h e b a s i s o f a t h o r o u g h s t u d y o f t h e p r a c t i c e o f

10

F r i e d m a n n , op.

c i t . ;Sinclair,

167

Hague R e c u e i l 113

1980

(11)
n

S e e Higgins

(1982)

2a Neth I n t LR,

265. A c t 1978; The Singapore South A f r i c a n A c t 1981;

S e e the U.S. A c t 1976; The U.K. A c t 1979; The P a k i s t a n i A c t 1981; The The Canadian A c t 1982; r e s p e c t i v e l y . S e e g e n e r a l l y The 1980-1988.
lj

12

International

Law

Commission's

Report,

197

states, including the socialist and developing countries, pragmatically i d e n t i f y those 'exceptions' whose n e c e s s i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a r e b o r n e out by r e a l i t y of o w n e r s h i p , p o s s e s s i o n and use of immovable p r o p e r t y , ship engaged in commercial service, so as to accommodate the present state and the development of international relations, particularly i n t e r n a t i o n a l economic and commercial l i n k s . "
1 4

Similar positions Ecuador, Syria,

have been taken by Thailand, Brazil,

Indonesia, Trinidad

Sudan, and

Nigeria,
15

Tobago, that have rule be

to

mention a few. to the ILC

I t s h o u l d be observed, t h e r e f o r e , s e v e r a l developing c o u n t r i e s for the preservation in this of the

according expressed of state ignored

report,

strong

preference
16

immunity. since law from means the

And

t h e i r views to proper

regard

cannot in

impetus

e f f e c t i v e change

international states as a the

i n these the of

modern t i m e s has World.

17

come from the b a t t a l i o n of the of resort the to legislation trader

Third

Thus rights

protecting

the

private

by

advanced c o u n t r i e s an avalanche
1 8

of t h e world had private claims

1 9

i n recent against

times p r e c i p i t a t e d not only African national

of

countries
14

but

other c o u n t r i e s

as w e l l b e f o r e f o r e i g n 1988 p. 63.

See ILC report Vol.

I I p a r t one

B r o w n l i e , P r i n c i p l e s of P u b l i c I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 327-328. I L Commissions r e p o r t from 1980-88.

16

15

1990

pp.

the

S e e M a t e r i a l s on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and Property. P a r t V r e p l i e s to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , pp. 557-645.

17

H i g g i n s , op. c i t . , p. 265. A good example c o u l d l i k e n e d unto the r o l e the T h i r d World p l a y e d g e n e r a l l y s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the d r a f t i n g of the law of the s e a .
18

be and

D . J . H a r r i s , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1991), pp. 286-319; C a t e r and T r i b l e , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1991), pp. 549-699; S i n c l a i r 167 Hague R e c u e i l 113 1980 I I ; Sucharitkul, Immunities of Foreign S t a t e s b e f o r e N a t i o n a l A u t h o r i t i e s , Hague R e c u e i l ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1, 91.
1 9

Sinclair,

op. c i t . 198

authorities. officially immunity,

2 0

However, i n t h e by African

light

of

the in

conservative support as of the

views

expressed these said

states or

absolute record

private

suits

claims,

shows, have been f i e r c e l y f o u g h t o r c h a l l e n g e d i n such c o u n t r i e s as B r i t a i n , A m e r i c a , Germany, Canada, F r a n c e , Nigeria,

23

I t a l y and
21

Belgium.
22

f o r example, had

been

sued i n America , England ,

and

Germany , r e s p e c t i v e l y . It suits foreign these or i s the claims purpose of this study to some delve into private in all to the

instituted the view

against to

African

states why

courts

with

exploring private

i n general or

countries

resisted

these of

claims

refused and

submit t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n impact thereof on

these

foreign authorities Let us now

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. cases.

consider

seriatim t h e s e i m p o r t a n t

African States before

Foreign Courts: Right

Evidence

of R e s i s t a n c e t o

the R e s t r i c t i v e Rule as of

N i g e r i a b e f o r e E n g l i s h , A m e r i c a n and German Having elsewhere,

20

Courts case casually

already

considered

the

Trendtex

I s h a l l attempt a g a i n

to give i t further a t t e n t i o n i n China, Indonesia, Pakistan,

E . g . , Cuba, Colombia, I n d i a , Canada, I r a n , t o mention a few. N a t i o n a l American C o r p o r a t i o n (1978) 448 F.Supp. 622. Trendtex (1977) QB 529.
23 22 2 1

v.

F e d e r a l Rep.

of

Nigeria

Trading

Corporation

v.

C e n t r a l Bank o f

Nigeria

Y o u s e f Nada v. C e n t r a l P r o v i n c i a l Court of F r a n k f u r t .

Bank

of

Nigeria,

Dec.

2,

1975,

799

the

hope t h a t

one

can

understand

why

Nigeria resisted national

a l l the

private namely,

c l a i m s brought the United

a g a i n s t i t before Kingdom, the and

authorities, and present said the a

United in so

States, doing the

Democratic complete brought In with a

Republic order of

of

Germany,

events

logically

leading to

suits

against Nigeria. 1975, an African oil nation having to a been on greatly a endowed

high-grade of

decided at

embark

prestigious and thus a the

project

modernisation to buy large or

breakneck of

speed,

contracted product,

quantities important

Portland

Cement,

albeit

crucial of the

to the development o f Nigeria, without

infrastructure

country.

But

first docks, Before queue other more moving

t a k i n g p a i n s to c o n s i d e r t h e c a p a c i t y of her h a r b o u r s and unfortunately long, the overbought harbour the P o r t l a n d Cement i n i s s u e . congested This into in with fact ships i n affected Still

Lagos

became unload.

waiting essential vessels towards

i m p a t i e n t l y to goods being

imported

the

country.

were

coming The

i n every

day

with others h u r r i e d l y

Lagos.

N i g e r i a n government h a v i n g

been p l a c e d i n

t h i s d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n i n r e g a r d to the c o n g e s t i o n a t t h e Lagos harbour technically of p r i v a t e According repudiated i t s contracts. This l e d to an

avalanche countries. Nigeria about which

s u i t s brought to t h e of 20

by many s u p p l i e r s i n s e v e r a l transactions, at

r e c o r d s of the s a i d million with

bought a t o t a l billions,

tons of cement p r i c e d to pay

$1.2 was

coupled

a promise

demurrage to these state,

merged w i t h the main c o n t r a c t . N i g e r i a pleaded

I n response

private

suits,

t h a t being an independent 200

it

could

not

be

impleaded

before

national non

authority imperium

and or

therefore par

invoked the maxim--par in habet jurisdictionem

parem

habet

in parem non

to avoid

liability.

These

s u i t s may disputes

be c h a r a c t e r i s e d as among t h e most enormous c o m m e r c i a l in history.

Nigeria before E n g l i s h Courts Trendtex T r a d i n g In July 1975 an C o r p o r a t i o n v. irrevocable C e n t r a l Bank of letter of Nigeria
2 4

c r e d i t worth

$14

m i l l i o n was of a Swiss

e s t a b l i s h e d by company f o r

t h e C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a i n f a v o u r payment of 240,000 tons of cement with an was an by

the

which the

said p l a i n t i f f The

had

negotiated the

i n good f a i t h

E n g l i s h company. to be shipped to

cement, p e r for the

t e r m s o f the c o n t r a c t , purpose of building

Nigeria

sole

army b a r r a c k s . the terms of the

The

plaintiffs

s h i p p e d t h e cement as r e q u i r e d as a result

s a l e c o n t r a c t but

of c o n g e s t i o n i n

Lagos, i . e . , the p o r t o f d i s c h a r g e , hastily introduced a system of

t h e new

m i l i t a r y government coupled with

import

controls

i n s t r u c t i o n s to Midland Bank t o r e f u s e payments f o r any of to cement without p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n . sue for the At price the of Court the of This and prompted for

shipment Trendtex

cement, First

demurrage, Mocaatta amount J. of

respectively.

Instance, for

g r a n t e d Trendtex the $13,968, 190, further

injunction i t prayed be retained Bank in

i n the

which must The

the

jurisdiction that i t be

until immune

notice.

Central

appealed

2 4

(1977) QB

529. 201

since

it

was

department

of

state

without

any

independent of

juristic the he the

personality.

Donaldson J . acceded to the p l e a d i n g s and

Central was

Bank of N i g e r i a with proof Nigeria. to the that his be

t h u s s e t a s i d e the w r i t b e c a u s e the bank was a department however, Lord of

satisfied of

that The Court

Republic on

plaintiffs, of Appeal.

were MR

successful (as Bank he of then

appeal was)

Denning the

ruled In cannot one

immunity be judgment allowed he to

denied to made pass some away

Central

Nigeria. which gospel,

interesting like an ex

analyses cathedra

such a n a l y s i s can be

stated

thus:

" S e e i n g t h a t t h e r u l e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law have changed and do c h a n g e a n d t h a t the c o u r t s have g i v e n e f f e c t to the changes w i t h o u t an a c t P a r l i a m e n t , i t f o l l o w s to my mind inexorably t h a t t h e r u l e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, a s e x i s t i n g from time t o t i m e , do form p a r t of our E n g l i s h law. I t f o l l o w s , too, t h a t a decision of this courtas to what was the ruling of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law 50 o r 60 y e a r s a g o i s not b i n d i n g on this c o u r t today. I n t e r n a t i o n a l law knows no r u l e of stare decisis. I f t h i s c o u r t t o d a y i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e r u l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law on a s u b j e c t has changed from what i t was 50 or 60 y e a r s ago, i t can g i v e e f f e c t t o t h a t c h a n g e a n d apply the change i n o u r E n g l i s h law w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r t h e House of L o r d s to do it."
2 5

All

that

Lord

Denning

was

trying

to

put

across

was and

that that a has need

the new now for of this of

doctrine regime, gained change. English

of absolute i.e., grounds And law. the to

immunity had restrictive such the heights

become o b s o l e t e theory as to or

principle, the

command

that His

restrictive

immunity has Shaw LJ

become p a r t embraced

learned

colleague

argument w i t h f u l l s u p p o r t t h u s g i v i n g way the concept of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

to the a p p l i c a t i o n

Stephenson L J on the

other

2 5

Ibid. 202

hand,

however,

took

issue

with

Lord

Denning's

argument,

f o r c e f u l l y arguing that
"It i s clearly difficult i f not impossible to prove that governments have a c t e d on the ' r u l e ' o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity by f a i l i n g to p l e a d immunity f o r o r d i n a r y c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s . How do you p r o v e t h a t the g e s t a t i o n o f new r u l e i s o v e r and t h a t i t has come to b i r t h ? Or t h a t an o l d r u l e has grown and d e v e l o p e d i n t o a new form?"

He

f u r t h e r asked,
"Have civilised states agreed that the doctrine of restrictive immunity s h a l l be binding upon them in their d e a l i n g s w i t h one a n o t h e r ? The answer i s d o u b t f u l ; many have. I s there evidence t h a t Great B r i t a i n has e v e r a s s e n t e d to the doctrine? The answer must be n o . "
26

The was the

learned

judge,

as

can

be

gathered

from h i s

judgment,

i n f a v o u r of a c a u t i o u s doctrine or of sovereign by

approach, i . e . , u n t i l immunity i s changed by means or if by

s u c h time t h a t the be House the of new

Lords

affected

statutory

need opinio

regime, i . e . , r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s a i d e d Has when he t h e r e been a change, and observed handed that there has i f so, been Denning a

juris.

was

L o r d Denning r i g h t Although LJ the were there be

change? and

judgments highly had

down by

Lord

Stephenson

commendable, a r g u a b l y , L o r d Denning's p o s i t i o n t h a t a change i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law incorporated therefore he law or was or an into and that law the

been

change

automatically criticism unless and

English

simply

invites ferenda, regional

cannot be referring

commendable de lege to a of well a settled

perhaps

international droit the spontane

the

existence

multilateral treaty, law. In to

instant

customary

international

a b s e n c e of

such a s s u m p t i o n s ,

then L o r d

Denning appeared

2 6

I b i d . at

570. 203

have been c l e a r l y t r a p p e d i n r e l y i n g on establishing Trendtex yet then customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l for adjudication, law. the
7

a s e l e c t i v e approach For United a t the time

to

that not case, The

came up the

Kingdom had the

ratified did Lord be

European

Convention.' his

I f t h i s be on

Denning i n the law

base

argument i n so

conjecture?

answer may

affirmative by

f a r a s g e n e r a l customary certain a new

international qualifications general no

i s created

s t a t e p r a c t i c e backed by by law opinio juris.

28

duly

supported

Thus

customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l in existence that this

i s formed p r o v i d e d t h e r e i s it.
2 9

practice

c o n f l i c t s with connection i s not

Arguably, of not

restrictive

immunity i n law but

a principle which does

international

rather

an emerging d o c t r i n e

command a d e q u a t e s t a t e p r a c t i c e e x c e p t i n some l e a d i n g of the West.

30

countries that

Hence the

argument p o s i t e d

by

Lord Denning

t h e r e had law ex the of

been a

change i n the

e x i s t i n g customary

international was

from a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n immunity t o r e s t r i c t i v e immunity facie erroneous in some r e s p e c t analysis. as Dr. and therefore cannot

stand

t e s t of this

objective

Villiger the

in his of

exposition customary

subject law

matter argues

regards

formation

international
2 7

that,

T h i s i s a f a c t b e c a u s e the A c t was e n a c t e d i n 1978 and t h u s paved t h e way f o r the European C o n v e n t i o n to be r a t i f i e d .

2 8

Akehurst, Ibid., p.

1974 53.

B Y I L pp.

1-53.

2 9

S e e t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission Report 1988, but i t would a p p e a r t h e A s i a n - A f r i c a n C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee might have e x p r e s s e d some l i m i t e d d e s i r e i n p r i n c i p l e to embrace the restrictive principle. But these declarations are not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e T h i r d World. 204

3 0

"All states participate as equals i n the formative p r o c e s s o f customary law, and t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n of a c u s t o m a r y r u l e a r e such t h a t even a s t a t e ' s p a s s i v e c o n d u c t has t o be q u a l i f i e d t o be o f any s i g n i f i c a n c e . I f a state opposes a customary r u l e from t h e e a r l y s t a g e s on w a r d s , t h e s t a t e w i l l not be bound qua p e r s i s t e n t o b j e c t o r . And i f many s t a t e s o b j e c t , the r u l e w i l l never a r i s e . "
3 1

At

the time

that

Lord

Denning

handed

down

h i s judgment i n opposition to

Trendtex, the

many c o u n t r i e s

of t h e w o r l d
3 2

did offer

restrictive differ

immunity r u l e from others

and even i n W e s t e r n E u r o p e some i n the application i n respect appears bound of the said of

countries rule.
3 3

Stephenson

LJ's position

to the place

international accurate previous de

law i n E n g l i s h lege lata,

practice felt

commendable and only by t h e but

f o r he

not

Court

o f Appeal r a t i o

i n the

Thai-Europe

case,

a l s o w i t h r e g a r d t o whether t h e r e had been a change i n c u s t o m a r y international law p e r Lord Denning's position on the subject.

C e r t a i n l y answers sent back i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's change questionnaires area show that there law.
34

had

n o t been

a LJ

i n this

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l

Stephenson on t h i s in

arguably therefore matter, law. i.e.,

was c o r r e c t i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n respecting a change

subject

the i s s u e

international

Without doubt t h e Trendtex d e c i s i o n mixed or doubtful reactions from

will

c o n t i n u e t o evoke text writers and

lawyers,

3 1

Villiger,

Customary

International

and T r e a t i e s

(1985) p.

39.
32

See the International S e e S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . I L C report, op. c i t .

Law Commission's R e p o r t

1980-1988.

33

3 4

205

judges. raised an

In the

first

place, issue

the which

status

of

the an

Central easy

Bank

unsettled

defies

answer. letter the

Secondly, of credit

i t i s e q u a l l y s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e i s s u i n g of the was prima the facie, de to a commercial endeavour

but

directive disaster hypothesi

g i v e n by or be

facto government i n o r d e r to a v o i d a serve a any public cogent interest reasons. cannot ex

possibly

d i s m i s s e d without an e a s y way out

Arguably,

t h e c o u r t chose been h a r d put

f o r t h e t h r e e j u d g e s would have a u t h o r i t y t o support action as that was taken the to

t o come up of the at

with a clear governmental

characterisation ease let the alone

congestion the p o l i c y

the

Lagos p o r t

acta

jure

gestionis, the way for If the

argument

i n r e g a r d to p a v i n g

other e s s e n t i a l the court had

c o m m o d i t i e s t o be brought concentrated on the

i n t o t h e country. rather than

breach

t r a n s a c t i o n a s was the d e c i s i o n who have l o n g

p o s t u l a t e d by L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e i n I Congreso, c o u l d have gone e i t h e r way. that True, those

certainly advocated

t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s o l u t e immunity

had become o b s o l e t e o r s i m p l y become an empty r e l i c of t r a d i t i o n will with embrace a Lord Denning's applause. judgment However, without a question coupled will

comforting

careful

analysis

show t h a t he f a i l e d t o o f f e r any adequate s u p p o r t f o r the reason why he chose he incorporation that over transformation. The only way

argument for law. the

35

o f f e r e d was

i n c o r p o r a t i o n would pave the in

courts to With the

quickly greatest

r e c o g n i s e a change respect, such an

international is not

argument

35

Trendtex

(1977) QB

548-557. 206

convincing this,

and

t h e r e f o r e open submitted that

to the

question.

Quite

apart

from

i t is form of

incorporation theory by the operation be

in i t s of the

absolute concept in

i s limited decisis, law

in reality which

stare

although

might not

accepted law.
36

international

i s ex h y p o t h e s i a c c e p t e d

in English

P r i o r to t h e d e c i s i o n i n Trendtex, ruled i n Thaker v. Home S e c r e t a r y

f o r example L o r d Denning
3 7

had the

that,

" i n my

opinion,

r u l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o n l y become p a r t o f our law i n so f a r as they are accepted and simply adopted by us."
3 8

His

position position The

therefore and that

3 9

i n Trendtex of Lord

contradicts

his earlier

Atkin's

judgment

i n Chung C h i

Cheung v .

King,

that,

"The c o u r t s acknowledge the e x i s t e n c e of a body o f r u l e s w h i c h n a t i o n s a c c e p t among t h e m s e l v e s . On any j u d i c i a l issue t h e y s e e k t o a s c e r t a i n what the r e l e v a n t r u l e i s , and having found i t , t h e y w i l l t r e a t i t as i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o d o m e s t i c law, so f a r a s i t i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r u l e s e n a c t e d by s t a t u t e s or f i n a l l y d e c l a r e d by their tribunals."
4 0

Again, of the

Lord

Denning's p o s i t i o n counter he held to

i n respect of the d o c t r i n e Macmillan's judgment must in be of

i n c o r p o r a t i o n runs Cristina,
4 1

Lord

where

that

municipal

courts

e c l e c t i c i n acknowledging domestic law, and that

customary

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law a s p a r t undertaken

such a s t e p must be

only i f

36

S e e T. Ingman The E n g l i s h L e g a l P r o c e s s , 5 t h E d . (19 7 4) IQB Ibid., at 684. 701. 160. 167. 485. 207

(1994) .

3 7

3 8

39

1 1 9 3 9 AC I b i d . at 1938 AC

4 0

41

t h e r e i s adequate e v i d e n c e in i s s u e had a t t a i n e d

t o support

the f a c t

that

t h e custom said

t h e hallmark of consent. of r e s t r i c t i v e

Can i t be

therefore that

the r u l e

immunity had

attained a

h a l l m a r k o f c o n s e n t amongst c i v i l i s e d time the the Trendtex negative decision one

s t a t e s of the world a t the The answer existence i s in of a

was handed down? can attest to the

f o r no

normative It faced

r u l e a t t h e moment. i s submitted two that t h e Appeal and Court i n Trendtex the was

with

rationes

decidendi the

arguably

position

t a k e n by t h e s a i d c o u r t on b o t h r a t i o appears general support

first

r a t i o and t h e second

l e s s c o n v i n c i n g and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y unbalanced, f o r law, ex abundanti cautela does not l e n d

international

t o some o f t h e c r u c i a l principle. the status of the

arguments made i n u p h o l d i n g t h e

restrictive (1) That

Central

Bank

was

prima

facie

inconclusive. (2) That t h e C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a , be c o n s i d e r e d pari o f t h e Bank o f E n g l a n d operate high i n different subsystem i s non pasu

to t h e s t a t u s these banks

sequitur f o r systemsone the other

political and

Englishwith

autonomy

Nigerianwith premobilised authoritarian (3) That Lord Denning's

system. that

argument i n r e s p e c t o f t h e f a c t changed on simply this begs

international Stephenson

law h a s

the question. therefore

LJ's position

very

issue

appears t o be t h e c o r r e c t (4) That evidence

approach. i n support o f t h e view

i s abound worldwide

that e n t i t i e s w i t h independent 208

j u r i s t i c personality within

a p o l i t y be d u l y e n t i t l e d t o immunity cannot Thus t h e f a c t is not that

be d i s p u t e d . per se Much

an agency i s a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y that i t be denied immunity.

conclusive

t h e r e f o r e depends on the c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e d a t a b e f o r e t h e lex fori.

comparative

(5)

That t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have shed some l i g h t on t h e i n t e r n a l c r i s i s w h i c h prompted the b r e a c h .

It

i s hard to t e l l

a s t o what the outcome would have been i f t h e Obviously, was

c a s e had been a d j u d i c a t e d b e f o r e the House of L o r d s . settling preferred the to case the on the spirit of of entente litigating

cordiale the

rigorous

process

matter

b e f o r e t h e House o f L o r d s .

I n t h e end N i g e r i a s e t t l e d t h e s u i t I n t h e main, L o r d Denning's

by p a y i n g C r e d i t S u i s s e $8 m i l l i o n .

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e t e s t and the argument i n r e s p e c t o f a change i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l this law gave Trendtex the winning goal. In view

r e s p e c t , L o r d Denning abandoned

the s t a t e - v o l u n t a r i s t view.

and q u i c k l y embraced t h e u n i v e r s a l i s t

N i g e r i a b e f o r e German C o u r t s Nonresident Petition v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a District 3/8 0

C o u r t , F r a n k f u r t , Judgment 186/75. In Nigeria,

4 2

of December 2, 1 9 7 5 D o c k e t No.

Youssel

M.

Nada

Establishment

v.

Central

Bank

of

the p e t i t i o n e r entered into a s a l e c o n t r a c t to supply

Y o u s e f Nada v. C e n t r a l Bank P r o v i n c i a l Court of F r a n k f u r t . 209

42

of N i g e r i a ,

Dec.

2,

1975,

240, 000 The

tons of cement t o t h e specified that

M i n i s t r y o f Defence o f an irrevocable,

Nigeria.

contract

transferable, of the

d i v i s i b l e and the

c o n f i r m e d l e t t e r o f c r e d i t be opened i n favour In 1975, the Central Bank of Nigeria,

petitioner.

respondent, opened an i r r e v o c a b l e l e t t e r o f c r e d i t , as

required at

per the terms of the s a i d c o n t r a c t , d u l y payable i n A u s t r i a the plaintiff's bank. Furthermore a demurrage was

agreed

t h e r e o f " w i t h o u t any

l i m i t " upon p r o p e r p r e s e n t a t i o n The

of v a l i d l y

s p e c i f i e d commercial documents. than h a l f of the t o t a l of cement between the 1975. The

p e t i t i o n e r d e l i v e r e d more tons

consignment o r d e r e d , i . e . , 140, 000 period of 17th April and 1st

September paid, as

purchase p r i c e o f t h i s p a r t i a l d e l i v e r y was the at command o f the Lagos the contract. the But as

r e q u i r e d by congestion

a r e s u l t of Ministry of of

harbour, a policy

Nigerian

Transportation ships

introduced

restricting and

the

number

c a r r y i n g cement i n t o N i g e r i a ,

t h i s gave the

Nigerian ship

p o r t a u t h o r i t i e s the power t o deny

s u p p l i e r s the r i g h t t o

cement t o N i g e r i a w i t h o u t f i r s t g i v i n g two months' p r i o r n o t i c e . The plaintiff thus was not allowed to s u p p l y the r e s t of the

consignment o f cement c a l l e d f o r i n t h e c o n t r a c t . p o l i c y prompted t h e p l a i n t i f f demurrage t h a t became due harbour and any other The to sue of the the Central delay

This n a t i o n a l Bank f o r at the the

because

Lagos ships

f u t u r e delays r e l a t i n g

t o the t e n

w a i t i n g t o unload. for selling the

p l a i n t i f f a l s o sued f o r i n c i d e n t a l c o s t cement t o of these other buyers below the the suit

undelivered In view

contract regarding

price.

infractions,

the attachment o f t h e respondent's funds was

210

granted.

The

respondent,

the Central on the

Bank o f N i g e r i a , grounds that the

challenged the court lacked

attachment jurisdiction one. The

order

and t h a t district

t h e venue o f t h e c o u r t was an improper court was quick i n rejecting the said

defences based on t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t e d reasons:

"The German court has jurisdiction, and venue was p r o p e r l y l a i d f o r the attachment. Contrary to respondent's c o n t e n t i o n , t h e r e s p o n d e n t i s n o t immune from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f German c o u r t s . A c c o r d i n g t o S e c t i o n 20 of t h e GVG, German j u r i s d i c t i o n does n o t e x t e n d t o p e r s o n s who, i n a c c o r d a n c e with c u s t o m a r y r u l e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o r on t h e b a s i s o f t r e a t i e s o r o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e law, a r e exempt from i t . I n the instant case, t h e s e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r an exemption a r e n o t present. We need not decide whether, based on the responsibilities assigned t o i t , t h e respondent discharges sovereign functions, and whether, under Nigerian law t h e r e s p o n d e n t a c t s a s a j u r i s t i c p e r s o n and c a r r i e s out i n whole o r in parts the authority of the state i n f u l f i l m e n t of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under p u b l i c l a w . The p e t i t i o n e r c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s out t h a t i n accordance w i t h g e n e r a l c a s e law, l e g a l p u b l i c a t i o n s , and w r i t i n g s on i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, s e p a r a t e l e g a l e n t i t i e s o f a f o r e i g n s t a t e e n j o y no i m m u n i t y . "
43

The

German

court

followed

the doctrine

of

restrictive activities
acta jure

immunity by making a d i s t i n c t i o n between governmental

acta jure imperii and non-governmental activities

gestionis, and concluded t h a t t h e r e were no recognised r u l e s o f international law which precluded municipal courts from

e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over s u i t s a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n independent s t a t e i n r e g a r d t o i t s non-governmental activity. The approach

o f t h e German c o u r t seemed t o f o l l o w t h e c u r r e n t t r e n d i n t h e Western w o r l d which had been s l a n t e d towards t h e acceptance o f into

t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity w i t h o u t f i r s t d e l v i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s t h e w o r l d over as t o whether

t h e r e had

" i n t e r n a t i o n a l Legal M a t e r i a l s (1977), p. 502.

211

been a change i n customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . 23 of ZPO should n o t have been applied

Secondly, foreign

Section states the

to

primarily

because

of h i s t o r i c a l

reasons

since

i n essence

s a i d a c t was s p e c i f i c a l l y e n a c t e d t o a c c o r d

immunity t o f o r e i g n

s t a t e s from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f German c o u r t s . Thirdly, a critical review of events relating to the

formation of t h e s a l e c o n t r a c t would r e v e a l t h a t t h e c a s e had no close connection outside with Germany by since the contract i n i s s u e was with the

concluded request the

Germany

Liechtenstein

Trust,

t h a t payment be made i n A u s t r i a . of c r e d i t was amended

S u b s e q u e n t l y , however, t o pave t h e way f o r

letter

i n order

payment t o be made i n Germany a s w e l l . Fourthly, respect had the court failed to consider in detail, in

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w a s t o w h e t h e r t o sue N i g e r i a i n Germany,

a foreign

creditor

the right

and i f s o , whether BV v . C e n t r a l

German p u b l i c i n t e r e s t was a t s t a k e . Bank o f N i g e r i a , a n o n - r e s i d e n t

I n Verlinden

company s u e d N i g e r i a b e f o r e U.S. ruled effect

c o u r t s out o f t h e same cement c o n t r a c t i n i s s u e , t h e c o u r t that the a l i e n company f a i l e d t o show s u f f i c i e n t direct

a s r e q u i r e d under S e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e t h e U.S. c o u r t due process

1605 (a) (2) o f t h e F S I A . took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n command hand, of

As m a t t e r o f the e f f e c t to of deny court that

and t h e s p e c i f i c
4 4

t h e FSIA

jurisdiction. failed

On t h e o t h e r into

however,

t h e German crisis

to take

consideration

the internal

prompted t h e b r e a c h and d i d n o t go a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e t o examine

44

S e e FSIA, 1605 (a) (2) . 212

the

i n t e r e s t o f t h e a l i e n v i s - a - v i s t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e

republic

o f N i g e r i a i n r e s p e c t of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. It ought a l s o t o be clearly emphasised t h a t the argument was plea of

p o s i t e d on p o i n t i n c o n c l u s i v e per made for

of law as r e g a r d s the by order

Nigeria's foreign reserve

of a t t a c h m e n t i n r e s p e c t of the Furthermore, the

immunity

Nigeria.

exercise

jurisdiction It

does not

mean t h a t enforcement measures be i f the German c o u r t had

taken. taken a of

would have been most p r u d e n t to delve

pains

i n t o what a s s e t s were a v a i l a b l e and t h e s e a s s e t s were d e d i c a t e d Simply put, the

whether as

m a t t e r o f law Nigeria light on

to the j u r e imperii

or not. these

F r a n k f u r t c o u r t f a i l e d to c a s t thus consecrated an anomaly never is

i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s and

t h a t once an e n t i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i s e d as independent i t can claim immunity. While on the other hand, i f an

agency

characterised available, the said

as an a l t e r ego

of the

s t a t e , immunity i s r e a d i l y

w i t h o u t f i r s t d e t e r m i n i n g as t o whether the s t a t u s of C e r t a i n l y the o v e r l a p of

agency i s c o n c l u s i v e or not. law and

international of state

n a t i o n a l laws c o m p l i c a t e s area of the law.

the whole i s s u e It is submitted,

immunity i n t h i s

however, t h a t t h e such a measure

court erred i n attaching Nigeria's assets for usus and therefore contrary to general

lacked

international

law.

Nigeria before While was

American C o u r t s : United

Part

One Germany the Central Bank U.S.,

i n the

Kingdom and

designated

as t h e p r i n c i p a l d e f e n d a n t , however, i n t h e a Delaware c o r p o r a t i o n , 213

the p l a i n t i f f ,

j o i n t l y sued or commenced

legal

action

against

the Republic

of Nigeria

and t h e C e n t r a l i n Lagos, American Bank o f were

Bank o f N i g e r i a , w i t h the capital

i t s p r i n c i p a l place I n other Republic words,

of business i n National

of N i g e r i a .

C o r p o r a t i o n v. F e d e r a l Nigeria, jointly
4 5

of Nigeria

and C e n t r a l

the Nigeria to recover

government i n excess

and t h e C e n t r a l o f $14,000,000,

Bank

sued

an amount

representing contract contract. had for could each been

an unpaid b a l a n c e i n consequence o f a f a i l e d cement demurrage charges due t h e r e u n d e r the said

and unpaid

The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d inter alia t h a t Morgan G u a r a n t y expressly n o t i f i e d by C e n t r a l Bank to refuse unless payment plaintiff

cement prove ship

d e l i v e r i e s and demurrage that i t had o b t a i n e d to transport

charges

two months a d v a n c e n o t i c e o f cement t o t h e Lagos harbour, The

designated

w i t h v a l i d documents c o n f i r m i n g

the express

order i n i s s u e .

(19 7 8 ) 4 4 8 F.Supp. 622. See t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law R e p o r t s r e g a r d i n g t h e C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e Demurrage, pp. 161 V,D)KID, V o l . 63.
Vessel Tonnage carried Arrival Departures Number o f D a y s on Demurrage Total

4 5

Central

Life

500 MT

8/27/75

8/7/76

347 days

less

1 l a y day =

346

60,550

Naimbana

2,730

MT

9/4/75

11/23/75

81 l e s s days

3 l a ydays =

78

74,529

Jotina

5,600

MT

9/12/75

1/25/76

136

less

6 lay

days

254,800

Rio

Doro

10,500

MT

10/6/75

7/10/76

279 269

less days

10

l a y days

988,575

Cherryfield

10,800

MT

10/8/75

6/12/76

249 239

less days

10 l a y d a y s

903,420

Joboy

7, 500 MT

9/22/75

1/24/76

125 117

less days

8 l a ydays =

307,125

TOTAL DEMURRAGE DUE

$2,588,999

214

plaintiff breach

thus

construed

Nigeria's sued

actions that

as

an a n t i c i p a t o r y of Nigeria The

and on

therefore deposit

praying Morgan

funds be

government

with

Guaranty

attached.

d e f e n d a n t t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a c r o s s motion t h a t being a s o v e r e i g n state, vacated. it cannot be impleaded and that the attachment be

Weinfeld

J held that

"The c o r p o r a t i o n had p r e s e n t e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e upon i t s c l a i m and was e n t i t l e d t o an a t t a c h m e n t t h a t t h e f a c t of the agreement was s i g n e d by t h e M i n i s t r y of Defence on b e h a l f of the N i g e r i a government d i d not a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e t h e d e f e n d a n t s to sovereign immunity; and that partial assignees of the c o r p o r a t i o n ' s c l a i m were not i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s . "
4 6

Many i s s u e s were r a i s e d expedient namely, and to the

in this on

important three

c a s e , but most

i t would

be

concentrate basis of

the

important immunity

ones, defence

jurisdiction, defence. Section federal

sovereign

the a c t of s t a t e As may be

recalled, on

1330

of

the courts a

FSIA

clearly any is

confers limit on

jurisdiction the amount

district Thus But

without state

i n controversy. under into 1605-1607. effect

foreign

immune as the 1976

provided FSIA came

i t would appear t h a t the suit The on at hand was

after

commenced, h e n c e t h e A c t cannot be a p p l i e d . simply but took jurisdiction quasi in rem in that by of the case not

judge t h e r e f o r e basis

in personam

r a t h e r on Nigeria,

basis. of the quest to challenge the

furtherance i t be

suit, the

pleaded

accorded

immunity on to

the grounds t h a t the government of

funds h e l d and

Morgan G u a r a n t y b e l o n g the funds were to be

Nigeria

that

used

for a

governmental

46

(1977)

ILM, p.

505.

215

purpose, in reply

i . e . , to s a t i s f y relied of H a i t i , on
4 7

governmental authorities

obligations. as Aero-Trade

The c o u r t I n c . v. de l a

such

Republic

Aero-Trade

I n c . v. Banque N a t i o n a l e f o r immunity. of N i g e r i a

Republique D ; H a i t i , Furthermore, a c t i o n taken was

4 8

t o deny t h e r e q u e s t

i t was argued on b e h a l f

that the

as a r e s u l t of the congestion i n a form of public

a t t h e Lagos harbour policy, i n order to had

an a c t o f s t a t e a national shortage

avoid created

disaster, of other

i n so f a r a s t h e c o n g e s t i o n essential commodities

i n Nigeria.

A r g u a b l y , t h i s defence may s t a n d t h e a c i d t e s t , b u t t h i s a r e a o f the law i s most c o m p l i c a t e d f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

4 9

state

immunity and a c t of s t a t e i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r c u t . Nigeria was government was t r y i n g t o o f f e r that was overlooked by

A l l that the o f immunity court in

i n support

the issue

the appeal

Trendtex but f u l l y analysed National although American case the letter order

i n t h e I Congreso C a s e .

Thus i n t h e that

t h e defendant of credit was

was t r y i n g t o a r g u e a commercial

a c t , the i n respect political reviewed

governmental of shipment

o f two months p r i o r n o t i f i c a t i o n ex h y p o t h e s i was a

o f cement t o N i g e r i a i n Nigeria

decision before to

taken

and t h e r e f o r e

cannot

be

a f o r e i g n municipal national

c o u r t b e c a u s e t h e d e c i s i o n was t a k e n Should a novel of approach be

protect

interest. from

followed

wholly

different

the doctrine

restrictive

47

3 7 6 F.Supp.

1281 SDNY

(1974). (1974).

48

3 7 6 F.Supp. 1286 SDNY

4 9

H i g g i n s , op. c i t . , p. 275.

216

immunity b e c a u s e controversy? the A c t American At Chenax made an Fed The

the

argument c u t s perhaps

i n t o the

heart

of

the

whole of

answer

i s yes.

However,

in spite

o f S t a t e argument, t h e Corporation. the and same t i m e t h a t t h e Nikkei alleged to seek

judge r u l e d i n f a v o u r of

National

a l l u d e d c a s e was and

being

litigated both

similar plights an

therefore

application But

intervention

under

r u l e 24 (b) the

R C i v Proc. of

both N a t i o n a l opposed t h e i r

American C o r p o r a t i o n and intervention.

Republic ruled

Nigeria

Judge Goetted

that
"While t h e c o n t r a c t s a l l r e l a t e t o t h e p u r p o s e of cement, t h e i r l e g a l and f a c t u a l d i s p a r i t y , t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a d d i t i o n a l p r o o f due to the separate d o c u m e n t a t i o n , and the potential p r e j u d i c e t o t h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s combine t o c a u s e t h e c o u r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t o deny i n t e r v e n t i o n under r u l e 2 4 ( b ) . "
5 0

An

i n t e r v e n t i o n of t h i s nature w i l l c e r t a i n l y f a i l without with the original litigating to their the rights. parties The in

first of

consulting any

respect

potential be was

prejudice

judgment

leaves foreign judge states import

much t o reserve simply that

desired

because to

attachment

of N i g e r i a ' s The of the

contrary the an

general

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. mixed activity

ignored it was

issues internal

respecting crisis

which

prompted

control.

N i g e r i a before American Courts: Texas Trading of Nigeria,

5 1

Part

Two Federal out of Republic the 1975

and

M i l l i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v. known also grew

as

i t i s well

5 0

(1977) ILM p. (1981) 647

514

cert. d e n i e d 71 LED 2d 301 1982.

5 1

F.2d

300,

217

N i g e r i a Cement C o n t r a c t , These four appeals same

and

therefore deserves

some a t t e n t i o n . and thus

appear fact

remarkable

in a l l respects considered The in

followed

the

pattern

already

National the

American Corp. v. F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c 109 c o n t r a c t s were n e g o t i a t e d

of N i g e r i a .

four of

w i t h American companies and and M i l l i n g Corp., Decor by I n c . and

these Nikkei Chenax

companies were Texas T r a d i n g International Majesty Inc.

I n c . , E a s t European I m p o r t - E x p o r t

I n s i m p l e terms t h e s e f o u r p l a i n t i f f s were t r a d i n g involved industrial because And in the business of "buy and four cement Nigeria lengthy

companies sell," but

specifically were sued not

corporations. repudiated to the

These the

companies contract invoked

Nigeria

Nigeria

i n question. the sovereign

i n response

suits,

immunity p l e a .

Judge Kaufman i n a

judgment r e j e c t e d t h e p l e a f o r immunity a s f o l l o w s :
"Finally, current standards of international law concerning s o v e r e i g n immunity add c o n t e n t to the 'commercial a c t i v i t y p h r a s e o f t h e FSIA. S e c t i o n 1602 o f t h e A c t , e n t i t l e d Findings and Declarations of Purpose,' contains a cryptic r e f e r e n c e t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, but f a i l s w h o l l y t o adopt i t . "

He

continued:
"Under e a c h o f t h e s e t h r e e s t a n d a r d s , N i g e r i a ' s cement c o n t r a c t s and l e t t e r s of c r e d i t q u a l i f y as 'commercial a c t i v i t y . ' Lord Denning, w r i t i n g i n Trendtex T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a 1977 2 WLR 356 369, 1 A l l ER 881, with h i s usual e r u d i t i o n and c l a r i t y , s t a t e d : ' I f a government d e p a r t m e n t g o e s i n t o t h e m a r k e t p l a c e s of t h e w o r l d and buys b o o t s o r c e m e n t a s a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t government d e p a r t m e n t s h o u l d be s u b j e c t t o a l l t h e r u l e s of the market p l a c e . ' Nigeria's a c t i v i t y h e r e i s i n the n a t u r e of a p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e purchase o f goods i t s purpose t o b u i l d r o a d s , army b a r r a c k s , whether i s i r r e l e v a n t . Accordingly c o u r t s i n other n a t i o n s have uniformly held Nigeria's 1975 cement p u r c h a s e program and a p p u r t e n a n t l e t t e r s of c r e d i t t o be c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y and h a v e denied t h e d e f e n c e of s o v e r e i g n immunity we find defendants a c t i v i t y h e r e t o c o n s t i t u t e commercial a c t i v i t y . "
5 2

(1981) ILM p.

630.

218

Nigeria growing had

therefore f a i l e d of the rule of

i n her

attempt

to c h a l l e n g e

the then The case and

appeal

restrictive

immunity which

a l r e a d y become s i m p l y chose

firmly

grounded the

i n American p r a c t i c e . to the facts of t h e

court

to apply

FSIA

coupled w i t h t h e well-known d i s t i n c t i o n between governmental non-governmental making, however, activities. i s that One important Central observation qualified

worth as a

i f the

Bank

p u b l i c e n t i t y w i t h o u t any i t may

independent

j u r i s t i c personality, international qua both

then law

a r g u a b l y c l a i m immunity u n d e r customary i n r e s p e c t of But here i t s activities that

ratione personae jure imperii.

N i g e r i a acta the Central suit jure

i t would appear

Bank and

t h e government o f N i g e r i a were a l l j o i n e d i n t h e

and t h e r e f o r e t h e problem o f d e l i m i t i n g t h e sphere of acta imperii v i s - a - v i s t h e c o n d u c t No state can be forced to

o f t h e C e n t r a l Bank n e v e r came up. submit to and the the an jurisdiction American opinio local of a of

foreign

court without
5 3

i t s consent

concept

minimum c o n t a c t juris law

c o u l d be an

d e s c r i b e d as

individualis international arguably judgment any

generalis,

American on

self-imposed by

concept

earlier

developed

i t s c o u r t s which law. The

runs c o u n t e r t o g e n e r a l p u b l i c on the whole was superficial

international and

questionable

without

convincing supporting a u t h o r i t y . the c o u r t had seriously

I t would have been i n o r d e r i f nature of the c o n t r a c t

c o n s i d e r e d the

and the n a t u r e o f t h e b r e a c h .

53

(1945) 326 US

310.

219

Uganda b e f o r e E n g l i s h C o u r t s In Uganda,
54

the

Uganda

Co.

(Holdings) L t d . v.

the

Government

of

the p l a i n t i f f , i n order to

an E n g l i s h company, i n s t i t u t e d a prevent or enjoin the defendants

mareva from

injunction

d i s p o s i n g a consignment T h i s was a writ Uganda. The indemnity guarantors also

o f t e a s t o r e d i n a warehouse i n London. issue

f o l l o w e d by a n o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s e e k i n g l e a v e t o

f o r s e r v i c e out o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

on t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n

A f t e r f u r t h e r r e v i e w both a p p l i c a t i o n s were a l l o w e d . plaintiffs, per the terms of the writs, claimed paid an as

i n t h e amount o f 240, 185.48 which o f t h e Ugandan company the s a i d their endeavour The

t h e y had The

(borrowers).

plaintiffs due between the half cothe the

demanded h a l f

amount a s c o n t r i b u t i o n counterparts, had failed were to

co-guarantorsbecause guarantors contribution plaintiffs to the in this due.

i.e., make

defendants

sued

because

claimed that of

t h e government of Uganda had the Uganda subsidiary decrees the by

succeeded of the the was

liabilities

virtue

compulsory reign of

government Idi Amin.

acquisition Consequently,

passed

during

Ugandan

government

impleaded. and

The d e f e n d a n t s i n t u r n sought t o proceedings they J ruled cannot on be the

s e t aside the w r i t that before being a

a l l subsequent government, Donaldson

grounds

foreign courts. thus:

impleaded

English

i n favour of t h e Ugandan government

"(1) The d e c i s i o n s o f the C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n T h a i - E u r o p e c a s e and t h e T r e n d t e x c a s e were not r e c o n c i l a b l e and t h e c o u r t had t o e l e c t w h i c h a u t h o r i t y t o f o l l o w , p. 486, c o l . 2.

5 4

(1979) 1 L o r d s Rep

481.

220

(2) The decision i n T h a i - E u r o p e would be f o l l o w e d s i n c e t h a t was a d e c i s i o n w h i c h was b a s e d on a t l e a s t one and p o s s i b l y three previous d e c i s i o n s of the C o u r t o f A p p e a l and was a d e c i s i o n w h i c h a s s e r t e d t h e d o c t r i n e o f p r e c e d e n t and t h e r e f o r e had more w e i g h t a s a p r e c e d e n t . See p. 486, c o l . 2, p. 487, c o l . 1. The d e c i s i o n i n T r e n d t e x c a s e b r o k e new grounds i n two r e s p e c t s i n t h a t t h e f i r s t was t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e sovereign immunity a p p l i e d t o a c t i o n s in personam and t h e s e c o n d was t h a t t h e r e was an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e of s t a r e d e c i s i s and t h e r e f o r e t h a t d e c i s i o n c a r r i e d l e s s w e i g h t i n that i t denied or modified the d o c t r i n e of precedent. See p. 487, c o l . 1. (3) The a p p l i c a t i o n would be d e t e r m i n e d i n f a v o u r of t h e d e f e n d a n t . See p. 487, c o l . 1. (4) Even i f the decision in the Trendtex case had a p p l i e d , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n would s t i l l have been d e t e r m i n e d i n favour of the defendants since the litigation would have i n v o l v e d t h e c o u r t i n e x p r e s s i n g an o p i n i o n on t h e meaning and effect of t h e Ugandan l e g i s l a t i o n in a suit to which the government o f t h a t s t a t e was a p a r t y and i t c o u l d not be h e l d that the r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n immunity e x t e n d e d t h i s f a r . P. 487, C o l . 2, p. 488, col."
5 5

The not to

plaintiffs into

in

this issue

case

chose to

path of

clearly State,

marked for i f hard by of

delve

the

relating the

Act

such a cause of a c t i o n were t a k e n put to prove t h e i r case

plaintiffs courts into

would be

since domestic from or

are precluded the validity by

general

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law policies taken

inquiring

unilateral

legislation Quite and

passed

foreign the Act

states within t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s . of S t a t e d o c t r i n e i s complicated

a p a r t from t h i s ,

in a l l possibilities i n t h e i r quest i n s t e a d was

could

create d i f f i c u l t i e s

f o r the p l a i n t i f f s Thus t h e case

to implead only

the Ugandan government. on the q u e s t i o n to whether applied in the

pleaded

of sovereign doctrine of a of

immunity without f i r s t restrictive

i n q u i r i n g as be solely the not

immunity can taken

respect

political state.

decision

within

j u r i s d i c t i o n of a s o v e r e i g n

A l t h o u g h Donaldson J d i d

55

Ibid, at

481.

227

go

as f a r as to explore the t e c h n i c a l issues r e l a t i n g to Act of i n s t e a d he d e c i d e d r a t h e r t o f o l l o w Thai-Europe with the doctrine authority

State,

b e c a u s e i t was a d e q u a t e l y c l o t h e d and be therefore

of p r e c e d e n t

c a r r i e d more w e i g h t than Trendtex which appears t o But a r g u a b l y , had Trendtex been a p p l i e d i t of being challenged on many grounds and on give

wrongly d e c i d e d . run the r i s k question

would the the In

thorny Ugandan short,

of Act of State a well

which c e r t a i n l y would

government

grounded defence

on t h e m e r i t s . option

s u c h an approach would n o t have been a v i a b l e

because law.

n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n p e r s e i s not i l l e g a l I n any e v e n t , c a n i t be conceded that

i n international Uganda violated Such an

international argument w i l l court have

law f o r f a i l i n g

t o pay compensation?

c e r t a i n l y c a r r y w e i g h t but a g a i n w i l l since

the E n g l i s h had made by t h e i n the

jurisdiction paying

t h e Ugandan government to The those answer affected may be

promises compulsory negative. It because

of

compensation decrees?

acquisition

i s submitted in Trendtex

that the

Donaldson status of

was the

somewhat Central

cautious Bank was

inconclusive ego Bank

f o r i t would appear t h e C e n t r a l Bank was an a l t e r of the republic of Nigeria agent since the Central

o r department acted

as a s t a b i l i s i n g managing

i n c o n t r o l l i n g the n a t i o n a l control, acts as a national

currency, treasury,

t h e exchange

p a y s f o r e i g n d e b t s and f i n a l l y i s s u e s n o t e s . Donaldson J f e l t bound by Thai-Europe b e c a u s e he

Further, was

d o u b t f u l a s t o whether t h e d e c i s i o n i n Trendtex was i n o r d e r e v i d e n c e t o support t h e p u r p o r t e d change

without f i r s t providing

222

in

international on the

law.

The

b a s i c problem of between in par in

the

c a s e seemed t o non habet and

impinge

conflict

parent

jurisdictionem

and princeps

alterius

territorio

privatus

whether f o r e i g n d e c r e e s As on up was expected,

c o u l d be

questioned

in English courts. was appealed, but gave

t h e Uganda company h o l d i n g s of A p p e a l h e a r i n g , and thus

the eve

of the Court

the p l a i n t i f f s settled their

t h e i r quest t o p u r s u e t h e s u i t Uganda government.

claims

w i t h the new

Egypt before I n d i a n C o u r t s I n A l i Akbar v. U n i t e d Arab R e p u b l i c , a suit against the United Arab Republic Department terms of the a
5 6

one and of

A l i Akbah the the

filed of of

Ministry Republic

Economy, Egypt

Supplies,

Importation the

for having the two

violated of them,

sale

contract of

signed had

between

wherein

republic

Egypt

a g r e e d to purchase contractual grounds before terms.

t e a from t h e a p p e l l a n t u n d e r c e r t a i n The a defendant resisted the suit be

delicate on the

that being

sovereign

state,

i t cannot This was

impleaded by a

a national j u d i c i a l

authority.

followed

number of a p p e a l s which t h e a p p e l l a n t l o s t one F i n a l l y A l i Akbah a p p e a l e d in to the

a f t e r the

other. of India of the

Supreme C o u r t on the

t h e hope t o s e c u r e a judgment b a s e d immunity. The

currency

d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e was not moved and

Supreme C o u r t , that absolute

however, immunity 83-

therefore

ruled

applied.

The c o u r t a f t e r a c a r e f u l c o n s t r u c t i o n of S e c t i o n s

(1966) HIR SC

230.

223

87B by

of the c i v i l

procedure

code r u l e d

that

t h e s u i t was b a r r e d o f Egypt must be

S e c t i o n 86 o f t h e CCP, s i n c e

the consent

p r o c u r e d b e f o r e i t c a n be sued i n I n d i a . The Supreme Court further offered the following

explanations:
" J u s t a s an independent s o v e r e i g n s t a t e may s t a t u t o r i l y p r o v i d e f o r i t s own r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s t o sue and be sued, so c a n i t p r o v i d e f o r t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f f o r e i g n s t a t e s t o s u e a n d be sued i n i t s m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s . That b e i n g so, i t would be l e g i t i m a t e t o h o l d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f S e c t i o n 8 6 ( 1 ) i s t o m o d i f y t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t t h e d o c t r i n e o f immunity r e c o g n i s e d by i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . When s u c h c o n s e n t i s g r a n t e d as r e q u i r e d b y S e c t i o n 86 ( 1 ) , i t would n o t be open t o a f o r e i g n s t a t e t o r e l y on t h e d o c t r i n e o f immunity under i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, b e c a u s e t h e m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n I n d i a would be bound by t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s s u c h a s t h o s e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Code o f C i v i l Procedure."
5 7

The

c o u r t s i m p l y f o l l o w e d t h e command and e f f e c t o f p r o v i s i o n 86 1 o f t h e CCP t o uphold had been based the decisions o f t h e lower nonhabet

subsection

c o u r t s which imperium,

on t h e maxim, p a r in parem a t that time

although

i t would appear

t h a t Egypt had

a l r e a d y jumped onto t h e bandwagon o f t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

58

U n i t e d Arab R e p u b l i c b e f o r e American C o u r t s In another case of H i l l v . U.A.R.,

59

i n which

the United

A r a b R e p u b l i c was sued f o r a s p e c i f i c l e g a l i n f r a c t i o n , an o r d e r was entered that the s u i t a g a i n s t U.A.R. be v a c a t e d . But f o r

some o t h e r r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o procedure,

i.e., service

5 7

C f . M.K. Nawaz, E s s a y s on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, 1976, p. 323. S e e S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , pp. 251-255. ( 1 9 6 1 ) SDNY No. 144-16.

5 8

5 9

224

of p r o c e s s on t h e U.A.R. C o n s u l

General,

t h e c a s e was c o n t i n u e d a s t o whether

where a r e q u e s t was made t o t h e S t a t e Department immunity be g r a n t e d . I n reply the legal

advisor of the State

Department o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a d v i c e :
" I t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f t h e Department t o make a d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y i n a c a s e t h e facts o f which do not c a l l f o r such decision. In this c o n n e c t i o n , i t i s noted t h a t t h e r e i s p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t an application f o r a holding that the purported s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s by t h e M a r s h a l on A p r i l 24, 1959 i s i n e f f e c t i v e t o b r i n g t h e U n i t e d Arab R e p u b l i c w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , and t h a t d e c i s i o n on t h a t q u e s t i o n h a s been w i t h h e l d p e n d i n g f u r t h e r h e a r i n g by t h e c o u r t on May 17, 1961. "Thus, i t appears t h a t any d e c i s i o n o f t h e Department o f S t a t e t h a t i t does not r e c o g n i z e immunity o f t h e U.A.R. a s a f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n i n t h i s c a s e would a p p a r e n t l y n o t prevent d i s m i s s a l of the s u i t , i f t h e court decided t h a t under t h e r u l e s o f t h e forum t h e r e i s no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e U n i t e d A r a b R e p u b l i c because of i n e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s . See O s t e r v. Dominion o f Canada, 144 F.Supp. 7 4 6 . "
60

It one

i s submitted

t h a t t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e l a w i s u n s e t t l e d , hence t h e problem o f d e t e r m i n i n g the particular as regards The main state

i s burdened w i t h

from t h e t o t a l i t y the person

o f w r i t i n g s on s e r v i c e

of process

of the sovereign

t o r e s o l v e t h e problem.

question can be

t o g r a p p l e w i t h , however, served by the mere

i s whether a s o v e r e i g n presence of

i t s political

representative the

within the j u r i s d i c t i o n .

And c a n t h e envoy o r the process? The envoy

foreign ministry refuse to accept

could e x e r c i s e the p r i v i l e g e o f r e f u s i n g t h e s e r v i c e o f process, and i t would appear i n E n g l i s h l a w t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y i n Duncan v. Caromel L a i r d and Co.
61

may s t i l l

be r e g a r d e d

as persuasive

6 0

Ibid. (1924) AC 624.

6 1

225

notwithstanding again i t must

the thrust be c l e a r l y

and a u t h o r i t y o f t h e 1978 A c t . stated that the Vienna Convention full

But on

Diplomatic

R e l a t i o n s g i v e s t h e d i p l o m a t i c agent international to

immunity. i s not

Thus under g e n e r a l under any

law, a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e with t h e forum

obligation

cooperate

state i n

respect of accepting a s e r v i c e of process.

T u n i s i a before United S t a t e s Courts In was Hellenic against Here, L i n e s v . Moore, the Republic a duly filed
62

a libel

a c t i o n in personam i n the D i s t r i c t addressed of

filed

of T u n i s i a summons

Columbia. Tunisian United of

was

to the

Ambassador

t o the United

States,

b u t Mr. Moore, t h e because

S t a t e s Marshal,

r e f u s e d t o s e r v e t h e Ambassador I n a move t o compel

h i s diplomatic Lines Court be

status.

t h e Marshal,

Hellenic Federal Marshal office. follows:

filed

an a c t i o n f o r mandamus i n an a p p r o p r i a t e inter alia that t h e United the duties States of h i s

demanding

legally

compelled

t o perform

The C o u r t

o f Appeal i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n r u l e d as

"Although we have held that diplomatic immunity i s v i o l a t e d by j o i n i n g a d i p l o m a t i c o f f i c e r a s a defender to a s u i t , C a r r e r a v . C a r r e r a , 84 U.S. App DC 333, 174 F.2d 496 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , we h a v e n e v e r d e c i d e d whether i t i s v i o l a t e d by s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on a d i p l o m a t i c o f f i c e r i n an a t t e m p t t o j o i n , not him, but h i s sending state. There i s little authority i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w c o n c e r n i n g whether s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on a d i p l o m a t i c o f f i c e r a s an a g e n t o f h i s s e n d i n g c o u n t r y i s an attack on h i s person, freedom o r d i g n i t y p r o h i b i t e d by d i p l o m a t i c immunity. . . . We requested t h e views o f the Department o f S t a t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t o f s e r v i c e i n t h i s t y p e o f c a s e on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s and on t h e performance of d i p l o m a t i c d u t i e s . The Department r e p l i e d t h a t s e r v i c e would

(1965)

DC C i r 345 F.2d 978, 980-981.

226

p r e j u d i c e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s r e l a t i o n s and would p r o b a b l y i m p a i r the p e r f o r m a n c e of d i p l o m a t i c f u n c t i o n s . We c o n c l u d e t h a t the p u r p o s e s o f d i p l o m a t i c immunity f o r b i d s e r v i c e i n t h i s case. T h e r e f o r e , the Ambassador i s not s u b j e c t t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s and the r e t u r n was a d e q u a t e . "
63

It of

would appear i n t h i s State the decided to

case that the for

the

United by

States

Department refusing to

resolve searching

matter the of

simply

incur scanty

burden of

particular service of

i n an

already and a

literature

on

the

issue law. such an

process s t a t e has it

discovery in international perfect against right the to resist

Again, a s o v e r e i g n action because law. note.

militates the

normative r u l e s of

international

Perhaps

s e r v i c e c o u l d have been done through a p u b l i c

Zaire before English In Planmount an the

Courts v. Republic of Zaire, repairs

6 4

Ltd.

the for

plaintiffs Republic of be

entered into of Zaire, on The by

agreement to c a r r y

out

the

r e s i d e n c e of h i s e x c e l l e n c y , started on a good

the

Ambassador only to

Zaire. derailed Ltd. for

agreement

footing

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , whereupon t h e to i s s u e a w r i t a g a i n s t due on the contract of

plaintiff

Planmount Zaire The that

sought l e a v e the balance Zaire

the the

R e p u b l i c of said by an repairs. arguing

R e p u b l i c of it be

f o r c e f u l l y r e s i s t e d the

claim as

a c c o r d e d immunity because of state. did The plaintiffs apply to

i t s status replied private that

independent doctrine of

sovereign state

the or

immunity

not

acts

commercial

"ibid.
64

1981 1 A 11 ER

1110.

227

activities set aside of

of be the

s t a t e s and denied.

therefore The court while for

the r e q u e s t of on the first appeal

t h a t the w r i t ruled took

be in a

instance the court

favour

defendants, by

different

position

ruling

plaintiffs. thus:

Lloyd

J's

judgment f o l l o w s t h e r e s t r i c t i v e approach

"Assuming I am r i g h t that the defendants never had a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y i n E n g l i s h law, t h e o n l y r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n i s whether, on t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s were a c t i n g i n a governmental c a p a c i t y or whether t h e y were a c t i n g i n a p r i v a t e or commercial c a p a c i t y . That i s a q u e s t i o n which o f t e n g i v e s r i s e t o d i f f i c u l t y , a s i t d i d i n t h e Congreso c a s e ; but i t g i v e s r i s e t o no s u c h d i f f i c u l t y i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e On t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s t h i s i s a s i m p l e c a s e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' 'mere r e f u s a l t o f o o t t h e b i l l f o r t h e work done,' to use the language of W a l t e r L J i n the Congreso c a s e . "

He

continued:
"To my mind, i t i s h a r d t o i m a g i n e a c l e a r e r c a s e of an a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n of a p r i v a t e or commercial nature than the r e p a i r s to the ambassador's r e s i d e n c e . The c a s e i s on a l l f o u r s w i t h the Empire of Iran case. I t follows t h a t the defence of sovereign immunity i s not available. No other ground for s e t t i n g a s i d e s e r v i c e o f t h e w r i t has been a d v a n c e d i n t h e e v i d e n c e o r r e l i e d on by c o u n s e l . I n my judgment t h i s i s a p r o p e r c a s e f o r s e r v i c e o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n under RSC Ord 11 1 ( f ) ."
65

A c a r e f u l reading t h a t he was in of Trendtex Nigeria

6 6

of

Lloyd

J ' s judgment w i l l

show

clearly M.R.

i n f l u e n c e d by and and

arguments p o s i t e d by L o r d Denning SA and v.

Hispano American M e r c a n t i l such

6 7

C e n t r a l Bank against

others The the

as

I Congreso,

claims

the Empire o f I r a n . the jurisdiction

fact s t i l l court

remains t h a t Z a i r e r e s i s t e d of its status as an

of

because

I b i d . , p.

1114. Rep 277.

(1979) 2 L l o y d ' s (1963) 45 V 57.

228

international

person

and not because

i t cannot

pay t h e b a l a n c e

due on t h e agreement.

Somali Democratic R e p u b l i c b e f o r e American In Democratic American Transamerican Republic shipper

6 8

Courts v. Somali an

Steamship

Corporation Agency

(Somali

Shipping

Appellants;

brought

an a c t i o n agency

against

Somali

Democratic

R e p u b l i c and i t s s h i p p i n g relief, respect as a r e s u l t

f o r d e c l a r a t o r y and monetary out o f a d e l a y i n consequences, was

of a dispute a r i s i n g

o f a p u r p o r t e d payment and i t s a t t e n d a n t Transamerican's after ship, M.V. Klaus

wherefore detained

Leonhardt,

t h e d i s c h a r g e o f i t s cargo alleged was c o s t i n g were made

i n Somalia,

o f which $10,000 a

Transamerican day.

t h e company about

Although

efforts

t o pay t h e amount

due i n

question, release almost

b u t no a c t i o n was immediately Klaus Leonhardt to avoid

t a k e n by t h e agency t o Transamerican t o have sued this SDR incurring problem and t h e

M.V.

$100,000 proved

i n cost.

When e f f o r t s

resolved

unsuccessful,

Transamerican

s h i p p i n g agency The Democratic court

i n federal d i s t r i c t court. of first instance ruled that the Somalia

Republic

"had n e i t h e r activities under

waived s o v e r e i g n immunity n o r that would s u b j e c t i t to suit

engaged i n commercial in the United subject States matter

t h e FSIA
6 9

and t h e r e f o r e t h e C o u r t The c o u r t on t h e o t h e r

lacked

jurisdiction."

6 8

(1985) 787 F.2d 998. Ibid.

6 9

229

hand, against

however, the

ruled

that

it

had

jurisdiction not the

over person

claims of the

Somalia

shipping

agency but

Somali r e p u b l i c . the

T h i s prompted T r a n s a m e r i c a n t o a p p e a l Somalia Democratic Republic,

against by a

s u i t j o i n i n g the the

followed

c r o s s a p p e a l by dismiss. On appeal not

S o m a l i a g e n c y on

the d e n i a l of i t s motion t o

Judge

Tamm

ruled

that

the

Somalia

Democratic regarding behalf of

R e p u b l i c was forum non

entitled and He

t o immunity and motion to

the argument filed on

conveniens

dismiss that:

the agency a l l f a i l e d .

also stated

"We t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e SDR has not s u s t a i n e d i t s burden o f p r o v i n g t h e inapplicability of Section 1605(a)(2) e x c e p t i o n and t h a t t h e S o m a l i government has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n commercial a c t i v i t y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The d i s t r i c t court t h u s has s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r T r a n s a m e r i c a n ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t the SDR under S e c t i o n 1 3 3 0 . "
70

The

republic

of

Somalia

therefore

lost

her

quest

to of

challenge sovereign practice authority lex not fori based

the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t immunity which was of American c o u r t s . since the issues t o be were the at least The

b a s e d on w a l k i n g on

the d o c t r i n e one of

l e g i n the a doubtful

judgment was

solely The

determined decision

by

what

the was

perceived on usus.

law.

certainly

Libya before American Courts In Caney v. National Oil Corp.,

71

the

Libyan

government-

owned o i l company had

7 0

entered into contracts

f o r the s a l e of o i l

I b i d . , p.

1003. L Reports 1982, p. 232 [(1979) 592 F.2d

^International 673] .

230

to

f o r e i g n companies.

The

c o n t r a c t was by

terminated

as a

result And the

of p o l i t i c a l main issue

measures t a k e n was whether

the L i b y a n government. and the Libyan

Libya to

government-owned whether the

corporation

were e n t i t l e d

immunity and

secondly

L i b y a n a c t i o n c o u l d be c h a r a c t e r i s e d to have had a d i r e c t

effect

w i t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and t h i r d l y , whether L i b y a p e r a l l t h e companies i n v o l v e d i n t h i s drama, and i t s o i l company, c o u l d a l l be amenable t o NOC's f a i l u r e t o d e l i v e r under t h e September contract also coupled with the breaches on of the 1974 contract in 1973 and this

f o r such

other overcharges litigation.

the c h a r t e r p a r t i e s damages sought

apparently d i f f i c u l t $1.6 billion.

The

were about

The c o u r t r u l e d as f o l l o w s :

"Appellants claim, most relevantly, that the events i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e come w i t h i n the e x c e p t i o n t o immunity w h i c h a l l o w s us j u r i s d i c t i o n where a c l a i m i s b a s e d on 'an a c t o u t s i d e the t e r r i t o r y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y o f t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e e l s e w h e r e and t h a t a c t causes a direct effect i n the United States' 28 USC 1605(a)(2). We f i n d no d i r e c t e f f e c t i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s h e r e . "We assume t h a t C o n g r e s s chose the language i n t h e a c t purposefully. S e c t i o n 1 6 0 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) speaks of a c t s w h i c h have a d i r e c t e f f e c t i n the United S t a t e s . The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h i s s e c t i o n makes c l e a r t h a t i t embodies the s t a n d a r d s e t out i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 66 S C t 154 158, 90 L Ed 96 ( 1 9 4 5 ) , t h a t i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s , a d e f e n d a n t over whom j u r i s d i c t i o n i s t o be e x e r c i s e d must have ' c e r t a i n minimum c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e forum s t a t e s u c h t h a t t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f the s u i t does not o f f e n d t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n s o f f a i r p l a y and s u b s t a n t i v e j u s t i c e . ' That s t a n d a r d h a s not been met h e r e . "
7 2

The against certainly

judgment Libya would for be

of

the

district of put

court

d i s m i s s i n g the was affirmed. the

suit One

lack hard

jurisdiction to take

issue

with

judgment

7 2

Ibid.,

p.

234.
231

since

the

political as f a l l i n g

measures

taken

by

Libya

could

be and

characterised

within the

domain o f A c t

of S t a t e

ex hypothesi t h e r e f o r e seemed n o t t o have had a d i r e c t e f f e c t i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . After a l l , no one will blame t h e c o u r t f o r

b e i n g e c l e c t i c when i t r u l e d or p o s t u l a t e d t h u s :
"PETCO i s a Bahamian c o r p o r a t i o n . Though a s u b s i d i a r y o f NEPCO, i t was a s e p a r a t e c o r p o r a t e e n t i t y , and we w i l l not have 'pierce the c o r p o r a t e v e i l . ' The c a n c e l l a t i o n o f the c o n t r a c t s between NOC and PETCO, and t h e o v e r c h a r g e on t h e c h a r t e r s , had a d i r e c t e f f e c t on PETCO a s a p a r t y t o t h o s e c o n t r a c t s , but not i n the United S t a t e s . "
7 3

Quite a p a r t from t h e s e , i t would be h a r d t o show c a u s e as t o t h e continuous and perhaps s y s t e m a t i c commercial The activities of NOC have this

or L i b y a i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . had a direct effect on

p o l i t i c a l measures may companies involved in

a l l the

commercial t r a n s a c t i o n , however, i t s d i r e c t e f f e c t i n t h e U n i t e d States was far from settled in this and case, therefore logically not

inconclusive.

Jurisdiction

therefore, could

be p r o c u r e d under t h e F I S A .

The People's R e p u b l i c o f Congo b e f o r e C a n a d i a n In Congo, '

4

Courts Republic of

Venne the

v.

Government of

of

the

Democratic that was

Republic first the

Congo

pleaded the plea

i t be rejected "The

accorded because absolute by the to

immunity a t according theory of to

i n s t a n c e but Quebec Court

of had a

Queen's now

Bench,

sovereign theory,

immunity so that

been

superseded was

restrictive

foreign

state

entitled

7 3

Ibid. (1983) I L R e p o r t s , p.l.

232

7 4

immunity o n l y position position

i n r e s p e c t of p u b l i c , s o v e r e i g n a c t s . " i t m e r e l y based on counter to state

I s such

c o r r e c t or was seemed to run

conjecture?

Such a the ILC of the the

p r a c t i c e and

r e p o r t on t h e s u b j e c t .

On a p p e a l ,

however, the Supreme Court ruling i n favour Republic of of

Canada took a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n , thus Republic of Congo (Government of

Democratic

Congo v. V e n n e ) . The was c a s e can as s h o r t l y be an r e l a t e d as f o l l o w s : to prepare the plaintiff for the

employed

architect

plans

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n a l p a v i l i o n of the R e p u b l i c The purported agreement for the services i n question

of Congo. was made

t h r o u g h an well as by

accredited diplomatic an envoy of the

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e Congo as Foreign Affairs. Soon a

Congo

dispute prayed As

e n s u e d between the two in his suit t h a t he be

parties, paid

whereupon t h e services

plaintiff rendered. level of was the Hall

f o r the

a l r e a d y s t a t e d , the p l e a f o r immunity a t the t r i a l on appeal the Supreme Court

r e j e c t e d but sovereign

r u l e d i n favour

state

i . e . , Congo, as f o l l o w s , w i t h L a s k i n J and

J dissenting.
"(1) The Democratic Republic of the Congo had acted i n a sovereign r a t h e r than a c o m m e r c i a l c a p a c i t y i n s e c u r i n g t h e s e r v i c e s o f Mr. Venne and was t h e r e f o r e e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n immunity. The f a c t t h a t t h e government had a c t e d t h r o u g h i t s diplomatic r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n Canada and i t s Department of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s was e v i d e n c e of t h e s o v e r e i g n n a t u r e of t h e a c t . "(2) Since the government was thus entitled to sovereign i m m u n i t y e v e n under the r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y i t was u n n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h a t t h e o r y had become p a r t of C a n a d i a n law. " (3) The q u e s t i o n whether a c o n t r a c t was a p u r e l y p r i v a t e and c o m m e r c i a l a c t o r p u b l i c a c t done f o r s o v e r e i g n p u r p o s e s s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d , i n so f a r a s i t might be r e l e v a n t , by t h e c o u r t i n t h e l i g h t o f a l l the e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t p l a c i n g on e i t h e r p a r t y

233

t h e burden of transactions.

rebutting
1 , 7 5

any

presumption

about

the

nature

of

the

This

case

seemed i d e n t i c a l

to

Planmount

Ltd.

and

that

of the

the Empire of I r a n c a s e , f o u r j u s t i c e s who

however, i t would be

presumed t h a t

r u l e d i n favour the The force

of t h e R e p u b l i c of evidence and

of Congo might in the

have been persuaded by quest have, for immunity.

submitted the German

English

court

court based

however, on

mutatis the Empire

mutandis,

denied

immunity in

specifically Ltd., and

commercial of Iran

element cases,

involved

Planmount But the "the by

the

respectively.

argument p o s i t e d by absolute theory

Laskin J with

whom H a l l J a g r e e d t h a t no longer accepted

of s o v e r e i g n could non not be

immunity was regarded unless, as of

most s t a t e s and law" is simply

part

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l the learned because of To the of

sequitur,

course,

judge was evidence

a l s o r e f e r r i n g t o a r e g i o n a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of state practice the world over in

respect
76

customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law the contrary, the

does not of

support states

such a view. regard to

practice

in and

restrictive the the

approach i s f a r from had the

settled

many c o u n t r i e s judicially I t i s not that was

w o r l d have not s u b j e c t matter of and the

chance even t o under

deal

with the the not of

herein

consideration. however, to

purpose thrust

present

writer, of

conclude dissent

total

import

Judge

Laskin's

commendable.

C e r t a i n l y he

o f f e r e d a good i n s i g h t i n r e s p e c t

7 5

I b i d . , p.

24. c i t . , 327-328; I Law Commission Report 1980-

7o

B r o w n l i e , op.

1988.
234

the

subject

for

there

was

consensus

ad

idem i n r e s p e c t

of

the

agreement s i g n e d as a matter of

between the R e p u b l i c p r i n c i p l e must be

o f Congo and honoured

Venne, which where the

except

sovereign

r i g h t s of t h e s t a t e w i l l be a f f e c t e d or i f the

dispute

c o u l d b e t t e r be

r e s o l v e d a m i c a b l y t h r o u g h some other means.

Arbitration, under U.S.

Default Law

Judgment

and

the

Question

of

Enforcement

Nigeria before In Nigeria,

7 7

S w i t z e r l a n d and A m e r i c a n International Republic entered S.A. of

Courts v. Federal Nigeria a Republic and of

Ipitrade the

Federal S.A. duly

Ipitrade for the

International, purchase and

into

contract

s a l e of

cement.

Under t h e

terms of the

contract, said

N i g e r i a a g r e e d t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y and

t h e performance of t h e

cement c o n t r a c t s h a l l be governed by S w i t z e r l a n d law and t h a t i n case of any dispute arising thereunder, France, arose followed the dispute would be

submitted to a r b i t r a t i o n i n P a r i s , thereafter contract. contract Republic granted various disagreements therefore

for resolution. with the respect command The to of

Soon the the

Ipitrade calling for

a r b i t r a t i o n proceedings.

Federal

o f N i g e r i a d e c l i n e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e , arguing immunity. proceeded Swiss law In view the of this plea, the

t h a t i t be arbitrator alia the

nonetheless that under

with

a r b i t r a t i o n , r u l i n g inter was bound by the terms of

Nigeria

" i n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 824] .

R e p o r t s 1982,

p.

196

[(1978) 465

F.Supp.

235

cement c o n t r a c t thus g r a n t i n g Further, i t was

Ipitrade's claims against terms that under cannot Swiss be

Nigeria. law an

stated in clear final and

arbitrator's

word was

therefore

reversed. United Court a the

Having been i n t i m a t e d t h a t N i g e r i a had States, "Ipitrade filed i n the United

some a s s e t s i n t h e States District

p e t i t i o n t o confirm convention on the

a r b i t r a t i o n award under t h e p r o v i s i o n o f Recognition and Enforcement subject." could be of And

Foreign the main

A r b i t r a l Awards, to which the award was issue at this j u n c t u r e was

whether N i g e r i a

amenable t o very

the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t s of the U n i t e d instance. The court ruled i n favour

States in this follows:

of I p i t r a d e as

"The award i s s u b j e c t t o t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n on the Recognition and Enforcement of F o r e i g n A r b i t r a l Awards t o w h i c h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , F r a n c e , N i g e r i a , and S w i t z e r l a n d are each s i g n a t o r i e s . A r t i c l e V of the Convention s p e c i f i e s the o n l y grounds on which r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f a f o r e i g n a r b i t r a t i o n award may be r e f u s e d 9 USC 201. None o f the enumerated grounds e x i s t s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The Foreign Sovereign I m m u n i t i e s Act, w h i c h c o d i f i e s e x i s t i n g law with r e s p e c t to s u i t s a g a i n s t f o r e i g n s t a t e s i n t h e U n i t e d States courts, gives Federal district courts original jurisdiction a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n s t a t e a s t o any c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i n personam with r e s p e c t to which t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e i s n o t e n t i t l e d to immunity under Sections 1605-1607 of this title or any a p p l i c a b l e i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement. 28 USC 1330."

The

court further ruled that:

"The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h i s s e c t i o n e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t an agreement to a r b i t r a t e or t o s u b m i t t o t h e l a w s o f a n o t h e r c o u n t r y c o n s t i t u t e s an i m p l i c i t w a i v e r . H Rep No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2nd S e s s . r e p r i n t e d i n 1976 U.S. Code, Cong, and Admin. News a t 6604, 6617. C o n s e q u e n t l y , R e s p o n d e n t ' s agreement t o a d j u d i c a t e a l l d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g under t h e c o n t r a c t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h S w i s s law and by a r b i t r a t i o n under I n t e r n a t i o n a l Chamber of Commerce r u l e s c o n s t i t u t e s a w a i v e r o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y under the Act. T h i s w a i v e r c a n n o t be revoked by a unilateral 78 withdrawal."

78

Ibid

p.

198.
236

In

the

final

analysis

default

judgment

was

entered

against Nigeria.

True,

N i g e r i a w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n agreed per the disputes arising their under the to

cement c o n t r a c t t h a t contract, both

i n c a s e of any must

parties was

submit

differences

arbitration. respect

There

t h e r e f o r e e v i d e n c e of p a r t y autonomy i n A further reflection, however, to the

of what law must a p p l y .

of t h e argument t h a t an agreement t o a r b i t r a t e o r submit laws lex of t h e c o u n t r y voluntatis, for of the l o c u s of t h e a r b i t r a t i o n , an implicit cannot highly waiver stand the

i . e . , the non any an

constitutes an and

i s simply test that

79

sequitur critical approach

such

argument i t is

of such

analysis,

possible

would r u n c o u n t e r t o g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w

i n view juris.
80

of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w a i v e r t h e o r y l a c k s usus and opinio Hence t h e " w a i v e r " argument c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d a s an opiniones consensus juris from of other the United States arguably of the

individual lacking of

s u b j e c t s / l a w makers subjects of

international law. Nigeria

community, i . e . , o t h e r could court

international of the

t h e r e f o r e c h a l l e n g e the d e c i s i o n as of r i g h t has

Federal d i s t r i c t conclusion that, there

i n r e s p e c t of t h e e r r o n e o u s acceded

once a c o u n t r y is an i m p l i c i t

t o the c o u r s e o f a r b i t r a t i o n , and

waiver of j u r i s d i c t i o n

t h e r e f o r e immunity i s should have was agreed to

consequently the

waived.

N i g e r i a , however, the arbitral

arbitration,

unless

agreement

procured

S e e H. S t e i n b e r g e r , S t a t e Immunity P u b l i c I n t e r n a t i o n a l (1987) pp. 428-466.

80

7 9

in

Encyclopedia

of

S e e B r o w n l i e , op.

cit.,

pp.
237

7-9;

Villiger,

op. c i t .

through case.

fraud,

which

actually

was

not

what

happened

in

this

T a n z a n i a b e f o r e American Courts In Republic Birch of Shipping Tanzania

81

Corporation the

v.

Embassy a

of Birch

the

United Shipping of to

plaintiff,

Corporation entered into a contract with the United Republic Tanzania Tanzania. financed parties dispute by f o r t h e shipment of a l o a d o f c o r n from New In the fact, the purchase of the said corn Orleans was

duly The any to any Soon in New

United

S t a t e s Department agreed shipping in

of A g r i c u l t u r e . terms that

after arising

negotiations out of the

clear

c o n t r a c t be

submitted

a r b i t r a t i o n and t h a t a " c o u r t judgment c o u l d be e n t e r e d upon award rendered pursuant to the arbitration agreement."
82

t h e r e a f t e r a d i s p u t e a r o s e , which i n f a c t was York, The resulting Plaintiff i n an then award a g a i n s t t h e filed a petition

arbitrated of

Republic in the

Tanzania. States

United

D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f the Southern said monetary award confirmed

D i s t r i c t of New pursuant 9 USC in in 9. this the to And

York, t o have t h e Section the 9 of the

United

S t a t e s A r b i t r a t i o n Act considered on August the the 21, fact

court

having the

carefully petition

issues 1980, that

case

confirmed of

amount

89,168.56, to enter an

notwithstanding appearance.

the defendant a writ of

failed

T h i s was

f o l l o w e d by

garnishment

which

I L Reports Ibid., 525.

82 p. 524

[(1970)

507

F.Supp. 3 1 ] .

238

was

again the

confirmed defendant

and

served

upon

American a bank

Security account

Bank, the the

where

state

maintains Tanzania of

for

o p e r a t i o n of h e r writ based on

embassy.

q u i c k l y moved t o quash immunity.

the

principles

sovereign that

However,

the c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion by r u l i n g

"The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y makes c l e a r t h a t a c t i v i t y of t h i s type i s w i t h i n the s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of 'commercial a c t i v i t y ' s e t f o r t h i n 28 USC 1 6 0 3 ( d ) . "As the d e f i n i t i o n indicates, t h e f a c t t h a t goods or s e r v i c e s t o be p r o c u r e d t h r o u g h a c o n t r a c t a r e t o be u s e d f o r a p u b l i c purpose i s i r r e l e v a n t ; i t i s the e s s e n t i a l l y commercial n a t u r e of an a c t i v i t y o r t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t i s c r i t i c a l . "
8 3

The affidavit used to

defendant that "pay and the the

state funds

argued

further

by

submitting were for to the as the

an

i n the a t t a c h e d account of the staff, pay

purposely incidental operation official of to

salaries

purchases of the

services in of

n e c e s s a r y and

incident activity

Embassy

i t s diplomatic the government States."

8 4

representative Tanzania in

of

the

United court

Republic refused that

the

United

But

the

accede t o t h e argument a d v a n c e d by T a n z a n i a , t h u s r u l i n g

"The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t q u e s t i o n , t h e n , i s w h e t h e r i t i s p r o p e r t o a t t a c h an a c c o u n t w h i c h i s not u s e d s o l e l y f o r c o m m e r c i a l activity. C e r t a i n l y t h e s t a t u t e p l a c e s no s u c h r e s t r i c t i o n upon p r o p e r t y w h i c h may be a t t a c h e d , nor i s t h e r e a n y t h i n g i n the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Congress contemplated such a limitation. Central Bank accounts are exempt, but that e x c e p t i o n i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o a c c o u n t s u s e d f o r mixed p u r p o s e s . See H Rep No. 94-1487. "
8 5

I b i d . , pp. Ibid., p.

526-528. 526. 527.

239

I b i d . , p.

The clearcut.

question And over

in

respect

of

waiver

of

immunity

is

not way law. that to

the years t h i s thorny

i s s u e has

i n one i n the ruled

o r the o t h e r c r e a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s

and u n c e r t a i n t i e s

C o u r t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , f o r example, have a l w a y s any state that agrees by

the meeting of the minds t o submit

a r b i t r a t i o n i n t h e forum s t a t e , i n r e a l i t y had i m p l i c i t l y its right to immunity. S.A. v. T h i s was clearly of followed Nigeria in and

waived

Ipitrade in the of

International Birch

Federal Republic

S h i p p i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v. Embassy of t h e U n i t e d R e p u b l i c case, respectively. But the q u e s t i o n to grapple

Tanzania

with

i s whether such a d e c i s i o n i s i n l i n e w i t h g e n e r a l law. Although s c h o l a r s i n America may answer the

international question in

the a f f i r m a t i v e , majority authority USUS. of

t h e i r views a r g u a b l y a r e i n t h e m i n o r i t y , f o r a law scholars will challenge the or

international

of such

a d e c i s i o n as l a c k i n g of g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e a state i s not

Under g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law,

presumed that

t o have waived it has acceded

i t s r i g h t t o immunity based on t h e mere f a c t to a p r o v i s i o n i n an arbitration

contract with t h e law of

i t s p r i v a t e p a r t n e r t h a t the c o n t r a c t be governed by t h e forum s t a t e or some o t h e r s t a t e . has Act, been clearly stated i n the The law i n t h i s Kingdom decisions

connection Immunity Ipitrade

United The

State in

1978,

Section

2(2).

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S.A., waiver for a of

and B i r c h S h i p p i n g C o r p o r a t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f desired. by Thus the

immunity t h e r e f o r e l e a v e s much t o be to be valid i t must be

waiver

e x p r e s s l y given

competent organ of t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e .

240

Another account of a

important diplomatic

question mission

to can

consider be

i s whether

a bank

attached.

Undoubtedly approached while of t h e

t h i s question poses d i f f i c u l t with care. I n 1977

p r o b l e m s which must be

t h e West German C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court,

c o n s i d e r i n g i s s u e s i n r e s p e c t o f t h e g e n e r a l bank account P h i l i p p i n e Embassy, r u l e d t h a t :

"A g e n e r a l bank a c c o u n t o f t h e embassy of a f o r e i g n s t a t e which e x i s t s i n t h e s t a t e o f t h e forum and t h e p u r p o s e o f w h i c h i s to c o v e r t h e embassy c o s t s and e x p e n s e s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o forced e x e c u t i o n . "
8 6

Again

i n Alcorn v. account

Republic has

of been

Colombia, created

i t was for be the

held day

that to

an day

embassy

which

expenses of t h e

Colombian Embassy cannot

a t t a c h e d by

virtue

of S e c t i o n 1 3 ( 2 ( b ) . Lord D i p l o c k s t a t e d t h a t :
"The c r e d i t b a l a n c e i n t h e c u r r e n t a c c o u n t k e p t by t h e diplomatic m i s s i o n of the s t a t e as a p o s s i b l e s u b j e c t matter of the e n f o r c e m e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i s , however, one and i n d i v i s i b l e u n l e s s i t c a n be shown by t h e judgment c r e d i t o r who i s s e e k i n g t o a t t a c h t h e c r e d i t b a l a n c e by g a r n i s h e e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t t h e bank a c c o u n t was e a r m a r k e d by t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e s o l e l y (save f o r de m i n i m i s e x c e p t i o n s ) f o r b e i n g drawn upon t o s e t t l e l i a b i l i t i e s i n c u r r e d i n commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s . "
8 7

The persuasive

argument than

advanced the one

by

Lord in

Diplock the

seemed

more

offered

Birch

Shipping execution

Corporation. has been

For t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s i n r e s p e c t of uniform in granting immunity from

quite

enforcement the

measures even where t h e p l e a f o r immunity had been d e n i e d by

B V e r f GE, V o l 4 6 p. 342, o r s e e U.N. Materials j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f s t a t e and t h e i r p r o p e r t y (1982) Leg. Ser B/20 p. 297.
8 7

86

on St

(1984) AC

580;

640.
241

forum

state.

I t was

only

of

recent

legislation

and

practice

t h a t immunity t o enforcement measures seemed t o be r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e U.S., e.g., 1 6 1 0 ( a ) , t h e U.K. Sec. 1 3 ( 4 ) , Canada S e c . 1 1 ( 1 ) , respectively. normally e.g., still grant But s t i l l immunity a in

P a k i s t a n , Singapore greater respect Brazil, support from number of of

and South A f r i c a , c o u n t r i e s would measures, Again,

enforcement

China,

Soviet

Union, would states

Syria, the

Sudan, e t c . that

others arguably to foreign to

view

immunity be only

accorded with

enforcement for a

measures public

regard jure

property This, i s to be

designated

purposeacta

imperii.

however, l e a v e s open t h e q u e s t i o n as to how be characterised by the as r e g a r d s lex law? fori

a bank a c c o u n t

enforcement measures. or by put, the the standards evaluation Corporation the waiver

I s i t to of of

done

general the bank simply runs law. this in

international account of

Simply in

Tanzania and the

Birch

Shipping

was simply

inadequate counter to

issue

regarding

state

practice,

i . e . , general

international

L e g i s l a t i o n per thorny question

se i s t h e r e f o r e not a panacea t o r e s o l v i n g of waiver. Hence c o u r t s must be eclectic

c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s e l u s i v e s u b j e c t matter.

The R e p u b l i c of Guinea In Maritime

88

b e f o r e American Courts the

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Nominees E s t a b l i s h m e n t v. the p e t i t i o n e r a L i e c h t e n s t e i n Guinea entered into an

Republic of Guinea, and the Republic

corporation for the

of

agreement

I L Reports

1982

p.

535.
242

establishment

of

company

geared

towards

t h e shipment

of

b a u x i t e mined i n Guinea clause amicably which stated

t o t h e U.S..

The agreement c o n t a i n e d a were be the t o be resolved "by

that

a l l disputes which

through

arbitration by

must of

conducted

arbitrators

selected

the President

International
8 9

Centre f o r Settlement of Investment happened States, that ICSID i s located D.C.,

Disputes

(ICSID)."

I t so

i n the capital

of the United Rule 13 o f

Washington,

"and i n c o n f o r m i t y

with

ICSID's Rules of Procedure of i t s tribunals

f o r A r b i t r a t i o n Proceedings,

sessions suit i s

a r e h e l d i n Washington u n l e s s a n o t h e r by I C S I D . "

agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s and approved

The

company

that

was

formed

was

known

as

Societe

d'Economie Mixte de T r a n s p o r t s M a r i t i m e s to

(SOTRAMAR) and i t was A dispute

have a " c i v i l p e r s o n a l i t y and f i n a n c i a l autonomy."

a r o s e between t h e two p a r t i e s , the the petitioner Liechtenstein. that

i . e . , t h e R e p u b l i c o f Guinea and The p e t i t i o n e r thereupon asked

R e p u b l i c o f Guinea settled

i t be g i v e n an a p p r o v a l t o have t h e B u t t h e humble r e q u e s t the petitioner t o s e e k an

dispute fell

through

arbitration. prompted

on deaf

ears.

This

o r d e r t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e U.S. A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 9 USC 1 e t s e q 1976. Although adequate notice was g i v e n t o Guinea never

Guinea a s t o t h e d a t e and p l a c e o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n , "showed up" a t t h e h e a r i n g . After two years

of extensive

a r b i t r a t i o n proceedings,

an award n e v e r t h e l e s s was d u l y made i n

243

favour confirm

of

the

petitioner. and to

A petition enforce the

was

thereafter

filed

to

the

award

judgment. S h o r t l y b e f o r e At

t h e motion, G u i n e a a scheduled the date,

a s k e d f o r c o n t i n u a n c e , which was g r a n t e d . after the the continuance, Guinea have The

surprisingly jurisdiction court after of

raised over

objection that of the

c o u r t d i d not of ruled Guinea.

the

person on

republic

relying Guinea. The against Guinea:

several

authorities

a g a i n s t the

Republic

counsel

f o r Guinea,

i n order

to n e u t r a l i s e

the

odds of

i t s client,

o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g argument i n d e f e n c e

"A w a i v e r s h o u l d be found o n l y where t h e r e i s both agreement t o a r b i t r a t e i n a n o t h e r c o u n t r y and the agreement be bound by t h e l a w s of a n o t h e r c o u n t r y . "
9 0

an to

The

court replied And

that

such an

argument was t o conclude to be

"too

constricted agreeing

a to

view."

t h e r e f o r e went on that could be

that held

"by

arbitration States,

expected

i n the

United

Guinea

waived

i t s immunity b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t w i t h i n t h e
91

meaning of 28 USC is contrary usus. The court to

1605(a) (1) 1976. " general

T h i s p a r t of the law because it

ruling clearly

international

lacks

simply

followed

earlier

authorities

such

as

V e r l i n d e B.V.V. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a , L i b y a American O i l Co. v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jameehurya

92

and

of

course

9 0

Ibid., Ibid.

p.

538.

9 1

9 2

(19 8 0) DDC

11175

F.Supp.

482.
244

Ipitrade

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S.A.

v.

Federal

Republic

of

Nigeria the

to

support i t s d e c i s i o n .

S i m i l a r arguments o f f e r e d by

present i n the

w r i t e r elsewhere a g a i n s t t h e A m e r i c a n a p p r o a c h t o w a i v e r s main could also rightly be made in Maritime

International waited of the

Nominees E s t a b l i s h m e n t . for far too long before

I t a p p e a r s , however, t h a t Guinea challenging the jurisdiction immunity the a

court. have

Which means t h a t t h e p l e a been made at the but not outset, at the the the

for sovereign i.e., stage when where

should

arbitration confirmation a motion.

question

came up, being is

measure was Again it

demanded by that was the

plaintiff

through of

submitted Guinea

sanctioning to general

enforcement international that i s writs why for

measures law some

against

contrary law

because t h i s p a r t of leading courts as

i s unsettled, to the

and

have in

refused Alcorn and

sanction

enforcement cases.

measures

Philippines

Embassy

Is

Resistance

by

African

States

to

Suits

in

Foreign

Courts

Legally

Justified? pains to review in the these cases, of in one common t r e n d African the

Having taken appears states, absolute common? from? received concept

discernible and that is

pleadings a l l offered i s i t that

all

these

they How the it

their

defence

immunity r u l e . And Many where can believe

such a defence designated and

appears

p r a c t i c e be came from but

t o have come therefore that can do was the no

Europe others

through

colonialism, legibus

believe King

of princeps

solutus,
245

i . e . , the

wrong, had to Africa,

e x i s t e d i n A f r i c a l o n g b e f o r e t h e coming of Europeans
9 3

but

was oral law.

rather

passed

on

from

generation

to

generation means,

through

tradition A

r a t h e r than review of

through legal

judicial history,

i . e . , case

careful

however,

shows t h a t t h e

concept

might have been w e l l developed

by E u r o p e a n s w i t h i t s modern v e r s i o n c l e a r l y adumbrated by C h i e f Justice Exchange. have the Marshall I f this right to The in be his the classic case, that judgment then they do be in the Schooner states in

these A f r i c a n accorded

plead

immunity

foreign and the

courts? else.

answer would have t o be 1900

i n the a f f i r m a t i v e from in

nothing judicial

For before

t h e immunity of a s t a t e a b s o l u t e and and

9 4

process rooted

of a n o t h e r i n two and

s t a t e was

this

t h e main was notion century the new of

cardinal principles the e q u a l i t y of

t h a t i s the This 19th

sovereignty

states.

i d e a of states powers. 1914,

sovereign of Africa

immunity t h u s gained

came i n t o b e i n g from

before

independence

European

colonial In states.

f o r example, t h e r e e x i s t e d had 24 4, countries followed while A f r i c a independent had in

i n the w o r l d by

only

51 21

Europe

America w i t h

countries. Liberia.
93 9 5

A s i a had Egypt

2, 1922

i . e . , E t h i o p i a and and South Africa

became

Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped A f r i c a (1982) pp. 31-73; Sanders, op. c i t . , To EliasAfrica and Development of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B a s i l Davidson, The Search f o r A f r i c a (1994). S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t ; S i n c l a i r , op. c i t . ; L a u t e r p a c h t , op. cit; Brownlie, op. c i t . ; R i e s e n f e l d , Sovereign Immunity i n P e r s p e c t i v e , 1986 V a n d e r b i l t J o f T r a n s n a t i o n a l Law, V o l . 19, 1. P r i c e , op. c i t . ; J . Dugard, I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f r i c a n P e r s p e c t i v e , 1994, pp. 41-56. 246
9 5 9 4

LawA

South

became a c o u n t r y s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e war i n 1 9 2 6 . y e a r s many c o u n t r i e s

96

But over the

have g a i n e d independence i n A f r i c a , and one

i m p o r t a n t i s s u e t h a t must be c o n f r o n t e d head-on i s w h e t h e r t h e s e new A f r i c a n customary states are automatically law, i . e . , There bound by a l l t h e r u l e s o f i n existence i s unanimous laws.
9 7

international

before consensus Although

9 8

selfthat this

d e t e r m i n a t i o n was a t t a i n e d . these notion seemed states, legitimacy i.e., with

s t a t e s must be bound by a l l t h e s e had been criticised by P r o f e s s o r Granted

Tunkin, this,

h i s position can these the law,

t o be i n t h e m i n o r i t y . after of having any new gained emerging

then

independence, customary immunity? i s clearly

challenge

international The answer explained

t h e concept some

of r e s t r i c t i v e And this

i s yes by Dr.

exceptions.

Akehurst as follows:
" P r o v i d e d t h a t t h e s t a t e opposes t h e r u l e i n t h e e a r l y days of the r u l e ' s e x i s t e n c e ( o r f o r m a t i o n ) and m a i n t a i n s i t s opposition.consistently thereafter."
9 9

Thus

any

opposition will

that

comes This

after

the

rule

had

been

established

not count.

i s further

supported

by Dr.

V i l l i g e r i n the following

f o r m u l a t e d words:

"A customary r u l e does n o t a r i s e and e x i s t a t once a n d for a l l . R a t h e r , t h e r u l e h a s t o be c o n f i r m e d r e p e a t e d l y by i n s t a n c e s o f s t a t e p r a c t i c e m e e t i n g c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and a c c o m p a n i e d by opinio juris. Now state practice not only c r e a t e s and c o n f i r m s t h e r u l e , b u t a l s o c o n s t a n t l y defines i t s

96

Dugard, op. c i t . , p. 62. S e e A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . , p.

97

T u n k i n , Remarks on t h e J u r i d i c a l N a t u r e o f Customary Norms i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1961) 49 C a l i f L Rev 419, 428.

99

98

S e e A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . , p. 24. 247

content. I f the substance of state the content o f t h e customary r u l e . "

practice

changes,

so w i l l

He

concluded

by

saying

that

" i fa

state

opposes

c u s t o m a r y r u l e from t h e e a r l y s t a g e s onwards, t h e s t a t e w i l l not be the bound qua p e r s i s t e n t objector.

1 0 0

And i f many s t a t e s

object,

r u l e w i l l never a r i s e . " In the l i g h t

of the writings

of these

leading

scholars,

one the that The has

may not be wrong i n a r g u i n g t h a t

these A f r i c a n

s t a t e s have

r i g h t t o c h a l l e n g e any emerging customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n one way o r t h e o t h e r concept of r e s t r i c t i v e well affects their general interest.

immunity appears t o be emerging but i n the practice h i s position of s t a t e s .

1 0 1

n o t y e t been

grounded

Professor practice carefully

Brownlie, of states

i n making i n respect that

known

as to the principle, a trend still

of the r e s t r i c t i v e there

observed

although

i s currently

toward t h e r e s t r i c t i v e accept the doctrine

p r i n c i p l e , a t l e a s t many c o u n t r i e s
102

of a b s o l u t e immunity.

I n o t h e r words, t h e

r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p l e does n o t have s u f f i c i e n t s u p p o r t o f n a t i o n states the world over, a s t o be g e n e r a l l y i s therefore considered customary established

international practice gives that

law.

There

an a l r e a d y

c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p l e , and t h i s states the right to challenge its legitimacy

dissenting

w h e r e v e r i t may be a p p l i e d . states,
100.

These A f r i c a n

s t a t e s and many o t h e r

therefore,

could r e s i s t

t h e r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p l e a s of

Villiger, See

op. c i t r pp.

38-39.

101

Ushakov, op. c i t . p. 328. 248

102

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t

right

because

the doctrine

of absolute

immunity

i s n o t dead therefore, as to

accurate. make

I t would not s e r v e by simply

any good purpose, relying on

predictions

conjecture,

many

scholars sovereign delve

have done i n p r e d i c t i n g immunity, without

t h e demise o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f taking pains to seriously

first

i n t o t h e p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s t h e w o r l d o v e r . A Russian scholar, Dr. Ushakov, of t h e argument i n h i s studies alluded of this took

subject

and i n r e s p e c t

t o above,

i s s u e w i t h Dr. S u c h a r i t k u l , t h e S p e c i a l R a p p o r t e u r , a s f o l l o w s :
"The p o s i t i o n and p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s a r e t h u s by no means uniform. No c o n c l u s i o n whatsoever c a n be drawn from them a s t o any emerging t r e n d i n f a v o u r o f t h e c o n c e p t o f l i m i t e d i m m u n i t y . At the very least, the matter calls for further in-depth study."
1 0 3

Many A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s have v o i c e d principle challenge of restrictive immunity and

their opposition inexorably

to the to

moving of a

i t s l e g a l b a s i s and t h e r e countries have taken

i s no e v i d e n c e to codify

trend rule

where t h e s e

steps

the s a i d

e x c e p t South A f r i c a , which o f l a t e had f o l l o w e d the West by e n a c t i n g African asserted

the footsteps of And t h o s e courts right have

1 0 4

t h e r u l e i n t o h e r s t a t u t e books. i n foreign of a l e g a l immunity.

s t a t e s sued by p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s their claims to the e x i s t e n c e

or

rule derived acts, states

from t h e d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n concretely be

Can t h e s e African as state

a s s e r t i o n s or pleadings before national

made by t h e s e characterised

authorities

103

Ushakov, op. c i t . , p.

56. Nigeria, Zambia,

See supra the private claims i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t T a n z a n i a , Guinea, Congo, L i b y a , Uganda, Egypt, T u n i s i a , and Mozambique, e t c . 249

1 0 4

practice? interest inferred issue by the

Some

leading in

scholars respect of

1 0 5

have state

answered practice

yes, can

for be the

articulation from

of

the conduct

states.

Inevitably,

however,

as t o whether

a s t a t e has

acceded and

to a p a r t i c u l a r uncertainties and

custom over These

i t s conduct years had

creates featured

difficulties well to

i n transnational resist the

litigation.

African

countries

seemed

restrictive

principle to follow juris

because i t l a c k s usus and t h e r e f o r e it. I n o t h e r words,

f e l t not o b l i g a t e d element

the psychological

o f opinio

sive necessitatis

i s lacking.

The

resistance

of A f r i c a n

states

to p r i v a t e

suits

in

foreign

courts (1)

warrants the f o l l o w i n g The purpose

conclusions. i s t o e n a b l e i t s c i t i z e n s to so i n a s e n s e , t h e and political over

of the s t a t e

d e v e l o p t o become t h e i r b e s t s e l v e s , end of the thus state is both a

ethical

(public), pain'.

promoting

'surplus of of the

of p l e a s u r e state

The

main the

functions

therefore stability for that i t is public

comprise, welfare matter endowed good.

maintenance

security, The state,

and never with

economic acts as a

growth. private IMPERII

person to

because the

POTESTAS

promote

D'Amato, The c o n c e p t o f Custom i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1971); H.W.A. T h i r l w a y , International Customary Law and C o d i f i c a t i o n (1972); V i l l i g e r , op. c i t . ; M. A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . 250

(2)

The

relations

between

Sovereign

states

in

International equals as

Law a r e based on PAX C I V I L I S states). Thus a state

( i e between will to

certainly

surrender the

a fundamental r i g h t

i f i t i s subjected court or forced

j u r i s d i c t i o n of a foreign suit t o defend i t s e l f

by a

private

before natural

judicial

authorities. (3) Restrictive because JURIS, states, perfect argue immunity i s not an International practice other Law

i t lacks hence

USUS - s e t t l e d states

and OPINIO developing have a

African

and

directly right that as

affected subjects be

by t h e s a i d of

rule,

International immunity. And

Law t o these prevent

they

accorded practice

arguments the (4) Most

are state

and t h u s

could

ANIMUS o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity from g e r m i n a t i n g . African and no states ANIMUS general are therefore of Sovereign saying immunity to that the

CORPUS because

survived support

practice In

h a s emerged words,

restrictive

immunity.

other

restrictive

immunity c o u l d r i g h t l y o n l y be r e g a r d e d a s an e m e r g i n g principle. (5) The p r i v i l e g e s and i m m u n i t i e s o f D i p l o m a t i c a g e n t s a n d missions LEGES under t h e Vienna and thus Conventions was have become the

SPECIALES,

derived

from

principle license the

o f NE IMPEDIATUR LEGATIO. T h i s

means t h a t b y t o t h e laws o f to

t h e ambassador i s n o t amenable and t h e r e f o r e n o t under

forum

any o b l i g a t i o n

accept state

a is

service being

of sued

process, in the

that

i s , i f the state.

sending These

receiving

i d e a s w i l l be e x p l o r e d i n d e t a i l

i n the next c h a p t e r .

252

CHAPTER S I X THE PRACTICE OF AFRICAN STATES IN THE MATTER OF JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF STATES: I S I T S T I L L ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR RESTRICTIVE IMMUNITY?

Introduction Many position Their quite there would no doubt states be on wondering the s t a t e as to the current

of A f r i c a n

immunity

controversy. practice is that court

curiosity scanty

i s understandable, And

because s t a t e

i n the region. of national

t h i s i s due t o t h e f a c t municipal

i s paucity

l e g i s l a t i o n and

decisions

on t h e s u b j e c t .

I t i s therefore

the purpose o f t h i s of

s t u d y t o e x p l o r e t h e r u l e o f s t a t e immunity and the p r a c t i c e states in Africa and p o s s i b l y the f a c t

t o l a y down a framework o f l e g a l that resistance to p r i v a t e courts to or suits foreign

theories

to support

brought a g a i n s t national

African

s t a t e s before foreign arguably be

authorities

can

construed

represent

state practice the

i n a s much a s t h e s e A f r i c a n

s t a t e s i n one way o r from g e n e r a l non habet

o t h e r appear t o be making law, par i . e . , the

claims duly derived maxim par in

international imperium we to delve or into

parent

in parent non habet

jurisdictionem.

But b e f o r e first in

t h e above mentioned i s s u e s , fact that sovereign

i t i s apposite had

explore

the

immunity

existed

Africa

i n a form o f o r a l

customary t r a d i t i o n a l law long

before

Europeans s e t foot

on the C o n t i n e n t .

253

P r e - C o l o n i a l A f r i c a and E a r l y A f r i c a n D y n a s t i e s Africa i s an o l d w o r l d and i t s civilization p r e c e d e s many

ancient c i v i l i z a t i o n s . states well from

The h i s t o r y o f famous i n d i g e n o u s A f r i c a n incidentally unravelled by however, has not But been over

300-1500 A.D., fully

documented and

historians.

the y e a r s some h i s t o r i a n s e a g e r i n s e a r c h o f knowledge on

Africa

have indeed uncovered v e r y i m p o r t a n t h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s hidden i n the archaeological remains of such a n c i e n t indigenous African Songhai. offered a

s t a t e s as Egypt, E t h i o p i a , Ghana, Kenem-Bornu, M a l i and Basil Davidson, i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n on A f r i c a n history,

forceful explanation thus:

"And kingdoms i n A f r i c a a r e , i n d e e d , among the o l d e s t p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s anywhere. They emerge i n A f r i c a from times even b e f o r e time began. They loom o u t o f t h e m i s t s o f a n t i q u i t y l i k e t h e unknown g h o s t s o f a n c e s t r a l n a t i o n s t h a t have no c e r t a i n p l a c e o r name, and y e t a r e n o t t o be d e n i e d . And t h e deeper the p r o b i n g s o f modern scholarship, t h e more t h e s e 'ghosts' of r o y a l a u t h o r i t y a c q u i r e f a c t and p r e s e n c e , f o r we l i v e h a p p i l y i n a p e r i o d when o l d p r e j u d i c e b e g i n s t o g i v e way to new u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g , p e r h a p s above a l l , t h a t t h e h i s t o r y o f humankind i s a s i n g l e g r e a t r i v e r i n t o which a myriad t r i b u t a r i e s f l o w . "
1

Davidson's p o s i t i o n has been s u p p o r t e d by R. Maury, W a l t e r Rodney,

4

R.S.

Smith,

Henri Labouret,

to mention a

few.

^ a s i l Davidson, The S e a r c h f o r A f r i c a (1994) p. 19. This book i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f A f r i c a n h i s t o r y . R. Maury, B u l l e t i n IX (1947).

3 2

d'l

Institut

Francaise

d'Africa

Noire

R.S. Smith, The Kingdom o f Y o r u b a Walter Rodney, How Europe

(London,

1969). Africa

See (1982) .
5

Underdeveloped

See Henri L a b o u r e t , A f r i c a B e f o r e t h e White Man (1962). See a l s o USSR I n s t i t u t e o f H i s t o r y , A H i s t o r y o f A f r i c a (19181967). 254

T.O. E l i a s a l s o t e l l s us t h a t :
" E x a m p l e s o f some famous d y n a s t i e s a r e t h a t o f KanemB o r n u i n n o r t h - e a s t e r n N i g e r i a w h i c h h a s had r u l e r s i n unbroken succession f o r 1,000 y e a r s u n t i l t h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; a g a i n , Songhai d y n a s t y l a s t e d some 800 y e a r s . "
6

It

i s true

that

neolithic

African

dynasties

have

had

tremendous

influence

on t h e r e s t

of A f r i c a .

But t h i s

e r a or

epoch soon gave way t o t h e development o f new i d e a s which s p r e a d s o u t h w a r d and westward, c r y s t a l l i s i n g political bonds of philosophies union. political political powerful i n t o d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and kinship along along soon and

which were w h o l l y c o n d i t i o n e d on of these societies others developed developed

Some

horizontal centralised grew into

structures structures. dynasties

while
7

These by

kinship chiefs,

groups kings

ruled

e m p e r o r s , whose p o s i t i o n s of these s o c i e t i e s served and strength

were h e l d

sacred.

The k i n g o r emperor unity, a

as the a x i s

of t h e p o l i t i c a l There or was

identity sacred

of the r u l e d . between the king

therefore

relationship

emperor

and i t s

subjects.

Some C o n c r e t e Examples o f P e r s o n a l Ancient oldest of culture oldest Egypt, according to

Sovereigns recorded history, had t h e

i n Africa. cultures

A c c o r d i n g t o h i s t o r i a n s , i t was one in the history of mankind.

8

the

The

Law,

T.O. E l i a s , A f r i c a op. c i t . , p. 13.

7

and t h e Development

of

International

S e e W a l t e r Rodney, op. c i t . , pp. 33-71. See a l s o Walter

S e e B a s i l Davidson, op. c i t . , p. 19-25. Rodney, op. c i t . , pp. 33-71. 255

civilization
9

of pharaonic

Egypt

could

thus

be t r a c e d

back t o

3500 B.C., but i t s c o n t i n u e d growth was d e s t r o y e d by t h e Romans when they extended their hegemony to the northern part of

Africa.

The l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e p h a r a o h s ,
1 0

a s we a l l know, was

s a c r e d and a b s o l u t e . Egypt

had p o w e r f u l

dynasties,

e.g., t h e F a t i m i d succession

dynasty

(969 A.D. t o 1170 A.D.), had an unbroken who e s t a b l i s h e d a powerful central

of leaders

government.

The p o l i t i c a l

power o f t h e F a t i m i d d y n a s t y was a b s o l u t e and i t s d e c r e e s were s u c h t h a t i t cannot be c h a l l e n g e d o r c o n t r o v e r t e d . members o f t h e d y n a s t y ownership. and a to c o l l e c t I t appointed

t a x e s and t o s u p e r v i s e land

The d y n a s t y t h u s a c t e d a s t h e e x e c u t i v e , l e g i s l a t u r e The s u c c e e d i n g d y n a s t i e s o f Ayyubids and t h e

judge.

Mameluks a l s o w i e l d e d a b s o l u t e powers w h i c h were g r e a t l y used i n the building of "canals, dams, bridges

11

and aqueducts

and i n

s t i m u l a t i n g commerce w i t h The the first civilization

Europe."

of E t h i o p i a
12

can a l s o

be t r a c e d

back t o

c e n t u r y A.D.,

when t h e Kingdom o f Axum was founded.

F e u d a l E t h i o p i a was t h e r e f o r e born o u t o f Axum d y n a s t y which had a Sabean o r i g i n .

Lion

A c c o r d i n g t o W a l t e r Rodney,

"The Emperor o f E t h i o p i a was a d d r e s s e d a s 'Conquering o f t h e T r i b e o f Judah, E l e c t o f God, E m p e r o r o f E t h i o p i a ,

S e e B a s i l Davidson, op. c i t . , p. 319, where he was a b l e t o t r a c e t h e h i s t o r y o f Egypt i n d e t a i l . B a s i l Davidson and W a l t e r Rodney h a v e p o w e r f u l p o s i t i o n o f t h e Pharaoh i n their Davidson, op. c i t . ; W. Rodney, op. c i t .
11 1 0

a l l confirmed t h e writings: Basil

S e e Walter Rodney, op. c i t . , Ibid. 256

p. 49.

1 2

King o f Kings.' not u n b r o k e n . "

In practice,

however,

t h e 'Solomonic' l i n e was

13

Feudal position control Again sacred

Ethiopia

was

ruled

by

royal

family judges

1 4

whose

was a b s o l u t e . over

The emperor

appointed

and had

t h e army and many o t h e r governmental between t h e emperor was

institutions.

the r e l a t i o n s h i p and absolute.

and t h e r u l e d was of K i n g s " and from

The emperor were not l i m i t e d

"King

therefore

h i s powers

by any other power

w i t h i n o r from w i t h o u t . over the empire and was by

The Amharic d y n a s t y had o v e r a l l c o n t r o l consolidating culture.

1 5

i t s power

base

through

Christianity kingdom family. The 300-1087 thus

literate done

Everything

within the

to g l o r i f y

t h e emperor

and i t s r o y a l

Ghana A. D.
16

Empire,

according

to historians,

existed

from

According

t o Dr. Rodney,

i t was made up o f

strong lineage kings or chiefs, army. The emperor appointed

and competent commanders of t h e

s u b - c h i e f s o f t h e p r o v i n c e s , who Besides these ranging from powerful of a

were men o f g r e a t l e a r n i n g offices judge, there were also

and o f God. offices

other

that

traditional

communication p e r s o n n e l

who were r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f t h e law o r t h e command of t h e k i n g o r chief. Dr. Rodney s a y s ,

"The W e s t e r n S u d a n i c e m p i r e s o f Ghana, M a l i and Songhai have become b y words i n t h e s t r u g g l e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e achievements

1 3

Ibid., Ibid. Ibid.,

p. 50.

1 4

1 5

p. 50. op. c i t . , pp. 6-7, 7. 257

16

T.O. E l i a s ,

of the African past. That i s the area t o which A f r i c a n n a t i o n a l i s t s and p r o g r e s s i v e w h i t e s p o i n t when t h e y want t o prove that Africans too were capable of political, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and m i l i t a r y g r e a t n e s s i n t h e e p o c h b e f o r e t h e w h i t e men."
17

Under t h e Ghana Empire, t h e k i n g was endowed w i t h a b s o l u t e power and t h e members o f h i s r u l i n g c o u n c i l were a l s o r e s p e c t e d and

t h e r e f o r e were beyond reproach. empire was v e r y powerful power and of the king

The p o s i t i o n o f t h e head o f t h e knows no o t h e r superior. The

and thus

was i n a l i e n a b l e , By v i r t u e

imprescriptible, invisible attributes from the king of

exclusive. Ghana

of these

ancient

was e n t i t l e d

to obedience

every

citizen.

Although t h e r e were o t h e r s a c r e d a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e empire, however, a l l t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f power d e r i v e d t h e i r a u t h o r i t y d i r e c t l y from t h e k i n g .

1 8

These s a i d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a b s o l u t e power were commonly associated with Mali Empire t h e Pharaonic t h e Songhai enormous era, the Ethiopian dynasties, the Empire. power and The thus of local could princep sovereign not be

and

therefore impleaded. solutus law,

wielded

Historically

the p r i n c i p l e

legibus

o r t h e k i n g can do no wrong, o r t h e k i n g

i s above t h e

o r t h e law i s t h e command o f t h e k i n g , authority before of the king. This legal Africa.

represents the idea

1 9

absolute Africa

existed i n

long

Europeans took over

But the idea

" W a l t e r Rodney, op. c i t . ,

1 8

p. 56.

H e n r i Labouret, op. c i t . , where a t h o r o u g h historical a n a l y s i s i s p r e s e n t e d of o l d A f r i c a , d e t a i l i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f k i n g s and c h i e f s . Basil Davidson, The A f r i c a n A n t i q u i t y t o Modern Times (1964). 258
1 9

Past,

Chronicles

from

did

not

develop

into

substantive form of

law

backed by

case

law.

It, on of an

however, e x i s t e d i n a from g e n e r a t i o n pharaonic to

a legal
2 0

oral tradition during the the

passed epoch

generation. Ethiopian

In fact, and

Dynasty,

dynasty

Ghana i f he court.

Empire, ever And

i n d i v i d u a l would c e r t a i n l y be to implead the k i n g simply impossible

risking his l i f e

tried i t was

o r t h e emperor i n h i s own

f o r an i n d i v i d u a l i n a n o t h e r kingdom or empire leader of the Empire of Ghana i n the l e a d to war

21

to dare implead the court

local and

of h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n .

Such a c t i o n s c o u l d

t h e r e f o r e were n e v e r e n c o u r a g e d or c o n t e m p l a t e d . The a result of introduction of o f European j u r i s p r u d e n c e however, example, reinforced shows t h a t

i n t o A f r i c a , as the the idea. The

colonialism, for

history princeps Thus

Ethiopia,

p r i n c i p l e of times.
22

legibus

solutus

c o u l d be t r a c e d back t o a n c i e n t did the have their own of

certain

African

peoples before The law,

concept colonies

of in

absolute Africa law, by

sovereignty Europeans. civil law into of

establishment of the

introduction Spanish law,

E n g l i s h common law and

French

Roman-Dutch the so

Portuguese modern

Africa,

however, immunity,

redefined which has

classical f a r become
23

notion

sovereign

entrenched i n the p r a c t i c e of A f r i c a n s t a t e s u n t i l today. A.F.C. (1969).

21 20

J.E. London

Ryder,

Benin

and

the

European

(1485-1877)

Bruce Williams, Forebears of Menes i n Nubia: Myth or Reality? J o u r n a l o f Near E a s t e r n S t u d i e s 46 No. 1 (1987); B a s i l Davidson, op. c i t . ; W. Rodney, op. c i t . The h i s t o r i e s of Egypt, support the s a i d p r i n c i p l e .
23 22

Ethiopia,

Ghana,

Mali,

Songhai

See

T.O.

Elias,

J u d i c i a l Process, 259

op.

c i t . , for a

clear

Casely

Hayford

i n order

t o put t h e r e c o r d

straight

succinctly

p o s t u l a t e d i n 1922 t h a t
" B e f o r e even t h e B r i t i s h own i d e a s o f government." came i n t o
24

r e l a t i o n s w i t h our people,

we

were a d e v e l o p e d p e o p l e h a v i n g our own i n s t i t u t i o n s , h a v i n g o u r

The

Colonial E r a The s c r a m b l e f o r A f r i c a and t h e p e r i o d o f c o l o n i a l a wholesale introduction

2 5

rule i n l a w and

Africa

witnessed

of European

international signed Africa, English greater

law i n t o A f r i c a . European

These took t h e form o f t r e a t i e s and t h e i n d i g e n o u s traditional leaders

2 6

between

powers

of The took and

i . e . , the chiefs and t h e F r e n c h , share of the

and o t h e r i n fact, colonised

leaders.

as the h i s t o r y territories of

shows, Africa

t h e r e f o r e had g r e a t e r commercial, social

s p h e r e s of i n f l u e n c e matters

i n economic, that affected

legal, these

and p o l i t i c a l
27

overseas dependencies.

a n a l y s i s of the process into Africa.

2 4

o f how European

laws

were

introduced

C f . , W a l t e r Rodney, op. c i t . , p. 33; C a s e l y H a y f o r d was a l e a d i n g Ghanaian a c t i v i s t o r n a t i o n a l i s t . T.O. E l i a s , A f r i c a and Development o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1988) pp. 17-23; same author, The J u d i c i a l Process i n Commonwealth A f r i c a (1977) pp. 1-24. T.O. E l i a s , A f r i c a and t h e Development o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, pp. 3-18; George Padmore, A f r i c a , How B r i t a i n R u l e s A f r i c a (1936). Rodney, How Europe Under-Developed A f r i c a Anane and G o d f r e y Brown, A f r i c a i n N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r i e s (1970). 260
27 26 25

(1982); Joseph and T w e n t i e t h

The

rule

over

African

territories

was

established
2 8

p r i m a r i l y by a n n e x a t i o n a n d c o n q u e s t but a l s o by c e s s i o n . then gave the various European powers the a u t h o r i t y

This

t o manage

the a f f a i r s o f t h e c o l o n i e s t h a t came under t h e i r The Spanish and the Portuguese also

sway. had overseas dwindled for of

dependencies when the

i n Africa,

but t h e i r powers

spheres of i n f l u e n c e entered the

other Thus

European

"scramble the sphere

Africa."

between

1 6 t h and

18th c e n t u r i e s

i n f l u e n c e o f S p a i n and P o r t u g a l became somewhat m i n i m a l , would Spain, America and appear these two had countries to deal had with a divided

for i t
2 9

attention.

f o r example,

her i n t e r e s t

i n Latin Brazil though

w h i l e P o r t u g a l expended areas of interest

some o f h e r e n e r g i e s on around t h e globe, even

other

history a t t e s t s to the f a c t

t h a t t h e f i r s t voyage t o t h e A f r i c a n
30

C o n t i n e n t was u n d e r t a k e n by t h e P o r t u g u e s e .

See T.O. E l i a s ' a r t i c l e Development, e d i t e d by H i l d e r 184-196.

2 9

i n A f r i c a n Law: A d a p t a t i o n and Kuper and Leo Kuper (1965) pp.

Ibid.

S e e Dr. Nkrumah, The C h a l l e n g e o f t h e Congo (1974) pp. 16; s e e A l s o F.D. L u g a r d , The Portuguese Africa, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press (1959). 261

30

THE PATTERN OF BALKANIZATION OF AFRICA ACCORDING TO COLONIAL POWER BOUNDARIES A. Former B r i t i s h C o l o n i e s Ghana Nigeria S i e r r a Leone Botswana Egypt Cameroon/British French Malawi Kenya Gambia Lesotho Sudan Swaziland South A f r i c a Uganda Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe Mauricius

B. Former French C o l o n i e s Algeria Benin B u r k i n a Faso Senegal Cameroon/French British Central African Madagascar Mali Chad Camoros Republic Niger Mauritania Morocco Seychelles Djibouti Togo Gabon Guinea Ivory Congo Tunisia Coast

262

c.

Former S p a n i s h

Colonies

S p a n i s h Sahara S p a n i s h Guinea o r E q u a t o r i a l G u i n e a I t appears t h e F r e n c h and S p a n i s h r u l e d Canary I s l a n d s and Madagascar one time o r a n o t h e r . ( T h i s may a p p l y t o o t h e r F r e n c h territories.)

Former P o r t u g u e s e Angola Cape Verde

Colonies Bissau

Guinea

Mozambique

Former B e l g i a n C o l o n i e s Z a i r e n o w t h e R e p u b l i c o f Congo Rwanda Burundi

Former I t a l i a n Somalia

Colonies

B r i e f o c c u p a t i o n o f E t h i o p i a by f o r c e o f arms Libya

263

G. Former German (1) N a m i b i a l a t e r g i v e n system Colonies

t o South A f r i c a under t h e mandate

(2) T a n z a n i a f o r some time b e f o r e mandate t e r r i t o r y

i t was

given t o the B r i t i s h

as

(3) T r a n s v o l t a T o g o l a n d f o r some time b e f o r e b e i n g g i v e n t o B r i t i s h as a t r u s t t e r r i t o r y

the

H. American and British/Dutch Colonies

L i b e r i a f o r m e r American c o l o n y S o u t h A f r i c a - - f o r m e r B r i t i s h / D u t c h colony E r i t r e a f o r m e r l y p a r t of E t h i o p i a i s snow independent succession) (state

How

t h e E n g l i s h V e r s i o n of S o v e r e i g n

Immunity Found I t s Way

into

Africa The principles into her British and colonial policy created room to be for the

p r a c t i c e s of E n g l i s h common law And the p r i n c i p l e s of the UK were

introduced law into

colonies. in the
3 1

international introduced eclectic

grounded these

p r a c t i c e of The British gave

also quite

colonies. and law run

Crown was deference

in i t s to

approach African not to

31

therefore and

or

due

recognition

s u c h immemorial customs and to her colonial

usages t h a t

appear law

counter

policy.

English

T.O. E l i a s , The J u d i c i a l P r o c e s s i n Commonwealth A f r i c a (1977) pp. 1-18, 59-78; T.O. E l i a s , B r i t i s h C o l o n i a l Law (1962); A.N. A l l o t t , E s s a y s i n A f r i c a n Law (1960); E l i a s , The A d a p t a t i o n o f I m p o r t e d Law i n A f r i c a , J o u r n a l of A f r i c a n Law 1960 v o l . I V no. 2 . 264

therefore Sierra

was

introduced

i n t o such c o u n t r i e s Malawi,

a s Ghana,

Nigeria, Sudan, Zambia or

Leone, Gambia, Botswana, Uganda, Tanzania,

3 2

Kenya,

Lesotho, and

Swaziland,

Zimbabwe, recognition

Mauricius, given

through i n d i r e c t r u l e . customary law

The

t o A f r i c a n law somewhat

in British

colonial territories

created which e.g.,

what some would s i m p l y r e g a r d in turn gave birth to

as " p a r a l l e l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , " of conflict of laws, law.

33

problems

i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t of l a w s and p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l With represented respect these to foreign as b e s t affairs, as the

British As Judge

Crown Elias

colonies

i t could.

puts i t s u c c i n c t l y :
"Once t h e v a r i o u s powers had p a r c e l l e d out t h e C o n t i n e n t and c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e i r b o u n d a r i e s by i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r e a t i e s , t h e existing sovereignties of the old kingdoms and city states became submerged under t h e new s o v e r e i g n t i e s o f t h e metropolitan powers. . . . I n v i e w o f t h e s u b s t i t u t e d s o v e r e i g n t i e s of t h e European s t a t e s f o r t h o s e of t h e t e r r i t o r i e s g r o u p e d i n t o t h e new political aggregations, the historical modes of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e r c o u r s e were c l o s e d t o t h e s e i n d i g e n o u s s t a t e s and kingdoms. The new e x t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s became a m a t t e r of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, i d e n t i f i e d with t h o s e of European rulers. Boundary and trade agreements were concluded between the m e t r o p o l i t a n powers b a s e d i n E u r o p e . "
3 4

Thus save a few later Nigeria,

3 5

territories, were

namely, S o u t h e r n R h o d e s i a or given some b a s e d on

and

which

allowed

limited powers

latitude

to a c t i n r e s p e c t delegated

of e x t e r n a l the

affairs

specifically

from

British

government,

external

32

See E l i a s Ibid. See E l i a s ,

( j u d i c i a l process)

(1974) pp.

1-18.

3 3

34

A f r i c a and

Development o f

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

p.

19. See Sanders, International Context (1979) p. 70. 265

35

Jurisprudence

in

African

affairs hands of

in

one

way said

or

the

other

remained
36

exclusively British

i n the on in

the

colonial

power. the

Thus

policy

international the colonies

law as

applied with in

same f o r c e and v a l i d i t y
J

Westminster took

( i n UK) . '

This

means

that law
38

whatever was that The

position Britain

i n r e s p e c t of i n t e r n a t i o n a l of these c o l o n i e s en ceded or

r e c e i v e d i n t o municipal i s , whether doctrine of these

laws

block,

c o l o n i e s be immunity

settled, was

annexed. into the

sovereign through

truly

introduced through

commonwealth

Africa

indirect

rule

(i.e.,

Crown C o l o n y System o f government t h u s :

The K i n g o r Queen

The i n f l u e n c e o f British public opinion

The S e c r e t a r y o f State f o r the Colonies

P o l i c y Statements coming from Westminster

The G o v e r n o r - - r e s i d e n t

i n the Colonies

The L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l (in the Colonies)

Executive Council (in the C o l o n i e s )

I n o t h e r words, into which

t h e d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n immunity found i t s way Africa in through these the s t r u c t u r e of It government was also

commonwealth was

instituted

territories.

3 6

Ibid. Ibid. Elias, J u d i c i a l P r o c e s s pp. 266 1-18,

3 7

38

introduced common law, The Cabinet all

i n t o A f r i c a through o r d e r i . e . , through stare Secretary of State

i n c o u n c i l or

through

the

decisis. for the for given Colonies, the everyday normally running powers a of and

minister,

was

responsible He was

colonial territories. had the of

supervisory

therefore the him

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Colonies. His

informing legal

Parliament also

about gave

conditions

position

powers to a d v i s e the K i n g or t h e Queen on (who were i n a c t u a l f a c t

t h e appointment o f the

governors King). The

a p p o i n t e d i n t h e name of

governor

represented

the

Crown

in

matters

of

government. the be,

His d u t i e s were t o f o r m u l a t e and and discipline civil of civil

execute and

policies; i f need and a

appointment the

servants;

d i s m i s s a l of t h e s e of the

servants, These

i n c l u d i n g judges civil servants as

other

officers

judiciary.

m a t t e r of B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n h e l d o f f i c e at the the pleasure of the and Crown. The

in British

Commonwealth over in both most

governor p r e s i d e d and therefore The

legislative

executive

councils two

c a s e s had

o v e r a l l c o n t r o l over these

bodies.

enactment assent
1

of l a w s i n the l e g i s l a t i v e c o u n c i l was the of governor which c o u l d choice or action. was

3 9

s u b j e c t to the at the

of

be

withheld The

governor s to the

freedom English executive colony. advice

governor s e e k the

according advice of

constitution

law

bound t o

c o u n c i l i n matters r e l a t i n g to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the But in fact, he had the d i s c r e t i o n e i t h e r to follow the

pp.

J.H. 14-20.

39

Price, P o l i t i c a l

Institutions

of

West A f r i c a

(1975)

267

or

reject

it,

or

simply given

follow

whatever However,

policy he must

he

thought

appropriate Secretary The

in a

case.

inform t h e

of State

i f he went beyond t h e powers granted t o him. a s c a n be s e e n , was a b s o l u t e and o f t h e Crown he was immune a s w e l l a s t h e government o f

position

o f t h e governor,

since

he r e p r e s e n t e d

the interest
4 0

from s u i t b e f o r e t h e l o c a l c o u r t s , t h e Crown C o l o n y . One English important laws into common

feature

of the reception follows an

of t h e s e invariable

Commonwealth

Africa

formula t h u s :
"The common l a w , t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t y and s t a t u t e s o f general application i n England a t a named date s h a l l be applicable i n the particular territory so f a r as local c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r m i t and i t i s n o t m o d i f i e d by e x p r e s s l o c a l legislation.
4 1

Thus,

quite

apart

from

local

legislation

English

law and

international law applied not conflict The was the with local

with f u l l legislation. law,"

f o r c e p r o v i d e d t h e s e laws do

"received into

English

i . e . , E n g l i s h common law which c o v e r e d such a r e a s o f a s procedure and law t h a t would be

introduced

commonwealth A f r i c a , and c r i m i n a l branch

law a s c i v i l

law a s w e l l of E n g l i s h

evidence useful English

and a n y o t h e r

i n the administration l a w seemed less

of the colonies.

The element o f and public of t h e

strong

i n jurisprudence appear

international Dualist

l a w b u t i t would

t h e teachings

S c h o o l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law was p r e f e r r e d

t o t h e Monist

4 0

Ibid. Elias, Judicial Process, p. 1. 268

4 1

School

of

International

Law.

42

This

practice

continued

even

a f t e r these countries I n the that in the

were g r a n t e d independence.

l i g h t of the p r e c e d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s i t i s s u b m i t t e d and content of international were about a l l the law the as practiced in the of the and

subject

England
4 3

during Thus in

colonial before

times

same

colonies.

independence Africa ex

institutions followed accepted

government doctrine of

Commonwealth

hypothesi then w e l l

absolute

immunity which was

4 4

entrenched i n B r i t i s h p r a c t i c e . It is instructive to

note

that

with

the

exception

of in

Egypt, the d o c t r i n e Commonwealth changed The of her Africa

of a b s o l u t e immunity was until by quite recently the

never challenged when South

Africa
45

position

embracing

restrictive

immunity.

r u l e of a b s o l u t e immunity i n f a c t has African

4 2

remained the the 14.

practice

countries

to

date

because op.

post-independence

Elias,

J u d i c i a l Process,

c i t . , p.

S e e The Gold Coast C o u r t s A c t of 2 4 t h day o f J u l y (1874) now r e p e a l e d , Ghana C o u r t s O r d i n a n c e : Chap. 4, S e c t i o n 83 r e a d s as f o l l o w s : " S u b j e c t t o the terms of t h i s o r any o t h e r o r d i n a n c e , t h e common law, the d o c t r i n e s o f e q u i t y and t h e s t a t u t e s o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n which were i n f o r c e i n E n g l a n d on t h e 24th day of J u l y , 1874, s h a l l be in force within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t s . " Most former English Colonies still follow English principles of law and the practice of international law. Perhaps some c o u n t r i e s of l a t e might be c h a n g i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n s in respect to E n g l i s h a u t h o r i t i e s . Ghana, N i g e r i a , Sierra Leone, Gambia, Kenya, T a n z a n i a , Zambia, S w a z i l a n d , Botswana, Zimbabwe, The Sudan, e t c . , b e f o r e independence f o l l o w e d E n g l i s h law t o the l e t t e r . See W. Bray and M. Beukes, Recent Trends in the Development of S t a t e Immunity i n South A f r i c a n Law (1981) 7 SAYIL 13 ( F o r e i g n S t a t e s Immunities A c t 1981) . 269
45 44

43

republic any

c o n s t i t u t i o n of

these

new be

African

s t a t e s d i d not court.

give The on

allowance t h a t the republican since

sovereign

sued i n i t s own simply

various this

constitutions in place the doctrine of

were s i l e n t

matter

absolute

immunity was

well

entrenched i n the s a i d c o l o n i e s p r i o r to gaining This more i s even more so b e c a u s e t h e s e in in preserving throwing their new

independence.

A f r i c a n s t a t e s are independence an or

interested than

hard-won

statehood

their

weight likely in

behind

emerging affect before the

international it. And

law

w h i c h seems h i g h l y African states

to a d v e r s e l y recent as times of

those

sued

foreign

courts of

have the

a l l vigorously foreign court

resisted

right

jurisdiction i.e., Trading Republic on the par in

b a s e d on

sovereign
6

immunity, Trendtex Federal courts

parent non v.

habet Central the

jurisdictionem.* Bank of

In the

Corporation of N i g e r i a grounds Bank to that

Nigeria,

resisted the

jurisdiction injunction failed

of E n g l i s h

Mareva of the

issued

against i t s contract was

Central contrary funds

in

respect

cement the

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law immune, The by

i n as much as

C e n t r a l Bank's i.e., J from who

were

general plea

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, favour with

execution.
46

said

found

Donaldson

Planmount L t d . v. R e p u b l i c of Z a i r e (1981) 1 A I L ER 1100 64 I L R p. 268; B i r c h S h i p p i n g Corp. v. Embassy of the U n i t e d Republic of Tanzania (1980) 507 F.Supp. 3111; The Kingdom of Morocco v. S o u e t a I m m o b i l i a r e F o r t e B a r c h e t t o (1979) 65 ILR; D e m o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c o f Congo v. Venre (1971) 22 I L R 3 r d 669 684; L i b y a American O i l Co. v. Libya (1980) 482 F.Supp. 1175; T r a n s A m e r i c a n S t e a m s h i p Corp. v. Somali D e m o c r a t i c Rep. 767 R.2d 988 1004; T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) 2 WLR 356 ( C o u r t of A p p e a l ) ; L i b y a n Arab Socialist P e o p l e ' s J a n a h i r i y a v. R u s s b e t o n SRL ( I L R 8763) I t a l y Court of C a s s a t i o n 1989; T e x a s T r a d i n g and M i l l i n g Corp. v. Fed. Rep. of N i g e r i a , 2nd C i r . A y r 16 1981 (2v I n t ' L Leg Mat L s Ono ( 1 9 8 1 ) ) . 270

ruled that

t h e i n j u n c t i o n be s e t a s i d e .

However, on a p p e a l t h e In

p l a i n t i f f was g r a n t e d l e a v e t o appeal t o t h e House o f L o r d s . t h i s r e s p e c t was T r e n d t e x decided per incuriaml to agree, but i f c a r r i e d to i t s l o g i c a l

Some a r e l i k e l y i t would

conclusion since

appear

Trendtex

was n o t d e c i d e d per incuriam

the appeal Again i n the the

c o u r t c o u l d n o t r e c o n s i d e r t h e same i s s u e s o v e r a g a i n . the Uganda Co. Holdings a L t d . v. claim Government of

o f Uganda, against

plaintiffs Government acquisition

instituted o f Uganda

indemnity

as a result

o f t h e compulsory government

d e c r e e s p a s s e d by t h e Amin government and a l s o f o r

t h e s u b r o g a t i o n o f t h e s a i d government t o a l l t h e l i a b i l i t i e s o f the two companies i n i s s u e . the writ, before arguing English thus The Ugandan that being Government quickly

challenged cannot the

a sovereign

state, i t

be sued

courts. declining

Donaldson L J found f o r to follow Trendtex,

Ugandan

Government,

because

i n h i s view

t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t

between T r e n d t e x a n d

Thai-Europe. In the l i g h t of these decisions, c a n i t be a r g u e d that

p l e a d i n g s b a s e d on customary a legal position Many before will

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law d u l y p r e s e n t e d a s as state

f o r e i g n c o u r t s be d e s i g n a t e d no a doubt further take issue with will

practice? supposition.

t h e above show that in

However,

reflection

claims or assertions regard state to a legal practice.

4 7

made i n c o n c r e t e terms or l e g a l rule

o r in abstracto

right

c a n be r e f e r r e d

to as

4 7

T h i r l w a y , op. c i t . , p. 58; A k e h u r s t , 271

op. c i t . , p. 4.

Dr. following

Akehurst

in

considering

this

subject

offers

the

explanation:

"Customary law i s created by state practice. State p r a c t i c e means any a c t o r s t a t e m e n t by a s t a t e from w h i c h v i e w about c u s t o m a r y law can be i n f e r r e d . I t includes physical acts, d e c l a r a t i o n s i n a b s t r a c t o (such as g e n e r a l assembly r e s o l u t i o n s , n a t i o n a l law, n a t i o n a l j u d g m e n t s and o m i s s i o n s . "
4 8

His as

argument or Dr. Villiger, for as

"It

explanation
4 9

i s equally
5 0

s h a r e d by Professor in

such

scholars
51

Dr.

Thirlway, also

and

Wolfke.

Dr. the

Danieleko, supposition

example, follows:

argued

support

of

was

assumed

that

custom-generating

practice

should

be made up of concrete manifestations of actual conduct i n v o l v i n g a s s e r t i o n s of a r i g h t or c l a i m which i s e n f o r c e d against other states. The concept of actual practice encompasses not o n l y a c t i v e p r a c t i c e but a l s o n e g a t i v e p r a c t i c e c o n s i s t i n g i n h a b i t u a l a b s t e n t i o n s from s p e c i f i c a c t i o n s . "
5 2

Furthermore, the

writings the

of these ICJ

learned

p u b l i c i s t s have Asylum be the were courts these were

e q u a l l y been c o n f i r m e d by Case
53

i n i t s judgment i n the Cases. said claims

5 4

and

the of

Continental the day, and then

Shelf the

If

this

consensus

pleadings

which

submitted by represent countries

Nigeria

Uganda a s or law

before E n g l i s h or what

state believe

practice to be the

legal since

position, the

said assertions

A k e h u r s t , op.
4 9

c i t . , p.

53.

Villiger,

op. c i t .

5 0

T h i r l w a y , op. c i t . W o l f k e , op. c i t . D a n i e l e k o , op. c i t . , pp. 277. 29. 85-86.

51

52

5 3

(19 5 0) I C J R e p o r t s (1985) I C J R e p o r t s

5 4

272

reflective absolute following

of

customary

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

The

doctrine

of

immunity t h e r e f o r e can be seen from t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e countries, because the said claims show how

i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s understood. and

Countries

from Commonwealth A f r i c a be a c c o r d e d

Francophone c o u n t r i e s have a l l argued t h a t t h e y

immunity.

These c o u n t r i e s have e x p r e s s e d

opinio non juris i n r e s p e c t o f

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Nigeria Libya Z a i r e n o w Republic Ethiopia Tanzania Morocco Congo Somalia o f Congo Uganda Zambia Guinea Mozambique Ivory Rep. Coast Democratique du Congo

Tunisia Algeria of f o r e i g n courts but i t

*Egypt d i d c h a l l e n g e the j u r i s d i c t i o n f o l l o w s t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

It

should in

be

observed, have

on t h e o t h e r in clear of

hand,

that

several some
55

governments preference

Africa

terms

expressed

f o r more

absolute

rule

sovereign

immunity.

See B l a u s t e i n - F l a n z , C o n s t i t u t i o n s of the Countries of the World; t h e work d e a l s w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A f r i c a n s t a t e s . F o r c o m p l a i n t s s e e Doc No. AALCC/IM/87/2, a p a p e r entitled J u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunities of s t a t e s prepared f o r a meeting of l e g a l a d v i s e r s o f t h e s e c o u n t r i e s but see g e n e r a l l y Ibou D i a i t e , Les C o n s t i t u t i o n s A f r i c a i n e s e t l e d r o i t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Annales A f r i c a i n e s (1971-72), 33-51. 273

55

Ghana,

Sierra

Leone,

Botswana,

Gambia, and

Malawi, for

Kenya,

Sudan, have is And

Swaziland, republican

Zimbabwe, M a u r i c i u s constitutions in

Cameroon, the

example, sovereign
5

which

local of

accorded a b s o l u t e the declarations

immunity i n made by

i t s spheres

operation. " OAU

these countries

b e f o r e the

suggest on

t h a t they a l l s u p p o r t a r e g i o n a l the c h a r t e r .
"(1) (2) (3) The

agreement w h o l l y p r e d i c a t e d be s t a t e d as follows:

P a r t s o f A r t i c l e 3 can

s o v e r e i g n e q u a l i t y o f a l l member s t a t e s

(4)

N o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s of s t a t e s R e s p e c t f o r t h e s o v e r e i g n and t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y of e a c h s t a t e and f o r i t s i n a l i e n a b l e r i g h t t o i n d e p e n d e n t existence Peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiations, mediation, c o n c i l i a t i o n or a r b i t r a t i o n . "

5 7

It having

must

be

stated rid

unequivocally themselves

that of

African colonial

countries rule and ready enjoy to 3

successfully faced

desperately to

w i t h the

task of nation and the

building

a r e not they 1

compromise the

their

sovereignty of states.

equality 3

among

community

Article

Section

undoubtedly r e p r e s e n t and therefore, ex

s e t t l e d u n i v e r s a l r u l e among could Article of be 3 regarded Subsection of

nation-states as l
5 8

hypothesi, law. notion of

rules

of

general restates

international the classical and

clearly i.e., the

equality

states, in some in

independence implicitly

equality

states from the

which

instances parem non

derives

i t s force

maxim par

See P.F. Gonidec, Les droite Africains (1968); independence c o n s t i t u t i o n s of t h e s e c o u n t r i e s a l s o s u p p o r t p o s i t i o n taken by the p r e s e n t w r i t e r . "See
5 8

56

the the

OAU

Charter

A r t i c l e 3.

Ibid. 274

habet of

imperium.

Article immunity.

3 Section African

5 9

i s therefore having well

a corollary signed as the

sovereign are

states,

charter,

ready

to

adopt

an

i n t e r n a l as toward the

external of their

nationalism legal

specifically The and

geared

promotion to

sovereignty. is one

sovereign

state, according and therefore and

African is no law

leaders,

indivisible i t s public was

there

distinction capacity.

between This

law

capacity from

private

idea

borrowed

national

liberation during

movements, i n v i e w of the the Cold War days

f a c t , t h a t these r a d i c a l groups leaned toward Russia. the

totally

Marxist-Leninist

teachings state

of the

former USSR, now to the

For A f r i c a n s t a t e s , a of municipal courts

i s not

amenable

jurisdiction

f o r t h e mere f a c t is legitimately the

t h a t i t has invested good with for

v e n t u r e d i n t o commerce b e c a u s e i t potestas imperil, of in order to in

promote

public

the

betterment

i t s citizens

economic, s o c i a l and Certainly,

national

building. of common as one the of law the into reasons state their

the

introduction be

Commonwealth A f r i c a c o u l d why these African

s i n g l e d out adhere to

countries

p r i n c i p l e of modulating

immunity. positions

Although respecting

European

countries

are

s t a t e immunity, i t would appear,

however, that

t h a t most A f r i c a n s t a t e s have t u r n e d a deaf e a r t o the c a l l immunity be The doctrine

5 9

restricted. countries as
60

following

of

now,

however,

follow

the

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity.

Ibid. B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , pp. 327-328.

6 0

275

These c o u n t r i e s s u p p o r t (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) South A f r i c a , e.g., Togo Madagascar Lesotho Egypt

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. i n place

has a l e g i s l a t i o n

Prior classical

to notion

1981, of

however, sovereign

South

Africa
61

did

follow

the

immunity,

concept

clearly

borrowed from E n g l i s h p r a c t i c e .

How

the French V e r s i o n of S o v e r e i g n Africa The French colonial policy

Immunity Found i t s Way

into

in Africa

followed

about

the

same p a t t e r n as t h a t o f t h e B r i t i s h .

However, t h e F r e n c h

policy of the

d i f f e r e d somewhat i n t h a t w h i l e t h e B r i t i s h indirect principle did not rule, the French, rule.

6 2

followed a policy hand, the followed French

on

the

other

of d i r e c t give any that

In other

words, to

policy in the in

r e c o g n i t i o n whatsoever came under their given

63

A f r i c a n law This

territories real law

domination. to the

means

terms t h a t no alongside

room was law.

f l o w e r i n g of A f r i c a n were systems no parallel of these

64

French created

Hence the

there legal

possibilities

within

c o l o n i s e d t e r r i t o r i e s a s t o c r e a t e p r o b l e m s o f c o n f l i c t of l a w .
61

S e e Dugard, op.

cit.,

pp.

151-158.

62

T.O. E l i a s , A d a p t a t i o n Ibid. lbid.

and Development, op. c i t .

6 3

6 4

276

Thus any or

citizen

w i t h i n t h e s e c o l o n i e s who was considered a French

65

q u a l i f i e s as citizen and

evolves

assimilados

therefore note as

directly that an

" p l a c e d " under F r e n c h l a w .

I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e to

these French integral

overseas t e r r i t o r i e s of and metropolitan international and

were l e g a l l y regarded France and

part

therefore for France overseas exception

governmental p o l i c i e s applied with the of only the by

law d e s i g n e d in

same

force The

validity also

these

territories a d o p t e d not Napoleon to

France.

French

without

t h e machinery, but letter the in these and

t h e procedures colonies. effect of

6 6

of t h e Code And this is of

exemplified

force rule.

the

policy

a s s i m i l a t i o n and d i r e c t

"Almost a l l t h e t e r r i t o r i e s a s members France having retained t h e C o n s e i l d ' e t a t and e s t a b l i s h i n g a system highest local tribunals

post-independence agreements w i t h t h e s e o f t h e F r e n c h community concluded w i t h some form of j u d i c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e Cour de C a s s a t i o n of F r a n c e , t h u s o f r e f e r e n c e s and a p p e a l s , from t h e i r to those of F r a n c e .
6 7

Thus

any

legal

controversy

that

crops

up

within

these

o v e r s e a s t e r r i t o r i e s w h i c h d e f i e s s o l u t i o n i s always r e f e r r e d t o France of for resolution. was T h i s a r g u a b l y means t h a t the c i v i l law

France

a p p l i e d t o t h e c o l o n i e s as though the a French court.

litigating law as

parties

were b e f o r e i n France

Thus i n t e r n a t i o n a l the

understood

undoubtedly
6 8

followed I t may be

same p a t t e r n i n

these colonised t e r r i t o r i e s .
65

r e c a l l e d t h a t i t was

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid See

r

66

67

p.

191. op. c i t pp. 227-232.

68

Sanders,

277

through Schooner rule in

t h e p l e a d i n g s which were made on b e h a l f o f F r a n c e i n t h e Exchange t h a t prompted Chief Justice Marshall on to the par day,

that parem

immunity be g r a n t e d t o F r a n c e b a s e d non habet jurisdictionem.

69

t h e maxim that

Ever

since

F r a n c e , i t would appear, be g r a n t e d the

might have t a k e n t h e v i e w t h a t immunity irrespective be the an of private fact of whether or that public, Bodin's on

to f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s of the state in issue to support had

activities there

although

i s evidence might

philosophical the practice

70

writings of France

have

earlier the law

influence of

i n the

area

sovereign

immunity. It followed

i s submitted the
7 1

that of

before

the

First

World

War

France any

doctrine

absolute Loan Case

7 2

immunity and that

without

reservations. Krew v.

The Moroccan

o f t h e Hanu litigated

Minister del'Afghanistan

1922,

73

which

were

before French courts, f i r m l y followed the p r i n c i p l e immunity.

74

of absolute

However, a f t e r t h e F i r s t World War, France thus

t h e p o s i t i o n of followed state

F r a n c e became somewhat a m b i v a l e n t .

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , p. 207. T.O. E l i a s , op. c i t . , A f r i c a and t h e Development of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, p. 63; George S a b i n e and Thomas Thorson, op. c i t . ; A. Appadorae, op. c i t .
7 1 70

S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , S. 1935-1-103.

p. 208.

7 2

7 3

C a s s . r e g . , J a n . 23, 1933, S 1933-1-249. S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . 278

7 4

immunity a t one

time,

w h i l e a t the same time

threw
7 5

i t s support

b e h i n d the r e s t r i c t i v e approach The argument of alluded the to

a t other t i m e s . above of And is

essential French

to

the

understanding respect of

attitude law. rule,

former given

colonies i n of

international and direct

the

French p o l i c y to state

assimilation

i t i s plausible

more

c l e a r l y t h a t whatever

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law a p p l i e d i n the m u n i c i p a l i n the of local state

c o u r t s of F r a n c e a l s o a p p l i e d w i t h the same weight courts of these dependencies. Thus when the

rule

immunity was

upheld

i n F r a n c e , i t a l s o found i t s way

into Africa tell was

as a r e s u l t o f F r e n c h c o l o n i a l p o l i c y . what might by have these the happened to this rule

However, no one can after independence Thus when of

gained

French-speaking of

countries.

France these the to the

embraced African legal follow argument tendency

doctrine

restrictive

immunity,

most

c o u n t r i e s might system the of these

arguably African of the be

have done t h e countries Code open were

same, s i n c e structured Although there

procedures

Napoleon. to debate, still

advanced of some

h e r e i n may

i s the to to

French-speaking

countries

willing

f o l l o w today t h e same p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law adhered by t h e Cour d ' a p p e l of this

7 6

de

Rennes.

Thus, l o g i c a l l y , to c a r r y to note, at

any a u t h o r i t y i n Frenchthe

coming out speaking position

court i s l i k e l y I t i s important

weight

Africa. of

however, t h a t now is

French-speaking

c o u n t r i e s as

obscure.

7 5

Ibid.,

pp.

203-218. op. c i t . , Africa

S a n d e r s , op. c i t . , pp. 227-232; E l i a s , and t h e Development o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law.

76

279

Evidence Madagascar A g a i n the not

forthcoming have

so to

far

indicates the

that

only

Togo

and
7 7

decided

follow

restrictive

principle. obscure

position

of T u n i s i a and
7 8

Cameroon a p p e a r s

and

at a l l c l e a r - c u t ,

but

i t would appear t h a t t h e s e immunity.

countries

i n the p a s t have f o l l o w e d In fact, the

absolute

French-speaking c o u n t r i e s i n these m a t t e r s but of that

o f West A f r i c a however, immunity not

are to

somewhat r e s e r v e d be against the

appear, state those

t r a d i t i o n a l notion to the fact

because

evidence countries

attests

French-speaking

sued i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s have a l s o f i e r c e l y r e s i s t e d t h e court. Charter of the OAU, i.e., Article states, as 3 one

j u r i s d i c t i o n of the f o r e i g n In the 1, be light and of the in the

Subsection would Benin, not

d e c l a r a t i o n s made by saying that

African such

wrong

countries

Algeria, Gabon,

Burkina-Faso, of Guinea,

Central African Republic, Ivory Chad, the Coast, Camoros Mali, and

Djibouti,

Republic Niger, rather

Mauritania,

Morocco, would be

Seychelles, prefer
79

Congo

Brazaville

that

r u l e of

absolute

sovereign

immunity

maintained. The followed appear

Portuguese the

and

Spanish

colonial of

policies But

in

Africa

same d i r e c t i o n as the Portuguese

that

France. more

i t would Thus

that

approach was

stringent.

77

B r o w n l i e , op. Ibid.

c i t . , p.

328.

7 8

T h i s i s so because t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r a c t i c e of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n A f r i c a , e x c e p t some few c o u n t r i e s s u c h as South A f r i c a , Togo, Egypt, L e s o t h o and Madagascar. 280

7 9

Spain

and P o r t u g a l

a s a matter

of conviction followed

a theory albeit In time

where t h e i r an integral

overseas

d e p e n d e n c i e s were s i m p l y c o n s i d e r e d

p a r t o f t h e l a n d mass o f m e t r o p o l i t a n law a p p l i e d equal force i n Spain and and P o r t u g a l in

Europe. a t that

fact,

whatever with

applied

validity

their

overseas

d e p e n d e n c i e s a s though t h e s e c o l o n i e s were e n t i r e l y I b e r i a n s o f Europe. in Again, i t i s clear from t h i s

o c c u p i e d by

analysis that no The

s o f a r a s P o r t u g u e s e a n d S p a n i s h c o u n t r i e s were concerned, was g i v e n here and to customary African law t o f l o u r i s h . between these

room

attempt states

t o study their

the relationship colonial

African precisely

former

master

i s to

d e t e r m i n e how t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity g o t i n t o A f r i c a d u r i n g t h e epoch o f c o l o n i a l i s m .

A f r i c a n S t a t e s S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Africa i s a v e r y v a s t c o n t i n e n t s t r e t c h i n g over square k i l o m e t r e s . 12 m i l l i o n I n fact, i t

square m i l e s , i . e . , 30.3 m i l l i o n forms about one-fifth

of the total

s u r f a c e mass o f t h e e a r t h . largest continent, Osagyfo second

By e v e r y e s t i m a t i o n , i t i s t h e second to Asia i n total having "land surface."

The l a t e

Dr. Kwame

Nkrumah people,

taken

cognizance

of the s i z e

of Africa, i t s

d i v e r s i t y i n c u l t u r e a n d language, o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g

pieces of advice.
"In A f r i c a where s o many d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l a n d economic c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t , i t i s n o t an e a s y t a s k t o g e n e r a l i s e on p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c patterns. Remnants of communalism a n d f e u d a l i s m s t i l l remain and i n p a r t s o f t h e c o n t i n e n t ways o f l i f e h a v e changed v e r y l i t t l e from t r a d i t i o n a l past. I n o t h e r a r e a s a h i g h l e v e l o f i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n and u r b a n i s a t i o n has been a c h i e v e d . Y e t i n s p i t e of A f r i c a ' s socioeconomic and p o l i t i c a l diversity, i t i s possible to discern c e r t a i n common p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l and economic c o n d i t i o n s and

281

problems. These derive from traditional past, common aspirations and from shared experience under imperialism, c o l o n i a l i s m and n e o - c o l o n i a l i s m . T h e r e i s no p a r t o f t h e c o n t i n e n t w h i c h h a s not known o p p r e s s i o n and e x p l o i t a t i o n , a n d no p a r t which remains outside the process of the A f r i c a n revolution."
8 0

In approach 1945,

view

of the advice, before

i t would us w i t h were

be most

expedient

to In

the subject four

utmost

eclecticism. And

only

African

states

independent.

these The under

c o u n t r i e s were E t h i o p i a , L i b e r i a , war, however, changed everything.

Egypt and South A f r i c a . Thus those countries of

bondage although but

started

questioning

the legitimacy

colonialism,

i t would appear such demands had been made e a r l i e r on, i n n a t i o n a l i s m which came t o t h e f o r e a f t e r the of the

t h e surge

Second World War was c o n s i d e r a b l e and p r o b a b l y change law. of

81

on a c c o u n t

from

classic

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t o modern i n t e r n a t i o n a l

And a l s o p e r h a p s because of t h e a b o l i t i o n o f t h e c o n c e p t i . e . , the right of a s t a t e to resort t o war

jus ad bellum,

whenever such a measure s e r v e s i t s b e s t The change from classic

interest. law to modern Pact of

international

international 1928, of

law was a l s o a i d e d

by t h e B r i a n d - K e l l o g

which p r o h i b i t e d t h e r e s o r t disputes between

t o a g g r e s s i v e war a s a means
8 2

settling

states.

According

to Professor gave birth to

Tunkin,

i t was c l a s s i c

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law which

80

D r . Kwame Nkrumah, C l a s s S t r u g g l e i n A f r i c a ,

6th Ed.

1981

p. 9. S e e T u n k i n i n E s s a y s on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law i n Honour o f K r i c h n a Rao ( e d i t e d by M.K. Nawaz) (1976) pp. 48-52.

81

282

colonialism while Africa modern and

and

i m p e r i a l i s t i c domination law for paved the

of way

Africa for

and

Asia,

8 3

international to fight

countries

of

Asia

independence.

Professor

Tunkin

f u r t h e r argues f o r c e f u l l y t h u s :
"The international law in force before the October R e v o l u t i o n c o m p r i s e d p r i n c i p l e s and norms l e g i t i m a t i n g c o l o n i a l domination i n i t s d i f f e r e n t forms. The r i g h t o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f 'no man's territories' (the coloured inhabitants of these t e r r i t o r i e s were not taken into consideration, the right of conquest, imposed t r e a t i e s , s p h e r e s of influence, colonies, protectorates, e t c . ) b e l o n g e d t o such i n s t i t u t i o n s of classic i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. They e x i s t e d s i d e by s i d e w i t h d e m o c r a t i c p r i n c i p l e s of c l a s s i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, b e i n g i n c o n f l i c t w i t h

Although criticised law,

85

Professor having

Tunkin

over

the

years into respect

has

been

for

introduced thus ex

propaganda stated be in

international of classic Dr. this same

the

above law to

argument cannot take

international Akehurst matter, l i n e of

86

hypothesi with

disputed. Tunkin

True, on

seems but

issue book, he

Professor

i n h i s own

seems t o have f o l l o w e d the certain peculiar law. or

87

argument i n o r d e r t o

discern

attitudes

of the T h i r d World towards i n t e r n a t i o n a l The the quest for self-determination

decolonisation

became Second and

c r i de guerre of A f r i c a n The war

s t a t e s immediately a f t e r the a great e f f e c t on

World War.

i n f a c t had

everybody

"Ibid.
8 4

I b i d . , p.

51, c i t . , p. 496,

85

S e e A k e h u r s t , op. Ibid.

8 6

Law

See M. A k e h u r s t , (1987) pp. 19-22.

87,

Modern

Introduction

to

International

283

therefore well

a t t i t u d e s q u i c k l y changed. manner and after the for

88

This continued of the thus XV was the

i n a more U.N. took The root

organised force 1960

founding

catalytic when t h e Ever

impetus

decolonisation 1514

General the

Assembly R e s o l u t i o n of this

adopted. rules of

since

adoption

resolution

engagement r e g a r d i n g Dr.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law have n e v e r been t h e the f o r c e behind t h e

same. of

Anand i n e x p l a i n i n g

attitude that

A s i a and A f r i c a s t a t e s towards i n t e r n a t i o n a l law e x p l a i n s

"International law i s no longer the almost exclusive p r e s e r v e o f t h e p e o p l e s o f European b l o o d by whose c o n s e n t i t u s e d to be said, 'exists and f o r the settlement of whose d i f f e r e n c e s i t i s a p p l i e d o r a t l e a s t i n v o k e d ' R. P a l (1957) 176k o f I L L 158. As i t must now be assumed to embrace o t h e r p e o p l e s , i t c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s t h e i r c o n s e n t no l e s s . Second, a t l e a s t p a r t o f t h i s law, c r e a t e d by, and f o r , a few p r o s p e r o u s i n d u s t r i a l n a t i o n s , w i t h a common c u l t u r a l background and s t r o n g liberal individualistic features, i s hardly s u i t a b l e for the present heterogeneous world s o c i e t y . The majority in this expanded world community consists of small, weak, poor, vulnerable, technologically and industrially underdeveloped f o r m e r c o l o n i e s f i l l e d w i t h resentment a g a i n s t t h e i r c o l o n i a l rulers and needing and demanding the protection of the international society. T h i s new m a j o r i t y has new needs and new demands and t h e y want t o mould t h e law a c c o r d i n g to their needs."
8 9

The construed World

explanation as an

offered

by

Dr.

Anand of the

can

objectively of Thus 1 of

be

adequate towards

assessment modern

attitude

Third the the

countries

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. clause into A r t i c l e

a d o p t i o n of the

self-determination

The evidence i s c l e a r l y manifested i n t h e number o f c o u n t r i e s t h a t became independent a f t e r the war. Perhaps Dr. T u n k i n was r i g h t i n h i s argument i n favour of contemporary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law as opposed t o c l a s s i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. (See t h e C h a r t e r of t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s . ) See Anand, A t t i t u d e of Asian-African Certain Problems of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law in S a t h i r a t h e r (1987) pp. 10-19. 284
8 9

States towards F. Snyder and

two

international

covenants

on

Human

Rights,

although

well

d i l u t e d by some r e s e r v a t i o n s slow down t h e speed from their colonial a t which

from a few Western s t a t e s , d i d n o t African The states General gain independence further

masters. (xxv). of

Assembly

adopted R e s o l u t i o n thus destroyed

2625

The a d o p t i o n o f t h i s colonialism took

resolution Many their

t h e concept shortly

f o r good. control of

African

countries

thereafter

d e s t i n i e s and t h e r e f o r e Professor Falk in

affected his

t h e pace o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. on the question of

exposition

decolonisation

o f f e r s the following

explanation:

"The new s t a t e s a r e b e i n g a s k e d t o a c c o r d r e s p e c t t o a system of law used i n p r i o r decades t o l e g a l i z e t h e c o l o n i a l structure of authority that h e l d t h e i r s o c i e t i e s i n p r o t e c t i v e custody. I t i s n a t u r a l t h a t h o s t i l i t y o f t h e new s t a t e s t o w a r d s c o l o n i a l i s m s p i l l s over t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . O ' C o n n e l l ' s l o g i c a l c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e new s t a t e s cannot q u e s t i o n the b i n d i n g q u a l i t y of the r u l e s of international law without undermining t h e i r own c l a i m s to statehood must be balanced against socio-historical consciousness that t h e new s t a t e s a r e b e i n g a s k e d t o show r e s p e c t f o r t h e same i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e g a l s y s t e m t h a t was u s e d by European powers t o s u p p r e s s and e x p l o i t t h e m . "
90

Professor

Falk's position

i s amply s u p p o r t e d by t h e impact

of t h e B e r l i n Congress o f 1884 a n d t h e r e s u l t a n t B e r l i n A c t o f 1885 and i t s i m p e r i a l i s t i c e f f e c t on t h e p e o p l e s o f A f r i c a and to the Balkanisation of i r r e s p e c t i v e of spite countries laws which of these

e l s e w h e r e , which i n a way gave b l e s s i n g s Africa family according ties to colonial tribal power

boundaries In

and

groupings.

difficulties accepted

and i n j u s t i c e A f r i c a n and command

and A s i a n o f these

have a l l were i n

the force

Falk

(1966) R e c u e i l des C o u r e s V o l . 285

2 pp. 16-17.

existence

b e f o r e the

a t t a i n m e n t of of

independence.

91

However, were ratify

the felt the the a

p r e s e n c e and during new the

solidarity quest by law the

these developing countries community to

international sea.
9 2

international World of War

of the was

International European and African

law b e f o r e law, the but as

Second result

thus

primarily of the Asian has

the of of

formation

U.N., and

subsequent the

attainment structure

independence by international order in of law

countries,

assumed a g l o b a l There is

horizontal therefore the a old

expansionist conflicting o r d e r and the

many

respects. and

balance new

claims

reactions

between

order.

Some R e f l e c t i o n s

on

State law

P r a c t i c e and scholars
9 3

Its

Implications that customary or

International international law

are

agreed

i s formed or c r e a t e d

through s t a t e p r a c t i c e

A k e h u r s t , op.
92

c i t . , p. in

27. International Law (1979) pp.

T.O. E l i a s ,

New

Horizons

21-35. " M i c h a e l A k e h u r s t , Custom a s a Source of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law X L V I I B Y I L 1974-1975 p. 53; T h i r l w a y , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Customary Law and C o d i f i c a t i o n (1972); G.M. Danielenko, Law-Making i n t h e International Community (1992); Mark Villiger, Customary I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and T r e a t i e s (1985) pp. 3-37; H. M e i j e r s , How I s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Made i x NYIL (1978) pp. 3-26; A.A. D'Amato, The Concept of Custom i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1971); L. Gould, An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, New York 1957; K o r o l Wolfke, Custom i n R e c e n t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1994) pp. 52-95; D.P. O ' C o n n e l l , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1970) pp. 3-35; Ian Brownlie, P r i n c i p l e s of P u b l i c I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1990) pp. 4-11; J. Dugard, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, A South A f r i c a n P e r s p e c t i v e (1994) pp. 23-35; Kopelmanas, Custom as a Means of the C r e a t i o n of International Law xviii BYIL 1937 p. 127-151; Macgibbon, Customary I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and A c q u i e s c e n c e x x x i i i B Y I L 1957 pp. 115-145. 286

settled practice, by opinio juris. by

i . e . , usus q u a l i t a t i v e l y a i d e d o r accompanied I t can a l s o as be formed tenable, i f usus coupled t o be bound constitutes i s clearly with an

accepted

states feeling

rightly

unqualified juris sive

on t h e p a r t
9 4

of s t a t e s What be then

(opinio state to

necessitatis) . What factors

practice? determine the

must

taken

into

consideration How

t h e raw m a t e r i a l s be i n e x i s t e n c e law?

of s t a t e

practice?

l o n g must a s forming construed to forming

practice

t o command Should as a

acceptance rigidly

customary that

international always law?

i t be

i t be

consistent

prerequisite

international

How many s t a t e s must be c l e a r l y

associated

with the p r a c t i c e to c r y s t a l l i z e i n t o law?

And how i m p o r t a n t i s

opinio juris i n t h i s r e g a r d ? These a r e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s , and t h e y a r e b e i n g asked i n t h e hope t h a t these questions would help clear answers given i n reply to the unbeaten path to of

understanding African In

the d i f f i c u l t i e s

associated

with

the p r a c t i c e

states i n respect order

o f s t a t e immunity. i n this endeavour, t o above be i t is

t o s e e our way c l e a r

apposite that

t h e q u e s t i o n s posed o r a l l u d e d compass o r t o o l of s t a t e s taken by a

first

explored as a navigational proposition from that

t o support

the s a i d

the p r a c t i c e action

c a n c l e a r l y be i n f e r r e d state or or subjects of

the u n i l a t e r a l

international tribunals. legal

law, b e f o r e

municipal

courts

international clothed i n or l e g a l

T h i s may t a k e t h e form o f a l e g a l c l a i m , expressed i n pleadings

arguments or c o n c r e t e l y

See

Dugard, p. c i t , pp. 24-25. 287

action, group o f

duly effected

on b e h a l f of a government by a lawyer or judicial authority.

lawyers, before a national

(1)

What Do State

We

Mean by may

State

Practice? the sum total of actual or The or or

practice of state

encompass or

manifestation

action

conduct which may international

directly law.
95

i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t or have a b e a r i n g on conduct may an a c t i o n against take the against form of a s s e r t i o n s

i n support of a c l a i m issue

a s t a t e on

s p e c i f i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law

other

s t a t e s where a h i s t o r i c a l
9 6

r i g h t or a p r e s c r i p t i v e can

right i s at stake. be found in

Furthermore, e v i d e n c e of s t a t e p r a c t i c e and international statements court by

national

decisions, senior state

diplomatic officials,

correspondence, s t a t e m e n t s by national of the

policy

foreign

ministers

before to

international questionnaires treatise

organisations, and and draft

legislation, International

replies Law

reports of

Commission, the UN.

97

resolutions Professor

i n t e r n a t i o n a l b o d i e s , e.g., says a that the of

McDougal represent

constituent continuous

elements

of

state

practice

"Process
98

interaction,

of c o n t i n u o u s demand and Professor that one state Brierly

response." in dealing

with do

the

above s u b j e c t relations

said with

practice
9 9

i s "what s t a t e s

in their

another."

9 5

See V i l l i g e r , Ibid. Ibid. at 5. (1955)

op.

c i t . , pp.

4-39.

9 6

9 7

9 8

A J I L 49

357. 288

Dr. explained

Villiger that

in his

exposition

on

what

is

state

practice

" S t a t e p r a c t i c e on the i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e may include d i p l o m a t i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( n o t e s aides-memoires, letters, etc.), general declarations of f o r e i g n or l e g a l p o l i c y , opinions of national legal advisers, and instructions given to state representatives. P r a c t i c e can a l s o be found i n t h e positions taken by governments b e f o r e international tribunals. The decisions of tribunals and the work o f the ILC, while ex hypothesi unable to c r e a t e law, p r o v i d e i m p o r t a n t e v i d e n c e o f customary l a w . "
1 0 0

The

position

taken by

Dr.

V i l l i g e r seems t o run

somewhat c o u n t e r

to t h a t of P r o f e s s o r
"The are s t i l l arguments, subsidiary e s t o p p e l as

Crawford t h u s .

arguments of c o u n s e l b e f o r e i n t e r n a t i o n a l tribunals s t a t e p r a c t i c e , and the c o n s i s t e n t use of estoppel f o r t i f i e d by a d o p t i o n (even i f o n l y o r b i t e r o r i n a way) by t r i b u n a l s , have l e d to t h e acceptance of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law."

He

argued f u r t h e r

that:

" I t i s , however, d i f f i c u l t t o a c c e p t t h i s a r g u m e n t . The n o t i o n of 'customary c a s e law' seems t o i n v o l v e , at least, a confusion or conflation of elements in the formation of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law which a r e , and ought t o be, d i s t i n c t . Counsel f o r a s t a t e b e f o r e an i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r i b u n a l may w e l l be a g e n t s of t h e s t a t e f o r the purpose of a d m i s s i o n s , d e c l a r a t i o n s and the like ( c f . p. 284), but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to a c c e p t t h a t their j u r i d i c a l arguments a r e an autonomous form o f c u s t o m o r s t a t e practice. They a r e , after a l l , attempting to persuade a t r i b u n a l whose d e c i s i o n i s o n l y ' s u b s i d i a r y ' s o u r c e o f g e n e r a l international law. I t would be odd i f argument, w h i c h i s s u b o r d i n a t e to d e c i s i o n , c o u l d somehow r i s e above t h e l a t t e r i n i t s f o r m a l s t a t u s as a l a w - c r e a t i n g agency."
1 0 1

Dr.

Villiger

whilst the

commenting

on

Professor

Crawford's

arguments o f f e r e d
one

following

explanation.

"With r e s p e c t , t h i s v i e w p o s s i b l y o v e r l o o k s t h e f a c t t h a t i n s t a n c e of p r a c t i c e , s u c h as would be f o u n d i n t h e p o s i t i o n

"The
1 0 0

Law

of Nations

(1963) p. 5.

59.

V i l l i g e r op. B Y B I L 51

c i t . p. 271.

101

(1980)

289

t a k e n up before the I C J cannot judgment h a s eo ipso a function."

create
1 0 2

law.

Whereas

an

ICJ

Although would appear international before claim

Professor that law the

Crawford's

argument or

i s well of

taken,

it of

expressions

assertions

subjects or of

before tribunals well can

international for the and sole

tribunals purpose

perhaps making a

municipal which is law

grounded be has

reflective as

of

customary state a "lawa

international practice creating political capacity And and

designated the

representing of becoming

therefore

potential

agency." and

In this

respect,

state practice to

i s seen as

l e g a l conduct l e g a l l y a s c r i b e d v i e w s on

states in their law issues. in are same

t o e x p r e s s t h e i r own the fact that of law

international law in is

given

international law

horizontal respect at in the

structure, positively time.

1 0 3

subjects seen Thus as

international makers and

this

policy sovereign

makers sates

assertions aim

made by

abstracto an

w i t h the

positive or

of making t h e i r p o s i t i o n s tribunal right in

known b e f o r e of a

international dispute practice in and

municipal of a may to

respect

legal state

support

legal

de lata

arguably i s

therefore

i n a l l the

appropriate how

circumstances s t a t e s behave

positively and Dr.

contribute

the

u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

the means by Villiger

1 0 2

which t h e i r obligation has a point,

1 0 4

t o a r u l e i s determined. i n as much as a c t i o n s and in He

therefore

V i l l i g e r op. c i t . p. 40 ( s p e c i f i c a l l y see footnote 22) r e s p e c t of h i s p o s i t i o n on what c o n s t i t u t e s s t a t e p r a c t i c e . c l e a r l y d i s a g r e e d w i t h Prof. Crawford. Bin 223.

1 0 4 1 0 3

Cheng,

International

Law,

T e a c h i n g and

Practice

1982

p.

S e e V i l l i g e r op.

c i t . pp. 290

3-39.

reactions issue i t be

from s o v e r e i g n

states

in

respect

of

an

international whether

technically

shapes and

redefines

state

practice,

a l e g a l argument or judgment. A similar argument seemed to have been made by Dr.

T h i r l w a y as

follows.

"The o c c a s i o n of an a c t of s t a t e p r a c t i c e c o n t r i b u t i n g to the f o r m a t i o n o f custom must a l w a y s be some s p e c i f i c d i s p u t e o r potential dispute. . . . The mere a s s e r t i o n in abstracto of t h e e x i s t e n c e of a l e g a l r i g h t o r l e g a l r u l e i s not an a c t of state practice; but i t may be adduced as e v i d e n c e o f the a c c e p t a n c e by t h e state a g a i n s t w h i c h i t i s sought t o s e t up t h e c l a i m , o f t h e c u s t o m a r y r u l e w h i c h i s a l l e g e d to e x i s t , a s s u m i n g t h a t t h a t s t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s not bound by the a l l e g e d r u l e . More i m p o r t a n t , s u c h a s s e r t i o n s can be r e l i e d on as s u p p l e m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e b o t h o f state practice and existence of opinio juris, but only as s u p p l e m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e , and not as one e l e m e n t t o be i n c l u d e d i n the summing up o f s t a t e p r a c t i c e f o r the p u r p o s e o f asserting its generality."
1 0 5

Dr. most

Thirlway's

position law

undoubtedly except

will the

be

accepted he

by

international the

scholars,

point in

made

regarding and Dr.

distinction

between mere of legal

assertion rights.
1 0 6

abstracto to are of

real assertion Akehurst,

i n respect

According which

"The

distinction and

between

acts

constitutive it is

of p r a c t i c e

a c t s which a r e o n l y c o n f i r m a t o r y Indeed of is some also the distinction

singularly made made in in

thin. context abstracto

between and it

assertions assertions

concrete

situation because

unrealistic,
1 0 7

emphasizes a p p e a r a n c e s a t the expense of r e a l i t y . " debate of this nature would promote a

Although a philosophical

1 0 5

T h i r l w a y op. I d e m . p. 58.

c i t p.

58.

106

1 0 7

S e e A k e h u r s t op.

c i t . p.

4. 291

understanding lay bare

of t h e s u b j e c t , essential

i t s h o u l d not d e r a i l our quest to elements of state practice in

the

international

law.

(2)

Municipal State

Courts

and

the

L e g a l Arguments

of

Defendant

International between other, sovereign i.e., in

law

i s normally referred in their of everyday

to as the

relations each and

states

dealings with rights that and

respect

certain abounds an
1 0 8

duties, to show

obligations. instances the

However,

evidence

i n some the state

interaction

between

individual

can a l s o g i v e r i s e state

to state p r a c t i c e . a national certainly clear As

Thus a c l a i m

made by a of an state

a s of r i g h t b e f o r e law issue

authority can the i t may be

i n respect denoted for as

international practice, and

thus law of to be

may

path be

customary i t was France

international through

made.

recalled,

a claim

i m m u n i t y d u l y p r e s e n t e d on b e h a l f of authority
1 0 9

i n the Schooner E x c h a n g e b e f o r e a n a t i o n a l the c r e a t i o n Thus before matter courts a

t h a t l e d to

of t h e s o v e r e i g n immunity r u l e . private in entity Z, in the country most

if a court

sues

country as

Y a

country

relevant

issue,

of procedure, of c o u n t r y has Z.

would be And

c e n t r e d on

t h e competence of the i s whether As a matter

t h e main q u e s t i o n t o a s k the s u i t .

the c o u r t

j u r i s d i c t i o n to entertain sued.

of p r i n c i p l e anybody c a n be

However, e x c e p t i o n s do e x i s t

108

Macgibbon, B Y B I L x x x i i 1957 p.

120. (1812) 7 C r a n c h 116.

109

T h e Schooner E x c h a n g e v. M'Faddon 292

under

international of

law,

respecting rights, at one acta

acts jure of

of

state

in

the These

exercise exceptions

sovereign absolute

imperii. late some

were

time but

states if

have taken s t e p s country question, respect to of a Y

to have the to the

r u l e l i m i t e d i n scope. j u r i s d i c t i o n of g i v e n up country

Further, Z

submits

without right in

i t means c o u n t r y Y has absolute claim of

i t s alleged or the

immunity without p r o t e s t immunity and

inclination restrictive government the Y may

assert of

thus embrace t h e the to o t h e r hand, legally a

rule

sovereign of

immunity. Y took Z,

I f , on pains that

lawyers

country of

challenge country,

jurisdiction cannot be be

country

being

sovereign

impleaded a g a i n s t

its will,

then i n r e a l terms one the old

prompted t o argue t h a t the concept of

country Y s t i l l p r e f e r s

order, Y

i.e., has or law, habet

s t a t e immunity, which means t h a t terms the be non inferred existence of a

country

expressed legal e.g., rule par

in concrete which can

legal

right

from p u b l i c or par

international in parem non on as and

in parem

habet imperium the be

jurisdictionem.

In t h i s respect

pleadings offered c l e a r l y construed in

1 1 0

b e h a l f of Y i n terms o f a c t u a l c l a i m may to how international law is

understood

country

therefore It

arguably represent state p r a c t i c e . is submitted between an therefore that

although and

there

are

differences courts,

international

tribunal

municipal the "case

i n terms of c o m p o s i t i o n and

the o r d e r of o p e r a t i o n ,

l a t t e r r e f e r s to the

same i n t e r n a t i o n a l law p r i n c i p l e s and

1 1 0

S e e v i l l i g e r op.

c i t . 5,

40. 293

law"

i n making judgments and t h e i s s u e s

likely

t o be

litigated

before these courts controversies courts between courts states natural effect may

more o f t e n t h a n n o t a r e sometimes l i m i t e d t o element. Thus w h i l e international only

with a foreign as a matter of

law e n t e r t a i n

controversies

subjects

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l hand may

law, i . e . , s t a t e s , controversies juridical does

municipal between and

on t h e o t h e r and p r i v a t e persons. of claims

entertain such as

entities This made

persons

arguably, before

however, these

not l i m i t the courts from

municipal an

attaining tribunal submitted foreign

t h e same s t a t u s i n respect that of

a s one made b e f o r e state practice.

1 1 1

international further with or claim a an or in

I t is associated court a

any c o n t r o v e r s y be

or dispute a a

element,

i t before i n which

municipal state

international

tribunal

asserts

challenges a claim every respect element and

b e i n g made by t h e o t h e r p a r t y ,
1 1 2

represents

state practice. practice what

What t h e r e f o r e

constitutes the states of do

of s t a t e

c a n be d e t e r m i n e d by what states may say i n respect rights

i n most

cases

their

interest

and what t h e y p e r c e i v e law.

1 1 3

as their

as subjects of

international The

heart

of the matter

i s whether

t h e argument

posited

above c a n be s u s t a i n e d . regards the broad

A l t h o u g h a c o n f u s i o n seems a p p a r e n t a s of t h e element of state

interpretation

Lauterpacht, BYIL x (1929); R. A. Falk, The R o l e Domestic C o u r t s i n t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l L e g a l Order (1964).

1 1 2

n i

of

T h i r l w a y op. c i t . ; v i l l i g e r

op., c i t .

113

W o l f k e op. c i t . , pp. 41-51; V i l l i g e r op. c i t .

294

practice, physical state claims

there deeds

i s at and v e r b a l

least acts

some

consensus

i n support

of

as c o n s t i t u t i n g therefore,

t h e element o f a c t s and

practice. of s t a t e s ,

The watchword, hence of legal

must c o v e r

one can argue state claim

that

one o f t h e most is made the or positive effected

convincing

evidence of a

practice concretely

manifestation

before a national As a matter

authority

o r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l international obligations

tribunal. law i s p r i m a r i l y and i n t e r e s t s o f supports the of a claim, a

of p r i n c i p l e ,

concerned with the r i g h t s , duties, states, notion both real and g i v e n that the fact that i s said

i t i s horizontal,

whatever

o r done i n t h e form of a p o s i t i o n

real

or putative,

i n support

respecting This

dispute

i s bound t o produce s t a t e p r a c t i c e .

i s even

more so b e c a u s e e v e r y s t a t e i s a s u b j e c t / l a w maker and t h e r e f o r e logically interests actually of in has i t s own particular views i n respect of i t s

and r i g h t s

i n international juris,

law which may o r may n o t the balance

command opinio

but somehow a f f e c t s
114

law making w i t h i n this light

the i n t e r n a t i o n a l system.

A good example Nigeria

c o u l d be l i k e n e d

unto t h e c l a i m s made by

before municipal courts respectively, matter of

i n America, U n i t e d Kingdom and Germany, asserted i t s c l a i m s o f immunity a s a from an established

where N i g e r i a right

legal

properly

derived

customary

law, w h i c h s u p p o r t s t h e view t h a t

a s t a t e may n o t be immunities the a c t of

i m p l e a d e d w i t h o u t i t s c o n s e n t and t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l be accorded to a l l nations i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether

1 1 4

B i n Cheng op. c i t . , pp. 216-229.

295

state states

i n question have also

be p r i v a t e o r p u b l i c . been sued i n recent

1 1 5

Some o t h e r A f r i c a n before national these

times

a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e p l e a d i n g s o r arguments advanced b e f o r e foreign without argument municipal doubt courts on b e h a l f of these

African countries practice.

1 1 6

represent

i n many a s p e c t s c a n be made

state to

No legal

for that

matter

dilute

the

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f such

c l a i m s made b e f o r e

municipal

courts, since

such j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s a r e r e g a r d e d law. that Marshall C.J. of t h e United

as sources of i n t e r n a t i o n a l

S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a S.C. argued

"The d e c i s i o n s o f t h e c o u r t s o f e v e r y c o u n t r y show how the law o f n a t i o n s i n a g i v e n case i s understood i n that c o u n t r y , and w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n a d o p t i n g t h e r u l e w h i c h i s t o prevail in this."
1 1 7

T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1977) Q B 529; Y o u s s e l M. Nada E s t a b l i s h m e n t v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a , D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f F r a n k f u r t , Judgment o f 2 December 1975, Docket No. 3/80 186/75; N a t i o n a l A m e r i c a n C o r p o r a t i o n v . F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f N i g e r i a and C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a , 76 C i v . 3745 GLG (1979); Texas T r a d i n g and M i l l i n g Corp. v . R e p u b l i c o f N i g e r i a S l i p op., 2nd C i r A y r . 16 1981, 20 I n t ' l L e g M a t ' I s 620 (1981); V e r l i n d e n BV v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a , Supreme C o u r t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1983. I n t h i s l i g h t one i m p o r t a n t i s s u e to e x p l o r e i s whether N i g e r i a i s bound by t h e r e s t r i c t i v e approach t o s o v e r e i g n immunity. The answer may be i n f e r r e d from how t h e s a i d law a f f e c t s t h e i n t e r e s t o f N i g e r i a . Nigeria, however, a s o f r i g h t c a n oppose t h e r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e s i n c e i t i s an emerging r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . I n o r d e r t o e f f e c t i v e l y oppose t h e r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e , N i g e r i a must oppose " t h e r u l e i n the e a r l y days o f t h e r u l e ' s e x i s t e n c e o r f o r m a t i o n and maintains i t s opposition c o n s i s t e n t l y t h e r e a f t e r . " See Judge J e s s u p ' s argument i n t h e South West A f r i c a C a s e s I C J r e p o r t s , 1966 pp. 3, 441; i n r e s p e c t o f t h e i s s u e r a i s e d . V i l l i g e r op. c i t . p. 5; A k e h u r s t op. c i t . , p. 58.
117 1 1 6

115

op. c i t . 1-10; T h i r l w a y

C . F . S t a r k e , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1994) p. 42.

296

If

Justice

Marshall's

argument

be c o n v i n c i n g

then

claims

made by s u b j e c t s before municipal claims

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l courts certainly

i n respect can serve

of r e a l as a

disputes

medium o f

balancing Such

i n the process state

o f making practice

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

claims

are therefore courts

whether t h e y be made t r i b u n a l s , because t h e

before municipal underlying the claim

or international

indicates

how customary law i s u n d e r s t o o d qua state. or an argument i n recognition or

d i s p u t e i n i s s u e by t h e d e f e n d a n t At

the r i s k of belabouring a proposition law, f o r which among s c h o l a r s , there

international disagreement in

i s perhaps

certainly calls

f o r more e v i d e n c e submitted. with state

support of the proposition i n a quest to c l a r i f y

o r t h e argument h e r e i n

Thus

the confusion associated

practice, thus:

Professor

Wolfke's e x p l a n a t i o n would be q u i t e

helpful

" I n o r d e r t o a v o i d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , i t seems, t h e n , advisable t o a p p l y t h e term " p r a c t i c e " o n l y i n i t s b r o a d e s t s e n s e t h a t i s , a s t h e c o n d u c t o f a l l organs, even o f p r i v a t e p e r s o n s , w h i c h might have any b e a r i n g on i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . "
1 1 8

Hence

a l l things courts

being by

equal,

claims

o r p l e a d i n g s made law o r

before states

municipal which

subjects

of international

are likely

t o have

a bearing

on i n t e r n a t i o n a l since these

law can states

therefore

be r e f e r r e d

to as s t a t e p r a c t i c e ,

have an i n t e r e s t t o p r o t e c t .

Wolfke op. c i t . p. x v i i . Thus a s t a t e s b e h a v i o r on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e r e v e a l s i t s c o n c e p t of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w and what i t e x p e c t s o f o t h e r s t a t e s .

1

297

Pleadings Habana,
119

offered
1 2 0

by

litigating

parties

i n the

Paquete Victory y

the S c o t i a , I n c . v.
2

the I

Congreso General

d e l Partido, del

Transport Transportos

Comisna

Abastercimentos
122

and Alcom L t d . v . R e p u b l i c

of Colombia

are a l l

c l e a r e x p r e s s i o n s or c l a i m s made i n r e s p e c t o f s t a t e p r a c t i c e a t the for very time o r p e r i o d when t h e s e before municipal said c o n t r o v e r s i e s came up The variables and

litigation

courts.

presumptions of s t a t e p r a c t i c e h e r e i n e x p l o r e d can be used a s a guidepost i n determining

in this

analysis

t h e p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s

i n r e s p e c t to s p e c i f i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s s u e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the practice i n issue seems scanty i n the area of n a t i o n a l

legislation, on draft

diplomatic correspondence, of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l statements by

reply to questionnaires Law Commission policy and, o f of

reports policy

course,

senior

makers

governments.

(3)

Summary o f Rules At some p o i n t of t h i s study certain to these pertinent said questions

were

asked

and s p e c i f i c

responses

questions can

now be summarised as f o l l o w s . (1) customary acts, State practice represents the raw material of

international

law and i t s p e c i f i c a l l y of foreign

means p h y s i c a l and domestic

general

d e c l a r a t i o n s i n terms

119

( 1 9 0 0 ) 175 U.S. 677. (1871) 14 Wallace 17, 188.

1 2 0

1 2 1

(1981) 3 WLR 328 House o f L o r d s . (1984) 2 WLR 70 House o f L o r d s .

298

1 2 2

policies, by nation

claims states

and

o m i s s i o n s of

s t a t e s , and and

pleadings municipal created of

offered courts. through

before

international law and is the

Customary uniform

international state
1 2 3

[therefore] practice

practice

international

organizations. (2) inferred The from

existence two main the

of

customary

international i.e.,

law

can

be

requirements,

settled

practice

(usus), b a c k e d by necessitatis. (3) of the

124

psychological

element of opinio juris sive

For

p r a c t i c e to have any of

m e a n i n g f u l impact i n law the ICJ

respect in the

formation cases

customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l the following

North Sea

offered

explanation.

" W i t h i n t h e p e r i o d of t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , s h o r t though i t might be, state practice, including that of states whose interests are specially affected, should have been both extensive and v i r t u a l l y u n i f o r m i n the s e n s e of the provision invoked."
1 2 5

Thus e v i d e n c e of m a j o r i n c o n s i s t e n c y of law. also states will prevent are the creation

or c o n f l i c t i n the of the customary

practice

international is

Scholars

a l s o agreed t h a t creation the of

d u r a t i o n of p r a c t i c e law,

important i n the believe that

international

w h i l e some

scholars

d u r a t i o n must be

continuous from time view that The the law can

immemorial, o t h e r s have i n f a c t t a k e n the be has created

" i n s t a n t l y , " i . e . , droit spontane. "constant p r a c t i c e "

I C J , however, far as

only mentioned

w i t h o u t going as

1 2 3

See

Akehurst

op.

cit.; Villiger

op.

c i t . ; Danileko

op.

cit.
124

D u g a r d op. ICJ reports

c i t . ; Wolfke op. 1969 43 p a r a

299

c i t . , p.

30-36.

1 2 5

74.

to p o s t u l a t e prerequisite (4) law, A

t h a t time be d e s i g n a t e d a s an e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r to the c r e a t i o n small number of the of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l states could create

1 2 6

or

law.

international conflict with state

provided that

practice

i n i s s u e does not

a r u l e of practice law than

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. i s equally the by

Furthermore, the the creation of

q u a n t i t y of of

important i n and of be

international sometimes Thus of for states

frequency scholars law to

duration

practice, law. number

1 2 7

advanced

international created the

international

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the p r a c t i c e must be (5) Professor law

significant. "the

B i n Cheng s a y s t h a t

e s s e n c e of of states." the

general Opinio of it

international juris is

i s opinio juris an important

generalis element

therefore law.

in

creation

international must be
12

Thus, f o r a s t a t e p r a c t i c e by a constitutive

to become law i.e,

accompanied

element,

opinio

juris. * (6) therefore that rule. new International law is horizontal in structure bound by creation a of and rule the

a s t a t e cannot be made t o comply or be opposed from the e a r l y days of the

i t has

However, i t i s important to

s t a t e more c l e a r l y and

that a l l African the

s t a t e s , whether e x - c o l o n i e s , or those created by

as f o r example A s i a succession, before are

states, rules of

state that

bound by

international

law

existed

these

countries

op.

Y B I I C 1950 11 26; c i t . pp. 15-16.

1 2 7

1 2 6

P C I J 1927

S e r i e s B No.

14

105;

Akehurst

S e e A k e h u r s t p. c i t . , pp. I b i d . , pp. 31-37, 53.

300

16-18.

1 2 8

became

subjects
129

of

international

law

or

simply

became

independent. (7) the be part of

A s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e w i t h o u t any s t a t e s cannot c r e a t e feeling must

1 3 0

s e n s e of o b l i g a t i o n

on

customary law. based on

Thus t h e r e must consensus omnium, of a

shared

of be

understanding a general

i.e.,

there

practice

in

support

particular (8) modern created i.e., rules, by one

rule. A

treaty
1 3 1

is

an

important part of of the With now

law state

creating practice of state of

agency and

in

times.

It the

forms meeting ad

i t is

through

minds the

officials, salient

consensus i s i n the

idem.

aid

these

position the

to a n a l y s e the

issues relating

to s t a t e immunity and

p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s i n A f r i c a .

African Are

States,

Custom and States

the Bound

Concept of P e r s i s t e n t by the Doctrine of

Objector: Restrictive

African

Immunity? It is proposed under this rubric to deal with some opinio of the

interrelated juris, doctrine At immunity and

international the persistent

law

issues

covering rule in

custom, respect

objector

of r e s t r i c t i v e the had outset, existed

immunity. shown t h a t long the c o n c e p t of European sovereign rule was

i t was in

Africa

before

1 2 9

I b i d . pp.

23-28. c i t . pp. 30 7-9. BYIL 24-26; Sorensen, 1960 III

1 3 0

S e e B r o w n l i e op.

101

S e e F i t z m a u r i c e , 1953 Hague R e c u e i l 43-47.

1 3 1

301

established evidence state United

on

the

continent.

European

rule

in Africa

as

the of the

shows, however, r e d e f i n e d and Now, these same

shaped t h e modern r u l e countries and

immunity.

European

S t a t e s o f America a r e modulating t h e i r p o s i t i o n on and thus calling on other states to do the

state in

immunity order

same

t o promote j u s t i c e cannot be

i n the market p l a c e . First, the

Certainly

their be

demands asked rules

ignored.

question

t h a t must

i s whether new of customary

s t a t e s a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y bound by international Secondly, from s t a t e law in existence

a l l the before

independence was o f p o s i t i o n by immunity can be s t a t e having

attained. some s t a t e s

whether t h e c u r r e n t change immunity t o and thirdly, restrictive whether a

imposed on other s t a t e s ,

c o n s i s t e n t l y o b j e c t e d to a r u l e d u r i n g c o u l d be bound by the said rule

i t s process

o f development law? It getting answered positions Professor

once i t becomes

would be on to the are the

i n order others.

to answer t h e A

first

question of

before

great majority in the

s c h o l a r s have and their law. a

first

question of a

affirmative

reflective says

customary new state

international "cannot

Lauterpacht
1 3 2

repudiate that

single rule."

P r o f e s s o r Waldock a l s o m a i n t a i n s

"The g e n e r a l l y h e l d view on t h e p o i n t u n d o u b t e d l y i s t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d c u s t o m a r y r u l e s do a u t o m a t i c a l l y e x t e n d t h e orbit o p e r a t i o n t o a new-born s t a t e nor has any s t a t e e v e r a r g u e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t h a t i t was exempt from a g e n e r a l c u s t o m a r y r u l e s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t was a new s t a t e t h a t objected to the rule. I n t h e R i g h t of Passage c a s e , f o r example, i t n e v e r o c c u r r e d t o I n d i a t o meet P o r t u g a l ' s c o n t e n t i o n a s t o a g e n e r a l c u s t o m a r y r i g h t o f passage t o e n c l a v e s by s a y i n g t h a t she was a

Lauterpacht, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law 53

1 3 2

Private (1927).

Law

Sources

and

Analogies

in

302

new s t a t e ; nor d i d P o l a n d n e w - b o r n e v e r make s u c h a c l a i m i n any of permanent c o u r t . "

1 3 3

a f t e r the F i r s t h e r many c a s e s

World W a r before the

Professor position

O'Connell by

has

also

given and

his

support

1 3 4

to

the

advanced law and

Lauterpacht the

Waldock. advocated Thus, new by

Traditional Professor states are law,

international Lauterpacht automatically

follows Professor the

position

Waldock.

bound by

e x i s t i n g r u l e s of r u l e of

international

hence t h e y c a n n o t law which came

135

r e p u d i a t e any into

customary the

international attainment of

existence

before have,

independence. this rule on

Communist grounds that The Tunkin, that

countries "custom

however, implied not of to

resisted agreement without "consent his

the and
1 3 6

that the

i s an are

between their

states

new

states

bound this

consent."

leading

exponent seemed

theory,"

Professor

however,

compromise

p o s i t i o n when he

said

" I f .a new s t a t e e n t e r s w i t h o u t r e s e r v a t i o n s i n t o o f f i c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s t a t e s , t h a t means t h a t i t r e c o g n i s e s a c e r t a i n body o f p r i n c i p l e s and norms o f e x i s t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, which c o n s t i t u t e the basic p r i n c i p l e s of international relations. "
1 3 7

In

the

light

of

the

above

observations,

it is

submitted

t h a t i n r e a l i t y new
1 3 3

s t a t e s do

follow

norms of e x i s t i n g customary

des

G e n e r a l C o u r s e on Cours 1, 52.
1 3 4

Public

I n t e r n a l Law

(1962) 106

Recueil

S e e P.

Falk

(1966) R e c u e i l c i t . , p. 27.

des

Coures V o l

2 pp.

16-17.

135

A k e h u r s t , op.

C . F . A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . , p. 27; but see g e n e r a l l y Szengo, New S t a t e s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, Chapter 2 f o r exposition.
1 3 7

136

Bokorclear

(1961) 49

Cal

L Rev

419
303

428.

international

law w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n .

And t h i s c e r t a i n l y

includes

t h o s e s t a t e s which might have been c r e a t e d universal Yugoslavia some with succession,

e i t h e r by p a r t i a l o r states o f former that i n issue

a s f o r example t h e new USSR.

and t h e former Asian laws

But i t i s on r e c o r d countries to affect Third have

instances, certain

and A f r i c a n appear

taken

which

their World

interest countries as the o l d easy.

adversely.

This

i s i n order

f o r these

a l s o have a p e r f e c t states.

r i g h t t o change t h e law a s w e l l

The p r o c e s s , however, i s cumbersome and n o t t h a t

Furthermore, i t i s p o s s i b l e opinio non juris i n respect

t h e s e new s t a t e s c o u l d e x p r e s s t h e i r of an a l r e a d y established rule by

destroying i t s generality developing the law states to

of p r a c t i c e .

F o r example, a f t e r 1960, or a t t u n e d interest diplomatic

on many o c c a s i o n s have i n f l u e n c e d needs of mankind

contemporary interest

through of

articulation,

aggregation,

exchange

n o t e s , n e g o t i a t i o n s and p r o t e s t s . law

To be p r e c i s e ,

international states Legal

a p p e a r s t o have been g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d such important organizations as

by d e v e l o p i n g Asian-African

through

Consultative Movement, Court of

Committee, t h e L a t i n American Group, t h e N o n - A l i g n t h e UN and General Assembly, the International to

t h e OAU, Justice,

the I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Law

Commission,

mention a few. If the preceding law, then arguments be sound and w e l l can r e s t r i c t i v e grounded i n appears on as the

international grounded other custom

immunity w h i c h world be

i n the p r a c t i c e The answer or

o f the Western

imposed

states? is

i s i n the n e g a t i v e on the

i n a s much or

formed

predicated
304

adjustment

balancing

of

c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s of The

sovereign

states

in

the

i n t e r n a t i o n a l community. of Justice, Article of

s t a t u t e o f the explains

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court that are the two

38(1)(b), customary

clearly law for

important practice formed

elements and opinio be

international shows usus that and

settled to be

juris. supported juris f a r as

This by sive

custom juris

i t must

opinio

sive in of In

necessitatis. this respect,

Opinio in so

necessitatis

i s important ordinary rules

i t distinguishes s u p p o r t e d by J e n n i n g s and

comity from r u l e s c o n c r e t e l y Oppenheim's I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, as

legal obligations. Watts d e f i n e d

custom

"a c l e a r and c o n t i n u o u s h a b i t o f d o i n g c e r t a i n a c t i o n s , w h i c h has grown up under t h e aegis of the conviction that these actions are according to international law, obligatory or

These

issues

were

explained ruled

in that of

the the

Asylum

case

(Columbia government

v. had

Peru) where the failed for

court

Colombian

to prove t h e to be

existence to

a custom t o Raul

support her de

quest a

asylum

granted had

Victor

Haya

l a Torre,

P e r u v i a n n a t i o n a l who

been i n v o l v e d The court

i n a r e b e l l i o n to t o p p l e ruled that

the then P e r u v i a n g o v e r n m e n t .

"The p a r t y w h i c h r e l i e s on a custom o f t h i s k i n d must prove t h a t t h i s custom i s e s t a b l i s h e d i n s u c h a manner t h a t i t has become b i n d i n g on t h e o t h e r p a r t y . The Colombian government must prove t h a t t h e r u l e i n v o k e d by i t i s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a c o n s t a n t and u n i f o r m u s a g e p r a c t i s e d by s t a t e s i n q u e s t i o n and t h a t t h i s usage i s the e x p r e s s i o n of a r i g h t a p p e r t a i n i n g to the s t a t e g r a n t i n g a s y l u m and a d u t y incumbent on t h e territorial state. This follows from A r t i c l e 38 o f t h e S t a t u t e of the

Oppenheim, (1992) p. 27.

International

Law

(eds.)

Jennings

and

Watts

305

C o u r t , w h i c h r e f e r s to i n t e r n a t i o n a l general p r a c t i c e accepted as law.'"

1 3 9

custom

'as

evidence

of

In again state

the

North to shed and

Sea

Continental on the juris issue was

Shelf

cases,

1 4 0

the

court custom,

tried

light opinio The

r e l a t i o n s h i p between by

practice and

carefully rationalizing whether any Article 6 existing of the

doctrine Geneva law

facts.

Convention could The

embody o r be applied ruled

crystallise to bind FRG

customary of

which

(Federal

Republic

Germany).

court

that

"The e s s e n t i a l point i n the c o n n e c t i o n a n d i t seems necessary to s t r e s s i t i s t h a t even i f t h e s e instances of a c t i o n by n o n - p a r t i e s t o t h e C o n v e n t i o n were much more numerous t h a n t h e y i n f a c t a r e , t h e y would not, even i n t h e a g g r e g a t e , s u f f i c e i n t h e m s e l v e s t o c o n s t i t u t e opinio juris f o r , i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e t h i s r e s u l t , two c o n d i t i o n s must be f u l f i l l e d . Not o n l y must t h e a c t s c o n c e r n e d amount to s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e , b u t t h e y must a l s o be s u c h , o r be c a r r i e d out i n such a way a s to be evidence of a b e l i e f t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e i s rendered o b l i g a t o r y by t h e e x i s t e n c e of a s u b j e c t i v e element, i s i m p l i c i t i n t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f the opinio juris sive necessitatis. The s t a t e s c o n c e r n e d must t h e r e f o r e f e e l t h a t t h e y a r e conforming t o what amounts t o a l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n . The frequency, or even h a b i t u a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a c t s , i s not i n i t s e l f enough."
141

In to

N i c a r a g u a v.

United

States

of A m e r i c a , against

142

which r e l a t e s Nicaragua, the

m i l i t a r y and reaffirmed

paramilitary

activities

court

i t s e a r l i e r decisions

thus:

"The mere f a c t t h a t s t a t e s d e c l a r e t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n of c e r t a i n rules i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e c o u r t to c o n s i d e r these as b e i n g p a r t o f c u s t o m a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. . . . Bound a s i t i s by A r t i c l e 38 o f i t s S t a t u t e . . . the c o u r t must s a t i s f y i t s e l f

1 3 9

(1950) I C J Rep

p.

266. 3.

1 4 0

(1969) I C J R e p o r t s p. Ibid.

1 4 1

142

1 9 8 4 L C J Rep

p.

392.
306

that the existence of t h e r u l e confirmed by p r a c t i c e . "

1 4 3

i n t h e opinio

juris

of s t a t e s i s

The Article the

ICJ 38 (b)

i n these

cases

relied

on t h e t h r u s t

and f o r c e

of

to support o f customary must be

the underlying law. Thus and

principles

respecting court,

formation practice

according general

to the to

state

consistent law.

constitute

customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l

So i n e s s e n c e custom i s made up o f

two important elements, and t h e s e a r e t h e ' m a t e r i a l f a c t , ' which specifically 'psychological relate to the which behaviour i s implicit This of states and the

element'

i n whatever

rule i s

p e r c e i v e d by s t a t e s t o be o b l i g a t o r y . to as opinio juris sive

i s known o r r e f e r r e d because i t gives an

necessitatis,

i n d i c a t i o n a s t o which a c t i o n s by

of s t a t e s a r e rendered

obligatory Opinio factor and

t h e v e r y e s s e n c e and r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e r u l e o f law. or b e l i e f transforms of states into i s therefore custom. one important

juris which

usus

According

t o Jennings

Watts i n Oppenheim's i n t e r n a t i o n a l law,

"This subjective e l e m e n t may be d e d u c t e d from various sources, including the c o n c l u s i o n of b i l a t e r a l or m u l t i l a t e r a l t r e a t i e s , attitudes to r e s o l u t i o n of the United Nations General Assembly and o t h e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l m e e t i n g s and s t a t e m e n t s by state representative."
1 4 4

I n view o f t h e a t t e n d a n t r e q u i r e m e n t customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l that restrictive

f o r t h e formation of to conclude o f customary

law, i t would be i n c a u t i o u s the status

immunity h a s a t t a i n e d lacks

international since the doctrine therefore cannot be imposed

u s u s and opinio juris and states, i f these African

on o t h e r

1 4 3

1 9 8 6 I C J Rep p. 97. S e e Oppenheim's I n t e r n a t i o n a l

307

144

Law, op. c i t . , p. 28.

states

have

expressed they In

an

opinio is

non

juris

in and state

respect thus may

of

the work

doctrine, hardship

which on

believe this

unfair any

them. with

respect,

which the

is

not

comfortable that it

restrictive its And

immunity and

i t i s of could

belief the in be to

will

affect

interest

adversely

resist juris could on

doctrine respect regarded similar

a s of r i g h t . of as the state

i t s e x p r e s s i o n of opinio non of and have restrictive therefore already immunity can been be

doctrine practice which in

added by

expressions states

made

other from the on

dissentient

preventing B a s e d on emerging i t has not

restrictive

immunity and

becoming a u n i v e r s a l judgments dissentient well law. Professor of the states and

rule. an

scholarly writings rule cannot a be

ICJ,

imposed of

since albeit

reached as

point

being as

received

recognised

binding

juridically

Brierly

in

his

writings

offers

the

following

explanation i n respect

of t h e

above i s s u e

"that in the absence of any international machinery for l e g i s l a t i o n by m a j o r i t y v o t e , a new r u l e of law cannot be imposed upon s t a t e s m e r e l y by t h e w i l l o f any o t h e r s t a t e s . "
1 4 5

Brierly's line with the

position idea

i s well

founded and law

therefore is a

falls

in of and

that

international claims which

process action

reconciling reaction from rules the of

conflicting

involves

o f s t a t e s qua position of

their interests. those law

T h i s , however, lawyers and who

detracts regard wholly

international as immutable

international

therefore

1 4 5

S e e B r i e r l y , The

Law

of N a t i o n s 1963
308

a t p.

52.

based one

on power p o l i t i c s .

Having made a l l t h e s e to postulate that

observations, of a

i s now i n t h e p o s i t i o n

the practice

great law old

majority of s t a t e s i s very c r u c i a l

i n d e t e r m i n i n g what i s

and what i s not, and whether a new l a w h a s d e v e l o p e d and an law has been r e j e c t e d o r d e c l a r e d obsolete. Thus new r u l e s juris, law.

would have t o be supported by s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e and opinio before Consent therefore they can be denoted as customary international

to a rule

by a s t a t e

i n the international states

community through

can be i n f e r r e d

from what

say, i . e . ,

t h e i r conduct, a c q u i e s c e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o c o n t e s t of are a r u l e i n i t s formative stages. more concerned and with legal in Most s t a t e s sovereignty, to

the legitimacy i t would appear i . e . , their states impose and their

independence therefore will

equality

respect

other states

not s i t i d l e

t o have

other

common w i l l on them. In Trendtex, where the court was and acta Denning law. faced jure on with the

distinction Stephenson respecting in of the

between acta jure L J took issue

imperii Lord

gestionis,

with

h i s position

t h e change i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l

H i s r e a s o n i n g was on t h e f o r m a t i o n case,

o r d e r i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t international North

such p o i n t s

law were made by t h e I C J Shelf cases Thus

i n t h e Asylum

Sea C o n t i n e n t a l case,

and t h e Anglo-Norwegian o f a new

Fisheries

respectively.

i n the formation

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, a l l s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s w h e t h e r p o w e r f u l o r weak p a r t i c i p a t e as e q u a l s i n s h a p i n g t h e r u l e . I t i s important also

to note t h a t i n t h e development o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l claims and i n t e r e s t s of s t a t e s

309

law c o n f l i c t i n g t o bear on t h e

a r e brought

formative process, opinio appears

process states

of a given

rule.

At a f u r t h e r

stage of the

a r e f r e e again to express t h e i r on t h e l e g a l

opinio juris o r Where i t

non juris

status of a given rule.

many s t a t e s

o b j e c t to t h e r u l e ,

t h e p r o c e s s comes t o an The consent of s t a t e s t o t h a t an a c t i v i t y i n h i s reasoning light on from the one

end w i t h t h e s a i d r u l e b e i n g r e j e c t e d . a is in rule thus c a n be d e t e r m i n e d

from t h e b e l i e f

obligatory. Trendtex

S t e p h e n s o n L J , t h u s , was r i g h t because he was able with to shed the

difficulties customary customary law

usually to

associated
1 4 6

change can

another.

Courts

therefore

identify important

l a w by

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f two

i n g r e d i e n t s and t h a t i s usus sive necessitatis. about

( s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e ) and opinio juris and Judge Ago have a l l which

P r o f e s s o r B i n Chen customary

talked

instant

law, i . e . , droit

spontane

may o n l y come about a s a r e s u l t o f opinio juris without of state practice.

the a i d

T h i s phenomenon i s r a r e and only happen i n of the attendant rigorous process such

unique

cases,

i n the l i g h t

r e s p e c t i n g the formation as Nigeria, Libya,

o f customary law. (now Somalia, Rep. of

African states Congo),

Zaire

Ethiopia,

Tanzania,

Morocco,

Congo,

Uganda,

Zambia, Mozambique

and A n g o l a t h e r e f o r e have a p e r f e c t r i g h t t o r e s i s t t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s t r i c t i v e settled clothed response immunity, i n a s much a s t h e s a i d r u l e i s not w e l l of s t a t e s . And t h e s e opposing of state claims

i n the practice in to legal

arguments suits

i n support i n foreign

immunity i n

private

courts

a r e undoubtedly

146

S t e p h e n s o n L J ' s judgment i n T r e n d t e x 310

1977 2 WLR 356.

state practice, understood African in

which i n r e a l i t y the

shows how

international In this non

law

is

above mentioned are

countries. their

respect juris

countries

simply expressing

opinio

as to the

u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e b e h i n d the

restrictive

immunity.

Some Thoughts on the A opposes may is law, not not majority a be rule of right

P e r s i s t e n t Objector Rule scholars are agreed that before a state any state which law

from i t s i n c e p t i o n it.
1 4 7

i t becomes whose

bound by

Furthermore, the s a i d law

practice the In force the

i n f a v o u r or the

against

is still

bound by law. and

i.e.,

emerging

rule

if

i t finally

becomes thrust

o t h e r words, once a s t a t e has of this or emerging r u l e , the abrogate

s u b s c r i b e d to the

s t a t e cannot s u b s e q u e n t l y oppose to the emerging rule

rule

i t s obligations
1 4 8

when i t

becomes w e l l sovereign

a c c e p t e d as l a w The

i n the law

international remains
149

community by on the

states.

said

thus

binding

s t a t e u n t i l the Although law is scanty,

customary law justification at least the

i s changed. for the

theory

in

respect on the

of

case

ICJ

had that

touched of the

concept case.

obiter It was
1 4 7

dicta i n the Asylum Case and further taken up

Fisheries

i n the Anglo-Norwegian F i s h e r i e s c a s e i n

F i t z m a u r i c e (1957 I I ) Hague R e c u e i l 92 99-100; (1960 I I ) 101 Hague R e c u e i l ; Waldock (1962) 106 Hague A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . , note 93.
148

Sorensen Recueil;

A k e h u r s t , op.

c i t . , p.

24.

A k e h u r s t , op. c i t . , p. 13; t h e argument i s c a r r i e d a s t a g e f u r t h e r by Judge J e s s u p i n the S o u t h w e s t A f r i c a n case (1966) I C J . T h i s p o i n t was a l s o e x p l a i n e d by Judge S o r e n s e n i n t h e Anglo-Norwegian F i s h e r i e s c a s e I C J Rep 1966 p. 291. 311

149

which Norway a r g u e d t h a t i t was its territorial

not bound by UK's

argument t h a t p o i n t of i t s

s e a be measured from the low water The court ruled that

coastal line.

"Norway c a n j u s t i f y t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e s e w a t e r s a r e t e r r i t o r i a l or i n t e r n a l on t h e ground t h a t she has e x e r c i s e d t h e n e c e s s a r y j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r them f o r a l o n g p e r i o d w i t h o u t o p p o s i t i o n from o t h e r s t a t e s , a k i n d o f possessio longi temporus.

150

The

court f u r t h e r reasoned

that

" I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e c o u r t deems i t n e c e s s a r y t o p o i n t out t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e t e n - m i l e r u l e has been adopted by c e r t a i n s t a t e s b o t h i n t h e i r n a t i o n a l law and i n t h e i r t r e a t i e s and conventions, and although c e r t a i n a r b i t r a l d e c i s i o n have applied i t a s between s t a t e s , other s t a t e s have adopted a different limit. Consequently, the ten-mile rule has not a c q u i r e d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a g e n e r a l r u l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. In any event, the ten-mile r u l e would a p p e a r i n a p p l i c a b l e a s a g a i n s t Norway i n a s much a s she has opposed any a t t e m p t t o a p p l y i t t o Norwegian C o a s t . "
1 5 1

to be always

The

judgment

of

the

court

i n many r e s p e c t s seems t o be

highly theory or to

s l a n t e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e v o l u n t a r i s t or c o n s e n s u a l of international their law by which to a states given are held

responsible according by

bound by Judge

consent a

rule. state

Thus,

Sorensen, a

single from

dissenting law, state its

cannot

itself not be

obstruct bound by

custom the to So rule the

becoming said

however,

i t will

i f the rule

maintains formative

a consistent stages found until favour

objection maturity.

through

f a r the p e r s i s t e n t

o b j e c t o r r u l e has

with the d r a f t e r s of the restatement

of f o r e i g n r e l a t i o n s law of

1 5 0

U n i t e d Kingdom v . Norway Ibid.

(1951)

I C J Rep

116,

118.

1 5 1

312

the

United

States

1 5 2

and

some l e a d i n g explains

scholars. that

1 5 3

Brownlie

in

his exposition

of the

subject

"The way i n which, as a m a t t e r o f practice, custom resolves itself into a question of special relations is i l l u s t r a t e d f u r t h e r by the r u l e t h a t a s t a t e may c o n t r a c t out o f a custom i n the p r o c e s s of f o r m a t i o n . E v i d e n c e of objection must be c l e a r and t h e r e i s p r o b a b l y a p r e s u m p t i o n o f a c c e p t a n c e w h i c h i s t o be r e b u t t e d . Whatever the t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the principle, i t i s well recognised by international t r i b u n a l s and i n the p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s . "
1 5 4

If

the law

c o n c e p t has because of

gained v a l i d i t y consistency forceful would not in

and

thus

reflective practice, against effect And

of

customary Professor concept of

state argument

then the since the

Charney's persistent falls

belated objector into

have any

such a p o s i t i o n fact that

a minority category.

given

international the concept

r e l a t i o n s i s p r e d i c a t e d on is likely to gain support the

majorotarian since most

principles, states resent community. associated customary effect carpet. of

majorotarian dictatorship

within

international usually of the the

C h a r n e y ' s t h e s i s thus i g n o r e s the w i t h the

drawbacks

m a j o r o t a r i a n t e n d e n c i e s i n the law and he further also

formation sweeps under of

international the Most horizontal states

n a t u r e of

international to the

law

are

sensitive

notion

legal of

s o v e r e i g n t y which i s a c o r o l l a r y of

the

c o n c e p t of

equality

^See S t e i n , H a r v a r d I n t Law J o u r n a l V o l 26 a t p. and p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n on the p e r s i s t e n t rule.

1 5 3

15

470-473, objector

S e e D.J. H a r r i s , Cases and M a t r i a l s on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1998) 5 ed) pp. 42-43. See a l s o g e n e r a l l y B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . But Professor Charney has taken i s s u e w i t h t h e underlying r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d the p e r s i s t e n t o b j e c t o r r u l e (1985) 26 B Y I L 1.
1 5 4

B r o w n l i e , op.

c i t . , p.

10. 313

states,

and

therefore

ready

to

press

their

claims

against

any

r u l e which m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t Professor far as the Charney's

their

independence. also invites criticism in so are

thesis

basic

underlying

p r i n c i p l e s governing

treaties

based on the maxim pacta treaty has cannot confer to be

tertiis

nec nocent nec prosunt, or benefits In on this states a

i.e., a which the to run by

obligations a party gives treaties to

state respect,

refused

it. sovereign

persistent express counter

objector

rule to

the

right rules given

reservations to their

i f certain the

treaty example

interest. of Apartheid

Further,

Charney i n r e s p e c t persistent jus objection

i s s i m p l y non

sequitur

because

i s not was

a p p l i c a b l e with delicta juris should of

respect gentium

t o norms of or a crime have

cogens.

Apartheid and

against attracted the

humanity

therefore erga omnes

legitimately

obligations respecting

a l l states. were sensitive not been

Unfortunately because vetoes it of

issues race

Apartheid

involved Britain,

r e l a t i o n s and and the

i f i t had States,

the

France

United

South A f r i c a would
155

have of

been e x p e l l e d Apartheid be used a s

from t h e into a

U n i t e d Nations long ago. d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r y and

The

issue

falls

cannot

therefore objector could not

a good example i n debunking the congens, and

persistent therefore

rule.

A p a r t h e i d v i o l a t e d jus

be r e g a r d e d as a r i g h t o r a l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m of n a t i o n a l p o l i c y . The African r u l e of p e r s i s t e n t o b j e c t o r States because these i s r e l e v a n t i n the have always case of

countries

supported

S e e Dugard, op. c i t . , p. 298; C o u n c i l R e s o l u t i o n s on S o u t h A f r i c a . 314

1 5 5

and

the

various

Security

absolute

immunity and t h u s have i n t u r n opposed t h e d o c t r i n e immunity. by

156

of is

restrictive equally

The

position

of

African states

states and

shared

former

Eastern

European

Latin

American s t a t e s . these countries

So f a r a s a r e s u l t of i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n o f the universal development of restrictive have of

immunity has been p r e v e n t e d been able to block the

or b l o c k e d . development their

These c o u n t r i e s of the doctrine are

restrictive affected of these

immunity

because

interests

directly

by t h i s

emerging r u l e and s e c o n d l y b e c a u s e t h e number states appears q u i t e significant. i s emerging Thus and

dissenting the doctrine

although

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity

would soon become w e l l grounded i n the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s i n t h e West, i t i s not b i n d i n g on t h e s e A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s b e c a u s e t h e y opinio non juris i n respect with a

have been p e r s i s t e n t i n e x p r e s s i n g of restrictive immunity. As

a consequence we

are l e f t

s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e i s a p e r s i s t e n t d i v e r g e n c e i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s i n r e s p e c t o f t h e s e two competing d o c t r i n e s . words, a n o r m a t i v e r u l e does not e x i s t authorities are l e f t and apply to to f i l l local rely and t h e r e f o r e I n other national

judicial powers

i n t h e gaps t h r o u g h t h e i r law. on This local in effect data in had the

to p r e s c r i b e municipal

prompted

courts

c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of t h e a c t i v i t i e s of s t a t e s which, t o a g r e a t e r extent, had rendered judgments not i n the l e a s t reflective of

c u s t o m a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. See the A s i a n - A f r i c a n countries' recent p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e U.S. 197 6 S o v e r e i g n Immunity A c t ; N i g e r i a and L i b y a have a l l o v e r t l y p r o t e s t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the r e s t r i c t i v e immunity t o them. And most A f r i c a n s t a t e s sued abroad have p r o t e s t e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e f o r e i g n c o u r t . 315
1 5 6

Dr.

Akehurst,

while

exploring

the

issues

raised

above,

argued t h u s :
" P r o v i d e d t h a t the s t a t e o p p o s e s t h e r u l e i n the e a r l y days of the rule's existence or f o r m a t i o n and m a i n t a i n s the opposition consistently thereafter. Opposition which is manifested f o r the first t i m e a f t e r r u l e has become firmly established i s too late to prevent the s t a t e b e i n g bound, c o n v e r s e l y , when e a r l y o p p o s i t i o n i s abandoned i t l o s e s i t s effectiveness to prevent the rule becoming b i n d i n g on the State."
1 5 1

According recognised state their African by

to

Brownlie,

the

persistent and

objector thus

rule

is of in that of the

international Hence of

tribunals

reflective be be the bound right said rule by

practice. expositions countries

i f Akehurst subject, the are right African

and then to

Brownlie can it

the

have or

resist

restrictive

immunity

countries The an

emerging r u l e of question question i s in is

restrictive the

immunity? while since

answer t o the to the

first second in

affirmative the negative

answer evidence

in

abounds as

international Tanzania,

c a s e law

to p r o v e t h a t (now Rep.

such countries of Congo),

Nigeria, Uganda,

Zambia,

Zaire the UAR

Libya,

Morocco, E t h i o p i a , as in already

(Egypt),

S o m a l i a , Mozambique, Angola, the restrictive immunity

shown, have a l l c h a l l e n g e d English, German, South

American, and

African, This

Netherlands, even

Italian if

Indian

courts,

respectively. finally countries

means t h a t into

restrictive

immunity African

crystallises would not

customary it if

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, the had number of

be bound by

African same.

countries But

which

resisted i t s number of

application dissenting

remained the

i f i n c a s e the

1 5 7

S e e A k e h u r s t , op.

c i t . , p. 316

24.

African of and

s t a t e s r e d u c e s t o a b a r e minimum, then t h e i r non juris would become ex hypothesi

expression

opinio

inconsequential of s t a t e s i n

therefore

would be overwhelmed by the m a j o r i t y

f a v o u r o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. opinio the It, genaralis juris generalis,

T h i s i s simply so b e c a u s e i t i s that i s required to determine generalis. of great

e x i s t e n c e o f custom but not opinio however, of remains t o be seen

communis juris

whether governments t o support

majority

s t a t e s would be

willing

the " r u l e " of that they

restrictive

immunity by g i v i n g

up the r i g h t to p l e a d

be a c c o r d e d immunity f o r v e n t u r i n g cases, at least according to Third

i n t o commerce, which i n most World c o u n t r i e s , i s geared

t o w a r d s t h e b e t t e r m e n t of t h e i r

citizens.

The

Position

of

African

States

on

the

Sovereign

Immunity

Controversy Ever notional their since policy the Tate letter, most was written and became a

o f t h e US,

Western c o u n t r i e s immunity.

have thrown as the of

support behind the r e s t r i c t i v e shows was So due t o i n c r e a s e countries

And t h i s

evidence states.

i n commercial a c t i v i t i e s have

f a r African

remained s t e a d f a s t i n immunity b e c a u s e o f militates against

support of the c l a s s i c a l notion the fact that restrictive

of sovereign

immunity a d v e r s e l y foreign judicial

them.

And

those

sued b e f o r e

a u t h o r i t i e s have courts. Nigeria the

fiercely and

challenged for

the j u r i s d i c t i o n example, have

of these officially

Libya,

protested The

application therefore

of the r e s t r i c t i v e by African states

immunity t o them. to 317 the emerging

response of

doctrine

restrictive Egypt,

immunity

i s not favourable. and Togo,

Countries however,

such

as

South A f r i c a , Madagascar

follow the

doctrine. One interesting development that must be taken into

consideration

i s that the attainment

o f independence,

although,

gave many A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s t h e u n f e t t e r e d l a w s they these chose t o f o l l o w , especially

c o n t r o l over whatever

b u t s u r p r i s i n g l y enough, a l m o s t a l l Commonwealth African states,

158

states,

still This of

continue attitude

to follow i s also

t h e law o f a b s o l u t e

s t a t e immunity.

d i s c e r n i b l e i n French-speaking
159

countries

A f r i c a except It

Togo and M a d a g a s c a r . also

i s plausible

t o argue

that

t h e quest

for self-

determination from Eastern

gave r o o t t o n a t i o n a l i s m a n d i d e o l o g i c a l i n f l u e n c e Europe, particularly t h e former USSR.

160

Thus

r a d i c a l d i a l e c t i c a l teachings and i t s instrumentalities

161

covering in the

t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e s t a t e field of commerce and

international law

g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d t h e p o l i c y o f many s t a t e s

T h i s can be i n f e r r e d from A r t i c l e 3 p a r a g r a p h 1-3 o f t h e OAU C h a r t e r , coupled w i t h t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e s e s t a t e s on i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n s a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission (and a l s o on s u c h o r g a n i s a t i o n s a s EAEC (1967); UDEACO (1962); OCAM (1965) and ECOWAS ( 1 9 6 7 ) ) . S a n d e r s , op. c i t . , p. 221-227. I t must be s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f p r a c t i c e i n r e s p e c t o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n F r e n c h - s p e a k i n g c o u n t r i e s e x c e p t a few. G u i n e a , f o r example, a f t e r i n d e p e n d e n c e was encouraged by the theory of h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m (Marxist-Leninist ideas) and t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w e d t h e S o c i a l i s t b l o c k . T h i s was f o l l o w e d by Mozambique, Angola, M a l i , T a n z a n i a and Ghana. T h i s was f u r t h e r enhanced by t h e C o l d War o r t h e c o n c e p t o f b i - p o l a r i t y o f power. Bokor-Szego, New S t a t e s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Chapter 2; Tunkin, op. c i t . , Theory o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law. 318
161 160 159

(1970)

of

Africa
162

in

the This

direction was

of

the

classical between such 1960

notion and

of 1990 as

state as a

immunity. result Ghana, of

intensified In fact,

the

Cold Benin,

War.

countries

Guinea, almost

Niger,

Tanzania,

Ethiopia

and

Zambia were

c o n v e r t e d i n t o f o l l o w i n g the p a t h of S o c i a l i s m immediately a f t e r attaining f u l l The the no independence. immunity, law as already shown e l s e w h e r e , is

restrictive civil

product of evidence,

countries

o f Western Europe.

There i s during appear in

however, to support i t s e x i s t e n c e or in i n t h i s modern e r a , Africa are

1 6 3

in Africa

colonial some

times

a l t h o u g h i t would to imitate the

countries

trying

West

modulating t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . There is i s a great by

conviction

i n A f r i c a t h a t s t a t e immunity and this has been stated

permitted

international in a

law

expressis

verbis

form of p o s i t i v e c l a i m s authorities. African

clothed The

in legal of a

arguments b e f o r e n a t i o n a l j u d i c i a l tolerance regional against on the part of these

absence

states

presupposed

agenda g e a r e d towards the p r o t e c t i o n those states favouring the

of t h e i r

interest The

restrictive

immunity.

a t t i t u d e of A f r i c a n s t a t e s i n f a c t e x e m p l i f i e s t h e Anglo-Norwegian F i s h e r i e s c a s e respectively. Thus based on the and

t h a t of Norway i n case,

Peru i n the Asylum aud et

p r i n c i p l e of

alteram

OAU debates on sovereignty Commission's reports on Sovereign c o m p l a i n t s o f November (1987).

1 6 3

162

and nationalism; I Law Immunity. Recent AALCC

T h e s e c o u n t r i e s a r e South A f r i c a , and Madagascar, e.g., in 1970 only r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n A f r i c a . 319

Togo, Egypt

Egypt, L e s o t h o followed the

partem the

(meaning both

sides

must be h e a r d ) interests

African

states

have

right

to protect

their their

in

the international

community by p r e s s i n g It

claims

before n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s . there i s no e v i d e n c e o f or treaties Economic Economic (1967)

i s instructive also immunity African

t o note

that

restrictive signed Services Community made Mali, and up by

i n the following states, e.g.,

documents

the E a s t East

African African

Organisation (6 June 1967), o f Dahomey, now

(1962),

the

t h e West A f r i c a n Benin, Nigeria, Ghana,

Common Market Coast,

Ivory

Liberia, Togo

Mauritania, Faso;

Niger,

Senegal,

Sierra (1959); Ivory

Leone, West Coast,

Burkina

the Consei consisting Senegal

de l ' E n t e t e of Dahomey,

African Mali, Faso)

Monetary Mauritania, with

Union, Niger,

and Upper V o l t a t h e CFA

(now B u r k i n a Central

the object Union (1965);

164

of r e t a i n i n g

Franc;

African

Custom Ocam few. OAU,

(1966); West

Organization Custom

Commaine A f r i c a n Union UDEAD,

e t Malgach a

African

t o mention

Thus given particularly

the force Article 3

and t h r u s t Section

of the Charter which

of the the

1,

embraces

sovereign

e q u a l i t y o f a l l member s t a t e s , a main c o r o l l a r y o f t h e non habet or imperium, coupled by with t h e above States, does n o t Togo, by

maxim p a r in parem mentioned affords appear a treaties

agreements

signed

Africa

conclusion

that with

the r e s t r i c t i v e African states

immunity except

t o f i n d favour Madagascar

Egypt,

Lesotho,

and South

Africa,

currently

influenced

s t a t e p r a c t i c e i n t h e Western w o r l d .

1 6 4

S e e g e n e r a l l y Sanders, op. c i t . 320

One always states poor and it has

credible been made

or by

logically

grounded and

argument other

that

has

African the

countries that

developing are

is

that,

given

fact

developing

countries

weak e c o n o m i c a l l y , and become incumbent on

t h u s l a c k i n g of p r i v a t e of these

capital, to

governments

countries

undertake or development. these growth diverse stagnant states and

venture

i n t o commerce i n o r d e r t o promote economic diverse in activities promotion in the undertaken of by

T h e s e v a r i e d and are very

important stability.

the

economic of such

political

Thus

absence

activities, which in

the turn

economy of t h e s e c r e a t e s poverty, in fact has control

c o u n t r i e s would become instability a l l means of and chaos.

Most A f r i c a n and

countries

production

d i s t r i b u t i o n and The of

this

slowed down the as may

growth of p r i v a t e be r e c a l l e d came instituted brought to into

enterprise. about create the of because

Trendtex the other avoid

litigation Controls

Import

that

were

room f o r to

e s s e n t i a l commodities t o be acute shortages. which must This be

country, the

i s a good example undertaken by a

varied

activities

d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y i n o r d e r to keep the economy on good f o o t i n g . These countries therefore suit. this there suing i s no evidence of juridical Canada, African prefer state immunity in order to

a v o i d b e i n g open t o Quite persons or apart

from

natural

persons

America, So

Britain,

Germany, F r a n c e , s t a t e s are of the their interest to

etc.,

in Africa.

i n essence these

opinion

t h a t the d i c e have been loaded a g a i n s t of the application of restrictive These

in

respect in

immunity

them

Western

industrialised 321

countries.

sentiments again Asian-African (1976) states

have been e x p r e s s e d Consultative

i n a form o f p r o t e s t by t h e Committee against the U.S.

Legal

Sovereign arguably have

Immunity A c t i n November 1987. m o t i v a t e d by a s t r o n g joined other desire

Thus

African their limit

to protect to

interests

developing

nations

proceedings against to destroy

t h e person o f t h e s t a t e eo nomine, of

i n order

t h e u n i v e r s a l appeal o f t h e d o c t r i n e This undoubtedly has c r e a t e d

restrictive one

immunity. could In

a s i t u a t i o n where

s i m p l y argue t h a t , as o f now, t h e r e sense, will t h e t h e o r e t i c a l paradigms and t h i s

i s no n o r m a t i v e r u l e . or c o n f l i c t can c l e a r l y between be seen exist and

that

states within among

c e r t a i n l y continue context of

the legitimate states in

of the d i f f e r e n c e s ideology, management

that

respect

administrative

political

organization,

economic

and t h e s t a t u s o f

s t a t e organs and s t a t e t r a d i n g companies. Based its legal on i n t e r n a t i o n a l economic what benefits relations could of s t a t e s and s t a t e s or immunity? small with

implications,

African

developing countries

possibly derive since these

from r e s t r i c t i v e countries Thus

The answer must be none, private large

have v e r y countries

s e c t o r s and l a r g e p u b l i c sectors

sectors.

private

a r e more l i k e l y those with

t o reap large

the b e n e f i t s of sectors or an a v a l a n c h e said suits in

restrictive centrally of the most private

immunity w h i l e

public

c o n t r o l l e d economies would be f a c e d w i t h suits. The h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e s e

main h a s c r e a t e d African states.

a sense o f i n s e c u r i t y and a p p r e h e n s i o n i n F o r some i n t h e Western a spectre world, of the

doctrine

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity w i e l d s 322

justice,

but

to

others, the

i . e . , African doctrine gives

c o u n t r i e s and an

other

developing to have

countries, national dubious

unfettered

discretion laws which

authorities

to prescribe

and e n f o r c e

provenance o f v a l i d i t y law.

and weight

i n r e s p e c t of g e n e r a l d'etre and of restrictive of

international immunity runs

I n s h o r t , t h e raison to the

counter

aspirations

objectives

developing c o u n t r i e s . so f a r a s government

And a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e A f r i c a n s t a t e s , i n i s regarded a s an agent of the state, and

t h u s l e g a l l y endowed w i t h a u t h o r i t y t o make l a w s and t o promote justice, i t s h o u l d n o t by any measure be s u b j e c t e d t o the same and that penalties since of juridical still persons or natural

liabilities persons. subjects legally And

states

c o n t i n u e d t o be the b a s i c any d i s p u t e , i t would be order on their legal

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l untenable to

law w i t h o u t a

impose subject

vertical

sovereignty,

and t h u s

them f o r c i b l y consent.

to the j u r i s d i c t i o n

of m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s w i t h o u t t h e i r Restrictive countries the and

immunity s i m p l y works h a r d s h i p on T h i r d World h a s been Law put f o r t h expressis and verbis before

this

International There

Commission

national

judicial

authorities. where

i s t h e need t h e r e f o r e t o c r e a t e a compromise c l a i m s of these developing of the private trader. states can be the
165

the c o n f l i c t i n g with that

balanced

Certainly

application view of the

of the r e s t r i c t i v e fact that most

immunity i s not t h e a n s w e r ,

in

developing

c o u n t r i e s c o n s i d e r the

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , p. 333. S o r n a r a j a (1981) 31 ICLQ 661-85; H e r s c h L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . , B Y I L (1951) 222-7; Molot and J e w e t t (1982) 20 C a n a d i a n Yrbk 96-104; F i t z m a u r i c e (1933) 14 B Y I L 101-121; O ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . , p. 355. 323

1 6 5

d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity a s a T r o j a n g i f t h o r s e from t h e West.

The

P r e c e d i n g O b s e r v a t i o n s Suggest (1) The practice of states

the Following Conclusions in Africa careful i n respect however of of

sovereign diplomatic taken

immunity

i s scanty.

review

correspondence, international

general

d e c l a r a t i o n s and p o s i t i o n s states that

before

o r g a n i s a t i o n by most A f r i c a n

s u g g e s t t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r a b s o l u t e immunity and t h e c a l l d i s p u t e s o f t h i s n a t u r e be s o l v e d through (2) consider Many African c o u n t r i e s have arbitration. n o t had t h e c h a n c e immunity in

to

the issues

relating

to sovereign

their

local courts. still

Hence t h e t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n o f a b s o l u t e immunity

appeals t o these countries. (3) The f a c t t h a t most A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s have p r e m o b i l i s e d

authoritarian premobilised governments absolute approach. Britain, may take

governments democratic supports

with

low

sub-system or de

autonomy facto

and

governments that

military

the notion

the l o c a l to r e s i s t

sovereign i s

and t h e r e f o r e h i g h l y l i k e l y

the r e s t r i c t i v e autonomy s u c h a s

Thus c o u n t r i e s w i t h high sub-system

t h e U.S.A. and other i n d u s t r i a l i s e d c o u n t r i e s , a l t h o u g h some time a s have to consider been their p o s i t i o n s on so sovereign to

immunity,

demonstrated approach.

f a r , are l i k e l y i s supported

embrace t h e r e s t r i c t i v e fact that almost

And t h i s

by t h e high

every leading i n d u s t r i a l i s e d

country with

sub-system because

autonomy h a s now embraced t h e r e s t r i c t i v e there is a high level 324 of

approach, and

differentiation

secularisation

in

respect

to the p o l i t i c a l

and economic

systems

of t h e s e c o u n t r i e s o f t h e West. (4) Most A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s and d i s t r i b u t i o n and g i v e n the Charter to be of o f Economic a conflict c o n t r o l a l l means o f p r o d u c t i o n economic o r d e r c o u p l e d Duties of States, alluded of with

t h e new and

Rights

there i s ideas in

bound respect

between and

the the

above notion

state Hence,

contracts since these

restrictive limited in

immunity. African order

finance

capital

i s very into and

countries, to

s t a t e s have v e n t u r e d national treasury

commerce i n therefore avoid

replenish

their

arguably p r e f e r

the notion

o f s t a t e immunity i n o r d e r t o

being sued i n f o r e i g n (5) sovereign the

courts. Africa still follows the notion of

Commonwealth immunity.

I t would a p p e a r t h e d e c i s i o n handed down by

Privy Council

i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l d i d not a f f e c t t h e countries, s i n c e i t was not c o n s i d e r e d an

jurisprudence

of these

a u t h o r i t y but o n l y p e r s u a s i v e (6) there The preceding

in i t s entirety. warrants absolute a proposition that

position of

is a

general

practice

immunity

in Africa,

except of l a t e s u c h c o u n t r i e s

a s South A f r i c a , Togo, L e s o t h o and

Madagascar have jumped u n t o t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity band wagon, w i t h Egypt l e a d i n g recent complaints t h e way. mounted And by this the i s amply s u p p o r t e d by t h e Consultative

Asian-African

Committee

i n November 1987 a g a i n s t

the r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p l e i n

r e s p e c t o f t h e 1976 U.S. (7) municipal The doctrine

S o v e r e i g n Immunity A c t . of absolute immunity is a product of

c o u r t d e c i s i o n s , p r i n c i p a l l y d e v e l o p e d through t h e a i d 325

of

comparative

jurisprudence

in

America

and

Europe.

Its

e v o l u t i o n a r y process shows prima f a c i e t h a t i t was

sufficiently

grounded i n the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s t o be accepted as a p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. immunity was in 1812,

lbb

The

original

version

of

the

law

of

absolute McFaddon

first by

s t a t e d i n the Schooner Exchange v. Justice Marshall. Arguably,

Chief

t h e r e f o r e , A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s d i d not a f f e c t or c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e crystallization of the modern development of the said law in

view of the f a c t t h a t these c o u n t r i e s became independent i n t h e early f i f t i e s therefore and e a r l y s i x t i e s and t h e r e a f t e r . the classical law of These c o u n t r i e s immunity

accepted

absolute

without question, law. But one has

as r e q u i r e d by the p r i n c i p l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l worth considering by i s whether states absolute and the The

question been

immunity

abandoned

African

restrictive

r u l e i n t u r n has

been accepted i n i t s place? I t i s therefore

answer c e r t a i n l y i s i n the negative.

submitted modalities pleading

t h a t since some c o u n t r i e s i n A f r i c a have r e s i s t e d t h e of the restrictive immunity before foreign courts by

immunity as o f r i g h t , then t h e only p l a u s i b l e assumption t o make is t h a t these new countries i n A f r i c a would r a t h e r p r e f e r And these claims n o r m a l l y that

s t a t e immunity be p r e s e r v e d .

clothed

See S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , p. 355. The p r e s e n t w r i t e r i s n o t a t a l l a d v o c a t i n g t h a t the r i g h t s of the p r i v a t e t r a d e r be relegated t o the background but only a r g u i n g against the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity because i t i s a d o c t r i n e " q u i t e i m p r a c t i c a l when t e s t e d by t h e a c t u a l i t i e s of l i f e . " Change comes t h r o u g h a spectre of e n l i g h t e n m e n t b u t not by f a c i l e t h e o r i e s w h o l l y l a c k i n g o f r e a l i t y . I t is therefore submitted that practicality and well grounded r e a s o n i n g be a l l o w e d t o t r i u m p h over t h e o r y and u n c e r t a i n t y .
326

166

in

legal

arguments b e f o r e f o r e i g n

courts

i n support o f s t a t e

immunity are undoubtedly s t a t e p r a c t i c e . (8) Before t h e Second World War o n l y f o u r c o u n t r i e s were independent South A f r i c a . i n Africa, namely, Ethiopia, Liberia, Egypt and

And a l l these c o u n t r i e s except Egypt f o l l o w e d t h e South A f r i c a broke ranks

p r i n c i p l e o f a b s o l u t e immunity u n t i l w i t h other A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s i n 1981.

(9) I t i s s u b m i t t e d de lege ferenda t h a t t h e r u l e o f s t a t e immunity would c o n t i n u e t o appeal t o t h e T h i r d World because o f the new economic o r d e r and t h e g l o b a l order. horizontal expansionist

These f a c t o r s i n p r a c t i c a l sense would i n no t i m e c r e a t e

a c o n f l i c t i n g balance o f c l a i m s geared towards t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f the i n t e r e s t o f t h e T h i r d World. (10) based, I t i s submitted from that since international will of law i s

o r emanates

the collective

independent

s t a t e s , A f r i c a n s t a t e s have t h e r i g h t m i l i t a t e s against t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . f a c t t h a t some A f r i c a n states

t o r e s i s t any law which

And t h i s i s evidenced by t h e

i n r e c e n t times have c h a l l e n g e d

the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s as o f r i g h t i n r e s p e c t of absolute sovereign immunity, thus arguing that they be

accorded immunity.

The u n d e r l y i n g r a t i o n a l e o f such a c t i o n s i s

t o l i m i t t h e impact o f t h e changing phase o f modern c a p i t a l i s m on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e s t a t e . (11) The African obstruct states consistent against of e x p r e s s i o n o f opinio non juris by restrictive the said immunity rule by i s likely destroying to the

t h e growth

327

generality
animus.

of practice

required

t o support

i t s corpus and

(12) A t r u e g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s s a i d t o e x i s t i f
there i s a consensus o f opiniones individuales juris generalis

o f s t a t e s w i t h i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l community. (13) So f a r desuetude has n o t occurred, so i n essence adherents rule a

t h e r e i s a p e r s i s t e n t divergence o f p r a c t i c e between of state immunity and r e s t r i c t i v e does not e x i s t . immunity.

A normative

therefore perfect

And t h i s

gives A f r i c a n

states

right

t o challenge t h e legitimacy

of the doctrine of

restrictive

immunity,

i f t h e charge o f i t being a T r o j a n g i f t founded.

h o r s e from t h e West i s w e l l

328

CHAPTER SEVEN A LOOK AT THE ILC REPORT ON JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES AND THEIR PROPERTY

Introduction The work o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission on t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunities

o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y has been

concluded, a f t e r over 13 years o f t r y i n g t o c r e a t e an e q u i t a b l e balance between t h e r i g h t o f t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e r and t h a t o f t h e right of the foreign

1

state

before

national

a u t h o r i t i e s or

municipal courts. undertaking throwing navigating

I n f a c t , t h e t a s k i n r e a l i t y was n o t an easy Many thought unto t h e Commission was simply seas w i t h o u t any

at a l l .

i t s efforts

t h e uncharted

f o r c e , and t h e p r e d i c t i o n was t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g Such a

s p i r i t behind t h e whole e f f o r t would be drawn a t sea. p r e d i c t i o n i n some respects has a l o g i c a l f o r c e t o i t ,

i n so f a r

as t h e r e were a b a t t a l i o n o f c o u n t r i e s r a d i c a l l y opposed t o t h e principle of restrictive immunity.

2

Soviet

Union, now Russia,

r i g h t from t h e o u t s e t o f t h e work o f t h e Commission v o i c e d i t s opposition supported t o t h e idea of limiting immunity.

3

This

was

by t h e People's R e p u b l i c o f China, A f r i c a n s t a t e s and

i n t e r n a t i o n a l Legal M a t e r i a l s
2

(1991) pp. 1565-1574. Report from 1980-

See The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission

1988.
3

Ibid.
329

some

Latin

American

countries.

For some

time,

one

was

convinced t h a t t h e i d e o l o g i c a l

f o r c e o f China and Russia would

d e r a i l t h e a t t e m p t o f c o d i f y i n g t h i s area o f the law. However, the breakdown o f t h e S o v i e t Union gave way t o reforms i n Russia over t h e years had s o f t e n e d t h e Russian p o s i t i o n on a

which

number o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s s u e s , and thus had given room f o r the ILC t o proceed w i t h i t s work w i t h o u t much delay and l e n g t h y i n r e s p e c t o f Russia's i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n and t h e interest aggregation l i k e l y The purpose the Draft t o emanate from t h e

arguments collective

Warsaw Pact members. those aspects of

of this

study i s t o e x p l o r e likely to create

Articles,

c o n t r o v e r s y and u n c h a r t e d chaos.

The Changing Composition o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission The 21 ILC i s a l a w - c r e a t i n g agency which was e s t a b l i s h e d on 1947, by v i r t u e o f General Assembly Resolution

November
5

174(11) . War

I t s c r e a t i o n was made p o s s i b l e a f t e r t h e Second World expressed by governments to of

i n respect o f the interests a rapid growth

promote

and t h e p r o g r e s s i v e development

international law. It there

law, w i t h t h e u l t i m a t e aim o f c o d i f y i n g t h e s a i d

s t a r t e d o f f w i t h l i m i t e d membership, b u t over t h e years a steady expansion this i n fact o f t h e membership of the of

had been

Commission.

And

was

due t o t h e g a i n i n g

"ibid. ^ S i n c l a i r , The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission 1987, p. 1.

330

independence by many c o u n t r i e s a f t e r t h e Second World War. term o f o f f i c e i n regard t o i n d i v i d u a l members i s f i v e In fact, i n 1981 t h e membership was enlarged

The

years. Law

of the International These

Commission

to thirty-four.

thirty-four

members may be e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g method:

" (a) E i g h t n a t i o n a l s from A f r i c a n s t a t e s (b) Seven n a t i o n a l s from A s i a n s t a t e s (c) Three n a t i o n a l s from E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n s t a t e s (d) S i x n a t i o n a l s from L a t i n A m e r i c a n s t a t e s (e) E i g h t n a t i o n a l s from W e s t e r n E u r o p e o r o t h e r s t a t e s (f) One n a t i o n a l from A f r i c a n s t a t e s o r E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n s t a t e s i n r e l a t i o n , with the s e a t being a l l o c a t e d t o a n a t i o n a l of an A f r i c a n state i n the f i r s t election held a f t e r the a d o p t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t r e s o l u t i o n . (g) One n a t i o n a l from A s i a n s t a t e s o r L a t i n A m e r i c a n s t a t e s i n rotation, with the seat being a l l o c a t e d t o a n a t i o n a l o f an A s i a n s t a t e i n t h e f i r s t e l e c t i o n h e l d a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e present r e s o l u t i o n . "
6

The p a t t e r n w i t h o u t doubt she argued so much

of e l e c t i o n

and t h e c o m p o s i t i o n

o f t h e ILC

c l e a r l y s t r e n g t h e n s Judge H i g g i n s ' p o s i t i o n when from whom has very

sometime ago t h a t "Much o f t h e T h i r d World o f t h e impetus f o r change today

7

comes,

c o n s e r v a t i v e views about s t a t e immunity."

The l e a r n e d t h a t were

judge's

p o s i t i o n i s f u r t h e r supported by t h e views by the Third World i n response

expressed exceptions commercial

t o the purported i n terms of

o f f e r e d i n respect o f a b s o l u t e immunity

a c t i v i t i e s of state, vis-a-vis the proposal t h a t both the nature and t h e purpose t e s t s be c o n s i d e r e d o r t a k e n i n t o account when c o n s i d e r i n g whether t o g r a n t immunity o r n o t .
6 8

Coupled w i t h t h e

I b i d . , p. 15. See Higgins, op. c i t . , p. 265.

See ILC r e p o r t , 1980-1988: The evidence o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e T h i r d World can be seen i n t h e f i n a l D r a f t A r t i c l e s reproduced i n t h e I L M a t e r i a l s (1991), pp. 1565-1574.
331

Third

World's

opposition

to

t h e idea

of

subjecting

state

p r o p e r t y t o e x e c u t i o n o r attachment courts. developing given The increase

by m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s or l o c a l o f n a t i o n a l s from t h e Law to Commission has their

i n t h e number

countries nations

on t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l immense strength

these

ventilate

grievances

i n r e s p e c t o f those laws which m i l i t a t e against t h e i r

i n t e r e s t s , and t o shape t h e development o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

Some P r e l i m i n a r y

Observations Law Commission i n

The mandate g i v e n t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 1978

t o c o d i f y t h e law o f s t a t e immunity was declared functus back and t h e d r a f t articles are being

officio some few years

reviewed o r c o n s i d e r e d as a t now by t h e S i x t h Legal Committee o f t h e U.N. General Assembly w i t h a view towards i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n But a noteworthy q u e s t i o n t o ask from the o u t s e t articles i n i t s present form would be

into a treaty. is whether

the draft

acceptable t o a l l and sundry? observed that "the departure scene

Perhaps no, however, Lady Fox has o f the Soviet t h e chances Union from t h e

international adoption truth

has i n c r e a s e d text."
9

f o r successful

of a treaty

Whether t h e r e i s an element o f

t o her p o s i t i o n

i s y e t t o be seen, f o r t h e Soviet Union opposed t o t h e r e s t r i c t i v e

was n o t t h e o n l y c o u n t r y r a d i c a l l y immunity,

t h u s a r g u i n g t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity be In fact, countries a c c o r d i n g t o t h e ILC r e p o r t s , almost a l l have expressed the zeal t o have t h e

maintained. Third World

(1994) 43 ICLQ 193.

332

a b s o l u t e immunity d o c t r i n e preserved. of t h e S o v i e t Union as might

C e r t a i n l y t h e breakdown b u t i t cannot articles be on

be one f a c t o r , why

designated

t h e only

reason

the d r a f t

jurisdictional adoption. The draft

immunities o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y be near

articles

cover

five

major

subjects.

Part

covers p r e l i m i n a r y matters r e l a t i n g t o s t a t e immunity;

Part I I Part

e x p l a i n s t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s b e h i n d a b s o l u t e immunity; III

covers i n s t a n c e s i n which a f o r e i g n s t a t e cannot be immune from a

b e f o r e a m u n i c i p a l c o u r t ; Part IV e x p l o r e s s t a t e immunity measures of constraint i n regard t o proceedings

before

municipal court; toward

Part V covers m i s c e l l a n e o u s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e gaps

10

geared of

the f i l l i n g

i n t h e whole

endeavour

c o d i f y i n g t h i s area o f the l a w . The Article absolute Draft Articles,

under

general

principles, i . e . , the doctrine of of

5 i n r e a l terms f o l l o w s t o t h e l e t t e r , immunity, and then i n Part by following III,

the p r i n c i p l e

restrictive

immunity

t h e Commission

clearly

d e t r a c t s from t h e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e immunity. 17, therefore, f o l l o w the p r i n c i p l e s of limited

A r t i c l e s 10 t o immunity thus

c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure imperii and acta jure gentionis.

11

I t i s important t o stress t h a t

certain

a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s t a t e are n o t immune and these a r e employment c o n t r a c t s , i . e . , A r t i c l e 11; a c t i v i t i e s o r a c t s c a u s i n g damage

1 0

I L M a t e r i a l s , op. c i t . , note 1.

I b i d . , pp. 1568-1569.
333

to

property

or

injury

t o persons is fall covered

fall under

under

Article 14;

13; and

intellectual

property

Article One

a r b i t r a t i o n proceedings feature, Article however, 10, which

under A r t i c l e 17.

distinctive found under

of the Draft Articles covers commercial

can be

transaction,

mutatis

mutandis, w h i l e A r t i c l e 2(2) g i v e s prominence t o b o t h t h e nature t e s t and t h e purpose t e s t .

1 2

A r t i c l e 2(2) o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s r o u t e from t h e UK State

t h e r e f o r e appears t o t a k e a d i f f e r e n t Immunity A c t o f 1978, t h e U.S. Convention been g i v e n on S t a t e Immunity, t o t h e purpose

1976 FSIA and t h e 1972 European

i n s o f a r as no room appears t o have test i n the parlance Convention. o r domain o f

these Acts o r t h e s a i d 1972 European

S p e c i f i c E x c e p t i o n s t o Immunity o f S t a t e s The Commercial Element o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s Jurisdictional In immunity order Competence to detract from the p r i n c i p l e of absolute and I t s R e l a t i o n t o

t h e ILC d e s i g n a t e d

commercial

t r a n s a c t i o n s as t h e

u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o take j u r i s d i c t i o n o r not, coupled w i t h c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t e x c e p t i o n s : A r t i c l e 10, f o r

example, can be s t a t e d t h u s :
"(1) I f a s t a t e engages i n a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h a foreign natural or j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n , and by v i r t u e o f t h e applicable rules of p r i v a t e international law, differences relating to the commercial transaction fall within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a court o f a n o t h e r s t a t e , t h e s t a t e cannot i n v o k e immunity f r o m t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o c e e d i n g a r i s i n g out o f t h a t c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n .

1 2

I b i d . , p. 1565.
334

(2) P a r a g r a p h 1 does not a p p l y : (a) i n t h e c a s e o f a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n between s t a t e s o r (b) i f t h e p a r t i e s t o the c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n have e x p r e s s l y a g r e e d o t h e r w i s e . (3) The immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n e n j o y e d by a s t a t e s h a l l n o t be a f f e c t e d w i t h r e g a r d t o a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s to a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n engaged i n by a s t a t e e n t e r p r i s e o r o t h e r e n t i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e s t a t e w h i c h h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t y and i s c a p a b l e o f (a) s u i n g o r b e i n g sued; and (b) a c q u i r i n g , owing o r p o s s e s s i n g and d i s p o s i n g of property, i n c l u d i n g p r o p e r t y which the s t a t e has a u t h o r i z e d i t t o o p e r a t e or manage. "
1 3

The p o s i t i o n advanced by t h e ILC under t h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e draft articles i s n o t new, although one can d i s c e r n some

d r a f t i n g changes, f o r i t would appear i t s t e a c h i n g s f a l l same domain Sovereign as t h a t Act

1 4

i n the

o f t h e Immunity 1976 and the

A c t o f 1978, t h e U.S. European Convention, criticisms these

of

respectively, (supra),

and t h e r e f o r e open t o some e a r l i e r offered by t h e present writer

already

against

l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s placed i n t o these A c t s . appears t o have made some improvements. The states purpose o f A r t i c l e by laying bare 10 i s t o l i m i t

However, t h e ILC

the a c t i v i t i e s o f of commercial

the s p e c i f i c

meaning

transactions.

Thus i f a s t a t e signs a c o n t r a c t w i t h a f o r e i g n

n a t i o n a l o r j u r i d i c a l person and by v i r t u e o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e transaction qua t h e r u l e s of c o n f l i c t o f laws or private than

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, t h e law o f another that of the state involved with

state applies other then

the transaction,

such a

s t a t e cannot p l e a d t h a t i t be accorded immunity.

A r t i c l e 10,

1 3

I b i d . , pp. 1568-69.

See t h e U.S. A c t 1976, The U.K. A c t 1978, and t h e European Convention o f 1972.
335

14

paragraph political

(3) covers

some aspects

o f the controversy respecting f o l l o w s an

subdivisions of states, but s p e c i f i c a l l y

approach where t h e p o s i t i o n o f these s t a t e organs i s considered pari passu on t h e same o r denying footing as t h e s t a t e The approach i n respect o f of the Draft

according

immunity.

Articles i n this

r e s p e c t seems t o draw on t h e r u l e s o f p r i v a t e

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n as much as t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i s determined by reference to t h e lex fori as the basic rule i n the

characterisation of the a c t i v i t y of the state. a state party t o an agreement which

This means t h a t and n o t

i s commercial

s i g n i f i c a n t l y connected w i t h t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e b u t t o some o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t q u a l i f y f o r immunity i f sued i n t h a t o t h e r c o u r t i n case o f non-performance o r breach. By

f o l l o w i n g t h i s seemingly n e u t r a l approach t h e commissioners were trying to avoid being trapped acta by the abstract and test acta of jure

distinguishing

between

jure

imperii

gestionis. But a g a i n such an approach cannot be c o m p l e t e l y used t o a v o i d t h e t h o r n y problem o f d e t e r m i n i n g whether a g i v e n s t a t e activity or transaction This was concluded on a private law fact

relationship or not.

t h e n b r i n g s t o mind t h e p l a i n control

t h a t some s t a t e s a c t u a l l y

t h e means o f p r o d u c t i o n and and thus have v e r y small

distribution within their territories

p r i v a t e s e c t o r s and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t g a i n by t h e t h r u s t and force of A r t i c l e 10 o f t h e ILC draft articles. This also

applies t o countries w i t h s t a t e t r a d i n g

companies and c e n t r a l Thus i t can be t o state the

p l a n n i n g economies, e.g., T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s . argued that t h e attempt by t h e commissioners

336

general important

rule

of

state

immunity

and

thereby

listing

some

l i m i t a t i o n s t o i t , follow

about

t h e same

reasoning

behind the n a t i o n a l Singapore, respectively. a slightly

l e g i s l a t i o n already i n p l a c e i n t h e US, UK, Canada, Pakistan and South Africa,

Australia,

The commissioners, however, f o l l o w e d d i f f e r e n t approach The large i n dealing with

on t h e whole the sovereign

immunity favours

controversy. countries with

force

of A r t i c l e sectors,

10

undoubtedly

private

however, t h e

p u b l i c / p r i v a t e law d i s t i n c t i o n s cannot be determined by a s i m p l e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e v e r y language o f A r t i c l e 10, t h a t d r a f t a r t i c l e s a r e accepted as a t r e a t y t e x t . i s , i f the

Furthermore, i n

p r a c t i c e A r t i c l e 10 c o u l d g i v e r i s e t o d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n c e t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e o f s t a t e s more o f t e n than n o t seemed t o be influenced by d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Thus

t h e Jex f o r i would have t o take i n t o account n o t o n l y A r t i c l e 10 but also certain constitutional and s t a t u t o r y administrative

laws which must be i n t e r p r e t e d against t h e background o f whether a country follows law. a monist o r d u a l i s t approach t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l

Furthermore, even i f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s a r e passed i n t o a t h e r e i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some c o u n t r i e s by their constitutions and economic would be to

treaty,

influenced

policies

r e j e c t those aspects o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s l i k e l y t o a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s by r e g i s t e r i n g t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n As regards state enterprises, i t i s submitted to i t . that the

d r a f t A r t i c l e 10 paragraph 3 i s p u r e l y not purport

f u n c t i o n a l and thus does

t o address t h e s p e c i f i c problems r e l a t i n g t o t h e o f t h e independent

337

determination

legal

personality

of

state

organs.

This approach might have been f o l l o w e d o r t h e o t h e r appears and rules

i n so f a r as

every country i n one way rules held respecting corporations

t o have i t s own to publicly qua their

incorporation and closely

relating

held

corporations

r e l a t i o n s t o governmental f u n c t i o n s .

These d i f f e r e n t r u l e s o f

i n c o r p o r a t i o n , however, have c r e a t e d an e l u s i v e problem i n view of the f a c t t h a t such s u b s i d i a r y organs p e r f o r m d i f f e r e n t specifically be as less geared to the towards the and

concurrent good, hence

functions i t would approach

public on a in

helpful by

simply r e l y

functional

suggested

commissioners

determining whether these organs have performed a governmental f u n c t i o n or n o t . I s i t l e g a l l y f e a s i b l e t h a t a domestic c o u r t Or r e g a r d be had

must accept t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f a f o r e i g n law? to

some o t h e r law which i s germane t o t h e issues i n a g i v e n The majority of

1 5

case?

the

court

i n Baccus

concluded

that

f o r e i g n law was d e c i s i v e .

Parker J argued t h a t

"Whether or not i t i s s u c h a d e p a r t m e n t i s c l e a r l y a m a t t e r o f Spanish law. I s e e no ground f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e mere c o n s t i t u t i o n o f a body a s a l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h t h e r i g h t t o make c o n t r a c t s and t o sue and be s u e d i s w h o l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t r e m a i n i n g and b e i n g a d e p a r t m e n t o f s t a t e . "
1 6

Baccus Sr L v. S e r v i c i o N a c i o n a l d e l T r i g o (1957) 1QB 438; 23 ILR p 160. The p o s i t i o n i n A r r i b a L i m i t e d v. P e t r o l e o s Mexicanos (1992) ILR 103 p. 490 i s n o t t h a t d i f f e r e n t from Baccus because t h e p l a i n t i f f bears t h e onus o f r e b u t t i n g t h e existence of an agency r e l a t i o n s h i p . I b i d . a t p. 471, 472 and 473: Jenkins i n g i v i n g h i s b l e s s i n g s t o immunity i n t h e case a d m i t t e d t h e i n h e r e n t problems associated w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s o f s t a t e s .
338
1 6

15

He concluded t h a t Lord Denning thus: appeared

Spanish law be a p p l i e d . to follow t o some

I n Trendtex, t h e same

extent

reasoning

" I would l o o k t o a l l t h e e v i d e n c e t o s e e whether t h e organisation was under government control and exercise government f u n c t i o n s . "
1 7

Shaw L J i n t h e same case, t h a t i s , Trendtex, also d e c l a r e d t h a t "the c o n s t i t u t i o n and powers o f N i g e r i a n corporation

1 8

must be

viewed i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e domestic law o f N i g e r i a . " whole t h e s t a t u s o f the Central

But on t h e

Bank was misconstrued and t h i s The

i n t h e main s i m p l y c a s t s doubt on t h e d e c i s i o n i n Trendtex.

e x i s t i n g case law by every measure i s i n c o n s i s t e n t and thus does not give any c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f usus on t h e l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f The D r a f t A r t i c l e s as already stated follow a ( A r t s . 27

s t a t e agencies. functional and with 28).

approach as does t h e European Convention

Arguably, however, t h i s f u n c t i o n a l approach i s f r a u g h t and u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n view o f t h e f a c t

some d i f f i c u l t i e s

t h a t s t a t e agencies a r e n o r m a l l y endowed w i t h p u b l i c f u n c t i o n t o help i n t h e process of nation building and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n This phenomenon i s with a small

executing c e r t a i n important prevalent private i n developing sector. Article

public policies.

countries

or countries

10 i s q u i t e e s s e n t i a l

i n aiding the

process by which a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between governmental and commercial activities of states, but i t s legal force as a

" T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1977) 2 WLR 356, 370, must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from Walter F u l l e r A i r c r a f t Sales I n c . v. R e p u b l i c o f P h i l i p p i n e s (1992) ILR 103 p. 503.
1 8

I b i d . a t p. 385.
339

yardstick i n the determination of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l hampered by t h e f a c t

gestionis

competence i s acts jure

and

that

the d i s t i n c t i o n
is difficult

between

and acts jure

imperii

of definition

application

and t h e r e f o r e u n l i k e l y

to find

favour

with

many

developing s t a t e s . A proper balance between the i n t e r e s t o f t h e sovereign

s t a t e and t h a t o f t h e p r i v a t e e n t i t y

seemed, however, t o have

been achieved under t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s by t h e v a r i o u s e x c e p t i o n s adopted i n r e l a t i o n t o employment c o n t r a c t s

1 9

and q u e s t i o n s o f
2 0

t o r t s i n v o l v i n g i n j u r y t o persons o r damage t o p r o p e r t y .

The turn

D r a f t A r t i c l e 10, i n some r e s p e c t s , t o o k a much d i f f e r e n t

i n respect o f l i m i t a t i o n s on commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s as a l r e a d y shown, and t h e r e f o r e i f i t i s accepted as a t r e a t y t e x t , S e c t i o n 3(a) and (b) would have t o be c a r e f u l l y c o n s t r u e d f o r t h e r e i s no easy method organs of of determining states. case
21

the

independent v. New

status

of

subsidiary Department

Mellenger and that of

Brunswick Nada could

Corporation case

t h e Yousef courts

Establishment

are good

examples.

Perhaps

f o l l o w t h e e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l t e s t t o r e s o l v e these problems.

19

ILM, op. c i t . , p. 1569. Ibid.

2 0

(1971) 1 WLR 603. But see t h e d e c i s i o n i n , I n Re E s t a t e o f Ferdinand Marcos Human R i g h t s L i t i g a t i o n H i l a s and Others v. E s t a t e o f Marcos U.S. Court o f Appeals, 9 t h C i r c u i t (16 June 1994) ILR 103, p. 52 ILR 104, p. 119.
340

21

General Articles

Principles

of

Sovereign

Immunity

under

the

Draft

A r t i c l e Five i n Part Two o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s runs thus:

"A s t a t e e n j o y s immunity, i n r e s p e c t o f i t s e l f and i t s p r o p e r t y from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s of a n o t h e r s t a t e
22

subject

to the p r o v i s i o n s of the present a r t i c l e . "

This p r o v i s i o n it might appear,

i s without there

doubt more o f a compromise than was a d o c t r i n a l d i s p u t e between

since

those c o u n t r i e s who p r e f e r a b s o l u t e immunity and those i n favour of restrictive whereby immunity. state The commissioners i s stated thus followed an rule This

approach without

immunity

as a primary

n e g a t i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e r t o sue.

means t h a t A r t i c l e

5 does n o t i n r e a l terms f o l l o w t h e g e n e r a l

immunity approach b u t i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s lends i t s e l f t o i t s general import if and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . had laid I t would have been a p p o s i t e emphasis on connecting

t h e commissioners

much

f a c t o r s , t h a t i s , between a g i v e n t r a n s a c t i o n o r s t a t e a c t i v i t y and the foreign jurisdiction o r forum where the natural or Thus

j u r i d i c a l person would have h i s o r h e r r i g h t s redressed. the if implied the consent t o g r a n t provision

immunity would be b e t t e r r e a l i s e d on certain settled

said

i s conditioned

p r i n c i p l e s o f c o n f l i c t o f laws, i . e . , c o n n e c t i n g f a c t o r s backed by t h e p r e c e p t s o f p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. It arises i s important only i f a t o stress foreign t h a t t h e question refuses o f immunity t o the

state

t o submit right

jurisdiction
22

o f domestic

courts

and t h i s Draft

t o resist the General

ILM, op. c i t . , p. 1566; P r i n c i p l e s , P a r t I I A r t i c l e 5.

341

Articles:

j u r i s d i c t i o n of n a t i o n a l position in

a u t h o r i t i e s i s c l e a r l y d e r i v e d from t h e law c o u p l e d w i t h t h e r u l e of distinguished Law

of the s t a t e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l Exchange, 19th and

t h e Schooner in

the writings The issue

publicists Commission

early

century.

International

i n respect

of t h e above

recommended judicial that

that for authority

jurisdiction over a

t o be e x e r c i s e d state,

by a n a t i o n a l i s t h e need state.

sovereign from

there

consent

be

procured

the

defendant

This

recommendation, difficulties

however, i s not new and over t h e y e a r s had p r o d u c e d in litigation. It purpose the i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o note a l s o test i n Draft that

the i n c l u s i o n

of the

A r t i c l e s 2 paragraph has endowed the e f f e c t

2 a t t h e behest of states with

Third

World tools

certainly

defendant

powerful This other 1978, test. has

2 3

to counter

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity. as that of

aspect acts

of the d r a f t passed

i s not on t h e same p l a n e

i n other

j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The E n g l i s h

Act of

as w e l l

a s t h e US A c t , f o r example, r e j e c t e d

t h e purpose

And t h i s r e s t r i c t i v e approach, a s a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e , been incorporated or into the national

2 4

also

l e g i s l a t i o n of effect of

other Article of the

countries

jurisdictions.

The

combined

2 paragraph 2, A r t i c l e 5 and A r t i c l e 6 h a s t h e t e n d e n c y balancing the r i g h t s way. of the i n d i v i d u a l Which means that and t h a t of

equally state

i n a meaningful

i n order to

"Mann, The S t a t e Immunity A c t , 1978, (1979) 50 B Y I L 43. See Delaume, The F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t o f 1976, C l u n e t (1978) 105 p. 187.
24

See generally

International Legal 342

Materials.

implead articles test, The

foreign

state,

domestic

courts

under as

the the

draft nature

would have t o

grapple with the

such f a c t o r s

purpose t e s t , clash of therefore the

c o n s e n t and between

s a i d enumerated category of the

exceptions. territorial of the

the

aspect

sovereign

state

and

the

personality uncertain.

s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s i m p l y t h e n becomes s e v e r e and Article on the will 7, of paragraph the (1) a to and To

c i n a b s o l u t e terms touches its legal relations to of the the 7

parties

competence of draft articles

domestic courts. seems to follow

some e x t e n t t h i s p a r t practice.
2 5

English

Article

paragraph

(2) r e a d s as

follows:

"Agreement by a s t a t e f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the law of another state s h a l l not be interpreted as consent to the e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e c o u r t s o f t h a t o t h e r s t a t e . "
2 6

This issue

part

of

the

draft

articles

thus c l a r i f i e s and the an

the

thorny

respecting

arbitration

clauses

deep-seated arbitration to

misconception that

once a s t a t e has

entered into i t has regard of

agreement t h e r e i s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t immunity. the is Part The draft article in this

waived i t s r i g h t i s different forum

from

European C o n v e n t i o n where the liberally construed. A

principle state

prorogatus

defendant

s p e c i f i c a l l y under now to f i g h t courts. the The to

2 p a r a g r a p h 2 and suits of

A r t i c l e 5 has

more t o o l s in

private draft

l i t i g a t i n g parties

foreign

articles

i n many r e s p e c t s ,

however, make i t d i f f i c u l t

2 5

See generally 1 Legal A.

the

S o v e r e i g n Immunity A c t op. c i t . , p. 1567;

1978. Article 7(2) ILC

26

Materials,

Draft

343

d e t e r m i n e what extent, of one

i s an

exception

and

what

is a

rule.

2 7

To

some

i s p e r s u a d e d to argue t h a t c a s e s such a s t h e I Congreso del Partido and remain the New

Empire

Iran,

Brunswick of

Development C o r p o r a t i o n

would s t i l l

r e l e v a n t i n view 21.

the e f f e c t of d r a f t a r t i c l e s 3, 5, 6, 18 and

Execution Against a Foreign State A careful study of the practice of states in respect of

enforcement measures a g a i n s t s t a t e p r o p e r t y degree of u n c e r t a i n t y . accepted or

2 8

shows a c o n s i d e r a b l e fully the with

Even t h o s e to the

c o u n t r i e s w h i c h have principles of

subscribed principle

underlying

restrictive

have been w a n t i n g as t o how

to deal

the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n of e x e c u t i o n . enforcement measures be in commercial taken

2 9

Many c o u n t r i e s b e l i e v e t h a t against state there is property a used

only

activities.

While

lingering under related state For or the of

unanswered q u e s t i o n the to t h r e a t of b e i n g the

i n r e s p e c t to whether s u b j e c t e d to e x e c u t i o n against easy the

state be

property

directly

p r i v a t e a c t i o n brought In fact, this the i t i s not an

defendant

not. sake the

task for judges. 18 i s i n order,

of

justice, that

Draft A r t i c l e separated

i n view

fact
2 7

prescriptive

jurisdiction

from

I L M a t e r i a l s , op. c i t . , 1567, A r t i c l e s 5, 16 and 22, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

28

1571,

Articles

2(2),

S e e g e n e r a l l y (1979) Neth Y B I L 3-289; O ' C o n n e l l , op. c i t . ; Sucharitkul (1985) Yrbk I n t Law C I I P a r t 1; Johnson, 6, A u s t r a l i a n Y e a r Book of I n t . Lawl pp. 2-3. Crawford, Immunity (1981) II.
29

E x e c u t i o n of Judgments and 75 A J I L 820; S i n c l a i r (1980)

Foreign Sovereign 167 Hague R e c u e i l

344

enforcement

jurisdiction.

I n other

words,

i t followed the

p e r c e p t i o n t h a t s o v e r e i g n immunity i s t w o f o l d , by s e p a r a t i n g t h e public activity of the s t a t e acta jure state said imperii property article and t h a t res of

activities publicis follows.

respecting usibus

the use of The

publica as

destinata.

provides

"(1) No m e a s u r e of constraint, such as attachment, a r r e s t and e x e c u t i o n a g a i n s t p r o p e r t y o f a s t a t e may be t a k e n i n connection with a proceeding before a court of another state u n l e s s and e x c e p t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t . . . (c) the p r o p e r t y i s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n use or intended f o r use by t h e s t a t e f o r o t h e r than governmental non-commercial p u r p o s e s and i s i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e s t a t e o f t h e forum and has a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c l a i m w h i c h i s t h e o b j e c t o f t h e proceeding o r w i t h t h e agency o r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y a g a i n s t which t h e p r o c e e d i n g was d i r e c t e d . (2) Consent to the exercise of j u r i s d i c t i o n under Article 7 shall not imply t o the t a k i n g o f measures of c o n s t r a i n t under p a r a g r a p h 1, f o r w h i c h s e p a r a t e c o n s e n t s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y . "
3 0

Although Act

there

a r e d i f f e r e n c e s between 1610 o f t h e U.S. Act, i n r e a l i t y , Acts simply however, a l l

and S e c t i o n

13 o f t h e U.K. these

t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s under to paragraph 2 of

different 18, which

run counter two sets of

Article

requires

c o n s e n t s , t h u s one f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes enforcement measures o r e x e c u t i o n . q u i t e e f f e c t i v e and w e i g h t y for interlocutory relief Paragraph

and t h e o t h e r f o r 2 o f A r t i c l e 18 i s

and may p r e v e n t o r make i t d i f f i c u l t t o be procured. Such measures as

i n t e r i m and f i n a l consent even

r e l i e f would be h a r d t o come by s i n c e a second thus

i s needed b e f o r e e n f o r c e m e n t measures c a n be t a k e n , in issue happens to be

i f the property

involved i n

30

See

ILM p. 1567; I L C

Draft Articles,

Article

18, P a r t I V

1. 345

commercial a c t i v i t y .

3 1

The

U.K.

Act,

13(2) (a) and

the

U.S.Act

1610(d) a l l c o v e r t h e s e measures, treaty against but i f the i t would

pertinent draft

issues regarding articles take are

enforcement adopted as a

current be

text,

cumbersome t o

execution

forcee

s t a t e property. when the decisions Partido i n Philippine Admiral, English Trendtex courts, had

True, and

I Congreso d e l the

were handed down by the concept of could v.

many thought

hegemony of

s t a t e immunity

been t o t a l l y broken, but reflection came up kept in on the

b e f o r e one Alcorn

take

some r e s p i t e f o r of Colombia

subject, The

Ltd.

Republic

for l i t i g a t i o n . the defendant for 13 the

i s s u e i n Alcorn was bank can be

whether monies as

state's

characterised the Lord

"property" meaning ruled by of

used

commercial of the

purposes Act

within 1978.

specific Diplock plea the the

Section

English

i n f a v o u r of that

defendant s t a t e t h u s r e j e c t i n g t h e allowed against was taken in

Alcom L t d . of

enforcement measures be A
3 2

Republic Philippine

Colombia. Embassy c a s e

similar position by the

German C o n s t i t u t i o n a l the

Court. force

A g a i n i n the and thrust

l i g h t of these of Article

a u t h o r i t i e s , coupled with of the Draft Articles;

2(2)

i t would court the

appear the p o s i t i o n o f the is considerably Draft

foreign s t a t e before a domestic Which means that and under the

strengthened. 18

present

Article

i t i s the

nature t e s t

purpose

31

S e e P a r t IV of the I L C D r a f t A r t i c l e s

(2).

B V e r f GE V o l . 46 p. 342 (1982), S t Leg S e r B/20 p 297. But was a l s o extended i n T h i r d Avenue A s s o c i a t e s and A n o t h e r , 1993 U.S. C o u r t of A p p e a l s 2nd C i r c u i t 767 ( I L R 99 p. 1 9 3 ) . 346

32

t e s t t h a t would have t o be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g property be subjected to execution or

whether

state seemed

not, and t h i s

somewhat t o have been made c l e a r Alcom. Thus the denial of

i n Lord immunity

Diplock's d e c i s i o n i n does not mean that

enforcement measures be t a k e n .

Actions

i n Tort

i n Respect

to

Personal

Injury

or

Damage

to

P r o p e r t y under t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s Article cover 12 o f t h e d r a f t issues articles to i s not new and a p p e a r s t o diplomatic and consular

certain
3 3

relating

privileges.

And i t s u n d e r l y i n g

f o r c e f o l l o w s some a s p e c t s o f
3 4

p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n r e s p e c t t o t o r t s . as f o l l o w s :

A r t i c l e 12 r e a d s

"Unless o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d between t h e s t a t e s concerned, a s t a t e cannot i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f another s t a t e which i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a proceeding which r e l a t e s t o p e c u n i a r y compensation f o r death or i n j u r y t o t h e p e r s o n , o r damage t o o r l o s s o f t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y c a u s e d by an a c t o r o m i s s i o n o c c u r r e d i n whole o r i n p a r t i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h a t o t h e r s t a t e and i f t h e a u t h o r o f t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n was present i n t h a t t e r r i t o r y a t t h e time o f t h e a c t or o m i s s i o n . "
3 5

Article Convention

12 i s q u i t e s i m i l a r except that the

to A r t i c l e

11 o f t h e European took into the

European "the f a c t s

Convention which

consideration

a s t o whether

occasioned

i n j u r y o r damage, o c c u r r e d i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e s t a t e o f t h e forum."
36

Thus i n r e a l terms t h e s e two p r o v i s i o n s f o l l o w t h e same

33

S e e B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . ,

pp. 355-361. (1993) pp. 1480-1550.

3 4

D i c e y and M o r r i s on C o n f l i c t o f Laws S e e I n t L e g a l M a t e r i a l s p. 1569. European Convention

35

36

(1972) A r t i c l e 11. 347

approach

i n l i m i t i n g immunity t o s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s . passed i n other countries such

The n a t i o n a l

legislation Singapore, emphasis loci

a s t h e US, UK,

P a k i s t a n , South A f r i c a and Canada, however, l a i d much t h e harm o c c u r r e d , i . e . , t h e lex

on t h e p l a c e where rather than

delicti

the causative

a c t or the s p e c i f i c

reasons for the injury. fact that the place

And t h i s of i n j u r y

seems t o be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e rule provides certainty and

predictability, c e r t a i n unique A purpose

n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g i t s shortcomings cases. examination of A r t i c l e 12

i n respect to

thorough

shows

that i t s

i s t o e n a b l e the v i c t i m o f a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t t o s u e t h e The f a c t , however, s t i l l full on privileges remains

sending s t a t e of the diplomat. that under t h e diplomat the Vienna cannot i s accorded Convention be sued

and i m m u n i t i e s Relations,
3 7

Diplomatic

and

therefore sending

u n l e s s consent can the s u i t

i s procured against

from t h e

state.

How, t h e n ,

t h e s t a t e be

determined? the that clear acting answer,

The p r i n c i p l e s o f v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y c o u l d p r o v i d e b u t then state again would i t must be borne i n mind, o n l y be h e l d l i a b l e t o the fact that however,

a foreign evidence within

i f there i s a was

to attest

the diplomat

t h e c o n f i n e s o f h i s or her d i p l o m a t i c d u t i e s o r P r o f e s s o r Brownlie says that

employment.

" I n t h e c a s e o f o f f i c i a l a c t s t h e immunity i s permanent, s i n c e i t i s that of t h e sending s t a t e . I n respect of private a c t s the immunity i s c o n t i n g e n t a n d supplementary and i t c e a s e s when t h e i n d i v i d u a l concerned l e a v e s h i s p o s t . "
3 8

3 7

(1965) 500 UMTS 261;

596 UMTS 261. p. 358. 348

3 8

S e e B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . ,

T h i s means t h a t i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e one must d i s t i n g u i s h between o f f i c i a l or and private acts, taking i n t o account that which these is contingent

the l i a b i l i t y of the s t a t e a c t s and n o n - o f f i c i a l immunity which acts

i s permanent Thus in

and

supplementary. t o have

exploring force Vienna

issues, 37(2),

i t i s important Article

regard to the 32 of the

of A r t i c l e Convention.

3 8 ( 1 ) and A r t i c l e

This area issues

o f t h e l a w undoubtedly i n v o l v e s which must be approached with

difficult care.

interrelated

I n a r e c e n t c a s e where Mr. G u e a r g u i of in

Markaradze, a d i p l o m a t

the R e p u b l i c of G e o r g i a , c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f J o v i a n e W a l t r i c k a serious car accident,

3 9

a request

was made t o G e o r g i a ,

former

R e p u b l i c of t h e USSR, t h a t

immunity be waived.

Although

such a r e q u e s t was a c c e d e d state, became however, i t would about that

t o by t h e o f f i c i a l s appear the

of the sending of Georgia and

t h e government fate of Mr.

apprehensive suggested he be

Markaradze

therefore United Georgia being and

i f Mr. to

Markaradze i s c o n v i c t e d i n the serve h i s prison sentence i n

States (i.e.,

allowed

i n t h e former

S o v i e t R e p u b l i c ) ; and t h e r e a s o n the accident occurred be charged with a

t h a t Mr. Markaradze was drunk when i n the United murder, which Although States he

i f tried

may

second-degree twenty years.

c a r r i e s a p r i s o n term between t e n t o of t h i s n a t u r e would be too t o be p r o s e c u t e d i n occurred. Amid

a sentence

severe, Georgia d i d allow the s a i d diplomat the United States, i . e . , where

the accident

See U.S. News and World R e p o r t , 349

J a n . 20, 1997, p. 14.

diplomatic Joviane since

negotiations,

Georgia

finally

paid appear

the the

expenses family

of had for

Waltrick's

funeral. with paid. Republic granted a the

I t would insurance

then negotiated

company of G e o r g i a

d e a t h b e n e f i t s t o be In Letelier v.

of

Chile,

4 0

the

court

was

not out at

p e r s u a d e d t h a t C h i l e be of the held the a s s a s s i n a t i o n of to be against v.

immunity f o r c l a i m s a r i s i n g citizen who was revealed I t was that

Chilean

trial in

the

government of C h i l e . Republic of Brazil, for the

4 1

also Brazil act

Skeen be

Federated

cannot

v i c a r i o u s l y held

responsible

tortious

c a u s e d by States

t h e grandson of t h e B r a z i l i a n ambassador to the such an action falls outside the

United of

because

confines

governmental One

activities. case worth considering and a Her i s John McElhinney v.

other

Anthony I v o r John W i l l i a m s for the each first Northern person, of the Ireland, negligence defendants.
4 2

M a j e s t y ' s S e c r e t a r y of of

State to

there and

charge of

assault, trespass sought

breach facts

duty was be

against the Royal 11:30 a

The

can

r e l a t e d thus:

r e s p o n d e n t was

a p r o f e s s i o n a l B r i t i s h s o l d i e r i n the i n Northern March, 1991, Ireland. while he At was on about

Military p.m. on

Police stationed the at 4th day of

guarding the

checkpoint between

Culmore

Road

County and the

Londonderry, Republic of

border the

Northern

Ireland

Ireland,

4 0

( 1 9 8 0 ) 488 ( 1 9 8 3 ) 566

F.Supp. 665; F.Supp. p. 1414. 691.

671-3.

4 1

4 2

(1995) I L R 104

350

plaintiff was

drove through the carried

check p o i n t across

and the

the

first

defendant into the the to

involuntarily

border

j u r i s d i c t i o n of the r e p u b l i c of behaviour fire a gun the of the at appellant, the

I r e l a n d , and first The the

i n r e a c t i o n to attempted

respondent

the

appellant. respondent,

appellant Secretary

brought of

charges for of

against

second

State

N o r t h e r n I r e l a n d , on the ground t h a t b e i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e Her M a j e s t y ' s Government, he The was responsible for the

soldiers' pleadings sovereign

tortious action. t h a t the immunity. The Ireland, apply in

S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e prayed i n h i s be s e t a s i d e on the ground o f

s e r v i c e on him

The High Court r u l e d t h a t s o v e r e i g n appellant arguing respect of the and of t h e r e a f t e r appealed to alia, that clearly of a the

immunity a p p l i e d . Supreme C o u r t immunity from state the did of not

inter of

sovereign arising foreign

claims

tortious the

conduct

servant that

within an

jurisdiction, to the rule that

such a

conduct

constituted The

exception further infringe was

sovereign of

immunity. sovereign bodily

appellant would The

claimed his

recognition

immunity

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to

integrity.

appeal In

d i s m i s s e d based on the f o r c e o f s o v e r e i g n its c o n c l u s i o n Hamilton C J r e a s o n e d

" I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e L o r d P o r t e r , what i s t h e law n a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l a r e bound, t r e a t one a n o t h e r . "

immunity.

reaching

thus:

p r o p e r q u e s t i o n i s a s s t a t e d byof n a t i o n s by which civilized not how i n d i v i d u a l nations may

He

continued

by s a y i n g

that:

Distinction must be drawn b e t w e e n the provisions of l e g i s l a t i o n i n a number of s t a t e s and t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and t h e p r i n c i p l e s s e t f o r t h i n i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n cannot be r e g a r d e d a s e s t a b l i s h i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

351

The p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t u t e s c a n n o t be u s e d as e v i d e n c e of what i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s : s t a t u t e s a r e e v i d e n c e of domestic law i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s and not e v i d e n c e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law generally."

4 3

The respecting that a

Irish

court

took

issue

with

the

underlying that the

principle mere (lex fact loci of

restrictive act was

immunity by

arguing

tortious is not

committed i n t h e or justified

forum s t a t e by any

delicti)

sufficient law that

measure

general i n t e r n a t i o n a l Thus i f a s t a t e sovereign sovereign the fact

immunity be

d e n i e d or r e s t r i c t e d . the be conduct applied of to to the the the by be

d e c i d e s to e n a c t laws r e s p e c t i n g that unless law there (statutes) cannot

states, states that

i s c o p i o u s e v i d e n c e to a t t e s t accept the l i m i t s of

states

are

w i l l i n g to

said statute. statute hallmark opinio

I n o t h e r words, the a c c e p t e d by i.e., one a

u n d e r l y i n g consequence of s t a t e s i f i t has practice duly attained supported that must

would o n l y be of custom, But why

settled

juris. is the

fundamental state be

question granted

addressed action to or

should

immunity has

if its

tortious or or

conduct of

i t s servant The be

caused damage the of not law to law. the

ajuridical that torts

natural

person? cannot

answer stems from the proper subjects

fact

contracts (public) these

international have rules

disputes covering

s i n c e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law does Perhaps municipal

subjects.

a n a l o g i e s would be whether The a

h e l p f u l , but state i n the can

h e r e a g a i n one be subjected to

i s burdened as a vertical is

sovereign

a n s w e r must be

n e g a t i v e b e c a u s e m u n i c i p a l law

4 3

(1995) I L R 104

p.

703. 352

creature basis it be of

of

s o v e r e i g n t y and

as

s u c h cannot law, from

adequately

form

the that

general

international distinguished

hence i t i s s u b m i t t e d the principles that Act, 6(a) of

clearly

general the (b) , and

international International the U.S. Act

to Law

avoid

the

difficulties The British Act

faced and (b)

Commission. 5.3, the

5(a) and

1605(a) state

Canadian

other of not

individual

legislation

respecting

tortious usus and

conduct and thus

foreign

sovereign of

states a l l lack general

e v i d e n c e of law

reflective states

international right to

therefore restrictive

sovereign

have a p e r f e c t

challenge This

immunity whenever i t i s a p p l i e d put forth because

t o them.

argument i s b e i n g is premised municipal on law

restrictive wholly

immunity derived to the

questionable values, and

assumptions therefore

from

runs

counter The

stable

intercourse to the

between s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s . claim law but of not

appellant was

failed

i n h i s quest

damages because Hamilton C . J . n a t i o n s by which s o v e r e i g n state

more c o n c e r n e d w i t h i n general respecting are

states

bound,

individual

legislation

restrictive

immunity. The with much and draft article 12 appears on would the to be neutrally test was to or construed connecting establish state a to

emphasis the aim

placed one

locus

factors

presume action a

normative c r i t e r i a i n l i n k i n g the the forum. This law arguably but one

of t h e deviation

foreign from to

is is

general that the

international

encouraged

argue that

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s would p r e v a i l i n the

S i x t h Committee and

353

delegates claims. The

would

differ

constructively

on

the

issue

of

tort

four

cases

alluded the

to

above

show

that

further vis-

difficulties a-vis Section

surround 12 of

meaning of

diplomatic privileges

the

Draft

A r t i c l e s qua

t o r t i o u s a c t s and i t g i v e n more and

would have been most h e l p f u l attention sensitive arbitration to its drafting

i f the c o m m i s s i o n e r s had for it leaves some

important

issues would

unaddressed. be a better

Arguably, approach in

international resolving these

i n t r a c t a b l e problems.

The

E f f e c t of

Draft

A r t i c l e 2 Paragraph 2 on

the A p p l i c a t i o n

of

the R e s t r i c t i v e P r i n c i p l e The but p r i n c i p l e of gained the r e s t r i c t i v e immunity c e r t a i n l y l a c k s usus i t s strength inclusion 2 will of of or the prowess purpose from the test nature the

in reality

test. present doctrine will the be

However, draft into

into

article a state

undoubtedly

throw t h e means that the

restrictive i t s effect rights of

stuporwhich of

greatly

reduced

i n respect And

protecting before

private

trader.

litigation and private without

municipal parties out.

courts will This

involving certainly would since

sovereign become

states

litigating any of test easy way

complicated create an

ultimately i t is

atmosphere the purpose

bitter would

litigation, serve as a

highly
4 4

likely the

factor in converting
44

commercial a c t s o f the

s t a t e i n t o acta

S e e what L.A. Forest P u b l i c S e r v i c e A l l i a n c e of Supreme C o u r t .

J . s a i d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. The Canada (1993) 32, ILM 1 Canadian

354

jure

imperii

thus

paving

way

for

the

state

to

q u a l i f y for competing the

immunity. concept

While

conversely, test

i f the opposite i s applied, thus

or the by

of t h e n a t u r e

excluding of

purpose t e s t c o m p l e t e l y , would in turn be

t h e s e governmental a c t i v i t i e s as jure two could gestionis. concepts, perhaps

states Rigid

characterised

adherence, nature

t h e r e f o r e , t o both of t h e s e and the purpose test,

i . e . , the offer an

test

attractive

s o l u t i o n t o the c o n t r o v e r s y

a t hand, i . e . , p r o m o t i n g

j u s t i c e i n t h e market p l a c e . A mixed may be a p p l i c a t i o n of both t h e n a t u r e and purpose will tests bring and

cumbersome and t r i c k y but i n good c o n s c i e n c e

about a f a i r b a l a n c i n g of r i g h t s between t h e s o v e r e i g n the private trader. However, i t may conflict with

state

a l l the rejected

national the Act, and

legislation test

i n o p e r a t i o n which have ab initio A c t , t h e U.K.

purpose

(e.g., t h e U.S.

Act, P a k i s t a n i

t h e S i n g a p o r e A c t , t h e Canadian A c t , the South African Act. This applies

the A u s t r a l i a n Act, also i t be to the 1972

European

C o n v e n t i o n on s t a t e

immunity.

Will

appropriate test? Lord be

t o a l l o w t h e purpose t e s t Wilberforce helpful approach" respects but

t o compliment

the nature

i n I Congreso argued t h a t such far from by decisive. Lord Or

an a p p r o a c h w i l l the useful? light on

will be

"contextual In the the some whole nature force

followed such an

Wilberforce help

approach

will

throw

underlying

issue

r e s p e c t i n g s t a t e immunity v i s - a - v i s

and purpose t e s t s . and e f f e c t i v e n e s s , may fall

But no one can g u a r a n t e e i t s g e n e r a l f o r w h i l e i t may

be u s e f u l i n some c a s e s , i t Take, f o r

f a r s h o r t o f being e f f e c t i v e i n o t h e r c a s e s . 355

example, the result of

case

of

S e n g u p t a v. from

Republic his

of

India,

4 5

where as a plaintiff for with

being

dismissed

employment, c a s e was court

the

sued f o r u n f a i r d i s m i s s a l . lack of jurisdiction, prima

A l t h o u g h the facie, the

dismissed faced

was

difficulties

i n t r y i n g to public law in

c h a r a c t e r i s e the main i s s u e distinctions. the case of

according

to p r i v a t e and were also

4 6

Thus s i m i l a r problems Littrell v. The United used

encountered

States.

There the a u t h o r i t y

i n I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o was the underlying "In the my U.S. principles

as a y a r d s t i c k i n c o n s t r u i n g in the the case.

followed

Hoffman L J r u l e d t h a t of medical care which i t s own

judgment, however, affords its own In

standard

servicemen my was was

i s a matter w i t h i n the

sovereign

authority.

judgment, t h e r e f o r e , clearly on the jure the

a c t o f which Mr. s i d e of t h e
4 7

Littrell line and

complains the judge

imperii action."

r i g h t to d i s m i s s An

i s s u e o f s i m i l a r k i n d a l s o came up
48

i n the U n i t e d

States was

v. the P u b l i c S e r v i c e A l l i a n c e o f C a n a d a . f a c e d w i t h the d i f f i c u l t i e s

There, the c o u r t

of d e f i n i n g a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n that

w i t h i n the domain o f an employment c o n t r a c t , the c o u r t h e l d in the strictest sense the contract

of employment a t a m i l i t a r y the

base was nature

a sovereign of the

activity

a l t h o u g h from a l l i n d i c a t i o n s was commercial in

transaction

outlook.

4 5

(1983) ICR 221 (19 9 4 ) 2 A l l ER Ibid. (19 9 3 ) 32

(Employment A p p e a l T r i b u n a l ) . 203 (Court of A p p e a l ) .

4 6

4 7

4 8

ILM 1 C a n a d i a n Supreme C o u r t . 356

Undoubtedly,

L.A.

Forest

J took some l e s s o n s from t h e These

judgment the

o f L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e i n t h e I Congreso. view that the (i.e., term acta commercial jure

c a s e s support and some

transaction need

sovereign further On an

authority

imperii)

clarification the whole it

or e l u c i d a t i o n is doubtful

i n order t o p r e v e n t c o n f u s i o n . as to whether legislation only or

international to promoting

convention equity

can be

designated as the in

panacea business

and

justice

transnational

t r a n s a c t i o n qua s t a t e

rights. of f a i r n e s s must be being given a

Judges t h e r e f o r e a s a matter degree by

of freedom t o e x p l o r e t h e s e i s s u e s w i t h o u t legislation

limited to

national

s e n t i m e n t a l l y or s e l e c t i v e l y The

couched

protect

the r i g h t s

of t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e r .

U n i t e d Kingdom, immunity, f o r

f o r example, does not need a l e g i s l a t i o n on its

state

c o u r t s a r e c a p a b l e of d e v e l o p i n g t h i s a r e a of t h e law, i . e . , immunity and without New Zealand any difficulties. Group good Alcorn, v. and the
4 9

state

Australia decisions

Banking a

Ltd.

Australia of

undoubtedly

offer

illustration

the also

c o n s i d e r a b l e problems l e f t p r o v i d e d a good r o a d map

unanswered but a t t h e same time

f o r t h i s uncharted journey w i t h r e s p e c t

t o r e s o l v i n g the s o v e r e i g n immunity c o n t r o v e r s y .

4 9

C i t e d from

(1990) 39 ICLQ

950.

357

Some R e f l e c t i o n s

on

the

Influence ILC one of

of

the

Third

World

on

the

D e l i b e r a t i o n s o f the Dr. Sucharitkul in

his

expositions

on

state

immunity argued t h a t
" I t s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d , on t h e o t h e r hand, t h a t s e v e r a l governments e x p r e s s e d c e r t a i n preference f o r a more absolute r u l e of s t a t e immunity. The USSR and E a s t e r n European c o u n t r i e s as w e l l a s some d e v e l o p i n g A s i a n , A f r i c a n and L a t i n A m e r i c a n s t a t e s would l i k e t o s e e t h e r u l e o f s t a t e immunity u p h e l d and m a i n t a i n e d r a t h e r t h a n e r o d e d by l a r g e e x c e p t i o n s . T h e i r views cannot be i g n o r e d . "
5 0

The if not

observation

alluded that

to

above w a r r a n t s i s a general of states of

proposition, state rather since in the

a conclusion, or that the

there

p r a c t i c e of the world And be

immunity prefer the

majority state

that

absolute

immunity be countries the

maintained. happened narrowing to of

Western the won

industrialised views the day. to

minority, exceptions concerted person of of of The into

respecting

commercial in a the

T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s , proceedings or

therefore, against

effort the

limit

instituted the

s t a t e eo

nomine

against

subsidiary on

organs

sovereign

s t a t e s mounted a immunity w h i c h

forceful attack has found

the p r i n c i p l e with are their the West.

restrictive

favour

Venezuela argument t h a t the market of lack place of to

T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s satisfy capital the and needs that of

venturing citizens

because

finance

l i m i t i n g immunity that

w i l l be p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e s e cannot be It dismissed, such

countries or

i s a genuine c o n c e r n t o the

challenged an

relegated might have

background. enormous

would appear

argument

received

See Mohammed Bedjaoui (ed.) Achievements and P r o s p e c t s (1991) p. 333. 358

50

International

Law,

s u p p o r t from a m a j o r i t y t h i s ex hypothesi purpose forceful Certainly crystallise be test into

o f s t a t e s from t h e d e v e l o p i n g w o r l d , and f o r the i n t r o d u c t i o n

5 1

seemed r e s p o n s i b l e the d r a f t

of the

articles,

thus

s a t i s f y i n g the World.

interest

a r t i c u l a t i o n coming

from

the T h i r d

the a r t i c u l a t i o n of into a forceful unity I t may of Third be

the Third

World

interest did

of aggregation t h a t could not that i t was that due to the the

defeated.

recalled

aggregation incorporation respecting resources

World

interests

prompted

of A r t s .

61 and 62 among many and zone" utilization into

other of

provisions the living

the of

"conservation

the exclusive

t h e law o f

the sea

c o n v e n t i o n o f 1982. Similar pressure in has been a p p l i e d by t h e T h i r d World a g a i n and so

t h e i r q u e s t t o a f f e c t changes i n the d r a f t a r t i c l e s , countries have been s u c c e s s f u l . a member o f t h e Commission from

f a r these

Mr. B a l a n d a ,

Zaire,

now

R e p u b l i c o f Congo, argued t h a t :
"Major i n t e r e s t s were t h e c a u s e o f a d i s e q u i l i b r i u m t h a t was a l l t o o w e l l known and one f o r which a remedy was c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g sought. C o n t r a r y t o what some people might b e l i e v e , i n most d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s t h e burden o f development l a y l a r g e l y with the s t a t e . Hence m a j o r a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d be p a i d t o t h e way i n w h i c h t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h o s e s t a t e s were conducted, s i n c e i t was not a l w a y s e a s y t o d i s t i n g u i s h between a c t s jure gestionis and acts jure imperii. The i n t e r e s t s o f t h e d e v e l o p i n g countries therefore c a l l e d f o r the best protection p o s s i b l e . "
5 2

the

S e e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's Report 1980-1988 and f o r c e f u l r o l e t h a t was p l a y e d by t h e T h i r d World.

52

5 1

See

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Law Commission's Report

(1985) p.

244. 359

Chief also said:

Akinjide,

a member o f t h e Commission

from

Nigeria,

" F a r from a t t e m p t i n g t o m a i n t a i n an e q u i l i b r i u m between t h o s e competing i n t e r e s t s , t h e main t h r u s t o f t h e two a r t i c l e s appeared t o be t o b r i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e a s a whole i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e U.S. and t h e U.K. A c t s [he had a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d ] . The meaning o f A r t i c l e 19 was i n e f f e c t t h a t , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e agreed, a s t a t e d e a l i n g w i t h a p r i v a t e o r p u b l i c company i n a n o t h e r s t a t e would e n j o y no immunity w h a t s o e v e r . The r e s u l t i n g situation would have v e r y serious implications. His own experience of commercial litigation in various European c o u n t r i e s l e d him t o doubt t h a t any government o f a d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y would sign, still less ratify, e i t h e r of the two a r t i c l e s now b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n . "

He f u r t h e r s a i d t h a t
"The issues involved were so fundamental that the a r t i c l e s would, i n h i s v i e w , have t o come b a c k t o t h e Commission for further d i s c u s s i o n . To a c c e p t them w o u l d be t o s u b s c r i b e t o the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r i c h s h o u l d c o n t i n u e to be r i c h and t h e poor s h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o be p o o r . "
5 3

S i m i l a r s e n t i m e n t s were e x p r e s s e d by Mr. Mahious Ushakov, Law of A l g e r i a , the S o v i e t , took respectively. now a Russian, more
5 4

Ahmed o f Sudan and of

Mr. Mr.

While the p o s i t i o n member o f t h e approach

International towards the

Commission

radical

preservation
private

of t h e d o c t r i n e
state engages but individual,

o f s t a t e immunity t h u s :
i n economic precisely activities as a not a s does a state, sovereign,

"The

i n v e s t e d w i t h p u b l i c power."

He argued f u r t h e r

that:

"The same i s apparent from the discussion on the pertinent section of the Commission's r e p o r t i n the Sixth Committee o f t h e G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y , w h i c h shows t h a t a l a r g e group of s t a t e s a r e opposed t o t h e above m e n t i o n e d c o n c e p t . "
5 5

"See
5 4

I L C R e p o r t (1985) p. 242

( 1 9 1 7 t h meeting) V o l . 1.

Ibid. I L C Report (1983) p. 55 (Vol. I I Part 1 ) . 360

5 5

He doctrine

again of

argued

forcefully

further

in

support that:

of

the

s t a t e immunity and

f i n a l l y concluded

"The foregoing demonstrates t h a t c o d i f i c a t i o n based c o n c e p t s o f l i m i t e d s o v e r e i g n t y would be c l e a r l y unsound unfruitful. The problem r e q u i r e s , depth."
5 6

on and

at

the

very least, further

study

in

great

The specially into and 2 the the

impetus

for in

arguing the

that

Third of

World

interests

be (2) 5

considered draft

matter

A r t i c l e 2 paragraph the effect of

articles,

coupled

with

Article

changes t h e r e i n the the impact

made i n r e s p e c t the of developing the said

of A r t i c l e 18 world had

paragraph to
5 7

reflects in

managed

exercise It in

drafting

articles, that the

respectively. r o l e of

must be

p o i n t e d out

in passing also

Russia the

t h i s endeavour cannot be it had generated

u n d e r e s t i m a t e d i n the in trying to law. a the considerable inclusion has to limited create 2 have

l i g h t of

support

state

immunity

p r e s e r v e d a s a r u l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l The exceptions paragraph these 2 draft to articles state the to embrace but

number Article scope

of 2 of

immunity draft such of of

of the an

into

articles heights as 2

exceptions The the

equitable greatly possible

balance. influence that deals The

effect course

Article

paragraph and

would

litigation

i t i s highly

i t will with

e c l i p s e the commercial

e f f e c t of A r t i c l e 10 which s p e c i f i c a l l y transactions between under acta the draft imperii articles. and acta

distinction

therefore

jure

5 6

Ibid.,

p.

65,

Vol. The

I I , Part

1.

5 7

See generally

I L C ' s R e p o r t 1980-1988. 361

jure

gentionis

will

undoubtedly be p r e d i c a t e d

on

the b a t t l e of f o r the courts would

i d e a s which i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l n o t be an e a s y t a s k modern judge. The d i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o u n t e r e d by m u n i c i p a l activities,

i n r e s p e c t to p o l i t i c a l

or d i p l o m a t i c

however,

somewhat be made e a s i e r s i n c e t h e p u r p o s e t e s t h a s now been made relevant under by the draft articles.
5 8

These Shaw

problems and Scheiss

are v.

illustrated Government erection

the d e c i s i o n s

i n Prentice
5 9

of the R e p u b l i c

of B o l i v i a

where a c o n t r a c t jure

f o r the imperii, of

of an embassy was

c h a r a c t e r i s e d a s acta o f Planmount r e j e c t e d on

whereas i n the E n g l i s h c a s e Zaire's plea issue acta

L t d . , the Republic

f o r immunity was the r e p a i r s The support of

t h e grounds t h a t t h e residence Scheiss was was and

regarding jure

to t h e ambassador's decisions in Shaw that

gestionis. Ltd. clearly

Planmount against

t h e argument restrictive
6 0

advanced by Judge

the

application

immunity

Lauterpacht out same

i n h i s w e l l c i t e d 1951 a r t i c l e , of d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s have treated can be

i n w h i c h he p o i n t e d of the

that courts country,

61

and i n d e e d c o u r t s

similar activities done the t o improve articles

in a different draft to

manner.

What then On from are

the present may be

articles? criticism articles

the whole,

draft of

open

the s t a n d p o i n t generally

drafting,

i . e . , some

of the the

construed

without

exploring

See A r t i c l e 2 Subsection or Paragraph 2 of A r t i c l e s (1991), a l s o i n I n t L e g a l M a t e r i a l s p. 1565.

5 9

58

the

Draft

(1978) 3 SA 938 W. a t 9404. See Lauterpacht, I b i d . p. 222. 362 op. c i t . , pp. 222-223.

60

6 1

differences on one

that

exist

between t h e needs and

legal the

and

political

systems in

hand,

qua,

the

continuing

change

activities would

o f t h e modern s t a t e . why countries

A good s t u d y i n t h i s premobilised

direction

show

with

authoritarian systems
62

political

systems

and p r e m o b i l i s e d d e m o c r a t i c p o l i t i c a l

have v e n t u r e d subsystem France,

i n t o t h e market p l a c e and why such not as Britain, into

countries with high U.S.A., Canada, on a

autonomy etc., have

Germany, the

ventured

market

place

c o n s i d e r a b l e s c a l e a s compared t o t h e T h i r d World. would show t h a t a t r a d i n g i s the of this life blood would

Such s t u d i e s World. issues

of the T h i r d also uncover

Furthermore relating Brazil to

study

nature

low the

subsystem

autonomous c o u n t r i e s such as Mexico, autonomous c o u n t r i e s such into

and

i n t e r m e d i a t e subsystem Indeed,

a s South A f r i c a . t h e domain o f

s u c h s t u d i e s must a l s o be c a r r i e d c o n t r o l or r a d i c a l totalitarian

subsystem

systems

i n such s t a t e s a s t h e former USSR (now R u s s i a ) or China i n o r d e r to determine states t h e economic needs of s t a t e s and why into The commerce in r e s p e c t of to the some of t h e s e economic Law

venture

national

management.

Venezuela

reply

International

Commission's q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s a good example of the in a premobilised Nigeria, authoritarian North or democratic etc., and

situation
63

system, a

e.g.,

Cuba,

Libya,

Korea,

premobilised

S e e g e n e r a l l y t h e a n a l y s i s of p o l i t i c a l systems i n Almond and P o w e l l , C o m p a r a t i v e P o l i t i c s A Developmental Approach 1966. I n t . L . Commission's R e p o r t (1988) p. 90. See a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n a d v a n c e d by USSR now R u s s i a , pp. 82-84; T h a i l a n d , pp. 81-82, B r a z i l , p. 58 B u l g a r i a , pp. 59-60; and the p o s i t i o n of t h e former R e p u b l i c o f C z e c h o s l o v a k i a , pp. 63-64, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 363
6 3

6 2

democratic

system,

e.g.,

Zimbabwe,

Zambia,

Ghana,

Lesotho,

J a m a i c a , I n d i a , Kenya, e t c . Another draft i.e., articles the d r a f t drawback worth pointing out in and respect residual convincing of the

i s i n the a r e a s o f articles were b a s e d

theory on

rules, civil the does the as a

a less

law c o n c e p t ,

f o r t h e r e i s no

credibility

i n the concept

of

s t a t e a c t i n g as a p r i v a t e p e r s o n . not become a private

6 4

I n o t h e r words, a s t a t e i t has reality and ventured always into

person the the

because in

market "public

place.

For for

state

acts

person" The

betterment Law

the

welfare central

of i t s purpose

citizens. for relying

International

Commission's

on the t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h e activities based on and purely

distinction governmental must be

between

commercial singularly

activities, relegated not the

restrictive

principle, test.

t o t h e background purpose of this

f o r a more o b j e c t i v e to deal with the

It is draft about

study

whole

a r t i c l e s b u t r a t h e r to e x p l o r e t h o s e a r e a s l i k e l y t o b r i n g difficult jurisdictional problems.

Disagreement The Sixth Committee and

Over t h e D r a f t the Draft

Articles on Jurisdictional

Articles

I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and T h e i r P r o p e r t y After 1988, first was Mr. Mr. Ogiso Sucharitkul of Japan off. completed his to terms of office where in the

was

appointed

continue

rapporteur l e f t

The t a s k a l b e i t was

not e a s y but as

e x p e c t e d , Mr.

Ogiso gave a good a c c o u n t o f h i m s e l f by coming

6 4

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ,

p. 224; Hyde, op. c i t . 364

up w i t h a p r e l i m i n a r y

report

which c o n t a i n e d i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s a l s t h a t e x i s t between member s t a t e s . International Law Commission immunities

for minimizing the d i f f e r e n c e s With h i s able leadership

the

adopted a s e t o f 22 d r a f t of

articles

on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y which was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e G e n e r a l i n 1991 w i t h a recommendation that an International

Assembly

C o n f e r e n c e be convened t o c o n s i d e r Assembly state of having realised

the topic.

And t h e G e n e r a l on

the d e s i r a b i l i t y

of a convention

immunity d e c i d e d t o e s t a b l i s h an open-ended working group Committee w i t h a recommendation members of that the i t be also

the Sixth to

opened

participating issues

state

specialised a r t i c l e s and a s comments

agencies, recent

t o examine

r e l a t i n g to the draft practice, as well

developments

i n state

s u b m i t t e d by s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s on t h e s u b j e c t . still

Although t h e r e i s articles,

d i s a g r e e m e n t about c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e d r a f t

member s t a t e s have e x p r e s s e d s u p p o r t i n t h e S i x t h Committee f o r the Codification of o f t h e Law. Prince I n 1991 members s u c h a s Mr. A l Ajibola of Nigeria, Mr. Calero

Bharna

Bahrain,

Rodrigues o f B r a z i l , of Jordan,

Mr. G u i l l a u m e o f F r a n c e , Mr. A l Khassuanah o f t h e USSR (then), Mr. A l Quysi o f

Mr. Guevoguian

I r a q , Mr. McKenzie o f T r i n i d a d U.K., Mr. Abdel Khalik

and Tobago, S i r John F r e e l a n d o f Mr. Mahiuw of Algeria, Mr.

o f Egypt,

Hayes o f I r e l a n d , voice out t h e i r b u t were

Mr. L a c e l e t a objections without

o f S p a i n and Badr o f Qatar, d i d aspects of the d r a f t on t h e

to certain doubt generally

articles

i n agreement

365

importance

of sovereign
6 5

immunity

and t h e need

for getting

treaty text i n place. Ever informal 1994, of since

the draft within

articles the Sixth

were

adopted

i n 1991, 1992-

consultations

Committee between

gave s t a t e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f l e c t that This exist then among developed t h e way

on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s and d e v e l o p i n g to thus further brought

opinion

states

states. consider about which The

cleared

for states

the subject. Assembly

The s p i r i t Resolution

of cooperation

General

49/61 o f 9 December 1994, 52/151 that o f 15 December 1997. t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n and to the in

was f o l l o w e d

by R e s o l u t i o n

G e n e r a l Assembly by " r e a f f i r m i n g

p r o g r e s s i v e development o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l implementation Article 1 of t h e purpose

laws c o n t r i b u t e s

and p r i n c i p l e s

s e t forth
66

and 2

of the Charter General's

o f t h e U.N.," report,

and h a v i n g Resolution comments

considered

the Secretary

adopted

48/413 by i n v i t i n g

the ILC to present

i t s preliminary

r e g a r d i n g t h e d r a f t a r t i c l e s by 31 August 1999. At further the l a t t e r steps on part o f 1998, t h e S i x t h the proposal immunity Committee took

t o consider

f o r an of

international and their i n the of the

convention property. light term

jurisdictional

states

B u t i t s e f f o r t s a g a i n met w i t h controversy regarding I n view

difficulties

of the great commercial

the d e f i n i t i o n of these

transaction.

difficulties,

members o f t h e S i x t h Committee s u g g e s t e d t h a t a w o r k i n g group be

A/C

(19 8 6 ) 41 UN GAOR C6 (38th mtg) 62 UN DOC A/C 6.41/SR 38 6.41/SR 37, A/C/41/SR28, A/C 6/41/SR 41.
6 6

6 5

(1998) F i f t y - T h i r d S e s s i o n , 366

Agenda I t e m 148 A/53/629 p. 2.

established

to

consider

the But to

draft

articles

during

the

Fiftythe that get of

F o u r t h Assembly s e s s i o n . said group

b e f o r e we touch i n the on

c o n s i d e r the work of some of of Mr. the views so as to

i t i s apposite the

were e x p r e s s e d on some i d e a about

subject state

fall

1998,

current

practice.

Duan

Tielong

China, f o r example, s t a t e d

that

"In the f i r s t p l a c e , when d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n a t u r e of a transaction i t was n e c e s s a r y to take into consideration the p u r p o s e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , b e c a u s e t r a n s a c t i o n s of a s t a t e were o f t e n c o n d u c t e d not f o r p r o f i t but f o r the p u b l i c interest; t r e a t i n g a l l i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n s o f a s t a t e as c o m m e r c i a l transaction without r e g a r d to t h e i r purpose could l e a d to an abuse o f national j u r i s d i c t i o n that would a d v e r s e l y affect r e l a t i o n s between s t a t e s . "
6 7

Ms.

Cueto M i l i a n

of Cuba e x p r e s s e d the view

that

"her government had had r e c e n t d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e o f i t s p r o p e r t y b e i n g s u b j e c t e d t o a u n i l a t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by some s t a t e s of the p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunities of s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y . Any h a r m o n i z a t i o n o f r u l e s would have t o r e c o n c i l e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f par in parem imperium non habet and r e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, w i t h c u r r e n t p o l i c y o f s t a t e s and t h e c o n c e p t u a l p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e i s s u e . "
6 8

Mr.

L a v a l l a V a l d e s o f Guatemala s a i d :

" A f t e r e n d o r s i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t by t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Panama on b e h a l f o f t h e R i o Group, s a i d t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y e f f e c t i v e l y belong to t h e body o f c u s t o m a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law c a s e s where s t a t e s a c t e d j u r e imperii. O u t s i d e s u c h s p e c i f i c c a s e s , however, and despite the importance of the issue for international relations, i n t e r n a t i o n a l law p l a y e d a p a s s i v e r o l e ; no regime o f what had been termed ' o r d e r e d f r e e d o m s ' had been e s t a b l i s h e d . The r e a s o n f o r t h a t was t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e g r o w t h o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y by s t a t e s and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i d e a s , no new c u s t o m a r y r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s , nor a t r e a t y of u n i v e r s a l scope had come i n t o b e i n g . "
6 9

Mr.

Saguier Caballera

of Paraguay s a i d

that

67

A/C 6/52/SR 26 p. A/C 6/53/SR 23 p. A/C 6/53/SR.23 p.

5 4 4

(GA) (GA) (GA) .

S i x t h Committee 20th meeting. 23rd meeting.

68

69

367

"Paraguay s u p p o r t e d t h e b a s i c concept t h a t s t a t e s e n j o y immunity from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s o f o t h e r s t a t e s and t h e measures o f c o n s t r a i n t w h i c h they might adopt. While t h e r e might be e x c e p t i o n s , t h e y s h o u l d be f u l l y j u s t i f i e d and i n conformity with the convention."
70

Mr. Robert

Rosenstock

of the United S t a t e s s a i d

"A g r o w i n g number o f d e l e g a t e s shaped t h a t view, he s a i d . He was aware t h a t o t h e r d e l e g a t i o n s had d i f f e r e n t v i e w s , hence the l a c k of consensus. The U.S. was n o t aware o f any development w h i c h s u g g e s t e d a l i k e l i h o o d o f agreement t o d a y . The p a u c i t y o f comments from governments and t h e t h r e e comments r e c e i v e d by t h e S e c r e t a r i a t d i d not s u g g e s t any n a r r o w i n g o f differences. A t t e m p t i n g t o f o r c e t h e i s s u e would l e a d t o t h e hardening of p o s i t i o n s . "
7 1

Mr. V e r w e i j o f N e t h e r l a n d s

said that

" d i f f e r e n c e s o f s u b s t a n c e s t i l l remain" and t h a t " t h e r e were t h r e e key i s s u e s : F i r s t l y , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o c l a r i f y t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure imperii and a c t a jure gestionis: s e c o n d l y , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o determine w h i c h e n t i t i e s c o u l d , from t h e l e g a l s t a n d p o i n t , e n j o y j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunity and l a s t l y , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x t e n t o f immunity from e x e c u t i o n . "
7 2

E v e r t M a r e c h a l o f Belgium e x p r e s s e d t h e v i e w t h a t
"only non-standardized j u r i s p r u d e n c e e x i s t e d on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunity. Most d i s p u t e s i n Belgium i n v o l v e d d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n s w h i c h were n o t c o v e r e d by t h e Vienna C o n v e n t i o n ' s h e t h e r e f o r e s u p p o r t e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a working group t o s t u d y t h e most important a s p e c t s of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunity."
73

Delegates

7 4

from Czech

Japan, Republic,

France, Panama,

United Italy,

Kingdom, Austria,

Greece, Ukraine,

Bangladesh,
70

A/C.6/52/SR.26 p. 6 (GA). (1988) CA/L 3 0 a l , S i x t h Committee p. 4. (GA) .

7 1

72

A/C 6/52/SR.26 p. 5 (1998)

7 3

GA/L/3091: S i x t h Committee p. 4.

Mr. Nagaoka and Fukushima (Japan), Mr. A l a b r u n e ( F r a n c e ) , Ms. Dickson (U.K.), Ms. Telahan (Greece), Mr. Morshed ( B a n g l a d e s h ) , Mr. S m e j k a l (Czech R e p u b l i c ) , J u d i t h M a r i a C a r d o z a (Panama), Mr. P o l i t i (Italy), Ms. Suchanpa (Austria), Mr. Kachurenko ( U k r a i n e ) , Mr. V a r s o ( S l o v a k i a ) . 368

74

Panama and issues working

Slovakia, to

a l t h o u g h were not the draft to

a g r e e d on did

the

substantive that a the May

relating group be

articles, help

suggest or

established respecting
75

rework

consider Thus on 7

outstanding 1999,

issues

state was

immunity.

the s a i d w o r k i n g g r o u p and these are (1)

established of

t o s t u d y f i v e main for purpose of of a or (4)

problems immunity; contract other

concept

state

(2) c r i t e r i a or

for determining commercial character (3) t h e to concept of commercial

transaction; in

state enterprise transactions; constraint

entity

relation

contracts

o f employment; and

(5) m e a s u r e s o f

against

state property. A r t i c l e 2 o f the draft a r t i c l e s , p a r a g r a p h 1 ( b ) i i has been

a s u b j e c t o f d i s a g r e e m e n t between f e d e r a l s t a t e s and states, s p e c i f i c a l l y with respect dual c a p a c i t y exercise of a province, power

non-federal the to the

t o t h e problem r e l a t i n g t o constituent of itself or units, for

" s t a t e s " or on behalf

governmental

The working group i s made up o f t h e f o l l o w i n g scholars: Mr. A. Hafner, Chairman; Mr. C. Yamada, R a p p o r t e u r ; Mr. H. A l Bahama, Mr. I . B r o w n l i e , Mr. E . C a n d i o t i , Mr. J . Crawford, Mr. C. Dugard, Mr. G. G a j a , Mr. M. E l a r a b y , Mr. Q. He, Mr. M. Kamto, Mr. I . Lukashuk, Mr. T. M e l e s c a n u , Mr. P. Rao, Mr. B. Sepulveda, Mr. P. Tomica, and Mr. R. R o s e n s t o c k (ex o f f i c i o ) . The working group worked on t h e u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e r e l a t i n g to s t a t e immunity from 1 June 1999 t o 5 J u l y 1999. I t i s proposed h e r e to consider (1) c o n c e p t o f s t a t e f o r p u r p o s e s of immunity; (2) c r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o m m e r c i a l c h a r a c t e r of a c o n t r a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n s ; and (3) measure o f c o n s t r a i n t a g a i n s t state property. Such o t h e r t o p i c s a s t h e c o n c e p t of s t a t e e n t e r p r i s e or o t h e r e n t i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s and contracts of employment have been considered infra. The s u g g e s t i o n s , however, of t h e w o r k i n g group a r e i n o r d e r and t h e r e f o r e would l i k e l y f i n d f a v o u r w i t h some c o u n t r i e s ; see Document A/C.6/49/62 p a r a . 88; s e e a l s o summary r e c o r d s o f the meetings of the F o r t y - T h i r d S e s s i o n , 2 2 1 8 t h meeting, Yearbook of the I L C V o l . pp. 68-72. 369

75

central of

government, between

pursuant t o the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n the central government and t h e constituent u n i t s of state i n

powers

units. a

The main c o n t r o v e r s y h e r e i s whether component s t a t e be c o n s i d e r e d pari full immunity units without pasu any to the f e d e r a l additional

federal

enjoying i.e.,

requirements, of the

when t h e s e

are acting

within

the confines

powers g r a n t e d t o them and i n t h e i r name. states to to shift t h e emphasis p l a c e d or functions

The a t t e m p t by some of the s t a t e immunity is

on t h e s t a t u s in granting

i t s activities

responsible wholly

f o r t h i s problem, s i n c e t h e g r a n t i n g on
7 6

o f immunity i s

predicated

the nature

test,

i . e . , the commercial

activity i n issue. article, "that

However, Mr. Ogiso's commentary on t h e s a i d units o f some f e d e r a l systems, f o r

constituent

historical the

or o t h e r r e a s o n s , e n j o y e d s o v e r e i g n immunity w i t h o u t requirement
7 7

additional

that

i t be

performing

sovereign to the upon

authority problem. centripetal duties and

of the s t a t e , " Many federal

i s a well

reasoned in fact

answer

constitutions forces

a r e based

and c e n t r i f u g a l

and t h e r e f o r e

the r i g h t s , defined U.S.

and o b l i g a t i o n s

of t h e s e component u n i t s a r e w e l l a careful reference

78

entrenched.

Thus

to the

the

Constitution,
7 6

i . e . , t h e Tenth

Amendment

and

Supremacy

(1996) A L i m i t e d

v. B. Bank and Bank o f X, C o u r t o f Appeal

U.K. S e e (1991) V o l . I I P a r t Commission.

78 7 7

I I p. 6, Yearbook o f t h e I n t . Law

T h e 1 0 t h Amendment: "The powers not d e l e g a t e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , nor p r o h i b i t e d by i t t o t h e s t a t e s r e s p e c t i v e l y , or t o t h e people." The p r o c e s s i s even made e a s i e r by t h e Supremacy C l a u s e . 370

Clause

shows

how

power

is

shared

between

the

states

and

the

f e d e r a l government. The proposal by Mr. Carlos Calero-Rodrigues which was

based on A r t i c l e 28 of t h e 1972 pave way supported constituent

European Convention reached. while by

was meant t o Austria that

f o r a compromise t o be the compromise p r o p o s a l units be

7 9

Germany and Argentina

argued

replaced

"autonomous

territorial would of the state

governmental e n t i t i e s . " find Sixth level, favour with

Whether A r g e n t i n a ' s federal countries, Court or

suggestion members

other

Committee, however,

i s open t o have relied

debate. on such

decisions as

at

parameters

defined that

t e r r i t o r y , permanent p o p u l a t i o n , and t h e f o r m a l o b l i g a t i o n s are normally associated with p a r t i c i p a t i o n what i s a s t a t e . i n the

international

community to determine by m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s find favour with

T h a t t h e above approach therefore disputed. likely It to is

i s l o g i c a l l y t e n a b l e and some states cannot be

submitted t h a t l e a v i n g it falls under i n the the

t h e burden on t h e e n t i t y t o prove whether of a state

8 0

definition of

or

not

as

can

be

detected reference given

decision

some c o u r t s

would be

i n order i f s t a t e of a be of of

i s made to t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n unit. the The

of the f e d e r a l that state

component

suggestion of

parallelism for purpose

established immunity" and

between

"concept

"the s t a t e

responsibility draft"

f o r purposes

T r a n s a e r o I n c . v. L a F u e r z a A e r e a B o l i v i a n a (1994) o f Appeals, D i s t . of Columbia C i r c u i t (11-12 107 p. 308) .

80

79

Court

Drexel Burnham Lambert Group I n c . v. Committee of Receivers for Galadari e t a l . . Refco: (1993) U.S. D i s t . C o u r t Southern D i s t . of N.Y. ( I L R 103 p. 532) . 371

defining

t h e conduct o f component u n i t s i n r e s p e c t authority is not clearcut, and

of e x e r c i s i n g therefore was

government dismissed to the

as unnecessary. Assembly

The s u g g e s t i o n by t h e working group that paragraph be 1 (b)ii of A r t i c l e 2 of the join element, "political will

the General draft

articles units

could

deleted state"

and would

"constituent subdivisions

of a

federal

of the s t a t e "

i n present

paragraph

1(b)iii,

c e r t a i n l y be h e l p f u l , b u t a g a i n i n a b i t t e r d i s p u t e r e f e r e n c e t o a given federal constitution would coupled with i t s legislative and a d e q u a t e l y

history

and s t a t u t e s

be most

appropriate

plausible

i n determining the l e g a l p o s i t i o n immunity.

of component u n i t s , c o n s t i t u t i o n s may

f o r t h e purpose of granting differ units i n respect and

Federal

o f t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f powers t o the component but the legal position of these

i t s agencies,

component u n i t s as to to create

do not d i f f e r m a r k e d l y i n finding

from country t o c o u n t r y an a c c e p t a b l e solution a s many

any d i f f i c u l t i e s
81

the problem.

The s a i d problem

i s not too s e v e r e federal

would t h i n k currently

i t t o be, f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l could serve

constitutions

i n place

as a valuable

source m a t e r i a l i n

r e s o l v i n g t h e problem.

T h e s t a t e i n c l u d e s both t h e government and t h e governed and i t i s c o n c e r n e d i n most c a s e s w i t h t h o s e s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t c o u l d be e x p r e s s e d through t h e government o f t h e day: a f e d e r a l s t a t e i s made up o f t h e c e n t r a l government t h a t r e p r e s e n t s t h e whole and r e p r e s e n t s t h e whole i n e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s and s u c h i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s c l e a r l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be o f common i n t e r e s t : J . Bryce, S t u d i e s i n History and Jurisprudence, V o l . 1 Essay I I I Oxford (1901); L a n s k i , op. c i t . See, e.g., A r t i c l e 118 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a , A r t i c l e 121 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f Canada. 372

81

The

1991

ILC draft

articles

approached the

state

immunity

problem by r e l y i n g on the view t h a t they venture into granted has the market p l a c e ,

s t a t e s be d e n i e d

immunity i f be

i . e . , immunity would not

to a s t a t e i f i t undertakes to but do with how jure the

a c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y which To many, this appears for the

nothing

imperii. commercial

appropriate,

is

transaction And

p u r p o s e of d e t e r m i n i n g

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o be d e f i n e d ? over the shows t h a t of the years.

8 2

t h i s has

been a s o u r c e of disagreement Current insisting state practice only when

83

some W e s t e r n a c t i v i t y be a state

states taken

are into is

that

the

nature

consideration

determining

whether

activity

c o m m e r c i a l or n o t . should national that the not be

While o t h e r s argued to canvass their

that

sovereign

states a

allowed still

interests

before

authority, nature

some s t a t e s , on t h e o t h e r hand, does not always aid or the

argued in And in or

test an

alone

judge
8 4

determining therefore order to

whether

a c t i v i t y i s commercial t e s t must also be

not.

the purpose avoid

considered.

Thus

further

radical

interest

articulation This,

c o n t r o v e r s y , the two approaches met

were i n t e g r a t e d .
85

however,

w i t h r e s i s t a n c e i n the S i x t h C o m m i t t e e .

S e e the work of I L C (1978-1991) . And t h e i s s u e s t h a t were debated i n the S i x t h Committee: R e s o l u t i o n s 46/55, 49/61 and 52/51, r e s p e c t i v e l y . "Document A/CN 14/410 and Add. V o l . I I , P a r t 1, pp. 51 e t s e q .
8 4

82

1-5

Yearbook

of

the

ILC

1988,

Ibid. of 2.

S e e the work of the S i x t h Committee and t h e c o m p l e t i o n t h e 2nd Reading: F o r t y - T h i r d S e s s i o n Y B I L C 1991 V o l . I I P a r t 373

85

careful Brazil

review

of

comments

submitted

by

governments

shows t h a t

supported

a b s o l u t e immunity.

Y u g o s l a v i a , on articles. United strongly in the

the o t h e r hand, e x p r e s s e d a p o s i t i v e view o f t h e d r a f t While such countries as Canada, Mexico, Qatar, and

Spain,

Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, F i n l a n d , objected to the inclusion of the

Iceland test
8 6

purpose

determination of the commercial a c t i v i t i e s of Mr. Ogiso, i n order

states. in

t o promote a common u n d e r s t a n d i n g

the S i x t h Committee, s t a t e d i n h i s p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t t h u s :
"With r e g a r d t o p a r a g r a p h 2, i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t many c o u n t r i e s s u p p o r t t h e n a t u r e c r i t e r i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a contract i s commercial or not and criticize the purpose c r i t e r i o n , w h i c h i n t h e i r v i e w i s l e s s o b j e c t i v e and more ones i d e d , t h e S p e c i a l R a p p o r t e u r has no o b j e c t i o n t o d e l e t i n g the purpose c r i t e r i o n . At t h e same t i m e , i t s h o u l d be r e c a l l e d t h a t s e v e r a l g o v e r n m e n t s , b o t h i n t h e i r w r i t t e n comments and i n t h e i r o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h e S i x t h Committee, have s u p p o r t e d the i n c l u s i o n o f the purpose c r i t e r i o n . "
8 1

Since of law

the

development interstate

of

international i s based

law

or the making conflicting Ogiso had

i n the

system

upon the i f Mr. by

c l a i m s of s t a t e s , rejected states. produce suggested test the The very that

i t would have been d e f e a t i s t test of as the was suggested test,

purpose inclusion

some l e a d i n g did

purpose

f o r example, for the

insightful the reason

comments.

Mr.

Ogiso, account cases

example, purpose to he

for taking into to provide for

arose

from

the
8 8

need e.g.,

relating reason

natural

disasters,

famine.

Although

the

8 6

(1988) Y e a r b o o k o f t h e ILD, V o l . I I ,

P a r t 1 p.

51. 102.

87

S e e Document A/CN/4/415 YBILC, 88 V o l I I P a r t 1 p. A/CN/4/L 443 p. 6 [ 4 4 t h S e s s i o n ] . 374

88

o f f e r e d was

a good one,

he d i d not

go

as f a r as t o c o n s i d e r

the

p r e s s i n g needs of the d e v e l o p i n g world, t h a t i n t h e s e the s t a t e i s forced to perform d i v e r s e and

countries, in

varied activities
8 9

o r d e r t o promote the w e l f a r e of i t s c i t i z e n s finance l o a d the would Thus be in capital, and therefore deleting the

b e c a u s e of l a c k of purpose for these test would

d i c e against developing c o u n t r i e s , left order at to the avoid mercy of national harassed strong by

countries

judicial private

authorities. suits, many the

being

d e v e l o p i n g s t a t e s are e x p r e s s i n g

views i n support of

purpose t e s t i n the S i x t h Committee. In reading spite 1991, the ILC managed somehow t o complete i t s second in

which was of its

t h e r e a f t e r s e n t t o the S i x t h Committee, but approach, the of distinction

compromising

between to the

commercial and pose difficult

non-commercial a c t i v i t i e s problems and this is

s t a t e s continued reflected in

amply
9 0

comments t h a t were s u b m i t t e d by s t a t e s . The

p o s i t i o n of governments s i n c e 1992 into two categories. Brazil

in respect and

of

state e.g., other United

immunity f a l l s

France, while

c l e a r l y s u p p o r t e d the i n c l u s i o n of t h e p u r p o s e t e s t , countries States,

8 9

such

as

Australia, Austria, Italy, Netherlands,

United Belgium

Kingdom, and

Germany,

Bulgaria

(1988) 41 UN GAOR C.6 (37th mtg.) 73 UN DOC. A/C.6/41/SR.37; P r i n c e A j i b o l a of N i g e r i a s a i d : "Jurisdictional immunities of states and their property could not be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d i n the l i g h t of i n c r e a s i n g economic development and interdependence and varying state practice among industrialized, socialist and developing countries such as N i g e r i a which engaged i n s t a t e t r a d i n g a s a means o f economic survival."
9 0

R e s o l u t i o n 46/55, 49/61, 52/52, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 375

insisted The only

that

the nature in

test

be d e s i g n a t e d a s t h e s o l e group i s Bulgaria, from

test. for i t

newcomer to take a

the

latter quite

appears

position

different

i t s earlier

p o s i t i o n o f 1988 t h u s :
"The principle of jurisdictional immunity of states is u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i s e d i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law a s b e i n g a l o g i c a l consequence of the p r i n c i p l e s of s o v e r e i g n t y and s o v e r e i g n e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s , w h i c h p r o v i d e f o r t h e n o n - s u b m i s s i o n o f one s t a t e to the a u t h o r i t y of another (par in parem imperium non habet) .
91

Bulgaria's

1988

position

thus

runs

counter

to

i t s current

p o s i t i o n but i t i s h a r d t o t e l l abandoned i t s s u p p o r t jurisdiction

a s t o whether i t h a s c o m p l e t e l y o f one s t a t e to t h e

f o r t h e non-submission Perhaps

of another.

B u l g a r i a i s modulating i t s

p o s i t i o n i n o r d e r t o j o i n t h e European Union. Disagreements commercial and respecting the distinction of states between continued were h e l d Assembly,

non-commercial

activities

between d e l e g a t e s i n t h e i n f o r m a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s t h a t in 1994, p u r s u a n t to the decision of the General

48/413; b u t i n o r d e r chairman

t o b r i n g about a common u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e

suggested the f o l l o w i n g :

"A g r e a t e r m e a s u r e o f c e r t a i n t y c o u l d be a c h i e v e d by g i v i n g s t a t e s the option of i n d i c a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l relevance o f t h e p u r p o s e c r i t e r i o n u n d e r t h e i r n a t i o n a l law and p r a c t i c e e i t h e r by means o f a g e n e r a l d e c l a r a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c o n v e n t i o n o r a s p e c i f i c n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y by whatever means in relation to a particular c o n t r a c t or transaction, or a combination thereof. T h i s would c l a r i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n n o t o n l y f o r a p r i v a t e p a r t y who i s s o i n f o r m e d when entering i n t o a c o n t r a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n with a s t a t e but also f o r a c o u r t w h i c h i s c a l l e d upon t o a p p l y t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e convention."
9 2

(1988) V o l I I , YB I L C 40th S e s s i o n ; B u l g a r i a from t h e b e g i n n i n g d i d s u p p o r t t h e c o n c e p t o f s o v e r e i g n immunity.

9 2

9 1

Para.

6; I n f o r m a l C o n s u l t a t i o n s h e l d p u r s u a n t 376

to General

Given 2 was

the above compromise s u g g e s t i o n , a r t i c l e some s t a t e s s t i l l

paragraph

d u l y approved, a l t h o u g h

believe that i t s

c o n t i n u e d i n c l u s i o n i n the d e f i n i t i o n of c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s would i n t r o d u c e an to concrete cases. however, by to element One of c i r c u l a r i t y into i t s application overlooked

important

f a c t t h a t has been

these s t a t e s

i s that i t i s d i f f i c u l t

i n some c a s e s and further a

s e p a r a t e the n a t u r e i t i s not that and

test easy

from the purpose t e s t , to determine the nexus

more,

between

commercial a c t i v i t y the the relationship cause of

the cause of a c t i o n .

Which means of states must test

that and have alone

9 3

between the

commercial a c t i v i t y be merely

a c t i o n must not legal

presumed b u t

b o t h c a u s a l and is insufficient

connections.

Thus the n a t u r e

i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of j u d i c i a l

jurisdiction.

C o u r t s i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s have e i t h e r f o l l o w e d t h e c o n t e x t u a l approach or s i m p l y resort to an approach where t h e test.

9 4

location

of

t h e a c t i v i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d as the a p p r o p r i a t e The c u r r e n t working group which was

e s t a b l i s h e d by

General 2

Assembly R e s o l u t i o n 53/98 concluded only to "commercial must be c o n t r a c t s or accepted as

that reference to A r t i c l e t r a n s a c t i o n s without the preferred

further to

explication" resolving

approach

the

controversy

after

having

considered

other

Assembly d e c i s i o n 48/43, A/C.6/49/L2 p. 3: C o u r t s i n Zimbabwe and i n M a l a y s i a have f o l l o w e d the n a t u r e t e s t , w h i l e t h e Supreme C o u r t of P h i l i p p i n e s took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p u r c h a s e of l a n d by r e j e c t i n g arguments i n r e s p e c t o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l c h a r a c t e r o f the agreement. "See (1999) General S e s s i o n , pp. 21-54. Assembly A/CN AL.576, Fifty-First

377

a l t e r n a t i v e s as w e l l . would be press a c c e p t a b l e to

Whether t h e s u g g e s t i o n s o f the s a i d group states i s f a r from c e r t a i n , evidenced Feng of the i n view of

release,

GA/L/3091 states. had

which Goa not yet

continuing for example, of a

disagreement stated that

among "The

China,

time

come f o r t h e a convention."
95

convening One can

diplomatic conference detect s i m i l a r the United

to conclude

also of

sentiments

e x p r e s s e d by Mr. problem,

Robert

Rosenstock

States.

The

unfortunately,

therefore

remains

unresolved. i n r e s p e c t o f m e a s u r e s of c o n s t r a i n t the years have been and in hotly the against state before
96

Issues property national Prior to

over

contested Sixth in

judicial the

authorities of fall the

Committee. 1991,

adoption

draft two

articles different

the While

comments of governments one group argued

into on

groups.

effectively

t h e importance

of the
9 7

principle states

of s o v e r e i g n immunity from m e a s u r e s o f e x e c u t i o n , such as U.K., Federal Republic of Germany

other

(then),

Belgium,

Australia, I c e l a n d and
9 5

Canada, Q a t a r , Denmark
98

S w i t z e r l a n d , Sweden, Norway, F i n l a n d , that 5. of the Working Group, t h e r e be proper clarification

argued

(1998) GA/L/3091 pp.

3 of

See Paras. 67-80, A/C.6/48/L.4, pp. 13-15.

97

96

Report

T h e s e c o u n t r i e s were USSR

( t h e n ) , B y e l o r u s s i a , GDR

(then).

P r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s of s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y A/CN.4/415 YB I L C 1988 V o l I I p a r t 1 p. 117 [paras. 211-213]. The w o r k i n g group, however, s u g g e s t e d t h a t : "As r e g a r d s prejudgment . . . t h e s e s h o u l d be p o s s i b l y o n l y i n the f o l l o w i n g c a s e s : (a) m e a s u r e s on which the s t a t e has e x p r e s s l y c o n s e n t e d e i t h e r ad hoc o r i n advance; (b) measures on p r o p e r t y d e s i g n a t e d t o s a t i s f y t h e c l a i m ; (c) measures a v a i l a b l e under i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y a c c e p t e d p r o v i s i o n . " 378

9 8

as

regards

the on

scope state

of A r t i c l e property The

18

so as to a v o i d could

unnecessary be

limitations subjected did not to

that

legitimately

execution. the

comments of

government, of the

however, proposed were were

affect The

fundamental

structure working

articles. established

discussions in to General

the

group

which

pursuant

Assembly R e s o l u t i o n 46/55

q u i t e encouraging in regard t o any

and c o n s t r u c t i v e but no compromise was of t h e p r o p o s a l s . "

reached

F u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s were but

h e l d a g a i n as a r e s u l t in view of the

of G e n e r a l Assembly d e c i s i o n 48/413, nature a of the subject the

sensitive not

Sixth were that

1 0 0

Committee simply

could

formulate

compromise.

Delegates

d i v i d e d as t o whether the d e n i a l of immunity means should be taken against state

e n f o r c e m e n t measures

property.

" S e e The Report of t h e Working Group, A/C.6/48 L.4 pp. 1315. The Chairman's p r o p o s a l r e a d s as f o l l o w s : "No m e a s u r e s o f c o n s t r a i n t s h a l l be t a k e n a g a i n s t the p r o p e r t y of a s t a t e b e f o r e t h a t s t a t e i s g i v e n adequate o p p o r t u n i t y to comply w i t h t h e judgment." S e e Document A/C.6/49 L 2 p a r a . 11: The U.K. A c t 1978, and o t h e r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s have r e f u s e d to support m e a s u r e s o f constraint against sovereign states: e.g., T h i r d Avenue A s s o c i a t i o n and Another v. Permanent M i s s i o n of t h e Rep. of Z a i r e to the United Nations (1993) U.S. Court o f A p p e a l s 2nd C e r t , I L R 99, p. 195; Foxworth, I L R 99, p. 138. I n the I t a l i a n c a s e o f Condor and F i l v e r n v. M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e ( I L R 101 p. 3 9 4 ) , however, the c o u r t r u l e d t h a t "the f o r e i g n p o l i c y i n t e r e s t o f t h e e x e c u t i v e i n p r e s e r v i n g good r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s t a t e s no l o n g e r j u s t i f i e d a r u l e of a b s o l u t e immunity from a t t a c h m e n t and e x e c u t i o n where the p r o p e r t y was not d e s t i n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of s o v e r e i g n f u n c t i o n s ; i f the e x e c u t i v e w i s h e d t o a v o i d p o s s i b l e embarrassment i t remained p o s s i b l e f o r it to i n t e r v e n e i n the proceedings to o f f e r t o pay o f f a c r e d i t o r s e e k i n g enforcement a g a i n s t the p r o p e r t y of a f o r e i g n state or g u a r a n t e e payment of a debt in return for the c r e d i t o r ' s w i t h d r a w a l o f a r e q u e s t f o r attachment a g a i n s t s u c h property." T h i s c e r t a i n l y i s an i n t e r e s t i n g s u g g e s t i o n . 379
1 0 0

And

this

one

would rights

suggest of

could

be

balanced to

against minimise

the the

inalienable

sovereign

states

i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h s t a t e p r o p e r t y w h i c h might be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e coercive private measures claim. that of the forum state have in order to satisfy a the

Many measures

states of

forcefully be

debunked

suggestion

constraint

instituted

against Nations

s t a t e p r o p e r t y i n v i e w of t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of the U n i t e d C h a r t e r , the U n i t e d N a t i o n s - U n i t e d and the f o r c e of t h e V i e n n a matter even cannot if be ignored of S t a t e s Headquarters and

Agreement on this Thus are state

Convention,

t h e i r views

i f consensus

i s t o be state as

reached. property which

measures

constraint would still

against remain

allowed,

difficulties

to

p r o p e r t y i s t o be on may this be issue

l e v i e d upon. of t h e

S t a t e s are again deeply d i v i d e d fact that the only property monies and that other which

because to

available be have

the or

forum c o u r t immovable, or

would be i n the

assets, might

i t movable been

forum s t a t e , used in

directly

indirectly

promoting

diplomatic

activity. the chairman

I n view of t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e above i s s u e , of the working group s u g g e s t e d that:

" I t may be p o s s i b l e t o l e s s e n t h e need f o r m e a s u r e s o f c o n s t r a i n t by p l a c i n g g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s on v o l u n t a r y c o m p l i a n c e by a s t a t e w i t h a v a l i d judgment. T h i s may be a c h i e v e d by p r o v i d i n g the s t a t e w i t h c o m p l e t e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e the p r o p e r t y t o be u s e d to s a t i s f y t h e judgment a s w e l l a s a reasonable period for making the necessary arrangements. Second, i t may be useful to envisage international dispute settlement procedures to resolve questions relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which may obviate the need to satisfy a judgment owning to its invalidity."
1 0 1

^See Document A/C.

6/49/L2 p a r a s . 12 and 380

13:

The

crucial

A l t h o u g h t h e above s u g g e s t i o n i s l o g i c a l l y grounded, t h e r e is still one problem that must be addressed, and that i s ,

t e c h n i c a l l y no c o u r t would e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over a s t a t e i f the possibility of enforcing t h e judgment state, i s linked state with the property

discretion would which

o f t h e defendant

a s t o when

be made ready specific state

f o r the s a t i s f a c t i o n property would be

of t h e judgment and given up f o r the

satisfaction place, effect such given

of the p r i v a t e claim. suggestions the the be would

Unless there i s a t r e a t y i n be d i f f i c u l t the three to put i n t o system. that was would

indeed of of

complex reasonable

nature time

interstate months

Furthermore, suggested may

f l o u t e d and t h e r e f o r e t h e forum

state

a r g u a b l y be f o r c e d t o a t t a c h t h e s t a t e p r o p e r t y i n i s s u e o r t h e state not that property located i n the s i t u s of the s u i t , which appears

t o be u s e d

f o r government p u r p o s e s .

The d i f f i c u l t y h e r e i s

t h e w o r k i n g group i n t h e S i x t h Committee f a i l e d t o come up a s t o how s t a t e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e forum s t a t e i s And does the local court have the The be a

w i t h answers to be

characterised.

a u t h o r i t y t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e a s s e t s of a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e ? answer certainly i s no. Any attempt t o do that will

i s s u e b e f o r e t h e S i x t h Committee appears t o be t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s t a t e p r o p e r t y b e f o r e t h e forum c o u r t , and whether i n c l e a r terms i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s t i n e d f o r p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n s . I t is n o t a l w a y s e a s y t o come up w i t h c l e a r answers t o t h e s e issues. S t a t e p r a c t i c e , t h e r e f o r e , i s fragmented. Thus w h i l e some s t a t e s a r e w i l l i n g t o g r a n t immunity, o t h e r s a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e r e i s s t i l l i n e x i s t e n c e a r u l e of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law w h i c h p r e c l u d e s enforcement measures a g a i n s t s t a t e property. But one i m p o r t a n t f a c t t h a t has been i g n o r e d i s t h a t t h e r e i s no r u l e o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l which s u p p o r t s e n f o r c e m e n t measure a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y o f a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e . 381

complete

deviation law. are not

from State

the

positive

normative

rules

of

international ambassadors,

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , e.g., international law

diplomats, to answer scrutiny however,

r e q u i r e d by

such q u e s t i o n s f o r i t amounts t o u n n e c e s s a r y into in the a s s e t s of of sovereign an states. The

intrusive

suggestion, dispute

respect

envisaging

international

settlement but to

procedures again

would be welcomed by a g r e a t m a j o r i t y of s t a t e s , specific equitable rules

t h e r e i s the need t o d e v e l o p

s t r e a m l i n e the p r o c e s s . The Hafner offered pursuant suggestions that by the working group c h a i r e d by Mr. G. were held

were not by the

different of

from t h e the

suggestions

which

chairman

informal

consultations The

to G e n e r a l Assembly D e c i s i o n 48/413. however, be s t a t e d a s

suggestions

of the Geneva group may,

follows:

" A l t e r n a t i v e 1. and g r a n t i n g t h e s t a t e a i t as w e l l as freedom t o I f no c o m p l i a n c e o c c u r s s t a t e [subject to A r t i c l e

(i) R e c o g n i t i o n o f judgment by s t a t e 2-3 months g r a c e p e r i o d t o comply w i t h determine p r o p e r t y f o r execution; ( i i ) during the g r a c e p e r i o d , property of 19] c o u l d be s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n .

A l t e r n a t i v e 2. ( i ) R e c o g n i t i o n o f judgment by s t a t e and g r a n t i n g the s t a t e a 2-3 months g r a c e p e r i o d t o comply w i t h i t as w e l l a s freedom t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r t y f o r e x e c u t i o n ; ( i i ) I f no compliance occurs during the grace p e r i o d , the c l a i m i s brought i n t o t h e f i e l d o f i n t e r s t a t e d i s p u t e s e t t l e m e n t ; t h i s would i m p l y t h e i n i t i a t i o n of d i s p u t e - s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e d u r e in connection with the s p e c i f i c i s s u e of e x e c u t i o n of the c l a i m . "
1 0 2

Alternative

3 simply suggested

that

the matter

be

left

to

s t a t e p r a c t i c e s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s d e l i c a t e and complex i s s u e s . Alternative that the 1 lacks could focus take and the there law i s the possibility hands by

forum s t a t e

into

i t s own

General Assembly; A/CN.4/L.576 pp. 54-55.

102

Fifty-First

Session

(1999)

July:

382

v i o l a t i n g the every

r i g h t s of s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s . that the defendant state

Furthermore, t h e r e i s could frustrate of the

indication

forum s t a t e by of to the the be forum

transferring

their assets 2 has of

somewhere out promise, but the

reach

court.

Alternative i n the

would have of all

carefully It

studied is

light by the

d e l i c a t e nature writer that

issues.

suggested solved to the

present

t h e s e p r o b l e m s c o u l d be willing to subscribe court or

i f the idea

i n t e r n a t i o n a l community i s of establishing a special against

international foreign

tribunal Or

to h a n d l e p r i v a t e a dispute

suits

sovereign

states. of with

settlement

procedure put said

b a s e d upon t h e in place to

rules deal

international these put

a r b i t r a t i o n c o u l d be issues. an The

delicate

suggestions

are

being

forth

because the

international which with be is of

convention per all the

s e cannot be

accepted as

only means by associated

intractable

problems

normally

jurisdictional resolved. concluded, the if of subject

i m m u n i t i e s of even if a as

s t a t e s and convention to

t h e i r property could of the said subject

Thus,

i t i s doubtful would be

whether a l l the

grey a r e a s

c o v e r e d , hence i t would be most a p p r o p r i a t e role

s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s a r e encouraged to p l a c e emphasis on the bilateral treaties in order to provide additional

stable

basis

for i n t e r n a t i o n a l business

transaction.

The

U n c e r t a i n t y of S t a t e One

Practice prior to 1900 the immunity state was

i s p e r s u a d e d to argue t h a t from t h e of the

of

a state

j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s of nature of the

another s o v e r e i g n in

irrespective

transaction

question

383

absolute local quest

and t h i s

was d e r i v e d

from t h e i n n a t e

supremacy o f t h e i s certainly a

sovereign.

Over t h e y e a r s , however, t h e r e

t o l i m i t t h e concept o f s t a t e immunity.

Many b e l i e v e t h e

move towards t h e t o t a l a c c e p t a n c e immunity i s almost complete,

of the doctrine of r e s t r i c t i v e careful For review in spite of state of the

but a
1 0 3

p r a c t i c e shows t h a t i s not t h e c a s e .

demand by many l e a d i n g c o u n t r i e s t h a t immunity be l i m i t e d i n t h e market place, such at as least before 1990 and perhaps to date,

countries Trinidad Japan,

Russia,

Indonesia, Syria,

Tanzania, Thailand,

Venezuela, Portugal, Libya, nations) become

and Tobago, Uganda, China, Poland,

Sudan,

Kuwait,

Hungary,

Ecuador,

Brazil,

E t h i o p i a and t h e r e s t of t h e T h i r d World have turned

1 0 4

(ordeveloping i n short (GDR),

deaf

ears

to the c a l l

o r have

reserved. 1990

The German Democratic R e p u b l i c

although i n then lost

embraced t h e concept o f a b s o l u t e

immunity, h a s s i n c e automatically

been u n i t e d w i t h its West

West Germany and t h e r e f o r e

independent v o i c e i n t h e s e m a t t e r s , Germany acceded to

i n view of the f a c t that Convention of State

t h e European

Immunity and t h e B r u s s e l s C o n v e n t i o n o f 1926 on t h e immunity o f s t a t e - o w n e d s h i p s coupled w i t h i t s 1934 P r o t o c o l

103

thereto.

1 0 5

The ILC Report, op. c i t ; (1998) Sixth Committee, GA/L/3091; (1998) General Assembly, Fifty-Second Session, A/C.6/52/SR.26; (1999) A/CN/4L.576.
1 0 4

Ibid.

E a s t Germany, b e f o r e 1992, was an i n d e p e n d e n t s o c i a l i s t s t a t e which f o l l o w e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f a b s o l u t e immunity. But as a r e s u l t o f s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n , s u c h a p r a c t i c e had been abandoned i n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t was a b s o r b e d by West Germany, a c o u n t r y although a m b i v a l e n t i n i t s p r a c t i c e , had i n r e c e n t p a s t embraced t h e m o d a l i t i e s o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. See The I L C r e p o r t on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and 384

1 0 5

The clear since Slovak Iceland, Chile,

position

i n 1990 i n r e s p e c t o f t h e concept the position unclear. Togo,

1 0 6

of Czechoslovakia immunity,

was a

acceptance

of state

but e v e r

i t s breakup, have become

of the r e p u b l i c s Countries Finland, follow such

o f Czech and as Mexico, Qatar, of

Madagascar, Suriname,

Barbados, Lesotho

Norway,

Yugoslavia,
107

the doctrine

restrictive

immunity. Colony,

The p o s i t i o n

i n respect

of Tunisia, a

former F r e n c h not the clear, concept

Burma, P h i l i p p i n e s oscillating immunity

and Cape Verde seemed the preservation of

b u t appear

towards

of absolute

of s t a t e s .

I n fact, the

p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s t h e w o r l d over i s s i m p l y f a r from c o n s i s t e n t and i t would a p p e a r t h a t Russia as w e l l as Asia, A f r i c a , and a

majority

o f L a t i n A m e r i c a n s t a t e s would p r e f e r

that the r u l e of
1 0 8

s t a t e immunity be m a i n t a i n e d r a t h e r than d i s c o u n t e d . therefore the be p r e m a t u r e position and c e r t a i n l y c a r e l e s s

I t would state

t o simply

current

o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n r e s p e c t

Their Properties. See S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . See a l s o t h e r e s e a r c h p a p e r s p r e p a r e d by t h e A u s t r a l i a n Law Reform Commission 1983, under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f P r o f e s s o r C r a w f o r d ; and t h a t o f GAOR 46th S e s s i o n , Supp. 10 (A/46/10) p. 9. The breakup o f Czechoslovakia means we now have two independent c o u n t r i e s w i t h two independent l e g a l systems. I t i s not c l e a r t h e s e two c o u n t r i e s have embraced t h e r e s t r i c t i v e doctrine, b u t i n t h e past the evidence supports the fact that Czechoslovakia d i d support absolute immunity. Without doubt a l m o s t a l l members o f t h e Warsaw P a c t d i d s u p p o r t the m o d a l i t i e s o f s t a t e immunity. B u t s e e (1998) GA/L 13091 Committee work programme; (1998) GA, F i f t y - S e c o n d S e s s i o n , A/C6/52/SR.26.
1 0 7 106

also

S e e ILCR, op. c i t . , 183, 184, 186, r e s p e c t i v e l y . (1999) GA, F i f t y - F i r s t S e s s i o n A/CN.416 576.

See

S e e P a r t V o f t h e ILCR. See a l s o R. H i g g i n s , Problems and P r o c e s s , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and How We Use I t (1994) p. 81; GAOR 46th S e s s . , 10 (1/46/10) p. 9. 385

1 0 8

of of

state states

immunity s i n c e in embracing this

t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e the of restrictive affairs in

of

the
1

paucity It is

immunity. regard to

submitted t h a t state obiter practice thus.

state have

inconsistent to conclude

might

prompted

Lord

Denning

"Some have adopted a r u l e of a b s o l u t e immunity, w h i c h i f c a r r i e d t o i t s l o g i c a l extreme, i s i n danger o f b e c o m i n g an i n s t r u m e n t of i n j u s t i c e . O t h e r s have a d o p t e d a r u l e o f i m m u n i t y f o r p u b l i c a c t s but not f o r p r i v a t e a c t s w h i c h has t u r n e d o u t t o be a most e l u s i v e t e s t . A l l admit e x c e p t i o n s . T h e r e i s no uniform p r a c t i c e . There i s no u n i f o r m r u l e . So t h e r e i s no help there. S e a r c h now among the d e c i s i o n s of the English c o u r t s and you w i l l not f i n d them c o n s i s t e n t . "
1 1 0

Professor

Brownlie's

position

on

this

subject

seemed

not

d i f f e r e n t from L o r d Denning's o b i t e r ,

when he

argued as

follows:

" I t i s f a r from e a s y to s t a t e t h e c u r r e n t l e g a l p o s i t i o n i n terms of customary or g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Recent w r i t e r s emphasize that there i s a t r e n d i n the practice of s t a t e s t o w a r d s the r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e o f immunity b u t avoid f i r m and p r e c i s e p r e s c r i p t i o n s as to t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f the law. Moreover, the p r a c t i c e of s t a t e s i s f a r from consistent and, as the comments of governments r e l a t i n g t o the draft a r t i c l e s p r o d u c e d by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission i n d i c a t e , there i s a persistent d i v e r g e n c e between a d h e r e n t s of the principle of absolute immunity and that of restrictive immunity.
1,111

Is

there

current

law? law

The

answer

i s in

the

negative

since is

customary aided by

international opinio are a juris.

i s formed when s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e It is clear, however, and of that we of

many are state

countries left with

modulating divided

their positions in respect

therefore the law

opinion

109

a t pp.
110

U s h a k o v , op. 329-336.

c i t . , Vol.

I I , p.

55;

Brownlie,

op. c i t . ,

R a h i m t o o l a v. Nizam of Hyderabad B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , a t pp. 386

(1957) 3 A l l ER

461.

11:L

329-330.

immunity. I n any e v e n t , of r e s t r i c t i v e late have

the p r a c t i c e

of s t a t e s

i n the

direction

immunity i s not the

uniform problem

and m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s of by giving that the conflicting concept of

exacerbated It is

judgments. sovereign than have

expedient, maintained to the

however, and

immunity be i t relegated

thoroughly The

studied rule of

rather state

background.

immunity a s f o r m u l a t e d by

t h e I L C i n i t s 38th s e s s i o n ,

however,

i s s u b j e c t t o a c a r e f u l q u a l i f i c a t i o n as r e g a r d s i t s a p p l i c a t i o n wherever p o s s i b l e . may perhaps be I t i s i n d e e d i m p o r t a n t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t what by some countries as the objective

accepted

e v i d e n c e f o r so i m p r o b a b l e restrictive as space may

a c l a i m i n s u p p o r t o f t h e d o c t r i n e of

immunity must be t h o r o u g h l y examined i n i t s e n t i r e t y permit for i t w i l l based o n l y on certainly be less helpful to

accept remains

i t s authority t o be

i t s popular

appeal.

I t now

s e e n how for the

v e n e r a b l e i s the d o c t r i n e of sake of objectivity i s an one

restrictive to

immunity, but argue that

i s persuaded

restrictive

immunity

incomplete

d o c t r i n e and

hence does not states law, i n the

command s u f f i c i e n t world law to of be

support

from t h e m a j o r i t y of rule of international nations i n supported is there well is

considered a which

i . e . , the

n a t i o n s by

civilised

general by

a r e bound.

I t i s s i m p l y e l u s i v e but h e a v i l y countries in
1 1 3 1 1 2

industrialised unlike

where

finance countries the quest

capital where to

established paucity of

developing In reality,

capital.

limit

state

See generally the ILC Report 1982-1986; UN Doc. A/CN.4/410, 1-5, 4 0 t h S e s s i o n , 2 YB INT'L. COMM'N P a r t 1 (1988). S e e Kwame Nkrumah, Neo C o l o n i a l i s m , The L a s t Stage of I m p e r i a l i s m ( 1 9 6 5 ) . T h i s book shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c a p i t a l 387
1 1 3

1 1 2

immunity i s f r a u g h t w i t h d i f f i c u l t i e s would appear or that even countries which have

and u n c e r t a i n t i e s with the

for i t of of

inclination the d o c t r i n e

accepting, restrictive articles Nikolai

countries

accepted

immunity have the

differed

a s t o how t h e v a r i o u s Commission be

draft
1 1 4

of

International

Law

applied.

Ushakov, a R u s s i a n s c h o l a r ,

i n h i s contribution

to the

debate on s o v e r e i g n immunity argued a s f o l l o w s :

"A number o f t h e S p e c i a l R a p p o r t e u r ' s c o n c l u s i o n s do n o t seem t o u s t o be w e l l - f o u n d e d . More p a r t i c u l a r l y , t h i s a p p l i e s t o t h e S p e c i a l R a p p o r t e u r ' s view c o n c e r n i n g an emerging g e n e r a l t r e n d i n f a v o u r o f t h e concept o f " l i m i t e d " o r " f u n c t i o n a l " s t a t e immunity. This concept or theory runs counter to the basic p r i n c i p l e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and i t i s r e j e c t e d by many s t a t e s , a f a c t t o which we have r e p e a t e d l y drawn t h e a t t e n t i o n of members o f t h e Commission i n our s t a t e m e n t s . Consequently i t cannot, i n our view, form t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f r u l e s on t h e i m m u n i t i e s o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y . "
1 1 5

Again,

Ushakov c l e a r l y

d e l v e s i n t o an u n c e r t a i n

aspect of

the doctrine of r e l a t i v e that law, many

or r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity, by e x p l a i n i n g of p u b l i c international from very

i t runs c o u n t e r t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s and t h a t countries

1 1 6

t h e concept of the

does not command s u p p o r t except western to support

world

industrialised h i s position,

countries.

Dr. Ushakov, that,

i n trying

argued f u r t h e r

amongst n a t i o n s and how i t i s n o r m a l l y m a n i p u l a t e d t o t h e advantage o f Western countries; Measures f o r t h e Economic Development o f Under-developed c o u n t r i e s : U n i t e d N a t i o n s Dept. o f Economic A f f a i r s (May 1951).
1 1 4

also

S e e I L C R e p o r t , 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. (1999) GA F i f t y - F i r s t S e s s i o n , A/CN.4/L.576. Ushakov, op. c i t . , I b i d . a t pp. 54-55. 388 a t p. 53.

See

115

1 1 6

"Many s t a t e s , p o s s i b l y a m a j o r i t y , do not s u b s c r i b e t o or r e j e c t , the c o n c e p t o f f u n c t i o n a l immunity. Hence i t i s c l e a r l y m i s t a k e n t o s p e a k o f any g e n e r a l t r e n d emerging i n f a v o u r of that concept. Thus, o f t h e 29 s t a t e s w h i c h , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the Commission's r e q u e s t , sent information and documentation in r e p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 14 g r a n t f u l l immunity and f o u r have no l e g i s l a t i o n o r p r a c t i c e i n t h i s a r e a . "
1 1 7

If to argue

this for by on

be

the the

case,

then

one of

will

certainly

be

hard

put

replacement or in

absolute

immunity

(wider less

principle) grounded

a relative the whole

restrictive the practice reading of

immunity which i s of the of states.

1 1 8

It is Law the real have

sufficiently Commission's world

obvious report

from t h e that a

International countries
119

great of

majority

of In

oppose t h e

doctrine

restrictive

immunity.

terms, however, i t would a p p e a r t h a t c o u r t s i n r e c e n t t i m e s followed the doctrine of restrictive immunity in

Continental

European c o u n t r i e s , B r i t a i n , the United States, to

Canada, South A f r i c a , A u s t r a l i a and the main ones.

1 2 0

mention foregoing

But

i t is of and of was from of

equally clear

from t h e

a n a l y s i s t h a t the

doctrine

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e g a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s therefore sovereignty could wholly rightly be designated usus. as a creature arguably support

l a c k i n g of

Its utility any

simply consecrated the T h i r d W o r l d .

1 1 7 121

i n the Western world without And 55,

s i n c e t h e r e a r e about 190

nations as

I b i d . a t p. Ibid.

1 1 8

u 9

Ibid. Ibid. See Brownlie, op. c i t . 389

1 2 0

121

now

i n t h e world, or sweeping

i t would be

f a r from c o n c l u s i v e t o make an the current state of

priori law as

g e n e r a l i s a t i o n on doctrine overall of

the

regards regard the merit

1 2 2

the the

restrictive of

immunity i n the falls of

without world. on some its few

having

to

practice

states or

Certainly intrinsic countries. apposite have

restrictive but not on

doctrine the

stands

popular

appeal

Indeed, to say

having that and the the

offered

these

arguments, of state

it is

also

shortcomings solid of ring

immunity built now in

become this in

apparent, almighty

t h a t was i s prima

once facie

around broken view of

doctrine

immunity

the

major

industrialised in

c o u n t r i e s of countries. doctrine of

the

West,

recent to be

legislation seen be how in a

these the by

However, i t restrictive to in resolve domestic way more

remains immunity private courts, or the

viable quest

would claims

municipal sovereign

courts states

against

foreign

f o r the r e s t r i c t i v e other made

or r e l a t i v e in this

approach has area of the

i n one law

litigation

complex. For acceptable considered. (1) an to international a l l and convention the on state immunity to be be

sundry

following p r i n c i p l e s be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s . the standard of the of

must

These p r i n c i p l e s may First law and must foremost, be the

general

international

focal

point

convention.

S e e I L C Report (1978-1990); see First Session A/CN.4/L.576; (1998) Committee) 9A/L/3091.

390

1 2 2

a l s o (1999) GA, Press Release

Fifty(Sixth

And t h i s must be c a r e f u l l y e.g.,

s u p p l e m e n t e d by c o n n e c t i n g

factors,

the r o l e of t h e lex fori must be c l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d . (2) The d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure imperii and acta equal an

j u r e gestionis

must be e l i m i n a t e d o r n e u t r a l i s e d and p u r p o s e t e s t s . at least i t will exploring the

by g i v i n g Although

prominence t o t h e n a t u r e

such

approach w i l l not be d e c i s i v e , of insights and ideas in

open a f l o o d g a t e state immunity

controversy, rights. (3)

thus h e l p i n g

t o promote

an e q u i t a b l e b a l a n c i n g o f

The a c t i v i t i e s

and i n t e r e s t s o f s t a t e s

do d i f f e r and

t h e r e f o r e must be c h a r a c t e r i s e d and p o l i t i c a l systems

1 2 3

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e g a l , economic o f t h e w o r l d , e.g.:

of c o u n t r i e s

See

Almond and P o w e l l , op. c i t .

391

(a)

D e m o c r a t i c systems 1. Britain, for instance, has a high

subsystem autonomy. 2. (b) While Mexico has a low subsystem autonomy. systems subsystem control and subject

Authoritarian 1. USSR had

participant culture. Russia as at now

T h i s i s changing and might have a and quasi China And

conservative still follows

subsystem c o n t r o l , a subsystem

control.

t h i s i n c l u d e s North Korea. (c) P r e m o b i l i s e d modern systems 1. Newly independent and states, low with middle limited class

secularisation participation. 2.

Premobilised authoritarian N i g e r i a , Burma, L i b y a , e t c .

systems,

e.g.,

3.

Premobilised

democratic

systems,

e.g.,

Zimbabwe, Egypt, I n d i a , P a k i s t a n and Ghana since This ultimately states are option may 1992. an extensive study which how

involve

would r e v e a l

t o members o f the Commission a s t o t o which t h e i r to above once

behave and

t h e a t t e n d a n t needs distinction of

interests undoubtedly by

directed. the

The

alluded

destroys

concept

"assimilation"

suggested

Professor Lauterpacht.

F o r a s can be seen, each s t a t e i s unique similarities.

i n i t s s p h e r e o f a u t h o r i t y w i t h minimal
392

(4)

The l e g a l p o s i t i o n

o f governmental

instrumentalities

of s t a t e s can be c h a r a c t e r i s e d i n o p t i o n 3. (5) I t could be

according t o t h e system suggested

possible

to incorporate

t h e approach analysis in i . e . , by

f o l l o w e d by L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e , the

i . e . , the contextual the d r a f t

1 2 4

I Congreso de Lapido c a s e i n t o

articles,

making r e f e r e n c e

to the c e n t r a l i s s u e ,

upon w h i c h t h e s u i t i s and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e

based, i . e . , the nature of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n breach. (6) An alternative model rule

should

have

been

established, (7) is be

thus e n c o u r a g i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l

arbitration. approach or left

F a i l i n g a l l these, then t h e only v i a b l e court

t o propose t h a t a s p e c i a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l established to handle p r i v a t e

tribunal sovereign

suits against

foreign

states. These recommendations a r e b e i n g made i n v i e w that so many c o u n t r i e s of the world have of the fact

n o t a s y e t had t h e their

chance t o c o n s i d e r t h e s o v e r e i g n immunity q u e s t i o n b e f o r e l o c a l courts and quite and e v i d e n c e o f s t a t e p r a c t i c e i n the Third

125

seemed t o be s c a n t y the crusade f o r

obscure

World,

since

change s t a r t e d i n t h e W e s t .

S e e t h e judgment o f L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e i n t h e c a s e o f I Congreso d e l P a r t i c o (1981) 3 WLR 328 (House o f L o r d s ) where he made an e x c e l l e n t e f f o r t t o a p p l y t h e c o n t e x t u a l t h e o r y . E.g., Italian practice, Belgium practice, French p r a c t i c e , German p r a c t i c e , A m e r i c a n p r a c t i c e , t o mention a few. G e n e r a l Assembly, F i f t y - F i r s t S e s s i o n , A/CN.4/L.576; R e s e a r c h P a p e r s p r e p a r e d by t h e A u s t r a l i a n Law Reform Commission (1983), under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f P r o f e s s o r C r a w f o r d .
393
125

124

In the

spite

o f t h e above o b s e r v a t i o n s , articles

i t i s submitted some new ideas

that and

ILC d r a f t

d i d b r i n g to the fore

these are (1) The inclusion of the purpose test in Article 2

p a r a g r a p h 2. (2) (3) The r e j e c t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r i s t approach e n t i r e l y . The d i s t i n c t i o n between of the prescriptive and enforcement 18. Thus

jurisdiction there i.e., is a one

state,

i.e., Article two sets

requirement

for

of c o n s e n t s , respect

f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n and measures.

the other i n

of enforcement (4) The test

c o m m i s s i o n e r s somewhat deemphasised of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g gestionis. developed countries between

the

abstract and

a c t s jure imperii

acts jure In sum, the rift

between

and

developing

countries the the Sixth

still

remains.

But t h e d r a f t a r t i c l e s and the work i n to

Committee c e r t a i n l y r e p r e s e n t a g r e a t c o n t r i b u t i o n subject.

understanding of t h i s e l u s i v e

394

CHAPTER EIGHT SOVEREIGN STATES BEFORE FOREIGN COURTS: AN OBSERVATION ON CERTAIN UNSETTLED OR

LINGERING STATE IMMUNITY PROBLEMS

Introduction In the logical and objective Freudian psychoanalytic one worries and the by

r e a l m s o f the or resigns

subconscious and to death than

u n c o n s c i o u s mind, no an already and dying

himself

for

concern, But over

faith years

i s more powerful the doctrine

1

doubt

despair. been

of and

sovereign i t would

immunity has appear that

attacked

leading

scholars

a l l leading

text did be
2

w r i t e r s who not speak

have s p e c i f i c a l l y with And one voice,

s t u d i e d the are

s u b j e c t , although that leading the immunity scholar,

agreed

restricted. record

i n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, one f a r as to proclaim

on

even went as

from

"mountaintop" and the

that sovereign his persuasive

1

immunity be abandoned f o r t h e s a k e o f j u s t i c e thesis seemed to have perhaps influenced

L a u t e r p a c h t H., The Problems o f J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s of F o r e i g n S t a t e s (1951) 28 B Y I L , 220; W e i s s , T r a i t e de d r o i t I n t e r n a t i o n a l p r i v e , LV pp 94; A l l e n , The P o s i t i o n o f F o r e i g n s t a t e s b e f o r e n a t i o n a l c o u r t s ( 1 9 3 3 ) ; W a t k i n s , The S t a t e a s a P a r t y L i t i g a n t (1927); Hyde, op. c i t . , I n t Law V o l I I ; Friedman, The Growth of S t a t e C o n t r o l (1938) B Y I L XIX; Mann, The State Immunity Act, 1978 (1979) B Y I L 50, p. 43; L o e w e n f i e l d , The D o c t r i n e of Sovereign Immunity, 44th R e p o r t o f t h e I L A 1950 pp. 204-217 and 45th Report 1952 a t p. 215: See a l s o L o r d Denning*s p o s i t i o n on the s u b j e c t i n R a h i m t o u l a V. Nizam o f Hyderabad (1957) 3 WLR 884; and T r e n d t e x and I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o ; Cater, Sovereign Immunity: S u b s t a n t i a t i o n of Claim (1955) 3 ICLQ V o l I V p a r t 3 p. 469; S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , 1959 work S t a t e I m m u n i t i e s and T r a d i n g A c t i v i t i e s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law.
2

See Lauterpacht,

op.

c i t . , pp.
395

220-224.

learned Thai j u r i s t abandonment 1959 is work.

3

Dr.

S u c h a r i t k u l to also c a l l immunity of states

f o r a complete cited

of

absolute

i n h i s well

So f a r , however, i t would appear steady and t h e r e f o r e arguably

s o v e r e i g n immunity to stay, for i t

holding

here

would t a k e more t h a n j u r i s t i c w r i t i n g s to d e s t r o y the corpus and animus put on of a sovereign lantern And immunity. Hence i t would be journey expedient than to

for this i t will

uncharted

rather

curse

the d a r k n e s s .

c e r t a i n l y be d e f e a t i s t t o pray i n our i n view hidden of t h e f a c t t h a t i n t h e s e

p l e a d i n g f o r deus ex machina, modern t i m e s , s u c h u n e x p e c t e d r e a l i t y c e a s e d t o be situation. All that i s being put

o r s p i r i t u a l powers have i n difficult

forthcoming

when c a l l e d t o save a

across i s that a f t e r

186

y e a r s , the

d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n immunity has become more e n t r e n c h e d i n the pleadings of states before foreign courts
4

and

although

some

c o u n t r i e s have p a s s e d arguably such

legislation

i n order to block i t s appeal, p r o v i s i o n s or thus not executive of

unilateral been less

legislative helpful To and

regulations customary rather

have

reflective

international exacerbated signals. the

law.

some e x t e n t such a c t i o n s thorny problem by

have

already

giving

conflicting

See S u c h a r i t k u l ,

op.

c i t . , pp.

355-359.

L i t t r e l v. U n i t e d S t a t e s of America (No 2) (1994) 2 A l l ER 203 C o u r t o f A p p e a l ; Van Der H u r s t v. U n i t e d S t a t e s 94 I L R 374, The N e t h e r l a n d s Supreme C o u r t ; John McElhinney v. Anthony I v o r John W i l l i a m s and Her M a j e s t y ' s S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r Northern I r e l a n d , Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n 15th Dec 1995 p e r Hamilton C J .
396

So f a r , one would be hard put t o c o n c l u d e t h a t normative practice still rule i n this area of the law i n so

there

is a state

f a r as

i s unsettled with

and t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n u n r e s o l v e d p r o b l e m s the s u b j e c t .
5

associated

As

f a r back a s

1978,

the

International the

Law Commission was g i v e n t h e mandate t o embark on

c o d i f i c a t i o n o f the law of s o v e r e i g n immunity, and i t would some progress position had been made, notwithstanding that is the state to be the

appear

conservative immunity successful be

of a g r e a t
6

number o f c o u n t r i e s i f codification then

maintained. an

Thus

as

attractive

proposition,

certainly

c o n t i n u i n g o r u n r e s o l v e d problems c u r r e n t l y effort the to l i m i t state immunity must

associated

with the with state law

be c a r e f u l l y e x p l o r e d

view to r e s o l v i n g and the

them a d e q u a t e l y by h a v i n g r e g a r d t o of international
7

practice

fundamental p r i n c i p l e s i n the c h a r t e r

particularly

enshrined

o f t h e UN.

I t i s the

R. H i g g i n s , C e r t a i n U n r e s o l v e d A s p e c t s of t h e Law o f S t a t e Immunity (1982) 29 NILR 265; S u c h a r i t k u l , I m m u n i t i e s o f F o r e i g n S t a t e s b e f o r e N a t i o n a l A u t h o r i t i e s : R e c u e i l des C o u r s (1976 1) ; C. S c h r e u e r , S t a t e Immunity: some R e c e n t Developments (1988) . S e e g e n e r a l l y The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's R e p o r t , 1981-1988 f o r d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e T h i r d World and Russia (formerly USSR) , Part V: Replies to Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Sent t o S o v e r e i g n S t a t e s , pp. 557-645 Togo a t p. 607; V e n e z u e l a a t p. 638; S y r i a a t p. 605; Sudan a t p. 605; and USSR a t p. 617.
6

The

Asylum Shelf

Case

ICJ

Reports

(1950) 1969

p.

266; p. 3;

North

Sea

Continental

Cases

I C J Reports

Villiger, Custom

Customary I n t e r n a t i o n a l in 662; Present International

Law and T r e a t i s e Law

(1985);

Wolfke,

(2nd ed 1 9 9 3 ) ; Kunz Customary

397

(1953) 47 A J I L Codification;

Thirlway,

International

Law

and

purpose problems.

of

this

study

to

attend

to

some

of

these

thorny

The

Problems of T e r r i t o r i a l Nexus o r C o n n e c t i o n State jurisdiction rules rules, and to may be defined these as rules. the power Under to the

prescribe traditional issues; case; decline (3)

enforce

jurisdiction a the or are given court

i s c o m p r i s e d of t h r e e has the power to

important hear the or and of

(1) (2)

whether whether

court will

exercise

jurisdiction

jurisdiction, there
8

i f need be, any

s t a y the p r o c e e d i n g s ; on the to exercise the

whether

limitations is

jurisdiction. immunity situation underlying these

The

third

issue

relevant

sovereign with a

controversy where a

because court may

i t

deals to

specifically grapple with The a

have

certain of

limitations

respecting becomes

competency. apparent
9

effect

limitations

usually

when

sovereign limitation

s t a t e i s impleaded b e f o r e

a foreign court

or i f t h e

Akehurst

(1974-75)

47

BYIL

1 D'Amato, The

Concept o f Custom i n

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law
8

(1971) . North's 223. Private I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (12th ed

1992)
9

C h e s h i r e and pp. 179-219,

J u a n Ysmach Co. I n c . v. I n d o n e s i a n Government (1954) 3 WLR 351; T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) IQB 529; c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e E m p i r e o f I r a n (1963) BV e r f GE 16: 45 I L R 57; I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o (1981) 3 WLR 328 p e r L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e ; The P e s a r o (1926) 271 US 30; R e p u b l i c of Mexico v. Huffman (1945) 324 US 30; S t a t e of Netherlands v. Federal Reserve Bank (1953) 99 Fed Supp 655; National American C o r p o r a t i o n v . F e d e r a l Rep o f N i g e r i a (1978) 448 S.Supp 622; A l f r e d D u n h i l l of London v. R e p u b l i c of Cuba (1976) 125 US 682.
398

relates foreign

to

a specific gua

s u b j e c t matter, commercial a c t i o n gua

e.g.,

a case or

involving a

element

transaction

foreign

l e g i s l a t i v e or e x e c u t i v e The law

private rights. upon the exercise from t h e non of

respecting

limitations s t a t e s may

j u r i s d i c t i o n over sovereign of p u b l i c

be d e r i v e d

rules habet to the most can was the

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and w h i c h means no another statement state

the maxim par s t a t e would be without law of v.

in parem

jurisdictionem, jurisdiction of

subjected

i t s consent. sovereign McFaddon.

The

commonly quoted be found in

of the

immunity This in

the

Schooner law by

Exchange Brett

extended following

in English words:

L J i n Parlement

Beige

" I t has been f r e q u e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t an i n d e p e n d e n t sovereign c a n n o t be p e r s o n a l l y sued, a l t h o u g h he has c a r r i e d on a p r i v a t e trading adventure. I t has been h e l d t h a t an ambassador c a n n o t be p e r s o n a l l y sued, a l t h o u g h he has t r a d e d ; and i n b o t h c a s e s b e c a u s e s u c h a s u i t would be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i n d e p e n d e n c e and e q u a l i t y o f t h e s t a t e which he r e p r e s e n t s . "
1 0

Classical personality sovereign authority nations. states, had

1 1

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law the state and

therefore its

discounted The

the law

dual of

of

ambassador. quite in

immunity t h u s was called

existed

until

recently leading

when i t s Western

into

question

some

Thus i n an doctrine then

attempt to l i m i t the of restrictive a statute

absolute

immunity o f and

the

immunity was law in USA,

developed UK,

since

become

Singapore,

Pakistan,
1 0

South A f r i c a , Canada and A u s t r a l i a . 197.

(1880) 5 PD

T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) IQB 529; C l a i m s a g a i n s t the Empire of I r a n (1963) BV e r f GE 16; N a t i o n a l American C o r p o r a t i o n v. F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c of Nigeria (1978) 448 F.Supp 622; The P h i l i p p i n e A d m i r a l (1977) AC 373.
399

Ever issues difficult shifted problem

since

restrictive

immunity have fact state

gained become that to

some

currency, and been The that the

regarding because

jurisdiction of the of simple the

confusing has

emphasis

from t h e has now

status become

i t s activities. of the fact of

deep-seated resigned jure the as

i n view to the and

municipal distinction

courts,

having

acceptance acta jure

between a c t a

imperii

gestionis, and

side-stepped jurisdiction. actions

or overlooked

difference a matter

between of law

immunity

Jurisdiction

encompasses towards the

inter partes

or a c t i o n

i n personam,

geared

r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s p u t e s between l i t i g a t i n g p a r t i e s w h i l e immunity can Thus a p p r o p r i a t e l y be one must come referred first to as the an affirmative but not defence. the two in

before One

other

concepts personam and

a t t h e same t i m e . i s that

striking

feature

of a c t i o n s

i t i s undoubtedly person living to Thus

procedural i n every within the

respect, of a is

t h e r e f o r e any could on become

jurisdiction a proper of a

state served

amenable
12

i t provided in the

writ

the

defendant. of

absence states, acrimony

clearly against protest, served

defined sovereign because (that This i.e.,

method states the

serving a

sovereign source of

suits and

became

of

legal

requirement must be

that

the person

being

i s , the

defendant) i s not aliena,

p r e s e n t i n the regards

jurisdiction. in rem, of

requirement jus in re

necessary as since

actions

i t involves

an a c q u i r e d r i g h t

C h e s h i r e and Mabee (1917) 243 US

1 2

North, op. 90, a t 91.

c i t . , pp.

183-184;

McDonald

v.

400

o w n e r s h i p by one over take t h e form

t h e res o f a n o t h e r .

13

A good example may as a in

of a l i e n The

and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d be r e g a r d e d legal difference between action

privilege personam

claim. and actions or

in rem i n E n g l i s h as important

law was not s e r i o u s l y t h e epoch essential where during of jure

considered

regarded

during

immunity was c o m p l e t e l y the period when

absolute,

b u t became

the courts between

had t o g r a p p l e jure imperii

with

the issue acta

distinguishing gestionis. suppose, principle the suits

14

acta

and

And t h e r a t i o n a l e behind t h e d i s t i n c t i o n , one would was to prevent a constant conflict between the

o f p a r in parem princeps in

non habet alterius

jurisdicionem territorio

and t h a t o f qua

principle

privatus,

eo nomine.

This conflict

can a l s o be seen i n t h e c o n t e x t
1 5

o f p r i v a t e law and p r o p e r t y law r e l a t i o n s , had the given b i r t h subject. A thorough examination

which over t h e y e a r s d e c i s i o n s on

to prodigious c o n f l i c t i n g j u d i c i a l

of p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l

law w i l l civil

show t h a t suits,
1 6

i t has l i t t l e

t o o f f e r a s r e g a r d s problems w i t h

w h i c h means t h a t contemporary problems r e s p e c t i n g c i v i l specifically a s s o c i a t e d with a foreign element,

jurisdiction,
13

S e e C h e s h i r e and North, op. c i t . ,

pp. 214-215.

S e e H i g g i n s , Recent Developments i n t h e Law o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom (1977) 71 A J I L ; and S c h r e u r , Some R e c e n t Developments i n t h e Law o f S t a t e Immunity 2 C o m p a r a t i v e Law YB (1978) 215. T a n i v . R u s s i a n Trade D i g e s t 15 pp. 141-144.
1 6 1 5

14

Delegations

in Italy

(1948)

Annual

J e n n i n g s , 32, M o r d i s i l T i d s c r i f t F o r I n t . , Reg. ( 1 9 6 2 ) ; Mann, S t u d i e s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1973) pp. 1-140.

401

can

be

resolved

by

reference

to

the

principle

of

private

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. conflict of civil

I n o t h e r words, p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o r guidance to the understanding i n so f a r as t h e by t h e

of laws o f f e r s a b e t t e r jurisdiction

in international

law

relevant

l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p would h a v e t o be some r e f e r e n c e This means

classified

lex fori c o u p l e d w i t h international question law.

to the precepts when dealing t o be

of p u b l i c with faced the with with

that one

of s o v e r e i g n

immunity,

i s bound

d i f f i c u l t i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s s u e s i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d p u b l i c and p r i v a t e law p r e c e p t s .

1 7

I t i s therefore

important to

note t h a t the s t u d y o f p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s e s s e n t i a l t o the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s o v e r e i g n to the study these of two out public immunity c o n t r o v e r s y law. And and a l s o i s so other do, in

international of law--one

this the

because

branches of the

private

and

publicgrew however,

same

philosophical and

thinking

but

follow

d i f f e r e n t teachings could

learning,

but s t i l l

one way or t h e o t h e r to resolve general

be a p p l i e d

in certain

circumstances

problems o f j u r i s d i c t i o n .

The word j u r i s d i c t i o n must be e c l e c t i c a l l y u s e d b e c a u s e i t has a technical connotation and therefore could simply be

i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s

i n many c o u n t r i e s

and t h u s

can be m i s l e a d i n g i n many r e s p e c t s . B u t i n g e n e r a l , refers to the powers exercised on the basis

jurisdiction of law
18

by

a In

sovereign

s t a t e over

i t s territory,

c i t i z e n s and e v e n t s .

17

L o w e n f e l d , A.F., R e c u e i l d e s c o u r s

(1979) 11 pp. 321-330.

M i c h a e l A k e h u r s t , J u r i s d i c t i o n i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (197273) XLV B Y I L 145-259; Mann, The D o c t r i n e o f J u r i s d i c t i o n i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, R e c u e i l des C o u r s I I I (1964-1); Ehrenzweig
402

18

Compania

Naviera

Vascongado

v.

Steamship

'Cristina,' jurisdiction:

Lord

M a c m i l l a n o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n of

" I t i s an e s s e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e of the s o v e r e i g n t y of t h i s realm, as of a l l s o v e r e i g n independent s t a t e s , t h a t i t should possess j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l persons and t h i n g s w i t h i n i t s t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s and a l l c a u s e s , c i v i l and c r i m i n a l , a r i s i n g within these l i m i t s . "
1 9

Although the as to whether

above d e f i n i t i o n a definition Certainly, to

i s i n order, could

i t i s doubtful applied

such

g e n e r a l l y be may be

without since then, agreed only

difficulties. jurisdiction can

problems

encountered How, are

appears be

have

v a r i e d connotations. Conflict scholars

jurisdiction lex

determined? the

t h a t the through
20

fori must be lex fori

s t a r t i n g point,

for i t i s can be

the

that

connecting

factors

determined. pointe de

I n France the connecting while f o r the in lex

f a c t o r i s r e f e r r e d t o as Germany causae it to be is known as

rabtacheement,
21

aknupfungspunkt. applied scholars laws

Thus

effectively some of

t h e r e must be have c o n c l u d e d lex fori.

22

a connecting

f a c t o r and

t h a t i s why

t h a t the b a s i c

r u l e of the c o n f l i c t c a s e , the

i s the

I n the Empire of I r a n

court

seemed t o e x p l o r e t h e i s s u e r a i s e d above as f o l l o w s :

(1956) Y a l e Law J o u r n a l ; D i c e y and ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; C h e s h i r e and North, op. c i t .

1 9

Morris,

Conflict

of

Law

(1938) AC

485

House o f L o r d s . (1993) pp. 7-11.

2 0

M o r r i s , C o n f l i c t o f Law Ibid., p. 7

2 1

( f o o t n o t e note 3 2 ) .

E h r e n z w e i g , The Lex F o r i B a s i c Rule i n the C o n f l i c t of Laws (1960) 58 Mich L Rev 637; A Proper Law i n a Proper Forum. A R e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e Lex F o r i Approach (1965) 18 Okla L Rev 340; B. C u r r i e , S e l e c t e d E s s a y s i n t h e C o n f l i c t of Laws ( 1 9 6 3 ) .
403

22

"It is still today g e n e r a l l y recognised that foreign s t a t e s are not s u b j e c t t o t h e m u n i c i p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a t l e a s t as regards their sovereign activities. This principle of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law would be d e v o i d o f c o n t e n t , and c o u l d not l a y c l a i m to the n a t u r e of a l e g a l p r i n c i p l e , i f t h e q u e s t i o n as to what a c t s were to be r e g a r d e d a s a c t s jure imperii were t o be determined s o l e l y by the f o r m a l c r i t e r i o n w h e t h e r t h e relevant l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to be c l a s s i f i e d by t h e lex fori as p u b l i c o r as p r i v a t e law. Were one t o p r o c e e d i n t h i s way, i t would i n p r a c t i c e depend on the o p i n i o n o f t h e s t a t e whose c o u r t s are d e a l i n g w i t h the m a t t e r , whether i t d e s i r e s t o g r a n t immunity; one would come to d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s i n d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s , and moreover, f a i l to t a k e a c c o u n t of t h e g r o u n d s t h a t have l e d t o the d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t s j u r e imperii and j u r e gestionis.
1,23

I n the on these

l i g h t of

the

neutral courts of

position

of

international of late

law

issues, to the

some

have,

however,

openly the lex The

resorted fori to

application forum

restrictive or the

immunity qua patrimonii. that

determine of

arrest law the or

forum fact

neutrality law has no and

international criteria for

international acta also jure given

distinction in this and

between has

imperii rise to

acta jure in of

gestionis state

regard

diversity

practice

conflicting The

judicial problem by in

decisions can be

in respect

jurisdictional lex and

competence. state

resolved regard

i f the to usus

fori c l a s s i f i e s the legal

activities of states

having

position

international In Denning thus: the

law. case of the Rahimtoola law v. Nizam of Hyderabad, Lord

explained

respecting

territorial

connection

" A p p l y i n g t h i s p r i n c i p l e , i t seems t o me t h a t a t the present time s o v e r e i g n immunity s h o u l d not depend on w h e t h e r a f o r e i g n government i s impleaded, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , b u t r a t h e r on the n a t u r e o f the d i s p u t e . Not on w h e t h e r ' c o n f l i c t i n g r i g h t s have to be d e c i d e d , ' but on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n f l i c t . . . .

p.

"Claims against 59.

the Empire of I r a n

(1963) BV

e r f 16,

45

ILR

404

But i f the dispute concerns, f o r i n s t a n c e , the commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s o f a f o r e i g n government (whether c a r r i e d on by i t s own d e p a r t m e n t s o r a g e n c i e s o r by s e t t i n g up s e p a r a t e l e g a l entities), and i t arises properly within the territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n o f our c o u r t s , t h e r e i s no ground f o r g r a n t i n g immunity. "
2 A

Lord Ltd.

Denning by

carried that

h i s views

stage be

farther

i n Thai

Europe is

arguing to attest

jurisdiction fact that

e x e r c i s e d i f there

evidence in by

to the

t h e commercial w i t h England

transaction such that

d i s p u t e has the presence

"a most c l o s e

connection

of t h e p a r t i e s

or the n a t u r e of the d i s p u t e i t
25

i s more r e c o g n i z a b l e h e r e to be f o l l o w i n g one is the primary of

than e l s e w h e r e . " traditional of whether

L o r d Denning seems of jurisdiction, will decline

the

rules the

that

test

court

j u r i s d i c t i o n or s t a y the proceeding. be the will acceptable state be to a m a j o r i t y of

But would such an approach Certainly no, because hence i t as a

states?

is a

special to

s u b j e c t of

international to juridical

law,

difficult

liken

i t s acts

persons

prelude to determining states

jurisdiction.

The p r a c t i c e where f o r e i g n d e r i v e d from

were s u b j e c t e d t o t h e law of t h e forum was

m u n i c i p a l law a n a l o g i e s , and t h e r e f o r e a r g u a b l y a d e v i a t i o n from general arbitre E.g., international in a dispute since between one an sovereign equal and acts a as a defecto trader.

private FSIA

commercial a c t i v i t i e s

as d e f i n e d i n t h e

undoubtedly

have a v a r y i n g c o n n o t a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e must be supplemented by specific rules r e s p e c t i n g connecting problems. No activity f a c t o r s to a v o i d can be difficult invacuo

jurisdictional

considered

2 4

(1958) AC (1975)

379 p.

422. 1492.
405

2 5

IWLR a t p.

for

every

activity;

whether i t be

commercial or behind i t .

non-commercial for a state to The through upon the The the and

must have some purpose or r e a s o n s activity the t o be

Thus

meaningful i t must have a p u r p o s e e x t r a n e o u s act in to or order to influence its result. nexus based

commercial

attempt

therefore activity

determine minimum

jurisdictional contact and wholly

commercial nature test

encounters

theoretical

practical

problems. fact that

theoretical state to a

a s p e c t of the problem stems from t h e greater extent separated hand, to the has an

abstract characteristic i t s concrete aspect

therefore While hinges state, on on and

must be the how other

from

manifestations. of of of the the problem modern the

practical the

best one

delimit

activities bane

this,

would

argue,

i s the

linking forum

conduct of the s t a t e to a f o r e i g n c o u r t , i . e . , t h e The the law difficulty state is i n separating to of these two

state. of the

c o n s t i t u t e elements And one since

gave c u r r e n c y the creature

sovereign the equal law of

immunity.

sovereign,

encounters order, i . e . , lex fori) . not The the

difficulties the The

i n s u b j e c t i n g an and remedial or

to a v e r t i c a l the to forum

procedural myth of

(the

justice the

fairness of

the

plaintiff

does

therefore concept intrinsic of

eclipse

needs

the

inter-state falls or

system. stands the on

jurisdictional

connection specific

v a l u e p l a c e d on

rules

linking

activities

of t h e s t a t e w i t h the forum. with uncertainty and because the fact

But a g a i n t h i s a p p r o a c h i s f r a u g h t of that the it consequence cannot be of state

sovereignty,

practically

406

subjected

to

transitory

conditions

as

regards

commercial
2 6

a c t i v i t i e s o r t h e v a r i e d modern f u n c t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e . The respecting U.K. act did not talk of a specific

requirement on

territorial

connection transaction

b u t S e c t i o n 3 ( l ) b touches o r not f a l l s Kingdom."

"whether a c o m m e r c i a l wholly or p a r t l y

t o be performed link here i s

i n the United

The

somewhat p r e d i c a t e d on t h e lex loci solutionis,

which

i s thereby

c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y r a t h e r than the subjective purpose of the a c t i v i t y . The said provision, helpful. and t h e

however, i s b r o a d l y c a s t and t h e r e f o r e not p a r t i c u l a r l y Jurisdiction patent expression refers of to the concrete manifestation and time

sovereignty until such

i t i s i n many r e s p e c t s that the principles of

territorial.

Thus

p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l law a r e a p p l i e d c o n c u r r e n t l y t o c o n t a i n the problem o f t e r r i t o r i a l par in parent non in habet connection, and t h e p r i n c i p l e of the p r i n c i p l e will to continue the of to

jurisdictionem territorio giving

princeps conflict,

alterius

privatus validity

thus

somewhat

judicial

pronouncements i n s u c h c a s e s a s t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e Empire o f Iran, I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o and t h e Kuwait Company and Another.

27

Airways

Corporation

v. I r a q A i r w a y s

Z e r n i c e K. V. Brown and Root I n c . and o t h e r s (1993) 92 I L R e p o r t s p. 442; N e l s o n v . S a u d i A r a b i a (1992) 88 I L Reports p. 189.

2 7

2 6

(1995)

1 WLR

1147 House o f L o r d s . 407

The

Continuing

Problems A s s o c i a t e d w i t h

t h e Nature

and

Purpose

Tests It that facie i s a p p o s i t e t o s t a t e expressis theory The verbis at this of s t a t e s juncture

2 8

the I t a l i a n erroneous.

of d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y state cannot be

i s ex into

simply

divided

'potere politico' consideration government politico of

and 'persona civile' w i t h o u t f i r s t nature of the s t a t e . be divided

taking into Perhaps into the

the abstract a given

state

could

potere

and persona tells us

civile but not t h e s t a t e , b e c a u s e that the state

2 9

juridical abstract

philosophy

is

"both

an

c o n c e p t i o n and c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n . " the as state having i s philosophically an ethical

The a b s t r a c t n a t u r e o f be regarded different as the

grounded and t h u s may personality aptly be

and n a t u r a l which

quite

from

the concrete

state

could

denoted

government. the agent

The c o n c r e t e s t a t e a s a l r e a d y s t a t e d state and t h e r e f o r e may

elsewhere i s change from

of t h e a b s t r a c t

time t o time depending, o f c o u r s e , upon t h e w i l l The abstract state is inanimate, i t cannot civile'

of the people. and a a

ultra-exclusive be r e g a r d e d because

determinate

s u p e r i o r , hence and persona

as having

'potere politico hypothesi

2 8

i t s domain

i s ex

political,

i . e . , the p r o v i s i o n of the p u b l i c

good on

M o r e l l e t v . Governio Denese ( 1 8 8 2 ) ; G u t t i e r e s v . E l m i l i k 1886-1-913; F i l t , 920, 922; S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , pp. 233-242. S e e B. B h a t t a c h a r y y a , F i r s t Coure i n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e (1949) p. 10, b u t s e e a l s o , George S a b i n e and Thomas T h o r s o n , A H i s t o r y o f P o l i t i c a l Theory (1973); A. Appadorae, The S u b s t a n c e of Politics (1968); Laski, A Grammar o f P o l i t i c s (1967); Dunning, W.A., A H i s t o r y o f P o l i t i c a l T h e o r i e s , A n c i e n t and Medieval (New York) 1902; Holland, T.E., The E l e m e n t s of J u r i s p r u d e n c e 1 2 t h ed. Oxford 1916. 408
29

behalf into

of the r u l e d . a political

Any a t t e m p t t h e r e f o r e and a

to divide

the state

entity

'corpo morale' s t a t e which

i s fundamentally could perhaps be

flawed.

I t i s only

the concrete

amenable t o s u i t the elected

i n the light

of the fact that o f t h e people. and the

i t i s made up o f The relationship state is think

representatives between the

therefore

people

abstract

permanent, a b s o l u t e , it t o be.

exclusive

and s a c r e d

than many would

The a b s t r a c t

s t a t e c a n n o t commit a t o r t o r v i o l a t e a activities because in reality i t by Italian

contract does

or get into a
3 0

trading

not have

'persona The the

civile'

a s was s u g g e s t e d state state derives just

jurisprudence. personality subdivisions

concrete abstract

i t s sovereign as political Thus any

from derive

i m m u n i t y from t h e c o n c r e t e s t a t e .

a c t i o n which i s t a k e n by t h e c o n c r e t e s t a t e i s done on b e h a l f of the and a abstract s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e of the people.

3 1

represents

the personification n e v e r a c t s as a contract i s state,

aspirations

A state therefore signing

private

person. because

The a c t o f a s t a t e i t i s done on b e h a l f applies

political i.e., it.

of the a b s t r a c t

the ruled,

and t h i s

also

to the a c t of v i o l a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t a s t a t e has

There i s t h e r e f o r e

no c o n c l u s i v e

a corpo morale, any foundation.

hence s u c h a t h e o r y was s i m p l y presumed without That the I t a l i a n theory was based upon a

3 0

cit.,
31

Fitzmaurice note 1.

(1933)

14 B Y I L

101 a t 121; L a u t e r p a c h t , op.

B . B h a t t a c h a r y y a , op. c i t . ; Dunning, W.A., A H i s t o r y of P o l i t i c a l T h e o r i e s from L u t h e r t o Montesquieu (NY) 1905; B r y c e J . , S t u d i e s i n H i s t o r y a n d J u r i s p r u d e n c e (NY) 1901; L a u t e r p a c h t (1951) 28 B Y I L ; F i t z m a u r i c e (1933) 14 B Y I L . 409

misconception

has

since

been

proven

by

the

difficulties private

that and

j u d g e s would have t o f a c e i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between public law and of also the between state. commercial The Italian and

non-commercial in short the as a that of

activities

theory

c o n s e c r a t e d t h e anomaly

t h a t whenever

a s t a t e descends i n t o

r e a l m o f b u y i n g goods o r s i g n i n g a c o n t r a c t i t has behaved p r i v a t e p e r s o n and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d be sued. simple? I s t h e problem

I t h i n k not, f o r t h e r e i s more i n v o l v e d

i n respect

t h e s a i d i s s u e t h a n m i s s t h e eye. In Supreme Berizzi Court Brothers the v. The Steamship that Pesaro, may be the U.S.

stated

difficulties

associated

w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n the f o l l o w i n g words:

"an international usage which regards the maintenance and advancement o f t h e economic w e l f a r e of a p e o p l e i n t i m e o f p e a c e a s any l e s s a p u b l i c p u r p o s e t h a n the maintenance o r t r a i n i n g o f a naval force."'
2

The that that

import one may could

of

the

said

dictum

shows

clearly

the

difficulties test non-

have

to face

in trying

to d e v e l o p a u n i f o r m governmental and

be

applied

i n characterising of states.

governmental

activities

Professor

Brownlie i n h i s

e x p o s i t i o n on t h e problem c a r e f u l l y p o i n t e d out t h a t an a d e q u a t e analysis political of the i s s u e "requires value judgments which rest on

a s s u m p t i o n s a s t o the proper s p h e r e o f s t a t e of s t a t e p o l i c i e s . "sovereign on the

3 3

activity in I

and o f p r i o r i t i e s Congreso of the

While L o r d Denning depends intent on or

argued t h a t action; not

immunity or

the nature motive, use

purpose

3 2

(1926) 27 U.S.

562. p. 331. 410

33

S e e B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . ,

whichever

word

you

like,

with

which of

it

is

done."

34

As

has first and the

a l r e a d y been shown, t h e developed by c i v i l in order to test be law

doctrine countries, validity by less

relative

immunity was

namely, Belgium and of restrictive

Italy,

promote was

the

immunity,

purpose

dismissed and

continental

scholars The of

because i t reliance on and

appears t o the

subtle was

rule-specific. by
3 5

nature t e s t

influenced

the And

writings

De

Paepe

particularly

t h a t of Judge W e i s s .

i t would appear i n many the

respects that these theory of the in dual

s c h o l a r s were i n t u r n a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by personality of the of states. of But one

important restrictive

weakness

respect

application

the the

approach i s t h a t and

its validity

depends w h o l l y on

nature

test of

t h a t w i t h o u t the a d v a n t a g e o f t h e n a t u r e t e s t the c o n c e p t 'paper t i g e r ' b e f o r e the the

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity would s i m p l y become a any t e e t h whatsoever. As i t may be

without Second concept

recalled,

World War

most common law

c o u n t r i e s d i d not

consider

of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity as a v i a b l e o p t i o n u n t i l the l e t t e r was w r i t t e n i n 1952. T h i s was followed by

famous T a t e 197 6 U.S.

the

Act which d i d c o n f i r m t h e n a t u r e t e s t

i n 1603(d) as

follows:

"The commercial character of an activity shall be d e t e r m i n e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o u r s e of c o n d u c t or p a r t i c u l a r transaction, rather t h a n by reference to i t s purpose."

A the

careful

reading the

of

this

portion was

of

the

Act

shows

that first

i n c l u s i o n of

nature t e s t

misconceived without

3 4

(1981) 1 A l l ER p. Droit

1102. I n t e r n a t i o n a l , R e c u e i l des Cours (1922)

Academie de V o l . 1 pp. 545-6.

35

411

taking which inquire whether course

p a i n s t o s t u d y the shaky i t was into borrowed. the be legal

continental the

jurisprudence drafters failed

from to and

Furthermore, basis of

a p p l y i n g the n a t u r e t e s t ,

i t can of

a p p l i e d i n a l l c a s e s without The drafters also failed

d e f e a t i n g the to determine political

justice.

whether the nature t e s t decisions private also of

can a d e q u a t e l y be in respect and of

a p p l i e d to their

nation-states The

dealings with were was had

traders.

private

public

law d i s t i n c t i o n s as

overlooked, by

f o r i t would have been most rewarding, i f common law

suggested taken civil the

Professor Higgins, familiarise

3 6

countries

steps to

themselves

with t h i s all-embracing become of

law c o n c e p t , which a s a m a t t e r of p r i n c i p l e has now cornerstone in

37

the The

application distinction

of

the

concept

restrictive defective

immunity.

i n question i s patently fact that one of the

because

i t totally

i g n o r e s the

p a r t i e s t o t h e agreement i s a r e c o g n i s e d person i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and that by whatever political decision i s taken by a state i s always most Latin

influenced American any

considerations.

Secondly,

states

and A s i a n - A f r i c a n which is

s t a t e s a r e poor and t h e r e f o r e taken And i s geared this towards the so

economic of

decision

betterment because and

the whole s o c i e t y .

i s particularly

i n t h e s e d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s the s o l e p r o v i d e r o f goods is the state, hence the state in this regard in

services or

ventures

i s f o r c e d to p e r f o r m

v a r i e d economic a c t i v i t i e s

3 6

H i g g i n s , U n r e s o l v e d Problems,

op. c i t . (1977) 2

T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a WLR; I Congreso des P a r t i d o (1981) 3 WLR 328. 412

3 7

order

to keep the economy g o i n g . by

This

involves state

planning, where

hence the proposed d i s t i n c t i o n the purpose for for a test is rejected theory. of goods

l e a d i n g Western s t a t e s , or ignored signing appear simply of a

sacrifices by a the

justice state

failed supply

The may

contract but

the

commercial

d e c i s i o n i n s i g n i n g the c o n t r a c t i s w i t h o u t doubt p u b l i c l y b a s e d and whatever or decision breach of is the taken thereafter i s more respecting often than the not that

performance political

contract This

and

nothing e l s e .

does not

mean, however,

the r i g h t of the p r i v a t e t r a d e r be of the people or drawbacks consensus general it in is

sacrificed
38

f o r the betterment apart from is these any the how

f o r the p u b l i c good. hard to tell law as as

Quite

to to

whether how to be

there

international of

determine the case,

scope

state a c t i v i t i e s .

I f this

w i l l a c o u r t be a b l e t o d e l i m i t t h e s c o p e o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s of a given issue state are in order to determine whether the At activities best the in

governmental or i s left i n the

non-governmental? hands o f And cum the lex

whole

exercise

fori

to c h a r a c t e r i s e judge may to be

the i s s u e s as i t s e e s tempted resort results to to only

fit. the

i t i s p o s s i b l e the sensu in the

follow

West

simply the

conjecture. easily be

There

i s the

likelihood also to case prevent the

that

could

manipulated

defendant lex be thus

s t a t e from s e e k i n g fori r a t h e r applied as than an

j u s t i c e i n a given the lex causae tool in

i n a s much as t h e to

i n p r a c t i c e would have defining the i s s u e s and

important

38

How

We

S e e H i g g i n s , Problems Use I t (1994) p. 85.

and

ProcessInternational

Law

and

413

l i n k i n g t h e a c t i v i t y of the defendant suggested infraction legal cases that emphasis be rather

s t a t e to the forum. laid on the

It is or his

breach to put

so as t o o f f e r to work, facts

t h e judge i n order and

the opportunity to avoid are a

reasoning with

situation

where

similar

issues

decided

differently. fori t o

Given t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s , follow only local data having

would i t be p r o p e r f o r the lex d o c t r i n e of

i n applying the

restrictive

immunity w i t h o u t law? The

r e g a r d to t h e s t a n d a r d of no, i f persistent After a l l ,

international in state

answer must be i s t o be

divergence

practice

avoided.

the d i s t i n c t i o n

between

c o m m e r c i a l and non-commercial a c t i v i t i e s of s t a t e s a t b e s t c o u l d only state have is a presumptive currency by since every d e c i s i o n of the the

arguably

influenced And and courts

politics

and

economic

w e l f a r e of the r u l e d . between the nature Even

q u i t e a p a r t from t h i s , the b o r d e r l i n e purpose i n the test is fraught have on with many issues and acta

uncertainties. occasions respecting

same country on

reached the

different

conclusions acta

similar imperii
3 9

distinction

between

jure

j u r e gestionis. procurement accorded of

I n F r a n c e , f o r example, a c o u r t goods to be sold the later act was to

r u l e d that the be

n a t i o n a l s cannot not

immunity

because

sovereign-based. issues, the in

While another

F r e n c h c o u r t , f a c e d w i t h s i m i l a r f a c t s and

t h e r e a f t e r r u l e d t h a t immunity be g r a n t e d on the ground t h a t act falls within the confines of jure imperii. Courts

T h e S t a t e of Romania v. P a s c a l e t , AD, 2 (1923-24) No. 68 must be c a r e f u l l y c o n t r a s t e d w i t h Lakhowsky v. Swiss F e d e r a l Government, AD, 1 (1919-1922) No. 85. 414

39

different similar courts

4 2

countries facts,

have a l s o U.S. courts. Appeal

4 3

reached courts,
4 0

d i f f e r e n t conclusions Italian courts,

4 1

on U.K.

e.g.,

and Canadian Court of

The Airways that

i n England, Airways

for

example,

in

Kuwait ruled

C o r p o r a t i o n v.

Iraqi

Company and

another

I r a q be accorded immunity but on a f u r t h e r a p p e a l the House r u l e d t h a t immunity be i n Trendtex the theory that and of denied. This tendency put so

of L o r d s i n a 3-2

a l s o became apparent across unclear here and i s that

Alcorn.

What i s b e i n g immunity a is

restrictive often

open-ended

i t has

created

situation the And

where c o u r t s

of the same c o u n t r y have d i f f e r e d m a r k e d l y on immunity t o d e f e n d a n t because sector of the fact states. that

i s s u e i n a c c o r d i n g or denying this i s made more d i f f i c u l t

i n most hence and

d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s the p u b l i c

i s inherently

large,

the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure imperii acta jure and gestionis uncertain states. i t i s p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t h a t t h e U.S. and thus r e j e c t e d the purpose Trust solely and based thus in on the nature works test

becomes on

onerous

the

end

hardship

developing While nature

40

h a s embraced t h e
4 4

test

test, Co.

i n the York

U.K., 2nd

250

Kingdom of Romania v. Guaranty Fed 341, 343.

41

o f New

(1) p.
42

G o v e r n o r Rumeno v. T r u t t a , 774.

Giurisprudenza I t a l i a n a

(1926)

Planmount L t d . v. R e p u b l i c of Z a i r e Rep.

(1981)

1. A l l ER

1110. 64

G o v t . of t h e Democratic (1983) 24-46.

44

43

o f t h e Congo v. Venne, I L R

S e e FISA

(1976),

generally. 415

however, i t would a p p e a r the d r a f t e r s were s i l e n t on the purpose t e s t a l t h o u g h i t was one, however, the of can i n f a c t r e j e c t e d i n an with much candour totally Current earlier draft. or exactitude rejected however,
4 5

No to the the

tell

as in in

whether practice

purpose English

test courts.

had

been trends,

p r a c t i c e of c o u n t r i e s of and the purpose t e s t .

4 6

of the West i n f a c t show a c l e a r r e j e c t i o n A good i l l u s t r a t i o n with the of the and difficulties public law

uncertainties can be

associated detected

private

distinctions

i n the judgment of Lord said:

Wilberforce

i n I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o ,

where he

"Everything done by t h e R e p u b l i c of Cuba i n r e l a t i o n to P l a y a L a r g a [one o f t h e two v e s s e l s i n v o l v e d ] c o u l d have been done and so f a r a s e v i d e n c e goes, was done, a s owners o f the s h i p . . . . It acted, a s any owner o f the s h i p would a c t , through the managing o p e r a t o r s . I t i n v o k e d no g o v e r n m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y .
4 7

In

this

respect, public

can law

i t be

said

that

the

application

of the

the p r i v a t e and fact that the could

d i s t i n c t i o n was that an were Act

p r o p e r i n view of given of by the coupled

instructions be and

Cuban with

government its

q u a l i f i e d as political

State

ideological to mixed

implications, acts which not in

and

therefore

amounted

governmental and

p r a c t i c a l terms resolved

defies easy

solution

therefore

could

e a s i l y be

4 5

H i g g i n s , op.

c i t . , p.

268.

Y o u s e f Nada v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a , Dec. 2, 1975, P r o v i n c i a l C o u r t o f F r a n k f u r t ; N a t i o n a l American Corp. v. Fed. Republic of N i g e r i a (1978) 448 F.Supp. 622; I Congreso d e l Partido (1981) 3 WLR 328. A l l the national legislation c u r r e n t l y i n p l a c e a l s o r e j e c t e d the purpose t e s t . I Congreso d e l Partido (per L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e ) House of L o r d s (1983) AC 244, p. 268. Here i t would appear the l e a r n e d judge was t r y i n g t o a r g u e the p r i v a t e / p u b l i c law d i s t i n c t i o n . 416
4 7

4 6

simply matter is

through i s that

the

proposed

distinction?

The law on

truth state of

of

the

although c o m p a r a t i v e c a s e toward the

immunity

growing

i n the West the reasons

recognition

restrictive weak or

immunity, totally

advanced

i n i t s support appear court j u d g e s and

misconceived for municipal

publicists

seemed t o have e r e c t e d an i m a g i n a r y t a r g e t t o debunk a s a means of justifying jure the d i s t i n c t i o n between the acts jure gestionis and and

acts

imperii, public

coupled w i t h law

theoretical well

elusive in the

private

and

distinctions

entrenched

p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s on the c o n t i n e n t o f E u r o p e . One i m p o r t a n t development in recent times is that the

purpose t e s t has been i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e p r e s e n t d r a f t of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l by the Law Commission,

articles

which a r e c u r r e n t l y being of the U.N., with The be the the

considered ultimate for the

6th L e g a l

Committee

goal

of being accepted of

as a t r e a t y test

text. to

reason on

inclusion World

the purpose

seemed

based

Third

interest would Latin

articulation have t o be

respecting by

varied in

activities Africa,

that

performed to

governments

Asia

and

America

i n order

promote

economic

development. application

But i t would appear t h i s of t h e purpose t e s t

development

towards the phenomenon. must into

i s not an i s o l a t e d

Thus a l t h o u g h c i v i l

law c o u n t r i e s s u c h a s B e l g i u m and I t a l y

be c r e d i t e d f o r the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e r e s t r i c t e d immunity international France rejected specific, and law, however, Italy which test i n recent times c o u n t r i e s the nature

such as test and and rule

have

accepted

t h e purpose

because

i t i s more v i a b l e

have a l l a t l e a s t t a k e n a w a l k backwards t o r e c o n s i d e r 417

t h e m e r i t s o f t h e p u r p o s e t e s t i n c e r t a i n unique c a s e s . f o r example, t o o k t h e which t h e the to Court of of the

France,
48

l e a d i n Guggenheim v. S t a t e of Vietnam ruled that immunity be

in on

Cassation

granted

strength the

p u r p o s e t e s t b e c a u s e the was used by

s a l e of c i g a r e t t e s i t s defence forces, was

defendant i n t o the followed

s t a t e , which

falls again Uniis

4 9

domain o f a c t a jure imperii. in Enterprise same c o u r t Pengon v.

A similar rule des

Government

Etatsaccorded However,
50

i n which the

r u l e d t h a t immunity be

t o the d e f e n d a n t on in Spanish S t a t e v. similar thus test from of

t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e purpose t e s t . S o c i e t e Anonyne d e l H o t e l the court

George V,

which test the be the test

involved argument,

issues, this time

r e j e c t e d the the nature

purpose test as

embracing

appropriate gathered

i n the the the

s a i d case.

France,

t h e r e f o r e , as can open to

above purpose

decisions, test

seemed

application w i l l be

where i t i s c l e a r justice. times of have also

such a

the b e s t way courts

of promoting in as recent a

Italian French for

followed

the

example where

matter

p r i n c i p l e , though have

perhaps the

different
5 1

jurisprudential

reasons,

considered

purpose t e s t ,
4 8

i n some u n i q u e c a s e s i n d e c i d i n g whether to grant ILR ILR 74. 82.

(1961) 44 (1973) 45

4 9

(1973) 65 I L R 61. I n 1991 F r e n c h c o u r t s r e i t e r a t e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n S o c i e t e Euroequipement v. C e n t r e European de l a C a i s s e de S t a b i l i s a t i o n e t de S o u t i e n des p r o d u c t i o n s a g r i c o l e s de l a Cote d ' l v o i r e , T r i b u n a l of I n s t a n c e , Pans F r a n c e : Feb. 1991, by A. Mahiou i n 118 JD1 408 (1991); S i e u r Mouracade v. Yamen i n 119 JD1 398 (1992). A s s o c i a t i o n of I t a l i a n P i c c o l i (1974) 65 I L R 308.
5 1

5 0

Knights 418

of

the

Order

of

Malta

v.

immunity or of applying to

not. the grant

I t would be purpose t e s t immunity

3 2

argued, however, t h a t as a p r e l u d e t o not, has not

this

trend as to

determining found that favour no or one a

whether other enter without

or

with would

European into a

countries. contract, thinking

I t i s submitted it a the natural

be of

person and

state, of of the the of and ad is

first

objectives be

purposes

agreement and said

what i n c o n c r e t e terms can The singled into here purpose out as of an

a c h i e v e d out as a

agreement. may enter But be

agreement, reason why

matter

logic, states idem.

the duly

individuals on to consessus consider

agreements the most

predicated question

important

whether the down This had and task some

scope o f s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s can categorised e a s y and in the for court the

r e a s o n a b l y be nature test

narrowed analysis. Iran to case an

properly i s not

i n the

E m p i r e of

difficulties be

determining as

whether

repairs the v.

embassy b u i l d i n g of private law.

5 3

characterised

falling

within

domain Central that not a an

Again i n Yousef Nada E s t a b l i s h m e n t the court reasoned a l o n g the

Bank of the

Nigeria,

same l i n e Bank was to the

opening of a l e t t e r of c r e d i t by act but a prive law

the C e n t r a l but

public

activity the

failed of

offer

adequate Bank.

analysis

respecting

legal

status

Central the

I n f a c t , the d e c i s i o n was

based on c o n j e c t u r e

because

" E m p i r e of I r a n Case (1963) 45 I L R 57, 80; Arab R e p u b l i c of Egypt v. C i n e t e l e v i s i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r e d T r u s t (1979) 65 I L R 425 431; A L i m i t e d v. B Bank and Bank o f X, 31 J u l y 1996, C o u r t of A p p e a l U.K. (1992) C o n s t i t u t i o n a l F C o u r t , Candor v. F i l v e r n v. M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e (ILR 101 p. 394.
53

Dec. 2

(1975),

P r o v i n c i a l Court of 419

Frankfurt.

status

of

the

Central

could

not

be

determined

but

simply

presumed o r d e r i v e d from l o c a l d a t a , not t h e l e a s t r e f l e c t i v e of s t a t e p r a c t i c e or customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l Partido, law t h e Law L o r d s made t h e attempt law. I n I Congreso de the private

to follow

and p u b l i c

law d i s t i n c t i o n i n order t o determine t h e i s s u e s but had d i f f i c u l t i e s and t h e r e f o r e differed The Law Islands

therein

presented,

constructively Lords because had

on i s s u e s r e s p e c t i n g in dealing

t h e Marble I s l a n d s . with t h e Marble

difficulties

a s may be r e c a l l e d ,

Cuba and t h e cargo owners d i d not as to warrant the issues t h e p u b l i c and surrounding the

have any c o n t r a c t u a l private distinction.

relationship

I n explaining

Marble I s l a n d s , L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e a r g u e d t h u s :
"The Republic of Cuba never entered into these operations. The c a p t a i n d i d n o t p u r p o r t t o a c t on i t s b e h a l f . I t s a c t i o n s were c o n f i r m e d t o d i r e c t i n g t r a n s f e r o f t h e s u g a r t o North V i e t n a m , and t o t h e e n a c t m e n t o f Law No. 1256 (which f r o z e and block Chilean assets. A l l of t h i s was done in a governmental c a p a c i t y : a n y a t t a c k upon i t s a c t i o n s must c a l l i n question i t s a c t s a s a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e . . . . I cannot agree t h a t t h e r e was e v e r a n y p u r e l y c o m m e r c i a l o b l i g a t i o n upon t h e R e p u b l i c o f Cuba o r a n y b i n d i n g c o m m e r c i a l o b l i g a t i o n . "
5 4

In

Congreso,

provided with

good

example

where of

the a c t of immunity

state thus

doctrine giving not

overlaps rise

the doctrine

state

t o mixed a c t i v i t i e s amenable of state to the

o f s t a t e s which i n r e a l i t y a r e commercial and non-commercial to note that

easily

distinction general

activities. law does

I t i s important not support any

international

distinction idea any

between immune and non-immune t r a n s a c t i o n s , is theoretically based and highly

t h u s t h e whole without

arbitrary

I Congrego d e l P a r t i d o 271-72.

5 4

(1983) AC p e r L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e , pp.

420

foundation. difficult

That i s why to grapple

f o r some time now

c o u r t s have found i t

with

the i s s u e of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between gestionis. t o ask. a t t h i s stage of the and with

acta jure imperii and acta jure The study thus the most important

question

i s , when does a s t a t e stop a c t i n g as a p u b l i c p e r s o n resigns i t s e l f unto t h e market p l a c e I n other clearly words, clothed

s t a t u s of a p r i v a t e t r a d e ? as a private person

has t h e s t a t e on the

acted

because

i t has

embarked

management o f an i n d u s t r y , goods, or have i t s embassy

or e n t e r e d repaired?

i n t o an agreement

t o buy Court ruled

The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l

of t h e German F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c that:

i n the Empire o f I r a n c a s e

" T h i s c o u r t h a s t h e r e f o r e examined t h e argument t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t f o r r e p a i r i s t o be r e g a r d e d as a n o n - s o v e r e i g n f u n c t i o n o f t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e , and h a s a c c e p t e d t h i s proposition as c o r r e c t . I t i s obvious t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f a c o n t r a c t o f t h i s k i n d does not f a l l w i t h i n t h e e s s e n t i a l s p h e r e o f s t a t e immunity. I t does not depend on whether t h e conclusion of the contract was necessary f o r the regular t r a n s a c t i o n o f t h e embassy's a f f a i r s and t h e r e f o r e s t o o d i n a r e c o g n i s a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the s o v e r e i g n f u n c t i o n s o f t h e sending s t a t e . "
5 5

The German c o u r t where emphasis was

i n i t s reasoning on

clearly

followed

test be

laid

whether the a c t i n i s s u e c o u l d falls to

performed by an i n d i v i d u a l or such an a c t o n l y domain followed

5 5

within the have but been Lord

of p u b l i c

authority.
56

This

test

appears

elsewhere,

and

i n I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o ,

(1963) B V e r f GE 16, 45 ILR 57.

T r e n d t e x T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1977) IQB 529; H i s p a n i o A m e r i c a M e r c a n t i l SA v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1979) 2 LLR 277; Consorzio A g r a r i o d i T r i p o l i t a n i a v . F e d e r a z i o n e I t a l i a n o C o n s o r z i A g r a r i G u i s t i z i a C i v i l e (1967) 1. 972-975; D i t t a Companione v . D i l t a P e t i Nitrogenmuvek (1972) n. 3368 1 s t S e s s . 421

56

Wilberforce of the

i n h i s judgment d i d not test as was Iran is earlier case. to

totally on The

reject

the

utility claim and is

purpose the law

i n d i c a t e d i n the aim of the

against public

Empire o f

private act

distinction or The

help

identify Is the

which said

governmental satisfactory?

non-governmental.

approach

answer i s i n t h e n e g a t i v e .

Perhaps i t c o u l d

be a p p l i e d w i t h s u c c e s s i n s i m p l e c a s e s where t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , w h i l e i n a more c o m p l i c a t e d c a s e the t e s t would States their s e t of In other of

s i m p l y f a l l a p a r t t h u s s a c r i f i c i n g t h e need f o r j u s t i c e . perform v a r i e d and activities events, one cannot interrelated simply be and activities from an and therefore

derived the

incongruous

commercial to

other

governmental. the

words, i t i s h a r d s t a t e s as a p r e l u d e not. became The weakness

simply

compartmentalise whether the

activities

to determining

to g r a n t immunity or activities of states v. the state

in characterising the
57

apparent of

in

Uganda when

Co. the

(Holdings) doctrine of

Ltd. act of

Government overlapped

Uganda,

w i t h the d o c t r i n e o f r e l a t i v e

immunity.

Donaldson J

i n h i s judgment o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n :
"Even i f t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e T r e n d t e x c a s e had a p p l i e d , the a p p l i c a t i o n would s t i l l have been d e t e r m i n e d i n f a v o u r of the d e f e n d a n t s s i n c e the l i t i g a t i o n would have i n v o l v e d t h e c o u r t i n e x p r e s s i n g an o p i n i o n on t h e meaning and e f f e c t o f t h e Uganda l e g i s l a t i o n i n a s u i t t o w h i c h t h e government o f t h a t s t a t e was a p a r t y and i t c o u l d not be h e l d t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e d o c t r i n e of s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y e x t e n d e d t h i s f a r . "
5 8

"(1979)
5 8

1 L l o y d s Rept 487-488.

481.

I b i d . a t pp.

422

Donaldson, passing problem where a of was

i t would appear, judgment on also

simply

d i d not

find persuasive A somewhat v.

the

Ugandan l e g i s l a t i o n . in Czarnikow

similar
59

encountered

Ltd.

Rolimpex,

Polish

government p o l i c y with a

adversely affected a contract private entity. These on be

purportedly

signed

foreign

p r o b l e m s show t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g which the flawed like a ab concept initio of corpal a

fundamental b u i l d i n g b l o c k premised appeared t o not his

civile was state Judge the

because person.

in reality Lauterpacht

does in

operate studies, immunity

natural took

although

issue

with

doctrine

of

absolute

argued t h a t :
"The s t a t e n e v e r t h e l e s s a c t s a s a p u b l i c p e r s o n f o r t h e g e n e r a l purpose o f t h e community a s a whole. T h i s a p p l i e s not o n l y t o t h e s t a t e s w i t h a S o c i a l i s t economy where t r a d i n g or management of i n d u s t r y have become a p u b l i c f u n c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e , f o r the s t a t e always a c t s as a p u b l i c person. I t cannot act otherwise."
6 0

Judge F i t z m a u r i c e a l s o s a y s "The does not c e a s e to be

truth i s that a sovereign

state acts

a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e because i t p e r f o r m s might p e r f o r m .
61

which a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n that

O'Connell a l s o

argues

"Although t h e r e i s a marked tendency towards r e j e c t i n g t h e a b s o l u t e r u l e a s one of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, t h e r e i s s t i l l c o g e n c y i n t h e argument t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between sovereign and non-sovereign activity, and that the a t t e m p t t o do so l e a d s i n t o a j u n g l e o f l e g a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . "
6 2

5 9

(1979) AC

351

House of L o r d s p e r Lord W i l b e r f o r c e . cit., cit., p. p. 137. 121. be

6 0

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. F i t z m a u r i c e , op.

6 1

S e e O'Connel, op c i t . , p. 846: Even today, one would h a r d put t o t a k e i s s u e w i t h P r o f e s s o r O'Connell's argument. 423

62

Fawcett i n h i s study of t h e l e g a l a s p e c t s t o t h e same c o n c l u s i o n s

"The de various puissance

of state trading

came

that
acts jure jure imperii (actes (actes and t h e

d i s t i n c t i o n s made between publique) sovereign acts and and acts

gestionis acts,

degestion), public for

non-sovereign of the s t a t e , contracts,

and t h e p r i v a t e state

capacity trading

a r e not adequate lines of of that

classifying

for the

demarcation state have

between become

the p o l i t i c a l blurred
6 3

and e c o n o m i c

activities borderland

and i t i s i n t h i s

state trading

flourishes."

The by

arguments p o s i t e d by t h e s e Professor Fairman,

64

s c h o l a r s have e q u a l l y been Hyde.

65

shared

and P r o f e s s o r

The p o s i t i o n o f counter to the in I

these

distinguished advocated

scholars, by L o r d

however,

run

position

Denning

i n Trendtex thus:

and a l s o

Congreso a t t h e Court o f A p p e a l l e v e l
"When a s o v e r e i g n worldjust like chooses

t o go i n t o ship

the markets

of the

an o r d i n a r y

private

owner

f o r commercial o f an ordinary or for

purposesthen ship's captain.

he c l o t h e s

himself

i n the dress

He i s l i a b l e

t o be s u e d on h i s c o n t r a c t

h i s wrongs i n t h e c o u r t the cause. He cannot

66

of any country which has j u r i s d i c t i o n i n renounce the j u r i s d i c t i o n by a p l e a of

sovereign

immunity.

S e e Fawcett, op. c i t . , p. 3 5 . arguments a r e weighty and v e r y convincing.

6 4

63

Professor

Fawcett's

(19 2 8) A J I L 22, pp. 569-74.

65

Hyde, op. c i t . (1980) 1 LLR 39. 424

6 6

Weller,

LJ,

the

other

member

of

the

two-man

court

r e s p e c t i n g t h e Cuban c a s e , however, r u l e d o t h e r w i s e by a c c o r d i n g immunity taken, was t o Cuba. Although Lord Denning's approach i s well

he f a i l e d by L o r d

t o look

beyond t h e n a t u r e

of t h e c o n t r a c t a s a t t h e House o f unilateral

done

Wilberforce

i n I Congreso

Lords,

and the d i f f i c u l t i e s d e c i s i o n s taken

normally

a s s o c i a t e d with

political state

within the territory

of a sovereign

which

i n turn has a f f e c t e d the contractual o b l i g a t i o n of The h e a r t o f t h e argument i s t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n activities only of states based on t h e lex fori jure

the s t a t e . of

commercial

patently imperii and

conditioned

on t h e d i s t i n c t i o n

between acta

a n d acta jure gestionis

i s i l l - c o n c e i v e d and m i s l e a d i n g t o promote e q u i t y and s t a b i l i t y immunity have advanced o r made

t h e r e f o r e does not p u r p o r t

as p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e us t o b e l i e v e . some could courts lead

I n o t h e r words, t h e c u r r e n t approach f o l l o w e d by o f customary law and t h e r e f o r e states do n o t

i s not r e f l e c t i v e to i n j u s t i c e . t h e market

After with

a l l , sovereign

venture

into

the ultimate

aim o f

blatantly

v i o l a t i n g t h e terms o f a g i v e n c o m m e r c i a l agreement. The concern o f most Third World countries i s that the from non-

approach used commercial requirement the

i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g commercial a c t i v i t i e s of states simply exceeds

activities

the acceptable

o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l competence and t h e r e f o r e may l e a v e state a t t h e mercy o f domestic courts. This

defendant

reason, Legal

a s a l r e a d y s t a t e d elsewhere,

prompted t h e A s i a n - A f r i c a n grievances

C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee t o vehemently a i r t h e i r

425

against

the

United

States

and

i t s courts

for
67

exceeding

the

a c c e p t a b l e bounds of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l Experience thus if the so f a r has issue proved

competence. the above

scholars

right, is be on

whole

respecting

restrictive of life, is

immunity one would

approached w i t h surprised ideology a given to and

regard out

t o the that

realities

find

state

activity

conditioned

the l e v e l hence

of p o l i t i c a l and the suggested inadequate.

economic development i n test the in resolving throwing of

country, is

single Thus

the

problem

woefully

s u p p o r t behind

the d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e i s not acrimony j u s t i f i e d and among

immunity w i t h a l l i t s therefore l i k e l y and this has to

drawbacks or demerits create clearly English Congreso Nigeria; the on bent the disrepute shown courts, del in or

states were

been before I of

recent

cases v.

which the Corp.

litigated of

i . e . , Alcorn

Republic v. the

Colombia; Bank

Partido;

Trendtex

Central (No. Lord

Littrell

v. U n i t e d

S t a t e s of America Denning and

2) .

Given

of t h i n k i n g of both L o r d restrictive

Wilberforce to the

d o c t r i n e of

immunity,

i t i s instructive some d o u b t s about

n o t e t h a t t h e s e judges

have a l l e x p r e s s e d

cogency of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. the doctrine from of the restrictive judiciary. of

S i m p l y put, immunity Anything

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the highest could

requires short thus of

standards simply and

that

d i s t u r b the b a l a n c e

justice

and

create state.

hardship

i n j u s t i c e wholly d e t r i m e n t a l to the defendant

S e e Doc No. the p r o t e s t .

67

AALCC 1M/87/1 Nov.

1987

for d e t a i l s respecting

426

Problems o f Mixed A c t i v i t i e s of S t a t e s Is municipal upon i t expedient, courts to or indeed f a i r

Involving

Private

Traders for law the be

i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, r u l e of in

u n i l a t e r a l l y impose a v e r t i c a l Some would possibly

sovereign

states?

answer

n e g a t i v e and based on

t h u s may

advise

that municipal courts' decisions law and could certain better be be

customary issues

international the
6 8

sensitive resolved logically must be

political through

involving

state

diplomatic then

channels.

I f this

approach of

grounded, carefully

certain

sensitive activities and singled out

states for

characterised Goff can be J's

diplomatic Partido in
69

consideration. this But direction as i t may

argument i n I Congreso d e l be r i g h t l y described as

therefore

weighty.

r e c a l l e d , h i s cautionary

n o t e came i n a

little

late. Thus the main issue was before the House of Lords in I

Congreso d e l P a r t i d o

whether Cuba c o u l d c l a i m immunity f o r a adversely jure a f f e c t e d by imperii, its executive the

purported b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t order or political contract The

actionacta

even

though

initial

i n question case can

falls

i n t o the be

domain of acta jure thus. In sell 1973 a

gestionis. Cuban s t a t e to a p r i v a t e the s u g a r be

shortly

related an

enterprise

entered

into The

agreement to

sugar that

company i n C h i l e . delivered

sale contract

directed

to the C h i l e a n

company between the months payment was to be

o f J a n u a r y and

O c t o b e r 1973,

r e s p e c t i v e l y , and

6 a

Congreso, per p. 1192.

Goff J

(1978) 1 A l l ER p.

1192.

6 9

Ibid.,

427

made

i n U.S. d o l l a r s

under

a letter

of c r e d i t .

Both

parties apply

a g r e e d p e r t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t E n g l i s h l a w must in case of dispute. While t h e Marble Islands

and t h e P l a y a i n issue, a

L a r g a were i n t h e p r o c e s s of d e l i v e r i n g right-wing toppling Playa while group of s o l d i e r s took over

the sugar power

i n Chile, At that

thus time

t h e government was about Island

of P r e s i d e n t Allende. to discharge i t s cargo

Larga Marble

at Valparaiso, seas. The

was i n t h e middle

of the high

government o f Cuba abrogated sugar cargo be d e l i v e r e d back t o Cuba

t h e c o n t r a c t by o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e Playa Larga Islands thus was brought i t s ordered to

elsewhere. while

t h e Marble

d e l i v e r i t s cargo t o North Vietnam. the plaintiffs who were

The s t o r y d i d n o t end h e r e ; owners of the sugar i n a s h i p owned by

the r i g h t f u l

question

instituted

a suit

a g a i n s t I Congreso,

Cuba, then docked i n England f o r c o n v e r s i o n and d e t i n u e . A careful analysis o f I Congreso shows i t has a lot in
7 0

common w i t h Trendtex, and Banque Central

De Sanches de

v . Banco C e n t r a l de N i c a r a g u a de Turquie
71

l a Republique

v.

Weston

Compagnie de cases

Finance e t d'Investissement state activities Cuba

S.A.,

f o r a l l these related to a t the

i n v o l v e d mixed traders. level,

specifically

private trial

I n I Congreso, Lord

was s u c c e s s f u l and Waller

however,

Denning

L . J . were

deadlocked not.

on t h e i s s u e of whether t o g r a n t immunity t o Cuba o r c a s e , b u t on a p p e a l t h e House o f

T h i s was not an e a s y

70

( 1 9 8 5 ) 770 F.2d 1385. (1978) BGE 1104 l a 367 I L R 65 (1984) p. 417. 428

7 1

L o r d s found f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s , be

t h e owners o f t h e s u g a r .

Can i t

s a i d t h a t Cuba b l a t a n t l y r e p u d i a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t ? repudiation of the contract influenced by

Or was t h e political i n those by CIA

plain

ideology? terms,

C e r t a i n l y one may n o t be wrong i n t h i n k i n g t h e coup d'etat was allegedly supported

since

a g e n t s i n w h i c h A l l e n d e was k i l l e d . certain clearing crucial issues i n the case

The House o f L o r d s a v o i d e d and t h u s l o s t this t h e chance o f problem most was

t h e unbeaten p a t h mixed

i n resolving of

difficult Perhaps

respecting

activities

states.

the

important question which a c t i v i t y

t h a t t h e Law L o r d s s h o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d to the contract

o f Cuba i n r e g a r d

s h o u l d be g i v e n I s i t the breach Or

more w e i g h t i n r e s p e c t or

o f a c c o r d i n g immunity.

the nature of the t r a n s a c t i o n one a s k whether

which must be c o n s i d e r e d ? i n issue was

should

the a c t i v i t y

politically

inspired? transaction

And w h e t h e r a s t a t e h a v i n g e n t e r e d i n t o a commercial c a n be immune by a subsequent political decision

which might have been prompted by an unexpected e v e n t which c u t s deep i n t o t h e i n i t i a l It and transaction? o f s t a t e s a r e numerous

i s submitted that the a c t i v i t i e s some may be d i r e c t l y fall outside

while

governed by i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law position to resolve

others and

arguably

the confines

therefore,

i n order

t o be i n a b e t t e r

the problems t h a t were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o , a c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t s h o u l d have been made t o c a r e f u l l y d e l i m i t t h e scope o f t h e power of the state enterprise qua t h e p o l i t i c a l

d e c i s i o n t h a t was t a k e n by Cuba. r e a s o n s why Cuba would e n t e r

F o r i t i s h a r d t o come up w i t h with

i n t o a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n 429

the u l t i m a t e private

aim

of b r e a k i n g i t w i t h i m p u n i t y j u s t t o p u n i s h Thus t h e r e that the must be a h i d d e n motive b e h i n d d e l i v e r e d e l s e w h e r e and based, for Cuba,

the the this a

trader.

order requesting motive prima

sugar be

facie

was was

politically not

being

socialist operating After destroy d'etat

country, under a

ready to work w i t h military of

a private of

entity Chile. would a coup any

right-wing

government

a l l , any

flagrant

disrespect Thus

i t s obligations had not been

i t s credibility. i n C h i l e the inasmuch as

i f there

sugar would have been d e l i v e r e d w i t h o u t Allende's government was also

problems

socialist. that

These u n d e r l y i n g

f a c t s might have prompted G o f f J . to r u l e

"The claims would be more appropriately dealt with through diplomatic c h a n n e l s t h a n through the c o u r t s of a n o t h e r country. Such an a c t i s an actus jure imperii; i t i s not j u s t t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o r motive of the a c t i s t o s e r v e the p u r p o s e s of the s t a t e , but t h a t the a c t i s of i t s own character a g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t , a s opposed to an a c t which any p r i v a t e c i t i z e n can p e r f o r m . "
7 2

Furthermore, anything out

i t s h o u l d be of the a blue

borne i n mind t h a t just to will flout the

Cuba would not said

do

commercial a negative and that

agreement, repercussion possibly

for on

such

decision

c e r t a i n l y have private

i t s trade states. And

r e l a t i o n s with i t i s possible

traders of

other

a decision

n a t u r e would

i n v i t e condemnation and

protest

from many s t a t e s .
7 3

Thus Cuba, m i n d f u l o f the p a i n f u l U.S.

7 2

embargo i n p l a c e ,

would

(1978) 1 A l l ER

p.

1192.

T h e U.S. d u r i n g the c o l d war p e r i o d put i n p l a c e an embargo a g a i n s t Cuba i n order t o b r i n g down the socialist government o f F i d e l C a s t r o . I t must be a l s o s t a t e d t h a t Cuba i s a c i v i l law c o u n t r y but r e f u s e s t o have a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h C a p i t a l i s m s i n c e 1958. I t s p o s i t i o n r e s p e c t i n g the e v e n t s w h i c h occurred in Chile i s understandable given its Socialist policies. 430

73

not go t o t h e e x t e n t o f d e s t r o y i n g i t s a b i l i t y and r e p u t a t i o n i n obtaining nations. the credit Thus, from financial institutions i n other Western appear

i n the l i g h t

of the Cold

War, i t would

political

decision

i n question else.

was t a k e n

i n the n a t i o n a l

i n t e r e s t o f Cuba and n o t h i n g coup d'etat the consular Chilean

For during the course of the officers blockade, instituted thus a

military

diplomatic,

and c o m m e r c i a l

carelessly

i n t e r r u p t i n g the maritime and f o r t h a t matter,

t r a n s p o r t l i n k between C h i l e and Cuba i n order to firmly consolidate then

t h e world,

t h e i r newly won power. will It i t be p r o p e r

I f t h e s e arguments be w e l l founded,

t o q u e s t i o n why Cuba behaved t h e way i t d i d ? Lord W i l b e r f o r c e was not t o t a l l y immunity, i t would

i s submitted

t h a t although

impressed

by t h e c u r r e n c y o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e

appear some a s p e c t s o f t h e s a i d p r i n c i p l e found i t s way i n t o t h e judgment he handed down i n I Congreso. True, the contextual

approach a p p e a r s far

a l l - e m b r a c i n g and a p p e a l i n g , but seemed t o f a l l a n s w e r s t o t h e problems raised

short of providing the r i g h t case.

in t h i s complicated First,

the i n i t i a l

agreement f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e s u g a r o f under a l e t t e r o f But t h e d e c i s i o n contract by an

which payment was t o be made i n U.S. d o l l a r s c r e d i t was prima of t h e Cuban facie a c o m m e r c i a l endeavour. t o abrogate the Allende

government because

the sale

executive

order

government was t o p p l e d was cannot be disputed. to the

p u r e l y a p o l i t i c a l a c t , w h i c h e x hypothesi But t h e q u e s t principles acta jure to characterise

these a c t i v i t i e s

according

of r e s t r i c t i v e gestionis,

immunity, i . e . , acta jure imperii and by the fact that these

i s defeated 431

activities other initial breach

were

inextricably having an

intertwined without direct

one

or the on the

arguably

independent case,

effect

transaction. or the nature

In this of

a r e we

talking

about t h e which, i f

the i n i t i a l

transaction

c a r e f u l l y a n a l y s e d , c r e a t e s an unseemingly hidden respect of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity, meaning "that

consequence i n once a trader,

always a t r a d e r . "

Can i t t h e r e f o r e be argued

t h a t once a s t a t e out of state

h a s e n t e r e d i n t o a commercial it by genuinely claiming

arena, i t cannot g e t i t s e l f And i f so, which

immunity?

a c t i v i t y c a n be d e s i g n a t e d a s more i m p o r t a n t ?

I s i tthe i n i t i a l political

a c t i v i t y which must be c h a r a c t e r i s e d o r the subsequent decision be i n r e s p e c t to the breach?

Lord W i l b e r f o r c e , a s i t may

r e c a l l e d , d i d n o t go a s f a r a s t o c o n s i d e r some o f t h e i s s u e s

h e r e i n p r e s e n t e d , but a t t h e same time p r o v i d e d an argument, i f carefully Trendtex, read, thus detracts exposing from Lord Denning's position i n the made i n

the f a l l a c y

i n t h e arguments

r e j e c t i n g N i g e r i a ' s p l e a f o r immunity i n t h a t c a s e .
" I f one s t a t e c h o o s e s t o l a y down by enactment c e r t a i n l i m i t s , t h a t i s by i t s e l f no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h o s e l i m i t s a r e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d by s t a t e s . And p a r t i c u l a r l y e n a c t e d l i m i t s may be ( o r presumed t o be) not i n c o n s i s t e n t with general i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w t h e l a t t e r being i n a s t a t e o f u n c e r t a i n t y w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g e v i d e n c e what t h a t law i s . I s h a l l make no further reference to t h i s English statute, nor f o r s i m i l a r reasons t o t h e analogous U n i t e d S t a t e s s t a t u t e p a s s e d i n 1976."
74

The dissimilar

argument

advanced i n the above p a s s a g e

i s not a t a l l
75

t o t h e argument made by Stephenson

L J i n Trendtex.

Thus a l t h o u g h Stephenson

L J ' s argument appears s e e m i n g l y

i n some

7 4

(1981) 3 WLR 328, 334. (19 7 7 ) 2 WLR 356; C o u r t o f Appeal p e r Stephenson L J . 432

7 5

respects throws

to light

have on law, states

been the

overlooked, place he of

i t undoubtedly restrictive as less opinio

in

reality in the that to of

immunity in

international practice of

which and

analysed

grounded juris,

therefore

lacks

and

the d o c t r i n e be the fact

applied only

i f there i s evidence i s not doubtful i n the

to a t t e s t practice

that i t s currency

states. Lord W i l b e r f o r c e following the in fact started on a good f o o t i n g , appear, thus

contextual

approach.

I t would

however, immunity

t h a t he f i n a l l y r e j e c t e d Cuba's p l e a t h a t i t be g r a n t e d

i n r e s p e c t o f the P l a y a L a r g a , by r e a s o n i n g t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n by Cuba to o r d e r cargo although Playa Larga could the not to deliver be did the remainder of as political as acta the and jure

apparently said action

construed not

non-commercial,

qualify

imperii because i n r e a l i t y t h e R e p u b l i c o f Cuba had a c t e d as t h e owner of sovereign clear. of the ship, r a t h e r than Such an thus an independent state is making far a

decision.

argument,

however,

from

The

l e a r n e d judge test

f o l l o w e d the nature at this decision.

test instead I f he had

the purpose

in arriving

f o l l o w e d the purpose t e s t ,

the r e s u l t

c e r t a i n l y would have been concerned. however, Marble any took a

d i f f e r e n t as f a r as t h e P l a y a L a r g a was Lord more Wilberforce and Lord in

Edmund-Davies, respect of the into

conservative the cargo

approach owners

Islands,

because

never

entered

commercial

agreement w i t h Cuba.
"The c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e R e p u b l i c o f Cuba i n r e s p e c t o f t h e Marble I s l a n d s was not a c l a i m i n c o n t r a c t , s i n c e t h e R e p u b l i c was not a p a r t y t o any o f t h e c o n t r a c t s i n q u e s t i o n a s i t had only a c q u i r e d ownership of the v e s s e l a f t e r the bills of l a d i n g had been n e g o t i a t e d t o t h e Chilean purchasers.

433

U n l i k e t h e c a s e of t h e P l a y a L a r g a , t h e R e p u b l i c had not e n t e r e d i n t o any c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n a t a l l . I t s involvement was confirmed t o o r d e r i n g Mambisa, not t o d e l i v e r the c a r g o , and t h e n d i s p o s i n g of t h e c a r g o i n N o r t h Vietnam, both of w h i c h a c t s were o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r . "
7 6

The

o t h e r t h r e e law the

lords,

on t h e o t h e r hand, however, were issues r e s p e c t i n g the Marble at least

not

p e r s u a d e d by and

specific

Islands

Cuba's p l e a f o r immunity.

But

i t would have been

a p p r o p r i a t e i f the law l o r d s had c o n s i d e r e d the c h a r a c t e r of the contract activities in i t s primary and absolute cannot be terms vis-a-vis Cuba's as the to

which

i n essence

singularly

construed

r e p r e s e n t i n g a commercial a c t i v i t y , M a r b l e I s l a n d s and deliver another the Congo

at least

i n the c a s e of

s e c o n d l y , b e c a u s e the d e c i s i o n by Cuba not was an act of state which takes us

unto

u n s e t t l e d a r e a of the judgment of inasmuch the law as

law. l o r d s seemed open t o c r i t i c i s m withholding modalities or of granting on of

The many

fronts was

their on the

immunity

predicated on how the sugar,

restrictive politically the of the the

immunity and in abrogating of the

t h e Cuban government went about initial thus and contracts first then f o r the

c a r r i a g e and the concept into that

sale

starting moving one

o f f on the

restrictive contextual a p p r o a c h was state

immunity domain.

argument also argue

Furthermore,

may

f l a w e d i n some r e s p e c t s because i n r e a l i t y not a l l can be conditioned on a hybrid nature of

activities

e v e n t s o n e c o m m e r c i a l and the o t h e r governmental.

I I n Congreso p e r L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e I n t e r n a t i o n a l L e g a l Rep. (1983) p. 308. 434

/ 6

and

Edmund-Davies,

I n Trendtex, support crisis import Nigeria's

f o r example, t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t action, that i t was b e c a u s e government

evidence to internal

o f an

which prompted t h e f e d e r a l controls. Thus i f this

to i n s t i t u t e the founded and to Nigeria?

evidence

be w e l l

credible, Or

then was i t f a i r when immunity was d e n i e d expectations

were t h e j u s t i f i e d

o f t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e r much The answer genuine

g r e a t e r than t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e c i t i z e n s o f N i g e r i a ? logically crisis the must be i n the negative of e s s e n t i a l with cement since there

was a

of s h o r t a g e were

commodities i n N i g e r i a because a multitude which of ships unloading the

ports

congested of

large

quantities

severely

limited

i m p o r t a t i o n o f o t h e r e s s e n t i a l commodities i n t o t h e c o u n t r y . A Cuba, similar argument could also be advanced on b e h a l f of

since the right-wing

military

rulers

of Chile

did close

t h e p o r t s and s e v e r e d d i p l o m a t i c r e l a t i o n s w i t h Cuba b e c a u s e o f the late President Castro. Allende's fraternal relationship with

President

And i t i s a l s o have been

possible that

i f the sugar or other

were d e l i v e r e d i t c o u l d

l o o t e d by s o l d i e r s

r i g h t - w i n g coup s u p p o r t e r s . It states trader. i s not t h a t as regards easy to deal with mixed with of activities of

commercial

transactions

the p r i v a t e restrictive

And

the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e simply confuses

immunity t o t h e s e problems already as thorny sovereign be seen,

and e x a c e r b a t e s t h e The Law L o r d s , t o o much by

immunity c o n t r o v e r s y . were trapped

can c l e a r l y

i n proving

t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to follow the m a n i f e s t l y d e f i c i e n t doctrine of

435

restrictive

immunity

which

has
7 7

so

far

gained

ground

in

the

p r a c t i c e of Western A decided somewhat by an

countries. case

similar

involving i n which

mixed

activities granted Thus i n

was in De de

American

court

immunity was violated.

v i e w of t h e Sanchez v. Sanchez, a

fact

t h a t a p r i v a t e r i g h t was
78

Banco C e n t r a l de N i c a r a g u a , payee of a cheque

Mrs. by

J o s e f i n e Neyarro General an action

issued

Somozo's against having

government, the new

i . e . , i t s Central that

Bank,

brought

government

toppled

Somozo's government f o r s a i d cheque. the The

placed

a stop-payment o r d e r on

the

Nicaraguan that i t Central that jure 1605

C e n t r a l Bank t h u s sought t o c h a l l e n g e be g r a n t e d summary judgment.

s u i t , pleading

Morey L S e a r J g r a n t e d the On to

Bank t h e the

motion i t prayed f o r . issuance not of a cheque

a p p e a l Goldberg J r u l e d i t s national and t h a t FSIA was acta

bank's and

imperii

acta jure gestionis apply. I t was

[28 US CH

(a) ( 2 ) ] d i d not being a

f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t Mrs. negated the claim effect was of also

Sanchez, the FSIA

Nicaraguan The

national,

exception. mutandis It

payee's

conversion

mutatis

dismissed. is not do clear govern as to whether public the to international state above, and its law own of

principles nationals course, rights.

disputes the issues of

between alluded

regarding there Thus is

unless, for to

evidence injury

reckless by

disregard a state

human own

i f an

i s caused

its

L a u t e r p a c h t , op. c i t . ; Sinclair, The Law of I m m u n i t y R e c e n t Developments (1980) Hague R e c u e i l .

7 8

7 7

Sovereign

( 1 9 8 5 ) 770

F.2d

1385. 436

n a t i o n a l beyond i t s own another will the state,

b o r d e r s , e.g.,

i f the i n j u r y occurred i n occurred facie or certainly that

the s t a t e i n which the i n j u r y interest i f t h e r e i s a prima its

have an said

evidence

injury

affected

interest lex loci

territorial would be So

sovereignty. more i m p o r t a n t in essence the

In t h i s than fact

r e s p e c t , the

delicti

the n a t i o n a l i t y that Mrs.

of the

injured that

person. her

Sanchez

claimed

injury since in

o c c u r r e d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s seemed not t o h e l p h e r c a s e the decision to stop to payment prevent of a on her cheque was

taken of

Nicaragua exchange country. Nicaragua

i n order during a

critical

shortage

foreign in the

period

political

instability

The p o s i t i o n of the c o u r t would have been d i f f e r e n t i f had attempted t o t a k e Mrs. Sanchez's r e a l property i n simply

the U n i t e d S t a t e s , which as a m a t t e r of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law

amounts t o b l a t a n t i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e U n i t e d States.
7 9

This,

however,

i s not

the

case,

f o r the

d e c i s i o n to

put a s t o p on the payment of t h e cheque i n q u e s t i o n i s c l e a r l y a discretionary sovereign power which falls within the domain of the the

a u t h o r i t y of N i c a r a g u a .

Thus Banco state

C e n t r a l had

a u t h o r i t y as a s u b s i d i a r y organ of t h e i n p r e s e r v i n g Nicaragua's payment foreign on the cheque, in the

to take decisions stopping of of

f o r e i g n exchange r e s e r v e s by light of the acute the

i n the

shortage problems

currency

country.

Certainly state

mixed a c t i v i t i e s

of s t a t e s

i n r e s p e c t of

immunity i s f a r some l a t i t u d e of

from s e t t l e d and the o n l y way

of g i v i n g s t a t e s

Akehurst, jurisdiction).

79

op.

c i t . ; Mann,

op.

c i t . (on

the

question

of

437

freedom being

to

adequately to suit

deal is to

with allow

emergency what some

situations may refer states. Mrs.

8 0

without to as

open

"discretionary the decision

f u n c t i o n exemption" to s o v e r e i g n by Nicaragua to stop payment on

Thus

Sanchez's

cheque c o u l d s i m p l y be is immune from s u i t

c h a r a c t e r i s e d as a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y which made a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l of

b e c a u s e i t was

government i n o r d e r t o a v o i d economic chaos i n N i c a r a g u a . it appears t h a t the of c o u r t was Mrs. right in ruling should i n favour have

Thus, of the

republic

Nicaragua. remedy.

Sanchez

therefore

r e l i e d on l o c a l Can the be

same

argument, in

i . e . , the Yousef

" d i s c r e t i o n a r y function Nada, and perhaps of in

exception," Behring crisis simply In

made

Trendtex, Inc. v.

International (i.e., plead the

Imperial Or

because can to on

internal state

emergency s i t u a t i o n s ) ? frustration, courts that have or not

a sovereign avoid these

force majeure been clear are

liability? matters and the it

fact,

until

such

time

these

issues

clearly remain,

d e a l t with, thus making

sovereign difficult The

immunity

controversy

will

f o r t h e g o a l of c o d i f i c a t i o n t o be International immunities by the Law Commission's

achieved. draft articles on

jurisdictional being

o f s t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y c u r r e n t l y 6th legal committee simply did not of

considered these

consider

issues,

i . e . , i n regard

t o mixed

activities

A s s o c i a t i o n de R e c l a m a n t e s v. U n i t e d Mexican S t a t e s (1983) DDC 561, F.Supp. 1190, 1198; F r o l o v a v. USSR (N.D. I 11 1983), 559 F.Supp. 358, 363. 438

8 0

states. national

The

said

argument

can

also

be
8 1

made

against

all

the

l e g i s l a t i o n currently

in place.

The

C o n t i n u i n g Problems of Arbitration may be

Arbitration as one of the best suits this options against method

designated

in

resolving states

the

controversy

regarding

private But

foreign would be

b e f o r e domestic c o u r t s . to litigating

before

acceptable respecting

parties,

certain laid

essential down in

principles o r d e r to in a

arbitration

must be and

clearly

promote a modicum of case. It is,

fairness however,

substantial to

justice consider

given

appropriate

c e r t a i n p r e l i m i n a r y issues before considering these The sense a attempt at codification degree And has of so far

principles. in some

produced as

considerable proceedings.
8 2

uncertainty state

regards is that in

arbitration far from

incidentally,

practice to note

settled. is

It is a But new

instructive, phenomenon

however, nor a new

arbitration

not
8 3

approach

settling disputes. history, many

i t would seem t h a t and judges still

i n s p i t e of have an

i t s long uncertain

arbitrators subject.

g r a s p of the The arbitral

said of

role

domestic c o u r t s i n the may differ from case

enforcement of to case,

foreign of

awards

depending,

the

S e e f o r example the Canadian Act 1982. Schreuer, 63-91.

83 82

81

U.S.

Act

1976,

the

U.K.

Act

1978,

and

State

Immunity--Some R e c e n t Developments

(1995)

pp.

World

M o r r i s , op. c i t . , p. (UN Pub 1963) p. 83.

132;

International

Law

in a

Changing

439

course, arbitral

however, clause. and

on In

the

exact

terms a

incorporated national as a law

into would of

the be law

some the

cases local

controlling

therefore

court

matter

must n e u t r a l l y a i d t h e falls upon Paris, c l e a r l y under t h e regime, e.g., the

p r o c e s s i f , f o r example, t h e framework or the International auspices Chamber of of

arbitration an agreedin
8 4

Commerce Association.

I C S I D and The

p e r h a p s t h e American A r b i t r a t i o n aspect

most d i f f i c u l t indeed, the

of a r b i t r a t i o n i s t h e of arbitral of do

problem of poses
85

enforcement, more

enforcement the

awards

difficulties certain the

than

enforcement

foreign come into

judgments play

because

interrelated principles v a l i d i t y of the the the

and law

these are: that the must

agreement to a r b i t r a t e , the r e l a t i n g to the factors

86

govern of

proceedings award of and the

the to

arbitration, consider to

validity the

determine however,

finality be

award.

These into

principles, consideration

cannot

applied

without

taking

certain essential rules in the private international

r e l a t i n g to the law

concept o f j u r i s d i c t i o n applied to aid

which must a l s o be

process.

84

S e e S c h r e u e r , op. c i t .

M o r r i s , op. c i t . , pp. 131-143; R i c h a r d B. L i l l i c h and C h a r l e s N. Brower ( e d s . ) , I n t e r n a t i o n a l A r b i t r a t i o n i n the 2 1 s t C e n t u r y towards J u d i c i a l i z a t i o n and U n i f o r m i t y 1994. Mann, S t a t e C o n t r a c t s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l A r b i t r a t i o n (1967) X L I I B Y I L 1; C a r l s t o n , The P r o c e s s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l A r b i t r a t i o n (1946); S t e y n , A r b i t r a t i o n Law R e f o r m T o w a r d s a New Arbitration Act (1991) 6 I n t L Arb, R e p o r t 27; L a l i v e , The F i r s t "World Bank" A r b i t r a t i o n ( H o l i d a y I n n s v. Morocco) Some L e g a l Problems (1980) 51 B Y I L 123.
8 6

85

M o r r i s , op.

c i t . ; L i l l i c h and 440

Brower, op.

c i t . , pp.

3-49.

The

jurisdiction, the
8 7

for

example,

of

an

arbitrator

is

d e t e r m i n e d by to a r b i t r a t e . parties be in can

lex This

voluntatis or the may t a k e two

agreement of t h e

parties the

d i s t i n c t i v e forms b e c a u s e or may to future be

either to

agree that

t h e i r present Thus a c o n t r a c t is inserted

disputes formulated for will any be

referred which an

arbitration.

arbitration may end arise. result

clause In in

cater

disputes the

that

such a c a s e , the resolution

arbitration of any

ultimate

differences

w h i c h may An mere

a r i s e between the important by question a state of

parties. worth to considering with a is whether the

agreement

arbitrate

private case a the

trader domestic merits.

simply

amounts to

waiver

immunity i n which

court could exercise

j u r i s d i c t i o n over the m a t t e r on
8 8

Many c o u r t s i n f a c t d i f f e r on t h i s i s s u e , is no usus on a foreign mean that the whole s u b j e c t matter.

perhaps because t h e r e i n essence the fact does

So

that not

s t a t e has immunity

i n p r i n c i p l e a g r e e d to a r b i t r a t i o n is automatically waived or sue

abandoned before the

w h i c h c o u l d t h u s g i v e the local court to without first

8 9

p l a i n t i f f the considering Thus any

power t o the

terms of of the

the

initial

contract

arbitrate.

rejection lex

arbitration and when this the

agreement amounts t o gives the defendant

a v i o l a t i o n of the state a viable

voluntatis

defence e s p e c i a l l y

8 7

M o r r i s , op.

c i t . , 131-139.

S c h r e u e r , op. c i t . , pp. 70-71; G. S u l l i v a n (1983) 18 T e x a s I L J , C; Simpson and Fox, International Arbitration (1959) pp. 40-55.
89

88

S c h r e u e r , op.

c i t . , p.

70. 441

agreement to a r b i t r a t e effort govern on the the

i s v a l i d and the

the

p a r t i e s have made a good choose the Parties the law that law that will to the
90

meeting of arbitration

minds t o

proceedings. to choose

therefore governs

arbitration agreement and

have the

the law

right that

g o v e r n s the that

arbitration the law be

proceedings,

which means t h a t to law from govern the

i t i s possible

which i s different Thus i f B, the

selected from the

arbitration

p r o c e e d i n g s may to

which governs the country A agree

agreement to

arbitrate. in country

parties law of to

arbitrate

country A the

would i n a t e c h n i c a l

s e n s e govern i s s u e s and the effect of the

relating

validity, interpretation,

arbitration
9 1

c l a u s e and but the

in a l l probabilities supervisory Similarly, entity then is any to the take

the

arbitrator's falls under

jurisdiction, the domain

jurisdiction on fail the to

of

c o u n t r y B. and

o t h e r hand, agree or on the the

i f a sovereign law respecting in which in

state the the the of

a private

proceedings, arbitration absence of the be

locus place

country

automatically In

applies the

objections

thereto.

t h i s respect close

law

c o u n t r y w i t h the designated as

most s i g n i f i c a n t or controlling, thus

c o n n e c t i o n would the thorny

rekindling

s o v e r e i g n immunity c o n t r o v e r s y . A careful shows, however, s t u d y of that the national subject l e g i s l a t i o n currently of arbitration in place to be

seemed

90

M o r r i s , op. Ibid.

c i t . , pp.

131-139.

9 1

442

casually

treated.

Under

the

U.K.

Act

of thus:

1978,

for

example,

a r b i t r a t i o n i s c o v e r e d under S e c t i o n 9,

" (1) Where a s t a t e has a g r e e d i n w r i t i n g to s u b m i t a d i s p u t e which has a r i s e n , or may a r i s e , to a r b i t r a t i o n , t h e s t a t e i s not immune as r e s p e c t s p r o c e e d i n g s i n the c o u r t s of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom w h i c h r e l a t e t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n . (2) T h i s s e c t i o n has effect s u b j e c t to any contrary p r o v i s i o n i n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n agreement and does not a p p l y t o any a r b i t r a t i o n agreement between s t a t e s . "
9 2

The and

South A f r i c a n A c t the Singapore of the

93

Sec. Sec. Act

10, 10 of

the

Pakistan

Ordinance in acts

Sec.

10 the

Act U.K. with 17

a l l follow 1978. These

principle are

modalities almost the

therefore The of the to of

same, Act

minor covers of a

linguistic more

differences. in respect

Australian supervisory United

Sec.

ground

jurisdiction 1976 rather Act

local not to by

court.

Surprisingly, refer waiver

States but

does

specifically question of

arbitration immunity,

refers or thus:

the

either explicitly stated

implication.

Section

1605,

f o r example, can be

"(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of c o u r t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s or of t h e s t a t e s i n any c a s e : (1) i n w h i c h t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e has w a i v e d i t s immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any w i t h d r a w a l of t h e w a i v e r w h i c h t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e may p u r p o r t t o e f f e c t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e terms of the w a i v e r . "

The to

C a n a d i a n Act, arbitration.
9 Z 9 4

i n c i d e n t a l l y , does not Thus the general (9) .

contain

any

reference

formulation

of a r b i t r a t i o n

S e e The

1978

UK A c t

A c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f a l l t h e s e n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n shows t h a t t h e y do not d i f f e r a t a l l on t h i s v e r y i s s u e . A good c o m p a r i s o n would be h e l p f u l (e.g., the U.K. Act 1978 and t h a t o f S e c t i o n 10 of the South A f r i c a n A c t ) .
94

93

S e e g e n e r a l l y t h e C a n a d i a n Act 443

1982.

provisions i n national l e g i s l a t i o n without certain led SA salient issues regarding

considering in d e t a i l of a r b i t r a t i o n has

the process
9 5

to d i f f i c u l t i e s v. Federal

in l i t i g a t i o n . of

In Ipitoode the court

International followed the

Republic

Nigeria,

command of the FSIA, 1605(a) ( 2 ) , by to arbitrate amounts t o w a i v e r of

ruling

t h a t an The

agreement

immunity.

same argument The a

was made i n M a r i t i m e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Nominees E s t a b l i s h m e n t v. Republic of Guinea, but this time, fact the argument was carried

s t a g e f u r t h e r i n r e s p e c t of t h e i t s headquarters contemplated jurisdiction by over

t h a t b e c a u s e the I C S I D

has

i n Washington, t h e r e was the the parties dispute that U.S.

an i n t e n d e d nexus d u l y courts first must exercise steps to

without agreed

taking

c o n s i d e r whether t h e p a r t i e s govern the arbitration since one of

are

t h a t the and the

same law agreement

must to is a a of

proceedings the in parties the U.S.

arbitrate, private

to and

the

arbitration other

entity

domiciled

the

party,

sovereign s t a t e having operation. agreement to Thus,

absolute case

a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n i t s spheres although the law

in this

r e s p e c t i n g the however, i t law must by

arbitrate

might no

be

clear, as

arguably, regards

would appear t h e r e was

agreement

which

apply to the a r b i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . the c o u r t i n t h i s and unbalanced.

The

reasoning followed deprecated as

r e s p e c t t h e r e f o r e can be

faulty

I n V e r l i n d e n BV v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a , and Milling

95

9 6

Texas Iron

Trading Company

Corp.,

and

the

Chicago cit.,

Bridge pp.

and

See L i l l i c h

and Brower, op. F.Supp.

61-115; 223-275.

9 6

(1980) SDNY 488

1284. 444

cases, showing

however, some clear

it

would and

appear

U.S.

judges of the

seemed

to

be

grasp

appreciation

difficulties their from the of

associated positions the

with arbitration respecting to the

and

t h e r e f o r e ready to r e t h i n k of thus the by waiver moving e.g., of to the immunity embrace U.K. is

inferring and

agreement practice The

arbitrate

English 1978.

i n t h i s a r e a of of position

law,

Act

change

American

courts

clearly Bolivia,

e v i d e n c e d i n P r a c t i c a l Concepts I n c . v. The where t h e court ruled that:

R e p u b l i c of

"The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e does not depend upon t h i s c o u r t ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a s u i t on t h e m e r i t s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , an i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e parties' rights by the c o u r t would be destructive of their intentions t o have t h e d i s p u t e r e s o l v e d by n e u t r a l arbitrators. B o l i v i a c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e be s a i d t o have i m p l i c i t l y waived i t s i m m u n i t y from t h i s s u i t . "
9 8

The

foregoing usually

discussion associated

is a

clear

manifestation which

of as

the a

difficulties matter of sensitive means of

with

arbitration,

u r g e n c y must a l w a y s be state immunity the issues,

recommended to r e s o l v e for i t i s one to of the the

certain viable

containing

problems

relating get

sovereign

immunity c o n t r o v e r s y . c o n t a i n e d , the (1) That that

Thus i n o r d e r to

these

difficulties

f o l l o w i n g methods a r e arbitration

h e r e i n suggested: should be conducted laws such

international i t i s not

impeded by

local

arbitration

because

T e x a s T r a d i n g and M i l l i n g Corp. v. Fed. Rep. of N i g e r i a , 2d C i r (1981) 647 F.2d. 300; C h i c a g o B r i d g e and I r o n Company v. The I s l a m i c R e p u b l i c of I r a n , I Leg M (1980) 19.
9 8

(1985) DDC

F.Supp.

613,

863. 445

of

the p r i n c i p l e s

of e q u a l i t y

of s t a t e s

in

international

law; (2) That t o promote j u s t i c e t h e i n f e r e n c e of waiver from t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f an a r b i t r a t i o n (3) That be enforcement carefully measures

c l a u s e must be d i s c a r d e d ; i n a i d of a r b i t r a l giving and deference awards must to state Embassy

studied

thus

property, case; (4) That

e.g., s e e Alcorn

the Philippines

a clear

distinction

must

be

made

a s t o which

law

governs

t h e agreement

to arbitrate i n view

and w h i c h

governs t h e of the

arbitration

proceedings

of the position

sovereign state i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law; (5) That a distinction must also be made between t h e main

c o n t r a c t and the s p e c i f i c i s s u e s arbitration, problems process; (6) That a foreign arbitral i n order what to avoid

that

must be r e f e r r e d t o jurisdiction arbitration

difficult i n a given

beyond

i s required

award,

f o r example,

can be

enforced valid by

i f t h e agreement the proper law

to arbitrate of the

i s unquestionably while the

contract,

finality by

and t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e award must be d e t e r m i n e d the p a r t i e s have agreed, consensus ad

t h e law which t o govern

idem, there not

the a r b i t r a t i o n problem

proceedings."

But h e r e

i s one s e r i o u s agreed that

and t h a t measures

i s , countries are be taken against

enforcement

them. " M o r r i s , op. c i t . , p. 137. 446

Any above and

m i s g u i d e d attempt by suggestions in

municipal simply

courts lead

to s i d e s t e p to

the

mentioned

would

difficulties specifically then i t is for

uncertainties with

transnational Failing

litigation a l l these,

associated

arbitration. a r b i t r a t i o n be of the

suggested t h a t the application these

d e l o c a l i s e d so as to pave way principles not solve least of lex

general may

mercatoria. attendant help the

Although problems judge to

suggestions

a l l the i t would of

r e l a t i n g to see his way

a r b i t r a t i o n , at clearly in

the

resolution

certain

problems s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a r b i t r a t i o n .

The

Status

of

Central

Banks

and

State

Immunity,

Certain

Unsettled The can at claim all

Problems extent to which a Central

1 0 0

Bank of The

sovereign

state

immunity i s u n s e t t l e d . clearcut the and valiant by to The

e x i s t i n g case law i s not at the the codification emphasis problem from to have the the

attempts shifting

exacerbated structuralist functionalist o f the

problem approach

resolving

approach.

i n c r e a s i n g r e l i a n c e on the may a r g u a b l y be

activity

bank and

i t s status therefore

designated

as the bane o f t h e problem. subsidiary than not organs perform of states

I t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t to s t r e s s t h a t such as Central Banks more often

varied

interrelated

functions,

encompassing

S c h r e u e r , op. c i t . , pp. 137-167; B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , pp. 341-342; S u c h a r i t k u l , Second Report, Y r b k I L C (1980); O'Connell, op. c i t . , pp. 877-8; and c a s e law r e s p e c t i n g t h i s s u b j e c t i s f r a u g h t w i t h u n c e r t a i n t i e s ; M o n t e f i o r e v. B e l g i a n Congo, I L R 44, 72; M e l l e n g e r v. New B r u n s w i c k Development C o r p o r a t i o n (1971) 1 WLR 603 CA. 447

1 0 0

both c o m m e r c i a l and

political

functions.

Thus i n v i e w o f

these

problems, i t i s not t h a t e a s y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r e c i s e of Central Banks. of William Central Blair Banks in in his attempt law to

functions study the

legal

status as

English

stated

their

functions

follows:

"The term ' c e n t r a l bank' i s d e s c r i p t i v e o f a bank's functions, rather than i t s l e g a l s t a t u s . These functions i n c l u d e note i s s u e , monetary p o l i c y t h e e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n of t h e n a t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l s y s t e m i n c l u d i n g payment s y s t e m s , b a n k i n g r e g u l a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n o f b a n k i n g s e r v i c e s f o r t h e government, the management o f g o l d and f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e r e s e r v e s , debt management, exchange c o n t r o l s and d e v e l o p m e n t and promotional task. Not a l l c e n t r a l b a n k s c o n d u c t a l l o f these functions. And sometimes t h e f u n c t i o n s c h a n g e . "
1 0 1

Although impressively the

the

functions and to

which t h u s may solve

are be the

suggested helpful problem, in

above

are

exhaustive,

developing the be given over the

f u n c t i o n a l i s t approach status by of central regard by

however, only of a this of

legal

banks to the

can

appropriately law
1 0 2

determined country, the years

having law

national

i . e . , the may be

which i t was for the

created. uncertain

And

responsible

grasp

underlying And the

p r i n c i p l e s behind the

l e g a l s t a t u s of

c e n t r a l banks. f a r as the to the

problem f u r t h e r becomes q u i t e and

e l u s i v e i n so

functions country.

l e g a l s t a t u s of t h e s e banks d i f f e r SRL v. Servicio Nacional

from c o u n t r y Trigo,
1 0 3

I n Baccus

del

W B l a i r , The L e g a l S t a t u s o f C e n t r a l Bank I n v e s t m e n t under E n g l i s h Law (1998) Cambridge Law J . 374, p. 375. S c h r e u e r , op. c i t . , pp. 121-124; W. B l a i r , op. c i t . , pp. 385-386; B a c c u s SRL v. S e r v i c i o N a c i o n a l d e l T r i g o (2957) 1 Q 438; T r e n d t e x v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1977) Q 529, I L R 64 1983 p. 111.
1 0 3 1 0 2

101

(1954) 1QB 4388. 448

court

accepted

the

affidavit

of

the Spanish

ambassador

and

Spanish l e g a l expert were i n Spanish suggested

i n d e t e r m i n i n g a s t o whether the defendants Parker be LJ in his i n the

l a w a department o f s t a t e . clearly that Spanish law

ruling

applied

determination of t h e s t a t u s of the S e r v i c i o Nacional del Trigo. Thus J e n k i n s , presented, although designating dispute. will of h a v i n g a l s o been c o n v i n c e d by t h e e v i d e n c e t h e r e i n that immunity be accorded an to the defendants clause case of

ruled the

contract law

contained as the

arbitration law in

English

applicable

Does the

t h i s mean t h a t n a t i o n a l law be a p p l i e d over the because of the status of the political

parties

subdivision? the fact that

I t h i n k not, u n l e s s t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o a t t e s t t o the contract was fraudulently c o n c l u d e d and thus the s t a t u s of The e f f e c t of but one must wholly granted

against the the

p u b l i c p o l i c y or circumstances

respecting

l i t i g a t i n g p a r t i e s have changed c o n s i d e r a b l y . judgment in Baccus at that seemed time quite striking,

understand predicated

that on

English where
1 0 4

practice

was

absolute

sovereignty,

immunity was Ever

irrespective however,

of the a c t i v i t y

in issue.

s i n c e t h a t time, changed

the p o s i t i o n

of E n g l i s h

courts

has g r a d u a l l y

considerably. In Trendtex, the Court of Appeal having been overwhelmed

by a m u l t i t u d e o f e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n r e s p e c t t o the s t a t u s of

Sinclair, The Law of Sovereign ImmunityRecent Developments (1980) Hague R e c u e i l 119; Sucharitkul, State I m m u n i t i e s and T r a d i n g A c t i v i t i e s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1959) pp. 162-182; A n n u a i r e Y e a r Book ( I n s t i t u t e de D r o i t I n t . ) C a i r o 1987; A n n u a i r e Y e a r b o o k ( B a s l e , 1 9 9 1 ) . 449

1 0 4

the the

Central

Bank,

decided to consider

Nigerian

Law

i n part

and the to

functions

o f t h e C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a ,

i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with i n order

Federal accord the

Republic immunity. of

i . e . , t h e government,

L o r d Denning i n e x p l o r i n g the Central Bank relied

the i s s u e s on the

regarding following

status

reasoning.
" I C o n f e s s t h a t I can t h i n k of no s a t i s f a c t o r y t e s t e x c e p t t h a t of l o o k i n g t o t h e f u n c t i o n s and c o n t r o l o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n . I do n o t t h i n k t h a t i t s h o u l d depend on t h e f o r e i g n l a w a l o n e . I would look t o a l l the e v i d e n c e t o s e e w h e t h e r t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n was under government control and exercised governmental functions."
1 0 5

The Mellenger was that

same v. New on

approach

was

followed

in

an

earlier
106

case

of

Brunswick Development the strength

Corp.,

where

immunity therein, of the to

granted

of t h e argument an arm

posited ego

the corporation

i n i s s u e was

or a l t e r duly

government immunity.

of a s o v e r e i g n

s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e

entitled

Such a r e s u l t was not, however,

reached i n Trendtex. the of

L o r d Denning i n h i s f i n a l a n a l y s i s r u l e d t h a t " I n my o p i n i o n plea of sovereign immunity does not a v a i l the C e n t r a l

1 0 7

Bank

Nigeria.

I would a l l o w

the appeal a c c o r d i n g l y . "

The

Central alter

Bank inter alia was d e n i e d immunity b e c a u s e i t was n o t an ego o r organ o f t h e government of N i g e r i a . and s t r u c t u r a l i s t Bank the conclusive? C e n t r a l Bank determination

I s the f u n c t i o n a l i s t of the Central

of the p o s i t i o n

A c a r e f u l examination of the l e g a l does not w a r r a n t such a c o n c l u s i o n .

s t a t u s of I t would

105

T r e n d t e x v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a (1971) IWLR 604 CA. P e r L o r d Denning (1977) Q 560. 450

(1977) Q 560.

1 0 6

1 0 7

appear L o r d laws of

Denning and because

h i s c o l l e a g u e s misconstrued the i n t e r n a l the the Federal Government thus of Nigeria did

Nigeria

have o v e r a l l c o n t r o l officers and paid

over

s a i d bank and The

appointed i t s of the Central failed

their

salaries.

officers

Bank were more or l e s s c i v i l to appreciate was that and the

servants. Central

What t h e s e j u d g e s of Nigeria

Bank

performed independent

varied but

functions

therefore

seemingly

appeared

in reality

derived not

i t s powers from t h e at a l l independent. important not

f e d e r a l government, Central functions Banks on in

which means

i t was

developing c o u n t r i e s perform very of the state and therefore In do other and

behalf of

operate these

independently banks

governmental perform

control.

words,

normally be

public

functions

therefore

must

always

d i s t i n g u i s h e d from c o m m e r c i a l banks. Before English approach, political the enactment were all of the to State Immunity A c t the of 1978,

courts where

resigned that or

following was

structuralist status its 1978, of the

mattered state

the with of

subdivision
1 0 8

agency, Act

attendant however, granting

complexities. follows the

The

State and

Immunity

structuralist

f u n c t i o n a l i s t methods i n

immunity t o c e n t r a l b a n k s . a structuralist the activity standpoint of the

A r t i c l e 14 p r o c e e d s undoubtedly from but e q u a l l y a l s o g i v e s prominence to organ or the functionalist

subsidiary

approach. Convention.

T h i s i s not Again

d i f f e r e n t from A r t i c l e 27 of t h e European the English legislative approach

pp.

See S i n c l a i r , 113-120.

1 0 8

op.

c i t . ; see

also

Sucharitkul,

op. c i t ,

451

incorporating approaches

both

the

structuralist to Sections and (2) of

and 1(2) the

functionalist and 15 of the Act

i s almost

identical

South A f r i c a n A c t , and the t h a t of S e c t i o n shift

Section

16(1)

Singapore

15 of the P a k i s t a n i O r d i n a n c e . regards the

In s p i t e of statutory far

i n emphasis as

above mentioned

provisions, as of the The

i t would appear the problem s t i l l the

remains i n so

the judge i s c a l l e d upon to d e a l w i t h sovereign legal ILC authority gua the u n d e r l y i n g

usual thorny i s s u e of

u n s e t t l e d problems and state

s t a t u s of p o l i t i c a l Draft Articles to on the

subdivisions the letter other and

agencies. the The the

hand

follow else.
1 0 9

functionalist U.S. U.K.

approach

nothing

legislation Act, South The

f o l l o w s about the same approach a s t h o s e o f African only Act, Singapore Act and the

Pakistan

Ordinance. it Its grants

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e of t h e

FSIA i s t h a t

immunity t o e n t i t i e s w i t h an independent l e g a l s t a t u s . therefore, state in granting is immunity liberally to or political moderately

approach, and

subdivision construed. With liberally

agencies

respect construed reads

to

c e n t r a l banks, t h e

U.K.

Act

appears

more Act.

i n every as

r e s p e c t than t h a t o f the U.S.

A r t i c l e 14(4)

follows:

"Property of a s t a t e ' s c e n t r a l bank o r o t h e r monetary a u t h o r i t y s h a l l not be r e g a r d e d f o r the p u r p o s e s of Subsection (4) of S e c t i o n 13 above a s i n use or i n t e n d e d f o r use for c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s ; and where any such bank o r a u t h o r i t y i s a separate e n t i t y Subsection (1) t o (3) o f t h a t S e c t i o n shall

S e e I L C D r a f t A r t i c l e s 3(a) I , I I , I I I , I V and A r t i c l e 7. See a l s o r e c e n t c a s e s on t h i s matter: Walter F u l l e r A i r c r a f t S a l e s I n c . v. R e p u b l i c of the P h i l i p p i n e s (1992) I L R 103 p. 503; A r r i b a L i m i t e d v. P e t r o l e o u s Mexicanos (1992) I L R 103 p. 490. 452

1 0 9

a p p l y to i t a s i f r e f e r e n c e s bank or a u t h o r i t y . "

to

s t a t e were

references

to

the

Article property affords

14(4) of

is

imperative

because

it

fully

protects and

the also

c e n t r a l banks banks

from

enforcement procedural

measures

these

similar

privileges 13 of the

normally 1978 U.K. the the

extended to s o v e r e i g n Act. In the a Trendtex mareva

s t a t e s under A r t i c l e case, the Court ordering of

Appeal that

granted of

plaintiffs

injunction the

assets the

C e n t r a l Bank be of the

held within

jurisdiction be

until

outcome

litigation.

This w i l l

not

p o s s i b l e any

more i n v i e w

of the e f f e c t property cannot be Act 1976,

of A r t i c l e

14 (4) .

Thus i n t h e main, even i f t h e f o r commercial purposes, i t The U.S. Sovereign as Immunity the other and

of a c e n t r a l bank i s u s e d subjected 1161 to e x e c u t i o n . the

also follows in

same p r i n c i p l e thus creating process to at apply the

national doubtful

legislation modus

place, The

confusion

operandi. i t would not

whole easy test

therefore the same

becomes

complex s i n c e test and the

be

structuralist time without being an

functionalist

reducing that the

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s structuralist of the

o f t h e p r o c e s s . And undoubtedly of will

the reason still

test concept

require

examination

sovereign

authority,

i.e., without

superanus, which may any clearcut

l e a v e us in

i n t h e m i d d l e of t h e ocean the light of the

destination

difficulties

a s s o c i a t e d with the d e t e r m i n a t i o n banks which w i e l d s a

o f t h e l e g a l s t a t u s of c e n t r a l characteristic i n the legal

multifaceted states.

p a r l a n c e or j u r i s p r u d e n c e o f

453

The Camdex v. was

effect

of

A r t i c l e 14(4) Zambia,
110

became

somewhat

apparent

in

Bank of

there

a written

deposit

agreement the Central agreed

c o n c l u d e d between the C e n t r a l Bank of Kuwait and Zambia i n 1982, a sum of 15 where the m dinars The any

Bank of to

C e n t r a l Bank of Kuwait at an agreed

deposit

r a t e of i n t e r e s t d u l y renewed i n parties also with

i n t o the Bank of Zambia. subsequent entered the paid the years without

s a i d agreement was problems. The

two

i n t o two

o t h e r agreements which d e a l t interest liability. 1990 but

specifically the

bank of a 1988 sum

Zambia's of KD

Later

defendant to honour the

616,098 i n In able the

somehow f a i l e d i t became clear

agreements. be

1995

when

that

d e f e n d a n t would not of suit or

t o pay Central

the debt due

without a

threat the cent

litigation,

Bank of Kuwait a s s i g n e d of 11 p e r

d e b t t o Camdex, a Bahamian company, a t a d i s c o u n t of the value of t h e t o t a l debt. T h i s was

d u l y communicated i n a the

written notice

t o the d e f e n d a n t .

I t must be made c l e a r t h a t

Bank of Zambia had waiver of sovereign in The

i n an e a r l i e r agreement a l s o g i v e n an immunity, was with to the understanding law in

express that case right 14 on the of to for the

agreement dispute. the

issue

subject having

English a

plaintiff made an This

acquired

legitimate R.S.C. the ord.

assignment,

application was challenged

under by

summary judgment.

defendant

ground t h a t the o r d e r had "dealing." arguing that The "an court

been brought p u r s u a n t t o a champertous ruled of against the defendant in state by

assignment

a bona f i d e debt

accordance

(1996) 3 WLR

759. 454

w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 136 1925, arose was even valid if and the no question for
111

of the of

Law

of

Property or

Act,

maintenance to

champerty the

necessity

litigation

recover

assignment

debt was

contemplated." a

Having million, assets

obtained then

summary judgment to enforce

in the

the

amount

of

$80 the

Camdex

sought

debt

against

of the C e n t r a l Bank o f because at that very

Zambia i n E n g l a n d . moment the Bank of

T h i s became Zambia had

possible

e n t e r e d i n t o another

c o n t r a c t w i t h an E n g l i s h company t o p r i n t a t h e Kwacha, f o r use i n Zambia i n denomination notes. And the

l a r g e q u a n t i t y of i t s c u r r e n c y , replacement of the e x i s t i n g n o t e s was

lower

reason f o r the new

to counter

t h e s e v e r e e f f e c t of t h e t o f o r c e t h e Bank to be

d e v a l u a t i o n of t h e Kwacha. of Zambia to pay

Camdex i n a q u e s t

t h e s a i d debt r e f u s e d t o a l l o w t h e n o t e s The plaintiff, as a matter of

s e n t to Zambia as p l a n n e d . was him

law, to

e x e r c i s i n g i t s r i g h t s under t h e mareva

i n j u n c t i o n granted brought

as a judgment c r e d i t o r , but when t h e c a s e was the i n j u n c t i o n was words:

before

t h e c o u r t of a p p e a l s ,

accordingly

discharged

i n the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t e d

"Of course one agrees with the judge, without q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h a t a judgment d e b t s h o u l d , i n t h e o r d i n a r y way and i n any ordinary situation, be paid. I t i s , however, relevant t h a t the defendant i s a body t o whom t h e o r d i n a r y p r o c e d u r e s of b a n k r u p t c y and w i n d i n g up a r e not a v a i l a b l e . The s i t u a t i o n i s one i n w h i c h , on t h e e v i d e n c e , severe national h a r d s h i p t o t h e p e o p l e o f Zambia w o u l d f o l l o w i f t h e state defaulted i n i t s i n t e r n a t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n s . "
1 1 2

Ibid.

a t p.

760. Bank o f Zambia (No. 2) 1 A l l ER

112

728,

Camdex I n t e r n a t i o n a l v. 722 per S i r Bingham M.R.

455

S i r Bingham

continued:
t r y and and the default. ordinary learned this new

" I t must be a l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n o f t h e defendant t o ensure t h a t the r e p a y m e n t s due t o t h e World Bank I n t e r n a t i o n a l Monetary Fund a r e not t h e s u b j e c t of T h i s seems t o me a s e t t i n g so u n l i k e t h a t i n which t h e Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n fails t o be e x e r c i s e d , t h a t t h e judge d i d f a l l i n t o e r r o r i n f a i l i n g to recognise d i m e n s i o n o f t h e problem w i t h w h i c h he was confronted. With wish regard to ZCCM I agree with Philips LJ

and

would

to a s s o c i a t e myself

w i t h what he

i s t o s a y about t h a t .

I would f o r my p a r t , g r a n t l e a v e to a p p e a l and would a l l o w t h e a p p e a l d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e r e be a v a r i a t i o n of the e x i s t i n g Mareva i n j u n c t i o n so a s t o e x c l u d e from i t s scope the bank n o t e s c u r r e n t l y h e l d by De L a Rue p i c . "
1 1 3

The that

judgment of

the

court

seemed t o acknowledge t h e there are to

fact

a l t h o u g h d e b t s g e n e r a l l y a r e t o be p a i d , in and which it would be reasonable

certain some state the was can take

instances exceptions, is

allow

t h a t i s when a c e n t r a l bank of a s o v e r e i g n and there is a clear on indication that

involved,

plaintiff's prima clearly control facie be

demand would work h a r d s h i p revealed gathered in the Camdex

the defendant as The judge, as

case.

from h i s judgment, a l l o w e d by balancing

h i s head t o

over h i s heart

specifically

the p l i g h t o f

t h e p e o p l e o f Zambia as a g a i n s t t h e o f not Zambia. predicated

r i g h t s of Camdex i n r e s p e c t

a l l o w i n g enforcement measures a g a i n s t the C e n t r a l Bank of And on the r a t i o n a l e behind the said approach can be

the f a c t of

t h a t "a c e n t r a l bank does have i m p o r t a n t and this the people who live the there legal i f the

responsibilities and

i t s country circumstances

i n appropriate
1 1 4

f a c t can a f f e c t

result."
1 1 3

The

judgment makes good sense

i n t h a t , even

Ibid. Blair, op. c i t . , p. 389. 456

1 1 4

Zambian result

bank

notes

were

t o be kept

i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n

as a

o f t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n , i n view of the f a c t

i t would be o f no v a l u e t o t h e that the notes would not f e t c h

plaintiff

much on t h e open market. printed market. was

After a l l ,

t h e Kwacha was s p e c i f i c a l l y on t h e open

f o r use i n Zambia Certainly,

b u t n o t t o be t r a d e d

common s e n s e would r e v o l t effect

i f the injunction likely f o r the

allowed,

s i n c e t h e probable

would more t h a n

destroy

t h e economy o f Zambia t h u s efficiently.

making i t d i f f i c u l t

c o u n t r y t o operate The court

simply

d i d not c o n s i d e r imperii

t h e much jure

discredited gestionis over

distinction but rather

between allowed

acta jure sound

a n d acta

practical which that over

reasoning

t o triumph had

abstract nowhere. with would

rationalisation I t i s submitted

the years

l e d us

given

the problems a s s o c i a t e d the court still an

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i v e be faced with a mammoth

immunity,

task

i f i t had followed

approach where t h e s t a t u s o f t h e s o v e r e i g n i s c o n s i d e r e d vis used res publica publicis usibus destinata i.e.,

vis-a-

the property methods have

i n c a r r y i n g out t h e a c t i v i t i e s ,

f o r such solve i t . of this

s i m p l y compounded t h e problem r a t h e r t h a n The occurred with finale or t h e i m p r e s s i v e 1997, where

climax

controversy

i n January

t h e Court

o f A p p e a l was f a c e d currency receipts by t h e could

the issue Bank

of whether moneys h e l d o f Zambia i n respect

i n hard

Central

o f copper

p o s s i b l y be a t t a c h e d .

The C o u r t o f A p p e a l a g a i n a f t e r a c a r e f u l r u l e d i n favour case, o f t h e C e n t r a l Bank duty t o use

consideration of the i s s u e by arguing that

" I n the present 457

t h e bank's

receipts any claim

of foreign to attach approach

exchange such where

for public
1 1 5

purposes

would

defeat

funds."

The c o u r t force

again

seemed t o

follow varied

an qua

the purported Thus

o f immunity i s is a prima

the subject

matter.

where

there

facie i n c o m p e t e n c e ratione materiae, be accorded. And t h e c o u r t , having

t h e n immunity would have t o determined that t h e money

h e l d by t h e bank would be u s e d f o r t h e b e t t e r m e n t o f t h e people of Zambia o r f o r governmental d u t i e s , This again d e c l i n e d to allow Camdex

t o a t t a c h t h e money. a special position

shows t h a t c e n t r a l banks occupy and d e l i c a t e n a t u r e of

and t h e s e n s i t i v e

their

r o l e s must and

n o t be i g n o r e d saisie

when i s s u e s r e s p e c t i n g come before a

saisie

conservatoire consideration. clearly that

execution,

court f o r

I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t o s t a t e more does not

t h e d e n i a l o f immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n mean t h a t immunity from e x e c u t i o n i s unsettled respecting

automatically So the that

i s a l s o denied. this i s s u e , but show of

far state practice judgments courts i n Alcorn

and t h e P h i l i p p i n e s Embassy c a s e to sanction that the property

a r e not ready

sovereign wisdom

s t a t e s be s u b j e c t e d i n such

to forcible

measures. i t would

There i s prevent

obviously

an approach

since

acrimony among n a t i o n - s t a t e s . The application of the s t r u c t u r a l i s t and functionalist

p r i n c i p l e s o f s t a t e immunity t o t h e v a r i o u s states or state entities breeds confusion

s u b s i d i a r y organs o f and o b s t r u c t s any

Cited from B l a i r , op. c i t . , p. 389. T h i s must be compared t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n W a l t e r F u l l e r A i r c r a f t S a l e s I n c . (1992) I L R 103 p. 503. 458

1 1 5

attempts The of

at

developing

consistent and a

and the test

acceptable ILA Draft of the

principle. Convention legal the

European Convention A r t i c l e 27 1982, Article 1, all adopt

distinct

p e r s o n a l i t y coupled w i t h a c l e a r r e l i a n c e on entity i n the performance of i t s public This in real

a c t i v i t y of to

functions,

determine of

whether t o g r a n t facile

immunity or not. do not

i s a familiar recipe terms mean what logic terms

p r i n c i p l e s which And

they since or in the and and the

appear t o convey. it the lacks force to

i t i s h a r d t o s i m p l y r e l y on the interpretation Indeed, any organs, of

prescribe

classification and activity would be

of p a r t i c u l a r s . of these

r e l i a n c e on both real

status

subsidiary

putative, therefore doctrine this

susceptible

to d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s application of

l e a d to a penumbra of doubt i n t h e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. of our of the or discussion that

I t i s important to the applicable

s t r e s s at in the law

point

law

determination of their

l e g a l s t a t u s of the that the law by

state entities they be were applied

i s the

creation

which law of

instituted. by taking

Hence also law.

i t is into

suggested

national precepts

consideration

general

international

Difficult would s t i l l or wholly

problems

of

classification lex data

and

construction specifically requires status

remain or a r i s e i f the on local data or forum

fori r e l i e s which

perhaps

f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity a s r e g a r d s t h e and functions of central banks or political this

subdivisions. of the law

Arguably,

s u c h problems would overburden

area

which i s a l r e a d y

b r i s t l i n g with d i f f i c u l t i e s 459

and

uncertainties.

In

an

obiter

dictum,

t h e German

Constitutional

Court

i n the

claims against

t h e E m p i r e o f I r a n c a s e e x p l o r e d t h e above s t a t e d ( I L R 45, p. 57)

problem a s f o l l o w s :

"The qualification of state a c t i v i t y as sovereign o r nons o v e r e i g n must i n p r i n c i p l e be made by n a t i o n a l ( m u n i c i p a l ) law, s i n c e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, a t l e a s t u s u a l l y , c o n t a i n s no c r i t e r i a for t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . . . . I t i s not unusual f o r r u l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t o r e f e r to national law. A c q u i s i t i o n and l o s s o f n a t i o n a l i t y a r e , however, d e t e r m i n e d i n p r i n c i p l e by n a t i o n a l law. Finally, i t cannot be of d e c i s i v e importance that reference to national law t h e o r e t i c a l l y gives the national l e g i s l a t u r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n f l u e n c i n g t h e scope o f t h e r u l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w through a corresponding f o r m u l a t i o n o f the n a t i o n a l l a w . . . . An i m p r o p e r form o f t h e law by t h e n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t u r e c o u l d be opposed by t h e r e c o g n i z e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l law p r i n c i p l e o f good f a i t h . It must be a d m i t t e d t h a t the application of general international l a w i s made more d i f f i c u l t , and t h e d e s i r e d uniformity o f law i s hindered, i f the nature of s t a t e a c t i v i t y d e t e r m i n e s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s o v e r e i g n and n o n - s o v e r e i g n a c t s and n a t i o n a l l a w d e t e r m i n e s t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s " ( I L R 45, p. 5 7 ) .

Thus,

until

such

time

that

scholars

and m u n i c i p a l

courts are

ready t o r e c o n s i d e r varied modern

the d e f i n i t i o n of the state and t o b a l a n c e t h i s area

i n terms of i t s o f t h e lex

functions,

the e f f e c t

fori and t h e lex causae, be the unsettled changing

o f t h e law would c o n t i n u e t o

and f r a g m e n t e d . scope

Perhaps a d e f i n i t i o n encompassing o f t h e modern state a s was

and f u n c t i o n s

a t t e m p t e d under t h e OAS D r a f t ILC Draft Articles, does Article a

C o n v e n t i o n , A r t i c l e 2, and t h a t o f 3, would varied be h e l p f u l connotation provided the or points to

definition different

n o t have

directions.

460

Some Problems R e l a t i n g t o t h e A c t o f S t a t e National The Courts and F o r e i g n A c t s o f S t a t e s

Doctrine

p o s i t i o n o f c o u n t r i e s on t h e d o c t r i n e o f a c t o f s t a t e to give doctrine a watermeans.

d i f f e r s markedly and t h e r e f o r e i t i s d i f f i c u l t tight definition o f what the a c t of state

Incidentally,

a l l the national

legislation

currently

i n place

a v o i d e d t h e s u b j e c t and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's d r a f t articles the never touched on t h e u n d e r l y i n g principles respecting of sovereign
1 1 6

s u b j e c t and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h So f a r t h e e x i s t i n g c a s e less

the doctrine

immunity. state

law i s n o t c l e a r c u t Thus u n t i l

and time

p r a c t i c e appears

consistent.

such

t h a t a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e carefully analysis, explored and brought to

two a r e a s o f t h e l a w a r e the fore for critical

j u d g e s would continue

t o be f a c e d w i t h

a mammoth t a s k

in dealing with The principle that

t h e i n t r a c t a b l e problems o f a c t o f s t a t e . o f a c t of s t a t e i s somewhat immunity.

117

doctrine

related to the i t would appear as a

of sovereign

I n England

t h e scope o f t h e a c t o f s t a t e d o c t r i n e

was d e l i m i t e d

prelude

t o s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e E n g l i s h Crown's a d o p t i o n o f p r i v a t e a c t i n foreign countries against c i v i l suits, thus i n

citizen's

t h e main p r o t e c t i n g t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e Crown r e t r o a c t i v e l y from

F o r a c l e a r e x p o s i t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t s e e S i n g e r , The A c t of S t a t e D o c t r i n e of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom: An A n a l y s i s with Comparison t o t h e United S t a t e s P r a c t i c e (1981) 75 A J I L , 2 8 3 . See a l s o Dr. Mann, The S a c r o s a n c t i t y o f t h e F o r e i g n A c t o f S t a t e (1943) 59 LQ Rev 42. Wade, A c t of S t a t e i n E n g l i s h Law: I t s R e l a t i o n s w i t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (1934) 15 B Y I L 98, 104. T . Buergenthan and H. Maier, (1989) p. 233 [The N u t s h e l l S e r i e s ] . 461
1 1 7

1 1 6

Public

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

being

sued LJ

abroad.

118

I n A.M. the

Luther

v.

James Sagor and

Co.,

119

Scrutton

rejected

plaintiff's

claim against Russia wholly

for

nationalising

h i s woodwork m i l l s

w h i c h was

incorporated

under i m p e r i a l R u s s i a n l a w s

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g words:

"But i t a p p e a r s a s e r i o u s b r e a c h of i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m i t y i f a s t a t e i s r e c o g n i z e d a s a s o v e r e i g n independent s t a t e , to p o s t u l a t e t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n i s 'contrary to e s s e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e and m o r a l i t y . ' Such an a l l e g a t i o n might w e l l w i t h a s u s c e p t i b l e f o r e i g n government become a casus belli; and s h o u l d i n my v i e w be t h e a c t i o n o f t h e s o v e r e i g n t h r o u g h h i s m i n i s t e r s , and not o f t h e j u d g e s i n r e f e r e n c e to a s t a t e w h i c h their sovereign has r e c o g n i s e d . "
1 2 0

Scrutton

LJ's

judgment statement

may

be

considered law

as

pre-Sabbatino

classic British of a c t o f The state. real

of the

i n r e s p e c t of t h e d o c t r i n e

meaning

of

the

doctrine

of

act

of

state

in

American j u r i s p r u d e n c e i s t h e p r e c l u s i o n of domestic

c o u r t s from by

i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f p u b l i c a c t s or d e c i s i o n s t a k e n sovereign definition Hernandez

122

states of the

within law

their was

own

borders. stated

1 2 1

The

classic v.

clearly

in

Underhill

by F u l l C J ,

thus:

"Every sovereign state is bound to respect the i n d e p e n d e n c e o f e v e r y o t h e r s o v e r e i g n s t a t e , and t h e c o u r t s o f one country will not s i t i n judgment on the a c t s of the government o f a n o t h e r done w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y . Redress of g r i e v a n c e s by r e a s o n o f s u c h a c t s must be o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e

J o h n s o n v. P e d d l a r (1921) 2 L u t h e r v. Sagor (1921) 3 I C B 532 CA.

1 1 9

118

AC

262

[House

of

Lords]/

(1921) Ibid.

3 KB

532

CA.

1 2 0

R. W a l l a c e , p. 48-50.
122

121

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

(Student I n t r o d u c t i o n )

1986

(1897)

168 US

250, 462

means opened themselves."

to

be

availed

of

by

sovereign

powers

as

between

1 2 3

The Underhill restraint validity

reasoning a r e about on of

behind the

the

decision

in

A.M.

Luther a

and clear the

same and

t h e r e f o r e presupposes

c o u r t s from p a s s i n g judgment or i n q u i r i n g i n t o actions taken by sovereign adherence states to within notion i n which

their was the facie the to of

territorial

boundaries.

Strict

this
124

f o l l o w e d i n Banco N a c i o n a l de Cuba v. S a b b a t i n o , court gave effect to a Cuban d e c r e e , although

i t prima

violated

international

law.

E v e r s i n c e t h a t time, however,
125

p o s i t i o n of t h e Supreme Court has c h a n g e d . stress that the act of state similar important doctrine

I t i s important the doctrine

and

sovereign differ clearly on

immunity one or

have two

underpinnings, points and

however, have

they been of

these

stated

i n Braka is

v. Bancomer, t h a t to shield the

"While of

the e f f e c t the

sovereign sovereign, act laws of

immunity and by

person

foreign the

e x t e n s i o n , h i s agents, the
1 2 6

from j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

state

doctrine shields

foreign sovereign's One other as

internal

from of

intrusive the act

scrutiny." of state

distinguishing already stated whereas state

feature

doctrine,

elsewhere, such a

i s that

i t i s available available

to n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , under the

defence

i s not

d o c t r i n e of

1 2 3

Ibid.,

250. 398, 428. F

1 2 4

(19 6 4 ) 3 7 6 U.S.

B a n c o N a c i o n a l de Cuba v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l C i t y Bank, 270 Supp. 1004, (1967)

1 2 6

125

(1984) SDNY, 1465,

1470,

589 F.Supp. 463

SA.

immunity of the

(which

i s exclusively and its

developed political

to

protect

the or

person state

sovereign

subdivision

entities). The show t h a t public doctrine of act of state, both i f c a r e f u l l y examined, international on some law will and

i t overlaps

with law and

private

international

English of act

courts private of

occasions law

have s i m p l y a p p l i e d as an law

the

principles the

international

a l t e r n a t i v e approach t o such the as

state doctrine. Italy, Spain and

Civil other

countries on

Germany,

France,

countries for

Continent with s i m i l a r c i v i l jurisprudential reasons law

law

t r a d i t i o n have followed the

different of

also in

principles respecting relying on

private

international and to state

determining thus the

issues

expropriation the lex fori

debts,

specifically of the

characterise

rights

litigating parties.

There i s t h e r e f o r e international courts have

t h e problem of law w i t h the in of the

confusing state given more of now

the p r e c e p t s of p r i v a t e doctrine. conflicting of a American s i g n a l s by

a c t of past

also act

r e g a r d i n g the wholly

state doctrine on the

constitutional of

law
127

predicated courts, the law.

principle have

separation changed the

powers.

American by

however, said

their position of public to

considering

subject

within opinions

purview

international country a rule as of to

Certainly the act

differ doctrine not.

from c o u n t r y be

whether

of

state law or

considered the

public

international i s quite

So

far

current

English

approach

different

84,

B a n c o N a c i o n a l de S Ct 923, I I L Ed 2d

127

Cuba 804.

v.

Sabbatino

(1964)

376

US

398,

464

from t h a t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . r e g a r d s t h e s u b j e c t may doctrine

1 2 8

The

d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n a s state (1) and

be due t o the f a c t t h a t the a c t of s i t u a t i o n s and (2) the s i t u s act exception,

covers four c o n t r o v e r s i a l or e x p r o p r i a t i o n , (3) a

1 / 9

these are of debts

nationalisation public loans,

1 3 0

commercial

i . e . , when
1 3 1

s o v e r e i g n immunity o v e r l a p s w i t h the a c t of s t a t e d o c t r i n e (4) non-expropriation

1 3 2

and

context,

i . e . , conspiracy

and

slander and

actions.

The

s u b j e c t undoubtedly has a v a r i e d c o n n o t a t i o n approached international w i t h i n the with care. Thus

therefore

must be

f o r some i t i s

purely a private argue law. that

law problem w h i l s t o t h e r s s i m p l y domain of p u b l i c international

i t falls

The

Overlap Immunity The

of

Act

of

State

and

the

Doctrine

of

Sovereign

o v e r l a p o f t h e a c t of s t a t e d o c t r i n e and immunity has always created

the d o c t r i n e of mixed

of

sovereign
1 2 8

problems

S e e A k e h u r s t , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, S i x t h Ed (1991) p. 47 b u t s e e t h e 7 t h e d i t e d by P e t e r Malanczuk (1997) pp. 118-121. B a n c o N a c i o n a l de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964) Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U.S. 376 US 398, 84 S C t 923 I I L Ed 2 804. G a r c i a v. Chase Manhattan Bank NA, U.S. C o u r t of A p p e a l s 2nd C i r c u i t (1984) 735 F.2d 645; A l l i e d Bank I n t . v. Banco C r e d i t o A g r i c o l a de C a r t a g o , U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd C i r c u i t 1985, 757 F.2d 516. A l f r e d D u n h i l l of London I n c . v. R e p u b l i c of Cuba (1976) 125 US 682; Czarnikow L t d . v. Rolimpex (1979) AC 351, I L R 64 (1983) . K i r k p a t r i c k & Co. I n c . v. E n v i r o n m e n t a l T e c t o n i c s Corp. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Supreme C o u r t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . 1990, 493 US 400, 110 S C t , 701 L E d 2s 816. 465
1 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 0 129

activities breach of

of

states.

1 3 3

Thus

can

immunity for the

be

granted

for of

c o n t r a c t , i f the

reason

abrogation

the

c o n t r a c t i s prompted by an u n e x p e c t e d territorial easy boundaries and

event or c r i s i s w i t h i n the state? the House de T h i s i s not of Lords an had

of t h e d e f e n d a n t appear the I

question,

i t would

difficulties The

in dealing with

Congreso

Partido case.

I Congreso c a s e i s a good example where t h e mere d i s t i n c t i o n acta jure imperii and acta the jure gentionis which being of came proved up for

between woefully

inadequate The

i n deciding court in

issues to avoid

contention.

order

completely restrictive

trapped i n t o f o l l o w i n g the a b s t r a c t underpinnings

immunity reasoned t h a t when f a c e d w i t h t h e problems of s o v e r e i g n immunity c o u r t s must not o n l y r e s i g n t h e i r i n q u i r y to the nature

of the c o n t r a c t , but a t t e n t i o n be a l s o p a i d t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e b r e a c h , which means t h a t a s t a t e c o u l d s t i l l for immunity i f the act. activity Courts of i n breach also of succeed i n pleading the agreement to is a

governmental whether

are the

called of

upon the

consider

i n the

course

performance

c o n t r a c t the

s t a t e has performed a s o v e r e i g n a c t i n w h i c h be accorded. Are

c a s e immunity c o u l d adequate to

t h e s e recommendations i n r e a l i t y

s o l v e a l l the i n t r a c t a b l e problems w h i c h had t h e I Congreso c a s e ? The answer must be

t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n

i n t h e n e g a t i v e i n so

f a r as Cuba d i d not e n t e r i n t o any c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

T r e n d t e x v. C e n t r a l Bank o f Nigeria (1977) Q 529, Czarnikow L t d . v. Rolimpex (1979) AC 351; I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o (1983) 1 AC 244; De Sanchez v. Banco C e n t r a l de N i c a r a g u a (1985) 5 t h C i r c u i t 770 F.2d 1385; The Uganda Co. v . The Government of Uganda (1979) 1 L l o y d s Rep 481. 466

133

the

cargo

owners not to

in

respect the

of

the was

Marble

Islands by

and

the

decision

deliver

cargo

prompted

political

c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e c a u s e of t h e r i g h t - w i n g Chile cargo reasons at that time. was the The an d e c i s i o n by act of state

coup which took p l a c e i n Cuba not which to deliver some the

therefore destroyed of and

for

obvious the be be

sugar c o n t r a c t . instructions dares I n sum, in

I t i s submitted t h a t this respect cannot

government disobeyed visited Imperii J, at by and

Cuba's

anyone who

to disobey the

i t will

certainly acta

punishment.

Cuban a c t i o n was as was

jure Goff to

i t would have been a p p o s i t e instance if the

suggested by were referred

first

controversy

arbitration a "taking,"

f o r the and law.

s a i d Cuban a c t i o n c o u l d be therefore The was not per

c h a r a c t e r i s e d as se violative of

international on the claims

House of L o r d s , the

i t would appear, and other the

relied

against

Empire I r a n c a s e into

important practical to

cases

without

taking and

consideration

a c t u a l i t i e s of l i f e the the fore a l l the

thus

l o s t the opportunity

of b r i n g i n g

complicated

i s s u e s w h i c h were a s s o c i a t e d

with

I Congreso In C.

case.
134

C z a r n i k o w L t d . v. R o l i m p e x ,

a Polish state trading independent legal into a an "of was

organisation

a d e q u a t e l y adjudged of h a v i n g an thus

p e r s o n a l i t y and contract for

f r e e of governmental c o n t r o l e n t e r e d 200,000 m e t r i c t o n s of

the

s a l e of

sugar w i t h rule 18(a),

E n g l i s h company. The which the force

c o n t r a c t terms i n c o r p o r a t e d clause provided that

majeure

i f delivery

1 3 4

(19 7 9)

AC

351. 467

prevented the

inter alia,

by

'government i n t e r v e n t i o n the contract seller would be

. . . beyond void without of to

seller's

control' 21

penalty." obtaining

Rule the

made the

responsible and

i n respect failure

necessary

export

licence

that

p r o c u r e such l i c e n c e s s h o u l d not be c o n s t r u e d a s a d e f e n c e the 1974, and force majeure doctrine. Due to flood fell by and heavy

under in

rain

t h e expected y i e l d of s u g a r h a r v e s t therefore the government intervened

below

expectation a decree serious

issuing

banning

a l l e x p o r t s from the c o u n t r y i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t Rolimpex t h e r e u p o n

s h o r t a g e s of sugar i n Poland. the force majeure to Czarnikow

i n r e l i a n c e on

c l a u s e i n the c o n t r a c t e x p r e s s l y communicated of g o v e r n m e n t a l intervention obligation agreed by was

L t d . t h a t as a r e s u l t

beyond i t s c o n t r o l , i t cannot of selling the 200,000 m e t r i c was not

fulfil tons

the c o n t r a c t u a l of by sugar the

previously

upon.

Czarnikow

persuaded

argument p o s i t e d

Rolimpex and t h e r e f o r e argued t h a t R o l i m p e x by e v e r y measure very close to the Polish government and that i t was

simply

u n t e n a b l e f o r i t to h i d e b e h i n d t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e P o l i s h s t a t e in order to avoid liability. The dispute was referred to

arbitration issues, strength defence.

"that

i n London, but a f t e r a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r b i t r a t o r s unanimously Article 18(a) which found f o r Rolimpex force majeure

of t h e on as the a

the of

provided

On an appeal Lord Denning r e a s o n e d a s

no 'governmental because the intervention' seller, being is beyond

follows:
the can seller's always or the

control: exercise not, as

the

government, I t can

c o n t r o l over i t s own i t pleases. This

intervention. is a telling

intervene when

argument

468

government i t s e l f as to escape on a

i s a party:

a t any

r a t e when i t i n t e r v e n e s contract. more than

so

i t s own

obligations

under t h e any

I t cannot it could

rely

self-induced

'intervention' frustration."
1 3 5

r e l y on

a self-induced

He
"I

c o n t i n u e d by
would s a y the contracts are

r u l i n g i n f a v o u r of Rolimpex
law, governed.

thus:
by which

same a l s o , a s a m a t t e r of E n g l i s h

these

I am o f o p i n i o n , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t R o l i m p e x can r e l y on the ban on exports as 'government i n t e r v e n t i o n ' beyond seller's control. "
1 3 6

Rolimpex argument that

again i t had

won an

the

case

on

the

strength

of

its

independent

legal personality

totally could

f r e e from government c o n t r o l . defeat On i t s quest that a further was i t be appeal

Thus a n y t h i n g s h o r t of t h a t liability. House of Lords,

r e l i e v e d of before the

Lord

Wilberforce as

e x p e c t e d r u l e d i n f a v o u r of Rolimpex because

of the s a i d d e c r e e b a n n i n g e x p o r t of s u g a r from Poland.

"The i n d e p e n d e n c e of Rolimpex from government i s i n my o p i n i o n amply d e m o n s t r a t e d by the f a c t s s e t out a t l e n g t h i n the award. Together with a l l four learned judges who have considered this point, I f i n d the conclusion c l e a r , and I t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t t h e s e l l e r makes good t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e r e was g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h i n r u l e 18. "
1 3 7

What i s d i s c e r n i b l e i n the that of the House an of Lords'

C o u r t of A p p e a l s ' judgment judgment is that Rolimpex of be

and was

without

doubt

entity and

clearly

independent not

Polish held

governmental

control

therefore

could

possibly

1 3 5

(1978) 1 Q I b i d . a t p. (19 7 9) AC

194. 195. 364. 469

1 3 6

1 3 7

responsible part of the

for

self-induced intervention since state. And i t would s i m p l y be the

i t was untenable Polish

not to

Polish

argue t h a t Rolimpex might have c o n s p i r e d w i t h to i n s t i t u t e t h e export c o n t r o l . g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d i n such

state

A f t e r a l l , what would Rolimpex a collusion? Since sale i t became

g a i n by

c l e a r from t h e o u t s e t t h a t i t e n t e r e d i n t o t h e order to make profit which in

contract in would findings help of

a l l probabilities Certainly any

promote

i t s financial

standing.

c o n s p i r a c y between Rolimpex and the P o l i s h s t a t e w i l l destroy is that i t s chances even of winning were the a case. But the

completely here very an to

dilemma be

i f there

conspiracy sensitive do

it

would of

difficult offence

t o prove the

i n view of

the

nature

such

and

state

i n v o l v e d would

whatever up.

i t takes

a v o i d b e i n g p l a c e d i n f a l s e l i g h t by c o v e r i n g Lord analysis Denning i n the Court of the law by laying

of A p p e a l o f f e r e d an bare the essential

excellent

distinction

between governmental a c t i v i t y in the eyes of the law and

and

what c o n s t i t u t e s p u b l i c good which may i n t h e end, regard the to be prompted by the learned the judge

those

u l t e r i o r motive of the s t a t e , but shifted his emphasis between by having

the

underlying state, thus

relationship

Rolimpex

and

Polish

d i v e r t i n g a t t e n t i o n from the g e n e r a l method by w h i c h t o the subject of if matter in regard courts. was of to the determination i t would from not

identify of the been v. any

competence expedient Iana,

1 3 8

municipal Rolimpex facts 64.

Perhaps

have

distinguished these cases do

Cubazucar differ in

s i n c e the (19 8 3) I L R

1 3 8

470

measure. bring light to on

Such an the fore

approach,

one

would suppose, would i n issues that could help

effect shed

certain salient

i n s t a n c e s where t h e with the doctrine time

a c t of s t a t e d o c t r i n e The

i n t e r a c t s or h e a r t of the

overlaps matter with are

of s t a t e immunity. the act of state

i s that

any

doctrine intersects of states become

s t a t e immunity t h e created where

problems of mixed a c t i v i t i e s and commercial giving

political

activities to

inextricably

intertwined,

arguably

rise

difficulties

r e s p e c t i n g t h e d e l i m i t a t i o n o f the scope of s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s . The activities judges, application of states of has restrictive created activities state.
1 3 9

immunity of

to

mixed for

lot

difficulties

i n as much a s t h e

i n i s s u e were taken How i s the

within such the

the b o r d e r s of t h e activities opportunity court regard be to to be to

defendant

scope of courts

delimited classify to

so as

to a f f o r d m u n i c i p a l Will the

such

activities? the two-part

municipal of having ratione to

persuaded immunity o r be

follow

conditions

ratione by

personae other

as w e l l as immunity

materiae,

trapped

relevant p o l i t i c a l ratione the

reasons

only consider Any misplaced

the u n d e r l y i n g attempt to

f o r c e of immunity consider confusion to the one or

materiae? factor

other

i n d e p e n d e n t l y would the nature of the

create

in respect person of

of i d e n t i f y i n g the may sovereign have been

transaction the

state

i f , for

example,

activity

i n question

Uganda Co. ( H o l d i n g s ) L t d . v. The Government of Uganda (1979) 1 L l o y d s Law R e p o r t s 481 a t 488; IAM v. OPEC (1981) 649 F.2d a t 1359; S p o c i l v . Crowe (1974) 480 F.2d 614; I Congreso (1983) 1 AC 244; De S a n c h e z v. Banco C e n t r a l de N i c a r a g u a (1985) 5 t h C i r c u i t 770 F.2d 1384.

139

471

performed by sovereign sequence

a political
1 4 0

s u b d i v i s i o n or

central

bank

of in with

the the an

sate.

Or

where t h e r e i s a c l e a r or

indication an entity

of e v e n t s legal

t h a t a p r i v a t e person p e r s o n a l i t y with and therefore a de

independent have been

jure be

authority impleaded.

might The than or a

involved

could

problem becomes more c o m p l i c a t e d s i n c e t h e i s s u e more o f t e n not would have to be considered qua an executive decree

legislative commercial state

a c t i o n which might have a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d a agreement. argue the In this act of case state can a defendant to

given or

state

entity

doctrine

avoid have

being argued

liable?

I n many c a s e s o f f i c i a l s

of f o r e i g n s t a t e s

t h a t as a r e s u l t of i n t e r n a l c r i s i s or t h e d i s c r e t i o n a l exception, municipal courts Can cannot review executive

function policy

d e c i s i o n s of s t a t e s . f o r a planned contract policies concluded

a f o r e i g n s t a t e t h e r e f o r e be

impleaded a

p o l i c y d e c i s i o n which has v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s o f with a private entity? What i f such duly

signed

pubic been legal Co. an

have a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d a c o n t r a c t w h i c h has by a e.g., state the agency Rolimpex The with case be an or no.

independent the
141

personality, (Holdings) operational organ of the

Ugandan What a b o u t

Ltd. case?

answer may by a

d e c i s i o n taken state? To

central

bank of

or this

a subsidiary nature, one

answer a q u e s t i o n

(19 6 0 ) 7 N e t h e r l a n d s I n t . Law R e p o r t s 399. a p p e a l a d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n was handed down. Med. 1959 o. 164. R e c e n t d e c i s i o n s seemed complete immunity. Rolimpex, c a s e s a r e good examples.
141

1 4 0

However, on Jurisprudence

to be g r a v i t a t i n g i n a c c o r d i n g Uganda H o l d i n g and De Sanchez

472

must f i r s t policy

d e t e r m i n e as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e was or judgment a t t h e executive

any

room f o r p u b l i c
1 4 2

analysis

level.

Thus i f

t h e r e was

room, then and

t h e d e c i s i o n can w h o l l y be c h a r a c t e r i s e d as therefore
143

discretionary promote state public

duly

occasioned case the

by

the of

need act

to of the no the

good,

in

which be

doctrine

or s o v e r e i g n state

immunity can plead

o f f e r e d as a d e f e n c e or the domestic court has

defendant

could

that

jurisdiction. doctrine of

Where t h e a c t o f s t a t e d o c t r i n e o v e r l a p s w i t h sovereign immunity feasible case such as in Rolimpex,

i t is

appropriate

or l e g a l l y in the the

to f i r s t

consider the the act

sovereign of state

immunity i s s u e s problems. sovereign And

before

tackling such a

r a t i o n a l e behind is some not merely an as be

suggestion

i s that but issue regard shields foreign approach of the

immunity in

a f f i r m a t i v e defence well. Thus the

jurisdictional respecting be the had

respects must first

jurisdiction a c t of laws or

considered

before or a

to t h e

state

d o c t r i n e which p r e c l u d e s p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s of or scrutiny. Such

internal from

executive judgment

state

intrusive the

an

would a l l o w state and was

judge to or

d e t e r m i n e whether the a

activity

operational

d i s c r e t i o n a r y (planning) hurdle the

decision, issues right

this

would remove an thus paving the

important way for

o f making t h e to ask the

clearer

judge

Association de R e c l a m a n t e s v. United Mexican States (1983) DDC 561 F.Supp. 1190, 1198; D a l e h i t e v. U n i t e d S t a t e s (1953) 97 LED 1427; De S a n c h e z v. Banco C e n t r a l de Nicaragua (1985) 5th C i r . 770 F.2d 1385.
143

1 4 2

D e S a n c h e z v.

Banco C e n t r a l de

Nicaragua

(1985)

770

F.2d

1385.

473

questions. which

I n Rolimpex,

a Polish

state

trading organisation

was adjudged t o honour

independent

o f t h e P o l i s h s t a t e was sued f o r obligation because state o f an at a

failing

i t s contractual decision taken

unexpected higher the

unilateral

by t h e P o l i s h

executive l e v e l

on November 5, 1974. export

The r e s o l u t i o n o f d i d not v i o l a t e i n order to

C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s t o ban sugar law b e c a u s e t h e decree

international prevent of

was p a s s e d

s h o r t a g e o f s u g a r i n Poland s i n c e t h e r e was a s h o r t f a l l local demand. The

t h e p r o j e c t e d amount r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y

r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C o u n c i l o f M i n i s t e r s was t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o t h e critical i.e., export executive function of a l l o c a t i n g limited resources,

t h e sugar of sugar

i n question. illegal

The P o l i s h d e c r e e destroyed

t h e r e f o r e made the contractual In sugar these would

and thus

relationship circumstances

between

Czarnikow

and

Rolimpex. to export

any attempt

by Rolimpex

s i m p l y amount t o t h e v i o l a t i o n and i t would be l o g i c a l l y f o r having i . e . , when been

o f t h e November 5, 1971, d e c r e e t o sue o r deny affected to a t t e s t by j u s t i c e to the Polish

untenable adversely i s evidence

Rolimpex decree,

there

to the decree

b e i n g p u t i n p l a c e f o r t h e p u b l i c good. could lawful absence argue the a c t o f s t a t e the export decree, doctrine

At t h i s p o i n t R o l i m p e x since the decree Thus was

b u t made of the

of sugar

illegal. have

i n the

Rolimpex

would

honoured i t s

contractual obligations. of Lords relied

Both t h e Court o f Appeal and t h e House between Rolimpex and t h e rationale Rolimpex

on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

Polish for

state

t o d i s m i s s Czarnikow's

c l a i m and t h e i r

doing

so seems t o be p r e d i c a t e d on t h e ground t h a t

474

being free

an from

independent governmental as in thus: a

Polxsh

state

organisation, rely to on avoid on the the

sufficiently ban, i.e., liable.

control,

could

force majeure, Lord Denning

protective shield judgment

being

his

touched

governmental

intervention

"I cannot think they should be made l i a b l e in that s i t u a t i o n w h e n t h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y nothing they could do. They had done e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t r e q u i r e d them t o do. I t was o n l y t h e b a n t h a t i s , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r v e n t i o n which p r e v e n t e d t h e s h i p m e n t . I t was a c l e a r c a s e o f f o r c e majeure. They were e x c u s e d from l i a b i l i t y f o r i t by rule 18(a) , "
144

Lord W i l b e r f o r c e But the question were a worth

also

followed

about t h e becomes

same a r g u m e n t . of the The

145

asking of

i s what the

case i f result the

Rolimpex could act

department the

Polish

state? hide Or

have been of state

same s i n c e R o l i m p e x to avoid

could

behind the

doctrine

liability.

Polish

Government c o u l d i n v o k e a defence i n as

t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n exemption a s the d e c i s i o n to pass the decree was aim

much a s

taken a t the h i g h e s t l e v e l of a r r e s t i n g Rolimpex the shortage either

o f government, w i t h t h e u l t i m a t e of sugar forth i n Poland. the act of

T h i s means t h a t state or the

could

put

s o v e r e i g n immunity d e f e n c e

i f t h e r e i s evidence state.

to prove t h a t i t however, entity to

i s a s u b s i d i a r y organ o f t h e P o l i s h argue t h a t i t be accorded

I t cannot,

i m m u n i t y i f i t i s not

a state

i n view of the f a c t t h a t s o v e r e i g n a private party.

immunity i s not a v a i l a b l e

1 4 4

(1978) QBB (1979) AC

197. 364.

1 4 5

475

c a r e f u l consideration

o f t h e preceding

argument

would

show t h a t distinction

i t would be d i f f i c u l t between acta jure

i f not c o n f u s i n g

to c a r r y the gestionis

imperii

and acta jure

i n t o t h e domain of an a c t o f s t a t e , thus a p p l y i n g restrictive to plead it immunity t o d e f e a t

the concept of states And

t h e attempt by defendant

t h e a c t of s t a t e d o c t r i n e as a p r o t e c t i v e s h i e l d . confusing i f a p r i v a t e party argues

i s equally

the a c t of

s t a t e d o c t r i n e because an e x e c u t i v e or prevented i t s ability v. Federal

o r d e r or d e c r e e h a s a f f e c t e d I n National
1 4 6

t o perform.

American of

Corporation Nigeria cement

Republic Bank

of N i g e r i a , were turn jointly

the Republic for a

and t h e C e n t r a l contract.

sued

failed the

Nigeria

in

fiercely

challenged

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t by o f f e r i n g s o v e r e i g n and the t h e a c t o f s t a t e d e f e n c e on t h e m e r i t s .

immunity that

Can i t be s a i d

c o u r t was r i g h t i n d i s m i s s i n g N i g e r i a ' s d e f e n c e ?

A careful e r r e d on

e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s shows c l e a r l y t h a t t h e c o u r t c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s , i . e . , t h e d e c i s i o n taken avoid court the congestion concentrated a t t h e Lagos on t h e n a t u r e Harbour

i n Nigeria to that the

and t h e f a c t

of the transaction i n s t e a d of and T r e n d t e x t o some

breach.

National

American C o r p o r a t i o n

extent an

were wrongly d e c i d e d , reason why

f o r i t i s not easy t o come up w i t h be denied to Nigeria for

adequate

immunity

introducing the Lagos

a system o f i m p o r t c o n t r o l t o ease t h e c o n g e s t i o n a t harbour. order was I t would have been as expedient i f the the

executive

characterised

representing

1 4 6

(19 7 8 ) 4 4 8 F.Supp. 622.

476

implementation therefore because good.

of

Nigeria's as a

domestic discretionary but rather

economic function taken for

policy

and

qualifies i t was not

exception the public will

operation

To deny immunity to s u c h h i g h - l e v e l

policy decisions and

c e r t a i n l y be doing i n j u s t i c e to t h e p e o p l e o f N i g e r i a undermining the t h r u s t and and "discretionary purpose of the exemption."

simply

r u l e o f s t a t e immunity It could have been

function

a p p r o p r i a t e i f the c o n t r o v e r s y were r e f e r r e d t o a r b i t r a t i o n . It immunity is and instructive the act to of stress state that although are sovereign somewhat wholly

doctrine

interrelated, influenced be of law

they c e r t a i n l y o p e r a t e on and

d i f f e r e n t planes

by d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l

l e g a l f a c t o r s which cannot f o r i t would appear the act

i g n o r e d or swept under t h e state doctrine than of public

carpet

i s more s l a n t e d international

towards p r i v a t e The of

international in Alfred

law.

suggestion
147

Dunhill

London I n c . v.

Republic

Cuba

that

the

abstract of the the if thus

d i s t i n c t i o n between c o m m e r c i a l and states be carried into the domain act

non-commercial a c t i v i t i e s of of act state the of state with like

underlying sovereign there

rationale immunity

that should

the not acted

doctrine

free in a

foreign

sovereign capacity,

i s evidence the

i t has

commercial argument, varied suggested the is

justifying flawed fraught writer

commercial e x c e p t i o n such distinctions It to

fundamentally and

since with that

have is

connotations by the of

difficulties. such attempts

present sovereign

engraft

concept

(19 7 6) 125 U 682. I n t h i s c a s e Cuba s p e c i f i c a l l y i n her defence the a c t o f s t a t e d o c t r i n e .

1 4 7

offered

477

immunity on therefore and

t h e d o c t r i n e of a c t o f s t a t e a r e i l l be discouraged. I t would rather

conceived be

and

must

meaningful concepts i s

rewarding

i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two reviewed and analysed as a prelude

periodically some o f the

to

resolving

intractable

problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d o c t r i n e s

o f a c t o f s t a t e and s o v e r e i g n immunity.

Final

Remarks In order t o promote t h e u n i f o r m i t y of s t a t e p r a c t i c e codification, carefully the above i s s u e s analysed, taking and must into

thereby be

a i d t h e p r o c e s s of explored and

thoroughly

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e v i e w s of e v e r y s t a t e on the s u b j e c t . such an approach or a s p i r a t i o n i s of a t a l l

Although

order, a t l e a s t i t

would c r e a t e a common ground f o r o t h e r e l u s i v e i s s u e s i n r e s p e c t of state

1 4 8

immunity, execution and

1 5 0

such of

as state

the

ownership,
1 4 9

possession act to of rules

and state and is

control,

property,

the

doctrine, exceptions, frustrating

such to be

other

issues

relating for

adequately

studied,

codification

and

time

consuming and

t h e r e f o r e must be

approached associated

eclectically

so a s t o a v o i d t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s normally

No.

H a i l e S e l a s s i e v. C a b l e and W i r e l e s s L t d . (1938) 1 Ch 1; J u a n Ysmael (1955) AC 72.

1 4 9

1 4 8

545

A r a b R e p u b l i c of Egypt v. C i n e t e l e v i s i o n I n t . (1983) I L R 65 430; Alcom L t d . v. R e p u b l i c of Colombia (1984) AC 580; H i s p a n o A m e r i c a n a M e r c a n t i l SA v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a (1979) 2 L l o r d s Rep 277; P h i l i p p i n e Embassy Case (1977) B V e r f GE 46, 342, 399. S e e R. H i g g i n s , C e r t a i n U n r e s o l v e d A s p e c t s of t h e Law S t a t e Immunity, op. c i t . , pp. 270-77.
1 5 0

of

478

with

t h e p r i n c i p l e pacta tertiis nec nocent obligations to i t . current

nec

prosuntmeaning on a s t a t e which are the

a t r e a t y cannot c o n f e r has refused made

or b e n e f i t s

to be a p a r t y because of the

The above o b s e r v a t i o n s law is unsettled lacks and

being

application

restrictive

immunity

simply

practical

possibilities.

479

CHAPTER NINE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Introduction It respect to i s f a r from c l e a r a s t o t h e c u r r e n t of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. that s t a t e of t h e law i n

T h i s may be p a r t l y due on t h e s u b j e c t

the f a c t

some w r i t e r s who have w r i t t e n

were r a t h e r the

t o o e a g e r t o " t a k e t h e helm w h i l e sextants, and other

1

t o s s i n g overboard aids which

compasses,

navigational first

centuries

o f e f f o r t have

devised,"

without

developing a simply

s u i t a b l e method f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e problem. overloaded t h e d o c t r i n e of conflicting

While others

o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity w i t h a m u l t i t u d e to such a heights 'dismal as to completely

theories subject theories

transmute dogma life. The courts to

the said

into

swamp' o f competing the r e a l i t i e s of

and f a i l e d

f a r removed

from

t h e o r e t i c a l solutions curtail t h e immunity

devised of

by B e l g i a n

and I t a l i a n were

states

i n the past

imperfect, this the

and wholly conditioned might w e l l

on a d hoc b a s i s .

And although

hidden f l a w line,
2

have been d e t e c t e d expended

somewhere a l o n g this inherent so many subject

no e f f o r t s were which thus

i n removing writer

difficulty, difficulties,

to the present taking

h a s caused o f t h e whole

t h e development

'See A l f r e d Review, p. 4 8 5 .

Hill

(1960)

27

University

of

Chicago

Law

Lauterpacht,

op.

c i t . ( t h e 1951 a r t i c l e

i n the B r i t i s h

yearbook).

480

as a h o s t a g e .

Certainly,

no c o n d i t i o n i s permanent, a concerted e f f o r t thus the

t h i n g s do be made t o

change and i t i s e x p e d i e n t t h a t resolve use of

new problems w i t h new s o l u t i o n s , obsolete incomplete theories There

discounting the resolution of

in

intractable emphasis

problems

o f today.

ought

t h e r e f o r e t o be doctrine, the practice the

p r o p e r l y p l a c e d on a r e a s o f c o n f l i c t i n g

changing scope o f s t a t e immunity, and e v i d e n c e o f s t a t e respecting distinction states. customary international law rather

than

between commercial

and non-commercial a c t i v i t i e s o f

Some Thoughts on t h e C u r r e n t S t a t e o f t h e Law The maxim rex gratia dei, a l t h o u g h p a t e n t l y o b s o l e t e , gave albeit a forceful and this justification somewhat into to the concept t h e way of sovereign f o r sovereign

immunity immunity

prepared

to f l o u r i s h

a meta-juridical
3

philosophy, i . e . , however,

"the K i n g c a n do no wrong." has an independent in respect

Each o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s ,

e x i s t e n c e and t h e r e f o r e must n o t be c o n f u s e d development of t h e concept of

t o t h e present-day

sovereignty.

.Rex gratia dei was a r g u a b l y an i n t e r n a l phenomenon God's l a w . I n short, dei. absolute i n 1812, before

which gave power t o the K i n g t o i n t e r p r e t

s o v e r e i g n immunity i s t h e modern v e r s i o n o f rex gratia As immunity through already stated a elsewhere, the doctrine American against of

"obtained a private

foothold"

into

law

claim duly p r e f e r r e d

Napoleon

Leon H u r w i t z , The S t a t e as a Defendant--Governmental A c c o u n t a b i l i t y and the Redress o f I n d i v i d u a l G r i e v a n c e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 8-24.

481

American

courts.

Ever

since

that

day

the

position

of

the

s o v e r e i g n s t a t e was be sued without the

e l e v a t e d unto a h i g h e r p l a n e where i t cannot before century granted municipal sovereign courts. immunity of World has Thus was the War been

i t s consent of this was

before absolute

beginning

where of the

immunity state the into

irrespective First

activities onwards, reduced

in issue. of

A f t e r the absolute This

however, and thrown

currency

immunity

question.

i n the main

seemed to legislation domestic

have prompted some common law c o u n t r i e s t o r e s o r t t o in order to curtail the immunity o f states

before

courts. brain

Although of

the

d o c t r i n e of law

restrictive

immunity i s the to note

child

civil

countries, i t i s surprising

t h a t none of t h e s e c o u n t r i e s t o date has embarked on i n t r o d u c i n g the d o c t r i n e o f careful review restrictive of European immunity i n t o practice i t s s t a t u t e book. shows that A

simply

almost

e v e r y Western E u r o p e a n s t a t e now some e x t e n t . or relative

5

f o l l o w s t h e r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e to

Recent immunity

t r e n d s a l s o show t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s reflected i n the statute books of the

United

States, and

the United

Kingdom, A u s t r a l i a ,
6

Canada, P a k i s t a n , similarities i s given test is

Singapore,

South A f r i c a .

There

are c e r t a i n l y

between t h e v a r i o u s n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n where p r i m a c y to the nature test in every case whilst the purpose

Schooner

Exchange

v.

McFaddon

(1812)

Cranch

116. Sinclair, Developments, RC

6 5

The Law 167 1980 I I . cit., pp.

of

Sovereign

ImmunityRecent

B r o w n l i e , op.

323-345.

482

totally

rejected.

This

arguably

i s unfortunate

because the

r e j e c t i o n o f t h e purpose t e s t i n r e a l i t y d e p r i v e s t h e j u d g e from a s k i n g t h e r i g h t q u e s t i o n s l i k e l y t o uncover t h e main i s s u e s and answers doctrinal relegated aspect in a given sovereign in immunity Belgium controversy. and Italy thus
7

Earlier mistakenly

developments

t o t h e background t h e purpose t e s t of sovereign test be

b l o c k i n g one because the as the only

o f t h e development that in is the

immunity, accepted and since

suggestion criterion activities

nature

classifying ex

commercial flawed

non-commercial any serious seemed t o web o f For

hypothesi

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e purpose t e s t qua s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s provide

a more p o s i t i v e means o f removing t h e a t t e n d a n t

confusion no one

i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e n a t u r e of a g i v e n t r a n s a c t i o n . enters the into object an agreement purpose without of the first a c t or

seriously fact of

considering agreeing.

and

A P e r s p e c t i v e S k e t c h o f t h e Changing Scope o f S o v e r e i g n After the Second World War the concept of

Immunity absolute

immunity came under a t t a c k from many f r o n t s .

While C o n t i n e n t a l

European s t a t e s l e d t h e move i n promoting t h e c r y s t a l l i s a t i o n o f restrictive a more immunity, t h e common law c o u n t r i e s i n t h e West about the c a l l f o r change
8

took the

c o n s e r v a t i v e view

until

T a t e l e t t e r was w r i t t e n and made known t o t h e w o r l d .

I b i d . a t 327. 26. This l e t t e r i n fact modulate t h e i r p o s i t i o n s ,

(1952) 984 Dept. S t a t e B u l l . i n f l u e n c e d many c o u n t r i e s t o a l s o e.g., common law c o u n t r i e s .

483

The

current

practice

of

states

seemed

t o be g r a v i t a t i n g to enjoy some jure

towards a r u l e whereby f o r e i g n

s t a t e s are allowed

degree of s t a t e immunity a s r e g a r d s imperii are while s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s prima immunity. over a Thus

certain a c t i v i t i e s acta facie a a

commercial i n o u t l o o k court must to be take made fall said most with

denied

for

local

jurisdiction between what within

foreign

state

distinction and what

i s a commercial a c t i v i t y of acta be jure

activities

the c o n f i n e s leaves countries call much

imperii. at

Although t h e least f o r now,

approach Western the

to

desired, to

have that

resigned the

following

i t , coupled be

clarion first

restrictive to consider

immunity i t s merits. courts

accepted, So f a r t h e

without

taking pains

restrictive twenty

immunity h a s been
9

embraced by

i n more

than

countries.

And

i t would

a p p e a r some o t h e r

s t a t e s are
1 0

also w i l l i n g

to follow

the r e s t r i c t i v e moving some

immunity i n p r i n c i p l e .

Although t h e number o f c o u n t r i e s seemed appear position stated (1) not to that clear, the at said least

towards t h i s p r i n c i p l e eleven
1 1

more

countries legal

support

doctrine.

The

current

o f some s t a t e s a s r e g a r d s

restrictive

immunity c a n be

thus: activity of a state that could be c h a r a c t e r i s e d as

Any

acta jure

gestionis

would n o t be a c c o r d e d immunity.

B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , 326-328. I b i d . a t 328.

1 0

Ibid.

484

(2)

A and the is,

contract a

of

employment person state in the to may be

signed

between

sending

state of

natural

performed be

i n the

territory

receiving i f the

not

accorded

immunity. or partly to

That be

work

question receiving

i s wholly state. i n the

performed w i t h i n (3) Any use

interest c l e a r l y discernible of immovable p r o p e r t y by Kingdom would not

possession s t a t e , e.g., (UK Act

or in

the the 1978

a foreign

United Section (4) Any act

attract

immunity

6(1) ( a ) ) . or by omission the of respecting of a death or personal state be injury in the

caused

officials a

sending state

jurisdiction immunity. (5) Any obligation in

receiving

shall

denied

arising

out

of and be see

an use

agreement of

respecting in the (UK Ltd

interest receiving

or

possession would not

property

state

accorded Intpro

immunity UK

legislation v. S a u v e l (6) An any

Section

6(1)(b), 1016). a foreign

Properties

(1983) QB by

infringement

state

i n the

forum s t a t e

of

p a t e n t , t r a d e m a r k and

c o p y r i g h t laws would not

attract

immunity i n t h e (7) An important

forum s t a t e . to UK state immunity can three, be found in

exception 1978

Section r e a d s as

3 of t h e follows:

Act:

Section

f o r example,

"A s t a t e i s not immune as r e s p e c t s proceedings r e l a t i n g to (a) a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n entered i n t o by t h e s t a t e o r (b) an o b l i g a t i o n of t h e s t a t e w h i c h by v i r t u e of a c o n t r a c t (whether a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n o r not) f a l l s t o be performed w h o l l y o r p a r t l y i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom."

state

cannot

claim

immunity

i f i t enters

into

an

agreement i n t h e f o r m a t i o n

o f a company w i t h a n a t u r a l state.

person o r l e g a l e n t i t y h a v i n g i t s seat a t t h e forum Thus Section (3) o f t h e 1978 UK A c t ,

f o r example, d e f i n e s

commercial t r a n s a c t i o n as f o l l o w s :
" (a) Any c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s u p p l y o f goods and services. (b) Any l o a n o r o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f f i n a n c e and any g u a r a n t e e o r i n d e m n i t y i n r e s p e c t o f any such t r a n s a c t i o n o r o f any o t h e r f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n ; and (c) Any o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n or a c t i v i t y (whether o f a commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , f i n a n c i a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l or other s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i n t o which a s t a t e e n t e r s or i n which i t engages o t h e r w i s e t h a n i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f s o v e r e i g n authority."

The

1972

European

Convention

also

confirms

the

restrictive

immunity and t h e p r i n c i p a l

provision of

i n t e r e s t runs as f o l l o w s ( i . e . , A r t i c l e 6 ) :
"(1) A contracting s t a t e c a n n o t c l a i m immunity from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a court of another c o n t r a c t i n g s t a t e i f i t p a r t i c i p a t e s w i t h one o r more p r i v a t e p e r s o n s i n a company, a s s o c i a t i o n o r other l e g a l e n t i t y having i t s seat, registered office or p r i n c i p a l place of business on t h e territory of the s t a t e o f t h e forum, and t h e proceedings concern the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n matters a r i s i n g out o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n between t h e s t a t e on t h e one hand and t h e e n t i t y o r any o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t on t h e o t h e r hand. (2) Paragraph 1 s h a l l not apply i f i t i s otherwise agreed i n w r i t i n g . "

Section clearly

28 USC 1330 o f t h e FSIA, f o r example, jurisdiction concerning Section on suits federal against courts foreign

confers

respecting matters sovereign states.

1604 covers

instances

where immunity c o u l d be c l a i m e d by s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s , while exceptions t o immunity 486 a r e s e t o u t under

s e c t i o n s 1605-1607, 1605 and 1605 w i t h some f l e x i b l e reference to jurisdictional issues qua t h e p o s i t i o n

o f f o r e i g n s t a t e s , e.g., t h e due process clause. Section 1605 (a)2 under t h e FSIA, f o r example,

d e f i n e s commercial a c t i v i t y t h u s :
"A commercial activity means either a regular course of c o m m e r c i a l conduct or a p a r t i c u l a r commercial t r a n s a c t i o n or a c t . The commercial character o f an a c t i v i t y s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o u r s e o f conduct o r particular transaction or a c t , rather than by r e f e r e n c e to i t s purpose."

The

U n i t e d States l e g i s l a t i o n i s not d i s s i m i l a r

t o t h e UK State Immunity A c t , i n respect o f Section 5, which p r o v i d e s t h a t "(a) death o r personal or (b) damage t o or a loss of tangible injury; property

caused by an a c t o r omission may n o t be accorded Foreign

i n t h e United Kingdom" Section 13 o f t h e (1985);

immunity. States

Australian

Immunities

Act

S e c t i o n 6 o f t h e Canadian S t a t e Immunity A c t (1982); S e c t i o n 7 o f t h e Singapore S t a t e Immunity A c t (1979); and Section 6 o f t h e South A f r i c a n (1981) a l l follow Foreign State

Immunity

Act

about

t h e same

p r i n c i p l e s l a i d down b o t h i n t h e American l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e U n i t e d Kingdom l e g i s l a t i o n , The respectively.

c u r r e n t s t a t e o f t h e law, however, i s n o t s e t t l e d i n o f immunity and t h e execution forcee o f a sovereign general state. I t law, is a

t h e areas o f waiver as regards

the property that under

submitted

international

p r o v i s i o n made i n a c o n t r a c t based on t h e meeting o f t h e 487

minds

(consensus

ad

idem),

with

private

entity

s p e c i f y i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t be governed by a p a r t i c u l a r law cannot be c o n s t r u e d the UK Act 1978). method whereby a as a w a i v e r o f immunity ( 2(2) a

The c u r r e n t law t h e r e f o r e supports waiver i s formerly procured

through execution

competent organs o f a s t a t e .

Thus immunity from

forcee and saisie conservatoire, must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n clear terms as regards t h e person o f t h e s t a t e and t h e

a d j u d i c a t o r y procedures r e s p e c t i n g s t a t e p r o p e r t y i n o r d e r to avoid confusion. still But i t would thus

1 2

appear

this a

web o f of

confusion conflicting

remains

creating

flood

state practice.

True,

s t a t e p r a c t i c e since

the 19th century up t o t h e F i r s t World War seemed t o be f a i r l y u n i f o r m b u t ever s i n c e t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity found i t s way onto t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l plane, some c o u n t r i e s have r e f u s e d t o g r a n t immunity from measures, absolute order. while others thus entertain still t h e view enforcement according the o l d

of

immunity,

willing

t o follow

A c a r e f u l review i n place

of a l l the national legislation t h e 1976 immunity a c t s o f

currently

shows t h a t

the US, i . e . , 13(4), immunity public

S e c t i o n 1610(a), t h e UK A c t o f 1978 S e c t i o n Act Section 11(1), only accord

t h e Canadian i n respect

of state

property

being and

used f o r Pakistan

purposes.

South

Africa,

Singapore

Acts, undoubtedly

also f o l l o w

a similar

approach a l l u d e d

12

See The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commissions R e p o r t s , 488

1978-1988.

to

above by a c c o r d i n g immunity

o n l y i n respect o f s t a t e property f a l l s within

activities the

where t h e use o f s t a t e

c o n f i n e s o f acta jure imperii. USSR, i . e . Russia, i n t h e spheres

A country such as

former

b e f o r e 1990 granted a b s o l u t e measures. And i t

immunity

o f enforcement

i s q u i t e c l e a r China, B r a z i l , C h i l e and S y r i a a l s o f o l l o w the civil absolute war sovereign when immunity rule. Before took t h e 1992 place i n there was

or

active

antagonism of

Socialist evidence Republic absolute since

Federal

Republic

Yugoslavia, that

t o support of

the fact also

Socialist

Federal of

Yugoslavia from

supported

the grant

immunity

enforcement

measures.

But ever position

t h e war, Federal Republic

o f Yugoslavia's

has become obscure. (10) The question relating t o the grant o f immunity to

s u b d i v i s i o n s o f s t a t e s i s n o t c l e a r c u t and over t h e years has p r o v e d t o be q u i t e e l u s i v e . no uniform state practice I n o t h e r words, t h e r e i s ratione

r e s p e c t i n g immunity subdivisions,

personae regions

of

political

municipalities, government.

or constituent

states

o f a federal

Under t h e UK A c t o f 1978, A r t i c l e 14, 2,

"A s e p a r a t e e n t i t y i s immune from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e courts of the United S t a t e s i f , and o n l y i f (a) t h e p r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t e t o a n y t h i n g done by i t i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f s o v e r e i g n a u t h o r i t y and (b) t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e such t h a t a s t a t e ( o r , i n t h e c a s e o f p r o c e e d i n g s t o which S e c t i o n 10 above a p p l i e s , a s t a t e w h i c h i s not a p a r t y t o t h e B r u s s e l s C o n v e n t i o n ) would have been so immune." "(3) I f a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y (not b e i n g a s t a t e ' s c e n t r a l bank or other monetary authority submits to the j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t of proceedings i n the case of w h i c h i t i s e n t i t l e d t o immunity by v i r t u e o f Section (2) above s u b s e c t i o n (1) t o 4 o f S e c t i o n 13 above s h a l l

489

a p p l y to references

i t in respect of those proceedings as to a s t a t e were r e f e r e n c e s t o t h a t e n t i t y . "

if

Although to offer

the above 1978 there

UK is

Act S e c t i o n still

(14)

appears in

some h e l p ,

some d i f f i c u l t y

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between what i s a s t a t e e n t i t y and what i s not. The problem i s even exacerbated different because s u b s i d i a r y which in

organs o f s t a t e s perform reality differ

activities, thus

from c o u n t r y t o c o u n t r y , a general

i t i s quite towards as

difficult

to formulate

formula

geared

the r e s o l u t i o n o f problems r e l a t i n g regards the g r a n t i n g o f immunity. Art. 27 denies immunity t o any

to state entities

The European Convention independent sue and is the open

e n t i t y w i t h an

p e r s o n a l i t y from the s t a t e , which i n t h e main can be sued. the The dual question test to grapple with, Art.

however, 27 of

whether

specified

under

European Convention i s adequate. the way for some pertinent

Perhaps

i t could to be

questions

asked.

However, a f t e r t h i s p o i n t , t h e whole s u b j e c t m a t t e r seemed t o be thrown unto the uncharted In other words, seas w i t h o u t any c l e a r c u t the purported exception

destination.

seems t o be drawn a t sea. (11) Recent s t a t e p r a c t i c e seems t o support an approach whereby a distinction i s c a r e f u l l y made between t h e relationship ( s t a t e agent) entity sue

between the s t a t e and the s u b s i d i a r y organs i n o r d e r t o g r a n t immunity. in and But

Thus where t h e l e g a l thus

i s s u e i s independent o f t h e s t a t e and be sued, then such an e n t i t y may how can

could

not claim

immunity.

i n reality,

evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a t u s o f 490

these

s u b s i d i a r y organs be adequately

procured?

I s the

evidence g i v e n enough? verified?

by t h e f o r e i g n m i n i s t e r o f a given s t a t e

And how can t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e s a i d evidence be I n view o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Rolimpex, i t i s

suggested t h a t l e g a l e n t i t i e s w i t h i n a s t a t e be l o g i c a l l y t r e a t e d i n t h e same manner as t h e s t a t e o r government, o r t h e concept o f agency law i n respect o f g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of law d u l y accepted by n a t i o n s of the world could be

a p p l i e d t o c o n t a i n t h e problem. to be p r e d i c a t e d on e f f e c t i v e

The c u r r e n t t e s t appears control o f t h e government

over t h e s u b s i d i a r y organ. (12) As a m a t t e r o f p o i n t o f law, t h e ILC d r a f t a r t i c l e s are

not b i n d i n g a t t h e moment b u t i n every r e s p e c t f o l l o w s t h e p r i n c i p l e whereby s o v e r e i g n a c t s jure imperii are mutatis mutandis immune, w h i l e sovereign a c t i v i t i e s jure gestionis are d e n i e d is immunity. Article 2(2) o f t h e D r a f t A r t i c l e s

particularly

i m p o r t a n t because i t g i v e s prominence t o

t h e purpose t e s t as f o l l o w s :
" I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a c o n t r a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n i s a ' c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n ' under p a r a g r a p h 1 ( C ) , r e f e r e n c e s h o u l d be made p r i m a r i l y t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n t r a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t i t s p u r p o s e s h o u l d a l s o be t a k e n i n t o account i f , i n t h e p r a c t i c e of the s t a t e which i s a party t o i t , t h a t p u r p o s e i s r e l e v a n t t o d e t e r m i n i n g t h e noncommercial c h a r a c t e r of the contract or t r a n s a c t i o n . "

A r t i c l e 7 ( 2 ) i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t because i t r e s o l v e s one o f the controversial issues regarding the exercise as of

jurisdiction

gua lex voluntatis.

I t reads

follows:

"Agreement by a s t a t e f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n another

o f t h e law o f

s t a t e s h a l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d as consent t o t h e 491

exercise state." It

of jurisdiction

by

the courts

of that

other

i s c l e a r t h a t t h e c u r r e n t law o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y i s exactly where t h e change i s are modulating their

changing b u t i t i s hard t o t e l l taking us.

Thus although some c o u n t r i e s on t h e s a i d

13

positions

subject

m a t t e r , however, s t a t e

practice

seemed n o t u n i f o r m . transaction and

For example, t h e meaning o f commercial authority undoubtedly opens a

sovereign

Pandora's box o f d i f f i c u l t i e s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s , hence t h e r e i s the need f o r more c l a r i f i c a t i o n and e l u c i d a t i o n o f t h e s e terms. The distinction between jure imperii and jure gestionis, is gaining follow state words,

although grounds

predicated and

on q u e s t i o n a b l e quite

assumptions, states liability

i t i s now immunity

clear

could under

restrictive

without

incurring

responsibility

i n general i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

I n other

s t a t e s would n o t i n c u r any l e g a l claims whatsoever by r e s o r t i n g t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. True, gradually Western truly into restrictive immunity or relative immunity is

becoming w e l l grounded i n t h e p r a c t i c e industrial countries. And t h e q u e s t i o n

o f states i n t h a t must be

g r a p p l e d w i t h i s whether t h e s a i d r u l e has c r y s t a l l i s e d customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. As a l r e a d y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s formed when stated elsewhere, by

customary

usus i s a i d e d

opinio juris sive necessitatis, so i n essence t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity

1 3

doctrine

lacks

usus

and t h e r e f o r e

has

n o t as y e t

I b i d . , 43rd sess., Suppl No. 10 (A/43/10 pp. 258-9, paras 398-503, e t c . 492

attained is

the status

o f opinio generalis juris generalis. international state law i s formed practice

This

so because

a new

or created that

p r o v i d e d t h e r e i s no w e i g h t y conflicts with it.

1 4

i n existence

Perhaps one c o u l d argue t h a t

restrictive

immunity w i t h o u t doubt i s an emerging r u l e which i n t h e f u t u r e may be accepted by some s t a t e s , b u t as o f now, t h e b e s t t h a t can be it s a i d about r e s t r i c t i v e immunity o r r e l a t i v e immunity i s t h a t has perhaps c r y s t a l l i s e d i n t o a r e g i o n a l custom because i n

r e a l i t y i t appears t o l a c k u n i f o r m i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y o f general practice.

1 5

Absolute

immunity

therefore

survived

with

some

e x c e p t i o n s , l e s s grounded i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s and t h i s has so f a r c r e a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n l i t i g a t i o n . A Look a t C u r r e n t S t a t e One p e r t i n e n t Practice o f A r t i c l e 38 o f t h e S t a t u t e of

provision

the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o u r t o f J u s t i c e , or apply, reads t h u s :

which t h e c o u r t must f o l l o w

" I n t e r n a t i o n a l custom, as evidence o f a

16

g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e a c c e p t e d as l a w . " Professor postulated that Brierly in

explaining

what

is

practice

"What i s sought

f o r i s a general as o b l i g a t o r y " ; argued that

1 7

recognition and Judge "Customary

among s t a t e s Read,
1 4

of a certain practice the Fisheries case,

in

Villinger,

op. c i t . , pp. 1-65; M. Akehurst, op. c i t . , p.

53. B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , p. 330; Schreuer, State ImmunitySome Recent Development (1988) .

16 15

See A r t i c l e 3 8 ( l ) b o f t h e S t a t u t e B r i e r l y , op. c i t . , p. 6 1 . 493

o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court.

1 7

international states. " The

18

law

is

the

generalization

of

the

practice

of

explanation

offered

by

these

scholars

undoubtedly

proves t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between custom and p r a c t i c e . Thus practice must ex hypothesi be constant and uniformly has Thus to an in

grounded

i n o r d e r t o a i d the f o r m a t i o n o f custom

and t h i s
19

been c l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d and supported i n the Asylum Case. arguably where states no vigorously give their be support

international

rule,

difficulties

would

encountered

p r o v i n g t h e g e n e r a l acceptance o f the s a i d r u l e . cases one i s bound t o encounter d i f f i c u l t i e s

But i n c e r t a i n and that is i f

t h e r e i s no c l e a r c u t evidence r e s p e c t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r u l e , i n which case i t would be expedient t o i n f e r consent from a s t a t e ' s conduct, i t s f a i l u r e t o r e a c t or p r o t e s t and i t s acquiescence i n a given r u l e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o s t r e s s t h a t b o t h custom and

p r a c t i c e do i n t h e main compliment each o t h e r and t h i s i s w e l l expressed in Article 38(1) (b) of the Statute of the

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court o f J u s t i c e . Today, no one can say w i t h much candour or e x a c t i t u d e as

t o whether t h e r e i s usus r e s p e c t i n g t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Although t h e Tate letter touched on the changing

scope o f s t a t e immunity, however, the evidence t h e r e i n s u b m i t t e d seemed absolute

18

quite

limited

as

t o prompt

momentous
20

change

from

immunity

to restrictive (1951), 191. (1950) .

immunity.

I n recent times

See ICJ Reports See ICJ Reports

19

20

F o r a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s , see The Tate L e t t e r o f 1952 494

which

municipal respect America, Austria,

courts

have

handed

down

conflicting over Italy, The

decisions

in

of exercising j u r i s d i c t i o n U.K., Holland Germany, and France,

sovereign Canada, courts

states i n Australia, in these

South

Africa.

c o u n t r i e s , i t would appear, f o l l o w t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity a t one t i m e and a b s o l u t e immunity a t o t h e r t i m e s , w h i l e scholars t o some e x t e n t have been c a u t i o u s and perhaps h e s i t a n t to emphatically state the c u r r e n t t r e n d of state p r a c t i c e i n immunity. A c a r e f u l review o f t h e law, and

respect o f r e s t r i c t i v e

however, shows t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s i s q u i t e scanty conflicting. International that And Law comments o r r e p l i e s

o f governments t o t h e indicate and t h e

Commission's q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c l e a r l y between the r e s t r i c t i v e

21

t h e divergence

school

absolute school

i s f a r from over. that

Dr. Schreuer i n h i s book,

f o r example, concluded be said that

"from a g e n e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e i t can of restrictive practically immunity has been from it."

2 2

the doctrine

strengthened

t o a p o i n t where

a l l countries

which any s u b s t a n t i v e m a t e r i a l i s a v a i l a b l e have embraced Dr. Schreuer appears t o have exaggerated for his conclusion does not

the current trend of fully Law reflect the

23

events,

proceedings

and r e p o r t s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Commission,

i s quoted i n t h i s study i n Chapter Four. See g e n e r a l l y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission Report on State Immunity 1978-1988; 1988-1990.
22 21

Schreuer, op. c i t . , p. 168. Schreuer, op. c i t . , p. 168. 495

23

the current regarding

s t a t e p r a c t i c e and perhaps t h e behaviour o f s t a t e s

the subject.

Judge Jennings and S i r Watts also argued t h a t "Most s t a t e s have now abandoned o r are i n t h e process o f abandoning t h e r u l e of absolute immunity."
24

Again such a statement seems

overly

o p t i m i s t i c and arguably n o t i n l i n e w i t h s t a t e p r a c t i c e and t h a t of Prof. B r o w n l i e ' s p o s i t i o n , when he argued t h a t t h e r e is a

p e r s i s t e n t divergence between t h e adherence o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f restrictive Professor immunity and t h a t o f absolute Jennings and h i s c o - e d i t o r were immunity.
25

Unless to the

referring

p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l i s e d world, which forms l e s s t h a n o n e - t h i r d o f t h e t o t a l number o f c o u n t r i e s Quite respect Western apart from this, although the practice i n the world. of states i n

of restrictive states,

immunity seemed t o f i n d favour w i t h some terms, however, one i s h e s i t a n t t o

i n real

conclude t h a t t h e s a i d d o c t r i n e has become w e l l grounded i n t h e practice o f the majority o f states as t o prompt any a c c u r a t e

p o s t u l a t i o n o f i t s g e n e r a l acceptance on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e or i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l community. For example, t h e group o f

77, as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , i n recent years have mounted o p p o s i t i o n against t h e attempt by some s t a t e s t o increase the purported

e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e r u l e o f s t a t e immunity.

Mr.

0ppenheim, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (EDs) by Judge Jennings and Watts (1992) p. 357.

25

24

See B r o w n l i e ,

op. c i t . , p. 330. 496

Some Evidence o f S t a t e P r a c t i c e European State P r a c t i c e (1) These eight countries have ratified t h e European

Convention (1972). Countries i n Europe Austria Belgium Cyprus Germany Luxembourg The Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom

R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity

Portugal has signed t h e t r e a t y b u t has n o t as y e t r a t i f i e d the Convention. The a d d i t i o n a l p r o t o c o l had been r a t i f i e d by A u s t r i a , Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Switzerland. Germany signed t h e p r o t o c o l , b u t has n o t as y e t r a t i f i e d i t . P o r t u g a l a l s o f a l l s i n t o t h i s group. The Dutch, I t a l i a n s , t h e French and t h e Swiss have developed a r i c h s t o r e o f j u r i s p r u d e n c e on r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Only few s t a t e s on t h e C o n t i n e n t have so f a r r a t i f i e d t h e Convention. SOURCE: See Oppenheim's I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, page 343, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e f o o t n o t e s . 9 t h Ed., V o l . 1,

497

(2) Restrictive

Countries with Immunity Countries

a National Legislation

i n Respect o f

L e g i s l a t i o n and Dates Passed i n 1976 Passed i n 1978 Passed i n 1979 Passed i n 1981 Passed i n 1981 Passed i n 1982 Passed i n 1985

U.S.A. U.K. Singapore Pakistan South A f r i c a Canada Australia

These countries have incorporated into national l e g i s l a t i o n the r e s t r i c t i v e doctrine, thus i n t r o d u c i n g some i m p o r t a n t e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e a b s o l u t e immunity r u l e . One i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s t h a t t h e essence o f customary law i s opinio generalis juris generalis o f sovereign states. The above p o s i t i o n i s supported by A r t i c l e 3 8 ( l ) b S t a t u t e o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court o f J u s t i c e . of the

The various national l e g i s l a t i o n i n place c o u l d be designated as r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e opinio individualis juris generalis o f each o f t h e s t a t e s l i s t e d above, b u t i n r e a l i t y do not represent general international law o r customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. The v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s enacted i n t h e USA, UK, Singapore, P a k i s t a n , South A f r i c a , Canada and A u s t r a l i a s i m p l y show how i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s understood i n these c o u n t r i e s and t h e r e f o r e such p r o v i s i o n s cannot be imposed on t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l community a t l a r g e , because i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s h o r i z o n t a l i n structure. SOURCE: See t h e v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s i n I n t Leg M a t e r i a l s 8 ILM 21 (1982), ILM 25 (1986), ILM 23 (1984).

498

(3)

These Countries a l s o Follow t h e R e s t r i c t i v e D o c t r i n e Sovereign Countries Following R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity

Barbados Chile Finland Iceland Mexico Norway Madagascar Qatar Surinam Togo Yugoslavia Egypt South A f r i c a (former)

Argentina Liberia* Romania Peru Denmark Estonia Austria Belgium Canada France Holland Spain

War.

*Seemed t o f o l l o w t h e American approach b e f o r e But i t s p o s i t i o n i s obscure as o f now.

the C i v i l

Some o f t h e above l i s t e d c o u n t r i e s a r e e i t h e r i m i t a t i n g the l e a d i n g i n d u s t r i a l i s e d c o u n t r i e s o r may have been i n f l u e n c e d by t h e opinio individualis juris generalis o f Belgium, I t a l y , UK and t h e USA as regards t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. Opinio juris generalis may be c r e a t e d eo instanti as regards t h e r e d u c t i o n o f nuclear weapons between super powers b u t n o t i n r e s p e c t o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity, e.g., i n m a t t e r s r e s p e c t i n g t h e s u r v i v a l o f t h e u n i v e r s e and c e r t a i n d e l i c a t e and s e n s i t i v e issues. I n o t h e r words, droit spontane i s formed o n l y w i t h t h e a i d o f opinio juris, w i t h o u t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l requirement o f state practice. Some s c h o l a r s , however, have t a k e n i s s u e w i t h the above s t a t e d process. The present w r i t e r i s i n d e b t e d t o Judge Ago and Professor Bin Chen f o r t h e i r l e a r n e d w r i t i n g s on i n s t a n t customary law o r droit spontane.

499

(4)

These C o u n t r i e s S t i l l Follow A b s o l u t e Immunity

Sovereign Countries Following Absolute Immunity Brazil Bulgaria* China Czechoslovakia (former) Ecuador Hungary Japan Poland Nigeria Syria Spain* Thailand T r i n i d a d and Tobago Russia Venezuela Burma* Philippines* Tunisia* Libya Sudan Zambia Ukraine Ghana S i e r r a Leone Gambia* Cameroon* Iran Iraq Mozambique Portugal Tanzania Indonesia

*The p o s i t i o n o f t h e above c o u n t r i e s seemed obscure b u t would r a t h e r p r e f e r a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y . Russia seemed t o be moving towards a market economy b u t i t s p o s i t i o n on sovereign immunity appears more i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t i n g t h e m o d a l i t i e s o f s t a t e immunity, i . e . , t h e o l d o r d e r .
26

*Ukraine q u i t e r e c e n t l y has argued f o r c e f u l l y t h a t i t be g r a n t e d i m m u n i t y b e f o r e E n g l i s h c o u r t s , and i t appears some o f t h e former S o v i e t r e p u b l i c s would r a t h e r p r e f e r t h a t t h e o l d o r d e r be m a i n t a i n e d . * B u l g a r i a r e c e n t l y opposed t h e purpose t h e p a s t i t d i d s u p p o r t s t a t e immunity. test although i n

26

See I n t . Law Commission's Report 1978-1988. 500

(5)

State Practice

i nAfrica I s Limited

Countries Favouring R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity i n A f r i c a North A f r i c a Southern p a r t o f A f r i c a An A f r i c a n Island Egypt South A f r i c a * Madagascar Lesotho Togo

Southern P a r t o f A f r i c a West A f r i c a

*Has n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n on s o v e r e i g n immunity. And i t i s t h e o n l y country i n A f r i c a so f a r t o jump on t h e l e g i s l a t i v e bandwagon. *The r e s t o f A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s would r a t h e r p r e f e r t h a t a b s o l u t e immunity be maintained. A good example i s h e r e w i t h p r o v i d e d below, e.g., t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's proceedings r e l a t i n g t o t h e d r a f t a r t i c l e s i s a good evidence t o a t t e s t t o t h e f a c t t h a t T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s and t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s have t h r o u g h i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n c h a l l e n g e d t h e l e g a l b a s i s o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. (19801988) ILC Report. *This i s even more so because A f r i c a n b e l i e v e i n EXTERNAL and INTERNAL NATIONALISM. countries still

*Very few A f r i c a n s t a t e s have had t h e chance t o c o n s i d e r the issues r e l a t i n g t o r e s t r i c t i v e immunity l o c a l l y . *Hence s t a t e p r a c t i c e may be determined f r o m c l a i m s made b e f o r e f o r e i g n c o u r t s and d e c l a r a t i o n s made b e f o r e t h e OAU and i n t e r n a t i o n a l bodies. * I was able t o compile t h i s data by exchanging l e t t e r s w i t h 350 students I met a t t h e Hague Academy o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law i n t h e summer o f 1997.

501

(6)

French-Speaking Countries Countries

in Africa Restrictive Immunity Position Obscure

State Immunity
X X

Algeria Benin Burkina Cameroon Senegal Madagascar Mali Mauritania Morocco Niger Central A f r i c a n Republic Djibouti Togo Gabon Guinea I v o r y Coast Chad Camoros Congo Tunisia Faso

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

*These c o u n t r i e s have a p r o m o b i l i s e d a u t h o r i t a r i a n or democratic p o l i t i c a l systems and t h e i r d e c l a r a t i o n s before the OAU i n d i c a t e a w e l l grounded support i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a b s o l u t e s o v e r e i g n immunity f o r t h e r e i s no evidence o f p r a c t i c e i n these c o u n t r i e s r e s p e c t i n g r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

502

(7)

English-Speaking Countries o f A f r i c a State Immunity Restrictive Immunity Position Obscure

Countries

Ghana Nigeria S i e r r a Leone Botswana Egypt Malawi Kenya Gambia Lesotho Sudan Swaziland South A f r i c a

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Has a legislation i n place. Uganda Tanzania Zambia Z imbabwe Mauricius Seychelles

X X X X X X

But f o l l o w e d absolute immunity u n t i l 1981.

*These c o u n t r i e s have a p r e m o b i l i s e d a u t h o r i t a r i a n o r democratic p o l i t i c a l systems and t h e r e f o r e s t e a d f a s t l y b e l i e v e i n i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l n a t i o n a l i s m . *This means t h a t t h e above l i s t e d c o u n t r i e s would n o t submit t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f f o r e i g n c o u r t s w i t h o u t a f i g h t , i . e . , a r g u i n g as o f r i g h t t h a t they be accorded immunity. ZimbabweIts t e s t i n 1983. Supreme Court fully supported the nature

503

(8)

Other C o u n t r i e s i n A f r i c a S t a t e Immunity Restrictive Immunity Position Obscure

Country

Spanish Sahara Spanish Guinea Angola Cape Verde Guinea Bissaau Mozambique Republic o f Congo Rwanda Burundi Somalia

X X X X X X X

X X

F o l l o w e d s t a t e immunity b e f o r e t h e C i v i l War. There i s , however, no government i n Somalia a t the moment.

X

Libya

*There i s no e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r a c t i c e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i n t h e c o u n t r i e s l i s t e d above. But t h e f a c t t h a t these c o u n t r i e s have p r o m o b i l i s e d a u t h o r i t a r i a n o r democratic systems shows a c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e f o r a b s o l u t e immunity.

504

(9)

L a t i n American

Countries Restrictive Immunity Position Obscure

Country

State Immunity

Ecuador Brazil Mexico E n g l i s h Guyana French Guyana Guatemala E l Salvador Costa Rica Panama Nicaragua Honduras Venezuela Colombia Peru Surinam Chile Argentina Uruguay Paraguay

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

* L a t i n American c o u n t r i e s would l i k e t o have s t a t e immunity p r e s e r v e d except those few c o u n t r i e s w i t h low subsystem autonomy l i k e Mexico, A r g e n t i n a , e t c . , ready t o i m i t a t e l e a d i n g i n d u s t r i a l i s e d c o u n t r i e s such as t h e USA and t h e UK, i n respect o f t h e momentous l e g i s l a t i v e changes t h a t were made i n t h e said leading i n d u s t r i a l i s e d countries. L a t i n American c o u n t r i e s have from the o u t s e t expressed opinio non juris a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. And those sued i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s have a l s o r e s i s t e d the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s , a r g u i n g t h a t they be accorded immunity, which according t o them i s t h e accepted norm.

505

(10) Country Cuba Jamaica

Caribbean C o u n t r i e s o r West I n d i e s State Immunity

X

Restrictive Immunity

P o s i t i o n Obscure

x But i n t h e past followed sovereign immunity x x

X

Bahamas Haiti Dominican Republic St. K i t t s Nevis Martinique St. St. Lucia Vincent
X X

X X X

Grenada T r i n i d a d and Tobago Barbados Dominica Guadeloupe Antigua and Barbuda Virgin Islands Puerto Rico Bermuda

X X X X

X X

The above l i s t o f d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s has n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t a t e immunity c o n t r o v e r s y l o c a l l y b u t evidence f o r t h c o m i n g shows c l e a r l y t h a t a l l these c o u n t r i e s e i t h e r have p r o m o b i l i s e d a u t h o r i t a r i a n or promobilised democratic p o l i t i c a l systems. V i r g i n I s l a n d s and Puerto Rico f o l l o w t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity because U.S.A. f o l l o w s t h e same p r i n c i p l e . Bermuda a l s o f o l l o w s r e s t r i c t i v e immunity because t h e U.K. has a l e g i s l a t i o n on r e s t r i c t i v e immunity.

506

(11)

The P o s i t i o n o f Other S t a t e s :

Country

State Immunity

Restrictive Immunity

Position Obscure

India

J o i n t h e group o f 77 t o oppose r e s t r i c t i v e immunity South Korea N o r t h Korea Turkey Saudi A r a b i a Sweden Lebanon
X X X X X

I t s courts have followed restrictive immunity

X X X X X

Bangladesh Kuwait Israel Jordan U n i t e d Arab Emirates Afghanistan Vietnam Malaysia

X X

I t s courts have followed the nature t e s t I t s c o u r t s have f o l l o w e d sovereign immunity

X X

Ireland

Byelorussia New Zealand

507

Some

Thoughts

on

the

Asian-African

Legal

Consultative

Committee's Report The considered in up Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee in 1960

the c e n t r a l issue r e l a t i n g t o t h e immunity o f s t a t e s The Committee was made

respect of commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s .

o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f such c o u n t r i e s as Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, The Pakistan,

Burma, Ceylon, the on and

India, United

Sudan, S y r i a and the Committee

Arab Republic.

final of

report of commercial

Immunity of States o t h e r matters as revised

i n respect

transactions

r e l a t i n g t o t r a n s a c t i o n s of a p r i v a t e character, the third session, held between January and

in

February 1960

i n Colombo, w i t h I n d o n e s i a

as t h e o n l y d i s s e n t e r

i n support of absolute immunity, f e l l s h o r t o f recommending t h a t states should subscribe to a multilateral treaty, which they

considered as premature a t t h a t t i m e . The Committee was enlarged in 1958 to include African and role

s t a t e s , since i t was

e x c l u s i v e l y an A s i a n Committee i n 1956,

so f a r these c o u n t r i e s have been a b l e t o p l a y an i m p o r t a n t i n promoting the development o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . One aspect of the Asian-African Legal
27

Consultative study

Committee r e p o r t which i s o f immediate importance t o t h i s can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s :

"(8) I t was recognised by a l l d e l e g a t i o n s t h a t a decree obtained a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n s t a t e c o u l d not be executed a g a i n s t its public property. The property of a state trading o r g a n i s a t i o n which has a separate j u r i s t i c e n t i t y may, however, be a v a i l a b l e f o r e x e c u t i o n .

See T.O. pp. 21-30.

27

E l i a s , New

H o r i z o n s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law

(1979)

508

(9) The Committee having taken the view of a l l the d e l e g a t i o n s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n decided t o recommend as f o l l o w s : (10) The state trading o r g a n i s a t i o n s which have a s e p a r a t e j u r i s t i c e n t i t y under t h e m u n i c i p a l laws of the c o u n t r y where t h e y are i n c o r p o r a t e d should not be e n t i t l e d t o immunity of t h e s t a t e i n respect o f any o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s i n a f o r e i g n state. Such o r g a n i s a t i o n s and t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o u l d be sued i n t h e m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s o f a f o r e i g n s t a t e i n respect o f t h e i r t r a n s a c t i o n s or a c t i v i t i e s i n these s t a t e s . (11) A s t a t e which e n t e r s i n t o transactions of a commercial or p r i v a t e c h a r a c t e r ought not t o r a i s e the p l e a o f s o v e r e i g n immunity i f sued i n t h e c o u r t s o f a f o r e i g n s t a t e i n r e s p e c t o f such t r a n s a c t i o n s . I f t h e p l e a o f immunity i s r a i s e d i t s h o u l d not be a d m i s s i b l e t o d e p r i v e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e domestic c o u r t s . "
2 8

But

the

question is what

to

ask

respecting must be

the used in

above the how

recommendations

yardstick

determination of the a c t i v i t i e s

o f t h e sovereign s t a t e and

are t h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s t a t e and j u r i s t i c organs be determined? These are complicated issues because states

d i f f e r i n t h e i r needs and i n t e r e s t and secondly, i t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f these j u r i s t i c organs i s d e r i v e d from local constitutional and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e laws which may t h e r e f o r e i t would not be issues as regards differ helpful their

from c o u n t r y t o c o u n t r y , and to simply g e n e r a l i s e on authority.

such d e l i c a t e

s t a t u s and In one

o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sent t o the delegates

of the

Committee, t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s were p o s i t e d :
Q(3) "Do you agree w i t h the view expressed by some t h a t a s t a t e by e n t e r i n g i n t o t r a d e assumes the r o l e o f a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l , and i n respect o f such t r a n s a c t i o n s i t s waiver o f immunity should be presumed?"

In

reply:

See A s i a n - A f r i c a n Legal C o n s u l t a t i v e T h i r d Session, Colombo (1960) pp. 72-73.

509

28

Committee

Report,

"Japan and t h e U.A.R. answered t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . Iraq d i d n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e s t a t e assumed t h e r o l e o f a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l by e n t e r i n g i n t o trade o r o t h e r p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s ; t h e s t a t e remained a p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y r e g a r d l e s s o f what a c t i v i t y i t e n t e r e d i n t o . Ceylon and I n d i a agreed w i t h I r a q . Burma d i d n o t t h i n k t h a t any presumption would a r i s e . " Q(4) "Has your government e i t h e r i n i t s p r a c t i c e o r i n any d e c l a r a t i o n o f p o l i c y made i t s p o s i t i o n known on t h i s q u e s t i o n , i . e . , whether i t regards the d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n immunity as a b s o l u t e o r s u b j e c t t o limitations?"

In reply:
" I r a q , Burma, Indonesia and Japan s a i d t h e i r governments had n o t d e c l a r e d t h e i r p o l i c y on t h i s m a t t e r . The U.A.R. s a i d t h a t though t h e r e was no o f f i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n , t h e t r e n d o f p r a c t i c e was t o l i m i t s t a t e immunity."

Under governmental a c t i v i t i e s o f a q u a s i - p u b l i c

character:

"Does your government engage i n t h e purchase o f m a t e r i a l s o r equipment i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s which a r e needed f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s , o r p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s o r f o r the maintenance o f food s u p p l i e s w i t h i n t h e c o u n t r y ? " " A l l delegations answered t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . "
2 9

The influenced English in

report

i n i t s e n t i r e t y appeared t o have been g r e a t l y and t h e j u r i s t i c writings of The r e p o r t

by European p r a c t i c e

and American p u b l i c i s t s on s t a t e immunity.

some respects d i d f o l l o w t h e m o d a l i t i e s

o f the doctrine of

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity, b u t f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a r o a d map as t o how t o d i s t i n g u i s h between commercial and non-commercial of s t a t e s . The r e p o r t also d i d not t e l l activities

us what r o l e t h e lex of the activities of

fori must play states.

i n the characterisation

I t simply suggested t h a t a s t a t e which e n t e r s i n t o a

commercial t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h a p r i v a t e t r a d e r ought n o t t o p l e a d for immunity. The s a i d limitation was presumed and w h o l l y

derived
2 9

from European and American p r a c t i c e .

The d e l e g a t e s ,

I b i d . a t p. 73.
510

however, recommended a g a i n s t t h e use o f enforcement

measures.

An o b j e c t i v e comparison o f t h e answers g i v e n by delegates t o t h e said q u e s t i o n n a i r e s appeared less reflective o f the f i n a l The r e p o r t thus

recommendation o f t h e AALCC i n many r e s p e c t s . mirrors t h e i m p o r t o f t h e Tate l e t t e r ,

which according t o t h e

d e l e g a t e s , s e r v e d as an i n s p i r a t i o n t o them. Although report t h e Asian-African immunity Legal Consultative cited Committee

on s t a t e

o f 1960 had been

i n numerous

l e g a l p e r i o d i c a l s over t h e years, as evidence o f p r a c t i c e o f t h e developing indeed, w o r l d i n r e s p e c t o f s o v e r e i g n immunity, some d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with there a r e the report

however,

b e i n g d e s i g n a t e d as t h e c u r r e n t evidence o f p r a c t i c e o f Asian and A f r i c a n very countries, i n view o f t h e f a c t were or that i n 1960 o n l y and f o r t h a t views

few c o u n t r i e s

i n Africa

independent, share

matter, expressed the

d i d not participate i n the report. cannot after

the original

Furthermore, t h e views expressed i n

report

be imposed on those c o u n t r i e s which became t h e r e p o r t was adopted. So i n essence t h e

independent

s a i d r e p o r t o r recommendations c o u l d o n l y be r e f e r r e d t o as an expression o f some countries totally limited i n value as

evidence o f p r a c t i c e o f a l l t h e c o u n t r i e s i n Asia and A f r i c a . In fact, the report adopted i s over thirty-eight Ceylon, India, years o l d and the

position

by Burma,

Indonesia,

Iraq,

Japan, P a k i s t a n , t h e Sudan, S y r i a and t h e U.A.R. have arguably metamorphosed over t h e years. of now t o c o r r e c t l y state I t i s t h e r e f o r e not t h a t easy as o f these c o u n t r i e s on The

the position

s t a t e immunity by u s i n g t h e AALCC r e p o r t as a y a r d s t i c k .
511

U.A.R., as i t may be r e c a l l e d , f o r example, broke early 1960s and Egypt went i t s way by f u l l y

up i n t h e

embracing t h e

r e s t r i c t i v e p r i n c i p l e , w h i l e Pakistan same principle by i n t r o d u c i n g

thereafter resorted t o the of restrictive

the doctrine

immunity i n t o i t s s t a t u t e book. the moment i s f a r from c l e a r immunity

The p o s i t i o n o f t h e AALCC a t on t h e i s s u e s relating to the

absolute

sovereign

controversy. countries

However, would like

i t would t o have

appear a g r e a t

number o f these

s t a t e immunity preserved.

Further R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e State o f t h e Law (1) Some S a l i e n t Issues The spite respect countries equity d o c t r i n e o f s t a t e immunity has a l o n g h i s t o r y , b u t i n h i s t o r y , there place is still uncertainty with Some

o f i t s long

t o i t s current

i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.

i n t h e Western w o r l d have f o r reasons o f j u s t i c e and business transactions threw their

i n transnational

support b e h i n d t h e r e s t r i c t i v e particularly American t h e developing and a l s o

immunity w h i l e o f Asia,

other Africa

countries, and L a t i n

world

countries,

Eastern

European

countries f o r planning f o r state

reasons o f s e l f - i n t e r e s t p e c u l i a r t o c e n t r a l economic and trade, have t r i e d t o advance t h e i r preferences

immunity i n o r d e r t o avoid being open t o s u i t . It i s t h e r e f o r e important t h a t a considerable s t a t e o f t h e law. c a u t i o n be T h i s i s so

taken i n assessing t h e c u r r e n t because decisions state practice

on t h e s u b j e c t

i s n o t s e t t l e d and

o f municipal

courts on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s t r i c t i v e
512

immunity

are not p a r t i c u l a r l y

thorough

and t h e problem i s

f u r t h e r exacerbated

by e q u i v o c a l and c o n f l i c t i n g judgments l e s s

r e f l e c t i v e o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Decisions important, do o f municipal play law. a And c o u r t s i n g e n e r a l , although q u i t e or less subordinate logical role in

more this

international international and customary

i s perfectly

because

law i s h o r i z o n t a l and thus r e g u l a t e d by t r e a t i e s law p r i n c i p l e s I n practice, quite different domestic from municipal

jurisprudence.

however,

law analogies

have i n f l u e n c e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. I n any event, t h e r e i s l e s s c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e d e c i s i o n s o f m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s because t h e lex fori d i f f e r created from country t o country and thus i n t h e main has

different

methods

i n the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of the
3 0

activities considerable

o f modern amount

states.

The

end r e s u l t

i s that

o f d i v e r g e n t d e c i s i o n s have been developed

t o such h e i g h t s as t o c r e a t e a penumbra o f doubt i n t h e c u r r e n t law and f o r t h a t m a t t e r , i n t h e r u l e o f r e s t r i c t i v e A review of the literature immunity.

on s t a t e immunity shows t h a t on t h e s u b j e c t have voice. their

3 1

some l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t i e s failed

who have w r i t t e n

t o speak w i t h c l e a r and unequivocal have spoken w i t h one v o i c e ,

Thus w h i l e counterparts

some s c h o l a r s

have on t h e o t h e r hand expressed s c e p t i c i s m and t h e r e f o r e have Oppenheimer, I n t e r n a t i o n a l 363; B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , p. 333.

3 1 30

Law, 9 t h Ed. (1992) pp. 362-

Sucharitkul, State Immunities and Trading Activities (1959); L i s s i t z y n i n Friedmann, Henkin and L i s s i t z y n (eds.), Essays i n Honour o f P h i l i p C. Jessup (1972); Molot and Jewett, 20 Canadian Year Book (1982) pp. 96-104; B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , pp. 322-345.
513

taken q u i t e

a d i f f e r e n t position.

This phenomenon i s n o t a t

a l l h e l p f u l and t h e r e f o r e authorities least

has given room o r reasons t o n a t i o n a l data n o t i n t h e For o b v i o u s of the

t o enact laws couched on n a t i o n a l

r e f l e c t i v e o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. i t i s submitted that because

reasons,

of the force

p r i n c i p l e o f e q u a l i t y o f s t a t e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, customary law cannot be c r e a t e d by some few s t a t e s by imposing t h e i r w i l l on others, but should rather be made through a careful

r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f t h e elements o f usus and opinio juris. So f a r t h e a t t e m p t by some m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n t h e Western world t o follow the doctrine of r e s t r i c t i v e immunity has met

w i t h d i f f i c u l t i e s and t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t modern judges have cavalierly relied on t h e preponderance,

support and w r i t i n g s o f some i n f l u e n t i a l s c h o l a r s i n r e s p e c t o f the d i s t i n c t i o n between acta jure gestionis and acta jure

imperii, w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b a s i c and s p e c i f i c principles respecting the said

underlying is

d i s t i n c t i o n , and whether i t

l o g i c a l l y grounded and supported by s t a t e p r a c t i c e and t h e r e f o r e reflective Partido, o f customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Lord Wilberforce offered a I n I Congreso d e l and helpful

plausible

e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e law thus:
"We do n o t need s t a t u t e t o make t h i s good. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e p r e c i s e l i m i t s of the d o c t r i n e were, as t h e voluminous m a t e r i a l p l a c e d a t our disposal w e l l shows, s t i l l i n course o f development and i n many respects u n c e r t a i n . I f one s t a t e chooses t o l a y down by enactment c e r t a i n l i m i t s , t h a t i s by i t s e l f no evidence t h a t those l i m i t s are g e n e r a l l y accepted by states. And p a r t i c u l a r l y enacted l i m i t s may be ( o r presumed t o be) n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h general i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w t h e l a t t e r

F i t z m a u r i c e 1933 14 BYIL; O'Connell, op. c i t .

514

being i n a s t a t e o f u n c e r t a i n t y w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g evidence t h a t law i s . "

3 3

what

The t h r u s t and f o r c e o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e s a i d judgment i s generally law. i n line with the principles of public international

I t t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l l y answers t h e t r i c k y q u e s t i o n and immunity simply

confusion s u r r o u n d i n g t h e c u r r e n t p l a c e o f r e s t r i c t i v e and national legislation i n international law. Which

means t h a t t h e enactment o f t h e b a s i c u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f restrictive place immunity into the various national o r supported by s t a t e legislation i n p r a c t i c e and international

are n o t c o n c l u s i v e

therefore law.
34

do n o t command t h e s u p p o r t

of general

I t must be s t a t e d c l e a r l y , however, t h a t i n t h e I Congreso d e l P a r t i d o , which a d m i t t e d l y was a c o m p l i c a t e d case, t h e Law

Lords were c a n d i d t o say t h a t t h e y had d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t a c k l i n g the issue r e l a t e d t o t h e Marble I s l a n d s , and t h i s i s a r g u a b l y so in view of the fact by their that own t h e Law Lords were f o r c e d t o go an cheerful intentions to rely on an

extra

mile

emerging r u l e , i . e . , r e s t r i c t i v e immunity which i s cumbersome o f d e f i n i t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n . I n Trendtex, an e a r l i e r case, which was l i t i g a t e d before

the Court o f Appeals, L o r d Denning and h i s colleagues were a l s o taken t o task f o r t r y i n g t o determine whether based upon t h e

3 3

I Legal Reports

64 1988 p. 311.

See t h e judgment o f L o r d W i l b e r f o r c e : ILR, 64 (1983); McElhinney v. W i l l i a m s and Her Majesty's S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r Northern I r e l a n d , I r e l a n d Supreme Court, 15 Dec. (1995) per Hamilton CJ.
515

34

nature Federal

test

o f a t r a n s n a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n , an agency o f t h e o f Nigeria, i . e , the Central i n respect Bank, c o u l d be

Republic immunity

accorded

of i t s a c t i v i t i e s

i n importing

cement i n t o t h e s a i d c o u n t r y . The c o u r t r a t i o n a l i s e d d o c t r i n e , case law qua t h e changing scope o f sovereign nature of t h e commercial transaction t o give immunity and t h e to deny

i n question

immunity t o N i g e r i a , b u t f a i l e d

c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g as

reasons why t h e C e n t r a l Bank be c h a r a c t e r i s e d o r d e s i g n a t e d an independent j u r i s t i c organ. The judgment found

favour w i t h

some, however, o t h e r s s t i l l

remain d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e p r i m a r y

i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a t u s o f t h e C e n t r a l Bank and whether t h e i n t e r i m Mareva i n j u n c t i o n d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e removal o f funds from t h e forum s t a t e , i . e . , England, was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h g e n e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. The answer i s simply no, f o r such a d e c i s i o n was c o n t r a r y t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l course, state law, however, much depends, o f because

upon t h e data b e f o r e t h e lex fori and secondly practice i s s t i l l of this

e v o l v i n g and n o t y e t w e l l s e t t l e d i n While Shaw LJ thought t h e

respect

area o f t h e law.

enforcement measure was i n order and t h e r e f o r e d e r i v a t i v e o f t h e suit, Stephenson he LJ, had on t h e other the hand, voiced out the saisie

difficulties

with

issue

concerning

conservatoire, b u t never thus

dissented

on t h e Mareva

injunction,

l e a v i n g on r e c o r d o n l y h i s w e l l reasoned r e s e r v a t i o n s i n

r e s p e c t o f t h e argument p o s i t e d by Lord Denning t h a t t h e r e had been a change i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and t h a t i t be r e c e i v e d E n g l i s h law. into

516

The

difficulties

regarding

political

subdivisions

and

s t a t e agencies s t i l l of these state

remain f o r t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n s appear undoubtedly obscure under

instrumentalities that these and these

coupled w i t h t h e f a c t different important concurrent economic, to note

s t a t e agencies legal state systems. agencies

operate

social that

I t i s also do perform

functions

covering

both

political

and

commercial

p o l i c i e s d i r e c t l y c o n t r o l l e d f r o m t h e t o p by p o l i c y makers and government t e c h n o c r a t s . So i n most cases, the functions of

these p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e i n t e r t w i n e d and thus c o u l d g i v e mixed and c o n f l i c t i n g s i g n a l s as t o t h e r e a l scope o f commercial or p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e agencies. The c u r r e n t law i s

based on unexamined assumptions

and a p r i o r i g e n e r a l i s a t i o n s and t o resolving could be

t h e r e f o r e does n o t p r o v i d e any c o n s i s t e n t approach these intractable problems. Perhaps

t h e problem

contained i f t h e s t a t u s o f these p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s o r s t a t e agencies national status. The judgment I r a q i Airways,

35

i s deemphasised

and

reference lawto

i s made

respecting their legal

law and comparative

determine

i n t h e r e c e n t case o f Kuwait Airways Corp. v.

f o r example, l e a v e s much t o be d e s i r e d because

although t h e use o f f o r c e by I r a q i n i t s e l f was a v i o l a t i o n o f the peremptory norms o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, nonetheless i t was

acta jure imperii and t h e acta jure gestionis argument advanced by t h e c o u r t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e judgment a l t h o u g h may f i n d f a v o u r

(1995) 1 WLR 1147 House o f L o r d s .

517

with

some,

lacks seas state

logical

foundation

and thus

may l e a d us i n t o by a The

uncharted sovereign wrongful was Lord of

of l e g a l acta

contradictions. gestionis?

I s aggression Certainly with no.

jure

i n t e r f e r e n c e by t h e f i r s t

defendant

the a i r c r a f t discounted.

an i n c i d e n t a l

c o m m e r c i a l element which must be

S l y n n must t h e r e f o r e be commended f o r t h e r e i s an element reasonableness i n h i s reasoning. Bank v. I n the French des case of

Cameroon's Robber,
36

Development

Souete

Establissement

t h e t r a n s a c t i o n w h i c h f e l l t o be

considered involved a institution, in

guarantee respect for

d u l y g i v e n by a s t a t e owned f i n a n c i a l

of b i l l s

o f exchange drawn by t h e R e p u b l i c o f Cameroon, of s e c u r i n g or i n s u r i n g c r e d i t f o r the

t h e main

purpose

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a p u b l i c h o s p i t a l i n Yaounde. for v i o l a t i n g t h e agreement.

The bank was sued

The bank i n t u r n argued t h a t b e i n g The c o u r t by and

a governmental e n t i t y , following thus of the nature

i t c o u l d not be impleaded. test ruled that

i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n

overlooked

the f a c t

t h a t t h e guarantee f o r a p u b l i c works

was made on b e h a l f contract. This i s

the said

government

another result. which

example where

the nature

test

produced

an u n d e s i r a b l e

The c o u r t s h o u l d

have c o n s i d e r e d t h e whole c o n t e x t i n the l e g a l

t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e bank was made v i s - a - v i s

p o s i t i o n o f t h e R e p u b l i c o f Cameroon i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w .

3 6

(1988)

77 I L R e p o r t s p. 37.

578

State and

Immunity and t h e C o n t r o v e r s y Reserves of i s s u e s

over

Embassy

Bank

Accounts

Foreign In

respect

r e l a t i n g to execution forcee,

o f judgments

against the

state property, of

i . e . , execution of

i t would appear i n Hispanio particularly courts in until I t is

seizure

the a s s e t s

the Central Bank

Bank
3 7

Americano M e r c a n t i l the mareva

v. C e n t r a l

of Nigeria, by

injunction t h e removal

sanctioned o f funds

English

restraining further

from

the j u r i s d i c t i o n international.

notice

was c o n t r a r y

to general

i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t execution

immunity from

jurisdiction

o r s u i t s and

a g a i n s t s t a t e p r o p e r t y a r e two d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s o f t h e and t h e f a c t t h a t judicial can authority be taken jurisdiction h a s been p r o c u r e d a decision of the light

l e g a l process, by a national

does n o t mean t h a t without the

execution

forcee

consent

defendant's s t a t e . is

The main q u e s t i o n measures could

to consider

i n this

whether enforcement of a

be d i r e c t e d i t s assets of a diplomatic

against the specifically mission. on r e c o r d lacks

property designated The

state,

including functions

for the o f f i c i a l majority opinion

s a y s no, b u t some c o u n t r i e s i n acceding

have been q u i t e

adamant

t o a p r a c t i c e which

usus, where immunity i s d e n i e d t o s o v e r e i g n their assets. E.g., N i g e r i a , Guinea

s t a t e s i n respect of have been

and T a n z a n i a

s u b j e c t e d t o such a c t i o n s i n t h e U.S. The forcee underlying question relating, however, to execution Embassy

was

thoroughly

considered

i n the Philippine

Hispano

(1979) 2 L l o y d s

Report 277. 519

case.

3 8

There order

the

plaintiff

obtained Court of

an

attachment

and

assignment against at the the

from the

District i n the for

Bonn

(Amtsgericht)

bank a c c o u n t h e l d Bank of Bonn

name of P h i l i p p i n e Embassy arrears of rent and The repair account running in the

Deutsche

costs

e m a n a t i n g from a p u r p o r t e d t e n a n c y c o n t r a c t . p r e s u m a b l y was

in question of the

p a r t l y used f o r the e v e r y day The the Government said to the order of

Philippine an

Embassy. to

Philippines that of

turn

filed

objection was the not

arguing

attached courts running stayed of the

account that the

subject

jurisdiction

German the Bonn

and of the

a c c o u n t was

s p e c i f i c a l l y designated for The the District force Court of

Philippine i n the and

Embassy. light of

action Law

of A r t i c l e to the the

100(2), Federal issues

Basic

thus After ruled

referred a

the

matter

Constitutional i n the case,

Court. court

thorough a n a l y s i s of

the

that

"There existed a general rule of international law a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h f o r c e d e x e c u t i o n o f judgment by the s t a t e o f the forum u n d e r a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n s t a t e w h i c h had been i s s u e d i n r e s p e c t of n o n - s o v e r e i g n a c t s a c t a i u r e gestionis o f t h a t s t a t e , on p r o p e r t y of t h a t s t a t e which was p r e s e n t o r s i t u a t e d i n t h e t e r r i t o r y of the s t a t e of the forum was i n a d m i s s i b l e w i t h o u t the c o n s e n t of the f o r e i g n s t a t e i f , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f the measure of e x e c u t i o n , such p r o p e r t y s e r v e d s o v e r e i g n p u r p o s e s of t h e f o r e i g n s t a t e . Claims against a general c u r r e n t bank a c c o u n t o f the embassy of a f o r e i g n s t a t e w h i c h e x i s t e d i n the s t a t e o f the forum and the p u r p o s e s o f w h i c h was t o c o v e r the embassy's c o s t s and e x p e n s e s were n o t subject to forced e x e c u t i o n by the s t a t e of the forum."
39

The

court

f u r t h e r argued t h a t

3 8

I L R 65, Ibid., p.

146. 150. 520

3 9

"The precludes

principle
4 0

of i n t e r n a t i o n a l

l a w ne impediatur impair

legatio

such measures where t h e y

might

the e x e r c i s e of

diplomatic duties."

The principles measures.

court of

in

clear

terms law still

laid in

down respect

some of

important enforcement specific

international there

However,

remains

certain

difficulties which assets of

t h a t can be d e t e c t e d of t h e s t a t e

i n t h e judgment,

and t h a t i s a s immune general

can c l e a r l y purpose

be d e s i g n a t e d and court whether

because

i t s diplomatic law a l l o w s

international inquire

a municipal proportion

t o i n v e s t i g a t e or accounts used

i n t o the s p e c i f i c

o f embassy

f o r commercial purposes w i t h o u t or t h e r e g a l d i g n i t y o f s t a t e s . find from a workable other method

i n t e r f e r i n g with the sovereignty Certainly, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assets

by which used

to d e l i m i t diplomatic non-diplomatic

assets

for

purposes.

Furthermore, accounts and

i t would be an e x e r c i s e o f f u t i l i t y compartmentsone

t o group bank

into watertight

f o r immune p u r p o s e s general of the i n the

the other

f o r non-immune p u r p o s e s . law does n o t c o v e r these

Incidentally, sensitive areas

international

problem and t h e r e f o r e m u n i c i p a l gaps. deal And so f a r t h e a t t e m p t s with these elusive legal

courts are l e f t

to f i l l

made by n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s t o problems have failed to attract

the s u p p o r t

of s o v e r e i g n

states.

I b i d . , p. 186. A s i m i l a r approach seemed t o have been f o l l o w e d i n Foxworth v. Permanent M i s s i o n o f t h e Rep. o f Uganda t o t h e U.N. (ILR 99 p. 1 3 8 ) , U.S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t Southern D i s t r i c t o f N.Y. (1992); and i n T h i r d Ave. A s s o c i a t e s and Another (1993) I L R 99, p. 195. 521

The hypothesi v.

judgment displaced Bank

i n Alcorn the

and

the

P h i l i p p i n e Embassy case non-resident Nigeria's

ex

authority

i n the where

Petition plea for

Central

of

Nigeria

case,

immunity was centred foreign was on

r e j e c t e d , even though the main o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d was s e n s i t i v e i s s u e of avoiding execution against i t s said issue short, that it the be

the

reserves. out

I t would have been h e l p f u l i f the for an in-depth analysis. In plea

singled

district accorded whether Alcorn,

court

cavalierly and

rejected Nigeria's sidestepped meant for the

immunity foreign which to

thus are the

important

issue In

reserves to

immune a c t i v i t i e s . of the a bank

relates Colombian

attachment mission,

account Lords

belonging

diplomatic

House of

r u l e d t h a t a bank a c c o u n t o f a d i p l o m a t i c for a sovereign MR in a

4 1

mission

which i s used

p u r p o s e cannot be a t t a c h e d even though Donoldson court of appeal judgment restored the garnishee

prior The that are as

orders. clearly

judgment o f E n g l i s h c o u r t s and the far a way problems o f from of over.

German c o u r t s shows foreign be

embassy bank a c c o u n t s and Perhaps

reserves designated issues

a r b i t r a t i o n could

r e s o l v i n g these accounts

e l u s i v e problems, where be resolved without

respecting

embassy

can

c r e a t i n g any In the

p o l i t i c a l t e n s i o n s and absence on the of law,

resentments. executive and judiciary of state

legislative

pronouncements immunity can be

s t a t e p r a c t i c e i n respect

s e e n i n the c o n t e x t against foreign

of r e a c t i o n s to c l a i m s which s t a t e s i n domestic courts.

have been p r e f e r r e d

4 1

(1983) 3 WLR 906,

911. 522

The that

r e s i s t a n c e to t h e s e p r i v a t e c l a i m s immunity of be accorded

and a

the

quest i n pleading claim These or the

presupposes and

legal

balancing clothed are

conflicting interests

needs.

claims, law, of

i n l e g a l arguments c l e a r l y r e f l e c t i v e of practice and thus representative of

customary the position

state

the defendant s t a t e . respecting to be. state

Thus, to the d e f e n d a n t s t a t e , i t s p o s i t i o n international law is supposed

immunity i s how

I t would t a k e a l a w s u i t

to draw the

attention

of

sovereign submits that

s t a t e s to r e a c t to p r i v a t e c l a i m s . to the i t be to

Thus no

state simply

j u r i s d i c t i o n of another s t a t e w i t h o u t f i r s t p l e a d i n g a c c o r d e d immunity. the

42

Thus, a l t h o u g h some s t a t e s a r e w i l l i n g behind the restrictive immunity, submit since to

accept

rationale

however, to the

t h i s does not

n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t other states

t h e y would a fight

j u r i s d i c t i o n of

without

government l a w y e r s or explore the

i n t e r n a t i o n a l lawyers are usually matter, ago associated restrictive an

always ready with

loopholes and for that

national Dr. "The

legislation, Laurence

immunity. entitled

Collins of

some time the

wrote

article

Effectiveness in which he respect, state acta

R e s t r i c t i v e Theory of in on support the

Sovereign of the

Immunity," theory, of the

advanced arguments his position of the law thus

said

with

subject

i n view the

current between

was

premature b e c a u s e and acta jure

distinction is

jure

imperium

gestionis

Sinclair (1980 11) 167 Hague R e c u e i l ; Schreuer, State Immunity, Some Recent Developments (1988). The litigation between American C o u r t s , E n g l i s h courts, German c o u r t s and Canadian c o u r t s c o u l d be c i t e d as good e x a m p l e s . 523

4 2

fundamentally that away

flawed.

4 3

And

Dr. Badr's

t h e s i s which

concludes wither

s t a t e immunity i s a f i c t i o n i s non-sequitur to states law.

44

and t h a t

i t would soon

f o r sovereign because Thus, of

immunity would the horizontal restrictive usus

c o n t i n u e to nature of

appeal

international gained take some some

although lacks

immunity has would of

grounds, time to

i t still become well

and t h e r e f o r e

grounded

i n the p r a c t i c e

states. that

I t would

therefore

be c a r e l e s s t o c o n c l u d e

a s o f now

restrictive

immunity h a s a t t a i n e d
4 5

t h e s t a t u s o f customary

international dead a c c u r a t e restrictive continue

law.

I t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t s t a t e immunity i s not t h e debate between t h e s u p p o r t e r s sovereign immunity will of

and t h e r e f o r e immunity and

certainly national simply be

into or

the future. state

I n f a i r n e s s , the v a r i o u s i n place cannot

legislation

legislation

accepted as e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s of general law.

international

I n r e a l t e r m s , t h e s a i d i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n on immunity represents t h e opinio individualis juris be

restrictive generalis forced

of each

of these

countries a s a way

and t h e r e f o r e

cannot

on o t h e r

countries I n sum,

of c r e a t i n g

equity full

i n the o f muddy European from an

market p l a c e . water,

the dismal now Russia,

swamp i s s t i l l and other

f o r t h e USSR, as w e l l and

Eastern

countries Asia,

as a majority Latin American

of developing countries have

countries expressed

Africa

43

S e e B r o w n l i e , op. c i t . , p. 333. See Sornarajah (1981) 31 ICLQ, 661. per

44

See Brownlie, op. c i t . ; see a l s o t h e judgment W i l b e r f o r c e i n I C o n g r e s o d e l P a r t i d o (1983) AL 244, 260. 524

45

opinio

non

juris

in

respect to have

of the

restrictive rule of

immunity

and

therefore preserved

would rather

like than

absolute

immunity of

abrogated.

Certainly,

the p o s i t i o n

t h e s e c o u n t r i e s c a n n o t be r e l e g a t e d t o t h e background.

Employment

Contracts

and

State

Immunity:

Can

the

Problem

Be

R e s o l v e d Through R e s t r i c t i v e Immunity? The attempt by municipal courts to apply restrictive

immunity t o employment c o n t r a c t s i n r e s p e c t of t h e p e r s o n o f t h e s t a t e i s a r g u a b l y i n c a u t i o u s and t h e r e f o r e must be d i s c a r d e d f o r a more venerable approach. Strictly speaking, the law of of

diplomatic p r i v i l e g e s

and i m m u n i t i e s p r e c e d e s t h e p r i n c i p l e s
46

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law a s r e g a r d s s t a t e immunity.

I t i s instructive

t o note t h a t the law o f immunities o f s o v e r e i g n s and a m b a s s a d o r s has i n t h e main exercised to a l a r g e extent

47

some i n f l u e n c e

on

the development o f t h e law of s t a t e immunity. influenced resolving modern problems law. legal judges to devise to a single two

T h i s might have approach to areas of

legal

relating State

these

important

international two d i s t i n c t

immunity and d i p l o m a t i c Diplomatic

immunity a r e

disciplines.
4 8

immunity i s a s o l d

as i n t e r n a t i o n a l lex specialis.
46

law

and may

i n many r e s p e c t s be c o n s t r u e d a s immunity operates

Thus, w h i l e the law of s t a t e

Sompong S u c h a r i t k u l , op. c i t . , p. 23; C r a i g B a k e r , The Abuse of D i p l o m a t i c P r i v i l e g e s and I m m u n i t i e s - - A N e c e s s a r y E v i l (1997), pp. 14-31. "Sucharitkul,
4 8

op. c i t . , pp. 23-24.

Craig Baker, The Abuse of D i p l o m a t i c Privileges and I m m u n i t i e s A N e c e s s a r y E v i l (1997), p. 14; s e e , G e r a l d o E . do Nasamento e S i l v a , i n f r a . 525

on the n o t i o n privileges personae. on

of immunity ratione the other hand

materia,

t h e law of on

diplomatic ratione

i s predicated exist so as to

immunity

These p r i v i l e g e s in the

pave way to any to

for state their

representatives diplomatic whatsoever. the law can work The be

receiving efficiently

state without

perform

most

interference this on 35, area of

relevant principles found in the Vienna 31,

relating

Convention 32, 33, 34,

Diplomatic 36 and 37,

R e l a t i o n s 1961, respectively.

Articles The

29,

30,

privileges are

and

immunities

therefore

granted his

to d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n s or h e r

(1) t h e p e r s o n of a d i p l o m a t and be inviolable; (2) the

private residence

shall

diplomat be

s h a l l be immune from l o c a l protected be

jurisdiction;

(3) a d i p l o m a t s h a l l (4) t h e r e of the and the

against giving evidence of there in archives shall of be the and

as a w i t n e s s ; correspondence

shall sending custom Vienna and there

inviolability and (5)

state; duties.

exemption force and as

from t a x e s t h r u s t of

Thus on

spite

Convention

Diplomatic

Relations

regards

privileges

i m m u n i t i e s d u l y a c c o r d e d t o t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of s t a t e s , appear to be an avalanche the of suits preferred of of the the host 1200 against country cases

foreign or the

sovereign receiving
49

s t a t e s before state.
4 9

courts out

For

example,

brought

S e e Lady Fox Employment C o n t r a c t s as an e x c e p t i o n t o s t a t e immunity. I s a l l p u b l i c s e r v i c e immune? (1995) B Y I L , V o l . LXVI. The U n i t e d S t a t e s , f o r example, has been sued i n a l o t of countries. See a l s o D a v i d E p s t e i n ' s l e c t u r e , A Paper D e l i v e r e d a t the Lawyers i n Europe C o n f e r e n c e on S t a t e Immunity, 30 June-2 J u l y (1994); c a s e s : H e n s a l a v. T u r k i s h S t a t e 92/44 3 1993: 120; MK v. R e p u b l i c of T u r k e y 94 I n t Law R e p o r t s (1994) p. 350; Abbott v. R e p u b l i c of S o u t h A f r i c a I L A R e p o r t 5 ( a ) 135, B o l e t i n de J u r i s p r u d e n c i a C o n s t i t u t i o n a l ( 1 9 9 2 ) , p. 155, e t s e q . ; R e i d v. R e p u b l i c of M o u i r i , I L R ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; Arab Rep. of Egypt v. GamalE l d i n (Employment A p p e a l T r i b u n a l , 6 June (1995), I Law R e p o r t s 526

against

the

United

States

in

80

countries

in

1993,

i t would to staff-

a p p e a r t h a t about

80-82 p e r c e n t
5 0

seemed to be

related

employment d i s p u t e s . at this juncture,

One

important is

q u e s t i o n worth c o n s i d e r i n g the exercising of

however,

whether

j u r i s d i c t i o n over employment d i s p u t e s or s u i t s a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n state legal ne can adequately be be supported. And i f so, what logical of of

arguments can

advanced to c o u n t e r a c t

the p r i n c i p l e Convention

impediatur article

legatio 31,

or t h e e f f e c t of the V i e n n a been r a t i f i e d by

1961,

which had

a l a r g e number o f

countries? So often f a r municipal by c o u r t s have g i v e n theories a and conflicting exceptions decisions to state and to the

obscured

failed is

immunity. incidentally

There

therefore

general

confusion in place seem

the v a r i o u s n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n help.

o f f e r only very l i t t l e rules these of

W i l l i t be a p p o s i t e t o r e l y on law on and arbitration, or

private international be settled

should before for

private suits

restrictive

immunity

t h e c o u r t s of t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e ?

Or i s i t s t i l l

rewarding

m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s to c o n t i n u e r e l y i n g on the d o c t r i n e o f immunity? addressed. generalis laboris respect et These a r e i m p o r t a n t Perhaps our arbitri as q u e s t i o n s t h a t must be the lex

absolute carefully laboris leges with of

s t a r t i n g p o i n t must be or one could also

consider

the

speciales, to c e r t a i n

regards

private litigating fundamental r i g h t s

parties and

underlying

duties

104

(1997), pp.
50

673-683. op. cit., p. 98; David E p s t e i n , op. c i t .

L a d y Fox,

527

states

in international herein rather i s not

law.

For

what i s i n a c t u a l immunity of the

fact

being

considered agents, but state. the

jurisdictional

diplomatic the of

i n d i r e c t l y the

immunity of

p e r s o n of

Because i n a c t u a l f a c t , t h e i s derived with the

immunity ratione personae the "representative state. The

d i p l o m a t i c agent the diplomat

from

link."

which

has

sending

argument taken

commonly advanced by m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s by not a diplomatic mission respecting governmental but immunity and however, of

i s t h a t any

decision

employment c o n t r a c t s

which i s be

c o m m e r c i a l and liability is not

r e s u l t s i n d i s p u t e must to the state. The since

denied

imputed an easy

said the

approach, application a web law of and

undertaking u s u s and fact that

r e l a t i v e immunity l a c k s in respect are of two the

seems to both

create

confusion state by of

diplomatic arguably an
5 1

immunity different

d i s t i n c t i v e subjects

regulated element

l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s but as regards the

somehow e x h i b i t of the to

confluere even if a over a

position be

state.

Arguably,

national

authority claim,

allowed state

exercise and to v.

jurisdiction

particular

practice

d e c i s i o n s by m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s have the judgment enforced.

show t h a t i t would be d i f f i c u l t
5 2

The

decisions

in

Zaire

G e r a l d o E. do Nasamento e S i l v a i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Achievements and P r o s p e c t s , op. c i t . , pp. 441-442; Foxworth (1992) I L R 99, p. 138; R e p u b l i c o f 'A' Embassy Case, I L R 77, 489. S e e g e n e r a l l y the w r i t i n g s o f t h e v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s on the e x e c u t i o n of s t a t e p r o p e r t y , N Y I L (1979) 10; see a l s o (1999) G e n e r a l Assembly, F i f t y - F i r s t S e s s i o n , A/CN.4/L.576 p. 51. 528
52

51

Duclaux,

53

Alcorn,

and t h e P h i l i p p i n e

Embassy

case

are

clear

a u t h o r i t a t i v e judgments t h a t cannot be swept under t h e c a r p e t . Thus considered, that in Sengupta v. Republic argued of India,
5 4

already

Professor

Higgins,

on b e h a l f

of her c l i e n t by reference

"the question

o f immunity h a s t o be d e c i d e d

s o l e l y t o t h e terms o f t h e c o n t r a c t without r e g a r d t o t h e b r e a c h of her i t by t h e s t a t e . " submission

5 5

The Employment Appeal T r i b u n a l r e j e c t e d that "The d e c i s i o n of t h e House o f does n o t of the of the

by r u l i n g

L o r d s i n I Congreso de P a r t i d o fall t o be d e c i d e d contract solely

shows t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n to the nature

by r e f e r e n c e reference

underlying breach." the case

5 6

and w i t h o u t

to the nature

The c o u r t t h e r e f o r e d e c l i n e d t o take j u r i s d i c t i o n o f because of the underlying reasoning that a l l matters Sengupta,

respecting therefore, employment

t h e running

o f an embassy were

immune.

e s t a b l i s h e d a precedent contracts entered into

at English

common law t h a t of a l l

by s t a t e s i n r e s p e c t of diplomatic

w o r k e r s employed w i t h i n it

the confines

p r e m i s e s , be

s e n i o r s t a f f or j u n i o r s t a f f ,

a r e immune.

Some commentators

a r e a l s o a g r e e d t h a t even i f t h e 1978 A c t had been a p p l i e d , t h e Republic reasoning of India would still have been immune.
57

similar Supreme

c a n be d e t e c t e d

i n t h e judgment o f t h e I r i s h

53

9 4 I L R 368. ( 1 9 8 3 ) I C R 221, Employment Appeal T r i b u n a l . Ibid. Ibid.

5 4

5 5

5 6

on

S e e Lady Fox, op. c i t . , B Y I L (1995) f o r a c l e a r e x p o s i t i o n t h e i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g employment c o n t r a c t s and s t a t e immunity. 529

5 7

Court

in

Canada against

v.

Burke, was

58

where held

wrongful The

dismissal thrust of

claim the

brought

Canada Irish

immune.

d e c i s i o n of the

Supreme C o u r t i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t i e s seemed on the The the for s e c u r i t y aspect of the position immunity of the test

t o have been p r e d i c a t e d

of the Ambassador's d r i v e r . was therefore applied by

p r i n c i p l e of sovereign said in court case because the

underlying

s e c u r i t y reason,

this

nature

appeared not a t a l l a p p r o p r i a t e . Again was i n Van as a Der Hulst v. at United the States,
5 9

the

plaintiff embassy in was

employed

secretary While at

United one day

States the

Hollandthe duly

Hague.

work

plaintiff

informed t h a t because o f

s e c u r i t y reasons

her

appointment In the sued

would be August

subject to p e r i o d i c s a t i s f a c t o r y Van Der Hulst was the sacked embassy. for The

s e c u r i t y check. not living up to

1984

security

r e q u i r e m e n t s of

plaintiff

then

f o r b r e a c h of the employment c o n t r a c t i n i s s u e . consideration court ruled of that the evidence if the therein was of

After a careful the a district law was the the

presented, already the

"Even and for

there result

private

employment used United as a

contract ground to

s e c u r i t y check the
60

termination well was

thereof,

claim On

by

States

immunity was district court

founded."

appeal

judgment of the

u p h e l d b a s e d on

a straight-

Canada v. Employment A p p e a l s T r i b u n a l and Burke (1992) ILRM 325. Here, t h e I r i s h C o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e E n g l i s h d e c i s i o n i n Sengupta.

59

58

94 ILR 3374, The Ibid.

N e t h e r l a n d s Supreme C o u r t .

530

forward carrying

reasoning out

that

sovereign activities

state has

in the

the

course

of

i t s diplomatic

r i g h t to

claim

immunity f o r d i s m i s s i n g an employee f o r s e c u r i t y r e a s o n s . In national, of the MK v. was The Republic of Turkey,

61

the

plaintiff,

Dutch

dismissed Embassy

i n 1984 in the the

from h e r

p o s i t i o n as The

secretary plaintiff,

Turkish

Netherlands. i s s u e s regarding of the To the

having c a r e f u l l y appealed to the of

considered sub-district

her d i s m i s s a l , the

court

Hague to d e c l a r e the

termination the

her

appointment v o i d . was granted in

s u r p r i s e of many, formulated

plaintiff's

claim

following

words:
"(1) I t c o u l d not be a r g u e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was employed on Turkish territory and that therefore the court had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r the c a s e . A l t h o u g h t h e embassy s e r v e d a s T u r k i s h t e r r i t o r y f o r d i p l o m a t i c p u r p o s e s , t h e l a n d on which t h e e m b a s s y was s i t u a t e d was p a r t of Dutch t e r r i t o r y over which t h e N e t h e r l a n d s had f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n . (2) The a b s o l u t e t h e o r y of immunity c o u l d no l o n g e r be r e g a r d e d a s a r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and s t a t e s were o n l y e n t i t l e d t o immunity for acts that had been performed jure imperii; a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a f o r e i g n s t a t e f o r acts that were performed on the same footing as private i n d i v i d u a l under p r i v a t e l a w . "
6 2

It

would

appear

counsel

for

Turkey Radwan, general the

63

seemed

to

have the

overlooked the republic the part of

a u t h o r i t y i n Radwan v. f o r according embassy of and the to

i n defending

Turkey, of an

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law consulate This are not

premises of the

perhaps sending

territory

state.

exactly

6 1

(1994) I L R e p o r t , p. 350, Ibid., p. 351. 967

Vol.

94.

6 2

(1972) 3 A l l ER law t o some e x t e n t .

6 3

(Family D i v i s i o n ) .

This explains

the

557

r e p r e s e n t s t h e p o s i t i o n advanced and P r o f e s s o r Fawcett by

sometime ago by Dr. A k e h u r s t ,

6 5

64

in h i s writings. court

The s e c o n d t h e Hague be

argument that "the as a

advanced absolute

the s u b - d i s t r i c t

of

theory

o f immunity c o u l d

no l o n g e r

regarded

r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law" appears been b a s e d on c o n j e c t u r e .

t o be i n e r r o r o r might have

For such a p o s i t i o n s i m p l y appears t o many s t a t e s still I t is

run c o u n t e r t o c u r r e n t s t a t e p r a c t i c e b e c a u s e

r e s i s t t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. instructive t o note, Law however, t h a t Commission's sovereign i n view

of the force of the the position of

International developing Although similar, unfair in MK

Report

and

states,

immunity

i s n o t dead v. Turkey held

accurate. quite

the issues

i n MK and H e u s a l a of F i n l a n d

appear

t h e Supreme Court
6 6

immune a c l a i m f o r lost the case failed law

dismissal.

Arguably,

counsel f o r Turkey by h i s r e l i a n c e convincing

v . The R e p u b l i c of Turkey coupled with a less

on a

theory,

international

argument which d i d not f i n d f a v o u r w i t h t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e o f t h e court as regards the e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l i t y state on t h e t e r r i t o r y won the s a i d o f t h e embassy o f t h e state.
6 7

sending

of the r e c e i v i n g case attempted

The

petitioner

having

to enforce the of the of

judgment by s e e k i n g t o a t t a c h Republic of Turkey. This

t h e embassy bank a c c o u n t prompted t h e Dutch

Secretary

64

A k e h u r s t , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law ( 1 9 9 1 ) , p. 117. J i n Radwan v . Radwan

S e e t h e judgment of Cumning-Bruce (1972) 3 A l l ER 967.

66

65

92/44.3, 1993: 120. I L R Report, op. c i t . , p. 351. 532

6 7

Justice,

acting to

pursuant

to

Article thus

13(4)

of

the

Bailiff's to of an

Regulations, desist Turkey. from The

intervene, the

instructing against

the the

bailiffs Republic by such

executing

judgment having

petitioner,

been

embittered

a c t i o n , a p p e a l e d a g a i n s t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e S t a t e S e c r e t a r y f o r justice. On November 1986, the Netherlands C o u n c i l of State

r e j e c t e d the appeal as f o l l o w s :
"(1) case In had the to be absence decided of in law. any treaty from between with the Turkey of and the the Netherlands customary regarding immunity execution judgment,

accordance

p r o v i s i o n s of

international

(2) When i n t e r p r e t i n g and a n a l y s i n g customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law t h e c o u r t s h o u l d t a k e a c c o u n t of t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e E x e c u t i v e as i t represented the s t a t e i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with other states and h e l p mould c u s t o m a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law by i t s p r a c t i c e and the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of i t s views. (3) Customary international law did not permit the attachment of a s s e t s belonging to another s t a t e i f those a s s e t s were i n t e n d e d t o be u s e d f o r a p u b l i c p u r p o s e . The T u r k i s h Embassy i n a note verbale t o t h e c o u r t , had s t a t e d t h a t a l l funds i n t h e b a n k a c c o u n t i n q u e s t i o n had been s e t a s i d e f o r the p u r p o s e o f d e f r a y i n g t h e r u n n i n g c o s t s o f t h e embassy. Taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e t h a t had t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a t t a c h e d t o t h e e f f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e of embassy f u n c t i o n s as e v i d e n c e d by t h e V i e n n a C o n v e n t i o n s on d i p l o m a t i c and c o n s u l a r r e l a t i o n s , T u r k e y ' s s u b m i s s i o n was s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e c o u r t t o award i t i m m u n i t y from e x e c u t i o n . "
6 8

The

said

judgment

is

absolutely thus a l s o of

in

line

with

the the the

functional necessity concept receiving of the

t h e o r y and duty

seemed t o support required of

special Perhaps

protection

state.

the c l e a r e s t

e x p r e s s i o n of d i p l o m a t i c

law can be f o u n d i n t h e w r i t i n g s of V a t t e l t h u s :
"The r e s p e c t w h i c h i s due t o s o v e r e i g n s s h o u l d r e f l e c t upon t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and p a r t i c u l a r l y upon an ambassador, a s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p e r s o n of h i s m a s t e r i n t h e h i g h e s t degree.

MK v. State Secretary for Justice, C o u n c i l of S t a t e , 24 November (1986) . 533

68

The

Netherlands,

. . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the duty of s o v e r e i g n t o whom a m i n i s t e r i s s e n t t o a f f o r d s e c u r i t y to t h e p e r s o n o f t h e m i n i s t e r . To receive a minister in his representative capacity i s equivalent t o p r o m i s i n g t o g i v e him the most p a r t i c u l a r p r o t e c t i o n and t o s e e t h a t he e n j o y s a l l p o s s i b l e s a f e t y . "
6 9

If

Vattel's

p o s i t i o n be law, then

relevant could

t o our argue

needs t o d a y that of

as

regards being simply virtue is ex

diplomatic equal, the

one

a l l things diplomat

inviolability

of the p e r s o n

the

r e i n f o r c e s t h e o f t e n c r i t i c i s e d r u l e of s t a t e immunity by of Articles 22 to 38, respectively. Vattel's position

hypothesi

t h e r e f o r e r e l e v a n t i n t h e s e modern t i m e s i n r e s p e c t o f

t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r t h e o r y i n d i p l o m a t i c law. Q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t view, Republic Republic wholly brought contract be the The of of Nauru, Nauru by
70

however, was plaintiff The of

taken was

i n R e i d v. by

the the was thus his

there a

the

employed in

as

pilot.

airline The for a

question

owned suit

the

Republic the said

Nauru.

plaintiff breach of

against

country

of employment. immunity. therein court the

The The

defendant

i n turn pleaded taken p a i n s to favour of

that i t review Reid. the

accorded evidence

court, having ruled ruled another in

presented, simply

Mr. from

Australian of

that

immunity was not

jurisdiction anymore. jure The

c o u r t s of

state

absolute acta the "The

c o u r t s i m p l y f o l l o w e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between and The acta jure gestionis argued and thus found for

imperii

plaintiff.

court

also

forcefully

that

C i t e d from J . C r a i g B a r k e r , The Abuse o f Diplomatic P r i v i l e g e s and I m m u n i t i e s A N e c e s s a r y E v i l ? ( 1 9 9 7 ) , p. 76. Australia, Report, V o l . 101

7 0

Supreme Court of V i c t o r i a , (1995), p. 193. 534

17

Feb.

(1992)

IL

restrictive

theory

of

immunity concerned to
7 1

did

not

compromise

the

sovereignty of the s t a t e of justice with respect

and p r o t e c t e d individual

the interests into a

an

entering

transaction with a s t a t e . " A while careful civil review law

of these

cases

shows c r y s t a l the

clear

that

countries

follow

p u b l i c / p r i v a t e law immunity o r not i n

distinction respect have

i n determining

whether t o g r a n t

o f employment c o n t r a c t s , c o u r t s i n common l a w c o u n t r i e s simply resigned between to the well-known approach in

distinguishing

c o m m e r c i a l and non-commercial

activities before

of s t a t e s when f a c e d w i t h c l a i m s a g a i n s t s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s domestic diversity in issue. or l o c a l i n state courts.

7 2

This

i n fact

has g i v e n

r i s e to

practice

and u n c e r t a i n g r a s p

of the subject

The l e a r n e d L a d y Fox i n o f f e r i n g h e r t h o u g h t s on t h e that

above s u b j e c t c o n c l u d e d

"The f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n t o be drawn from t h e above s u r v e y o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e employment e x c e p t i o n t o immunity i s t h a t a r e s t r i c t i v e t h e o r y i n s i m p l e form does n o t work. Under t h a t theory, i f t h e work i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t p e r f o r m e d i n t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , t h e t e s t o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e work s h o u l d r e n d e r the c l a i m s u b j e c t t o t h e l o c a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . But as the House R e p o r t on t h e US F S I A , t h e US and o t h e r common law j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n model show, p u b l i c s e r v i c e c o n t i n u e s immune by t a k i n g i n t o account t h e p u b l i c s t a t u s of t h e employer and the p u r p o s e o f t h e work, t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f t h e c l a s s i c f u n c t i o n s of government, thus largely preserving a rule of absolute immunity f o r c i v i l s e r v a n t s a b r o a d . W h i l s t t h i s g o a l may be t h e desired result, t h e d i s t o r t i o n of the commerciality t e s t to

7 1

Ibid.

S e e Lady Fox i n B Y I L (1995) on t h i s p o i n t . However, t h e r e are o t h e r i m p o r t a n t c a s e s t h a t a t t e s t t o t h i s a p p r o a c h : Hann H e n s a l a v . T u r k i s h S t a t e , 92/44.3 1993: 120; MK v . R e p u b l i c o f Turkey 94 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law R e p o r t s (1994), p. 350; S e n g n i p t a v. R e p u b l i c o f I n d i a (1983) I C R 221 Employment Appeal T r i b u n a l . 535

72

achieve it immunity."
73

undermines

its

use

elsewhere

in

restrictive

The

current

state

of

the

law

in

respect

of And of

employment the attempt

c o n t r a c t s and to introduce

s t a t e immunity i s f a r from c l e a r . the manifestly parlance flawed concept law to

restrictive undoubtedly harassment that the the and

immunity i n t o t h e exacerbate which the

of d i p l o m a t i c such h e i g h t s It as

would create

problem to to Fox

would of of

lead Lady the may

disrepute. on

is

submitted as

exposition position

employment c o n t r a c t s state is logically issue with rate a

regards grounded

sovereign be her h a r d put thesis.

t h e r e f o r e one reasoning difficult

to take
7 4

the

underlying quite in an

behind to

At work

any of

i t would be servant nature

c h a r a c t e r i s e the

civil

embassy s e t t i n g t o be

commercial by

r e l y i n g on

the

test. the

Thus the employment o f a q u a l i f i e d l o c a l n a t i o n a l t o work i n

embassy of t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e i s not any d i f f e r e n t from n a t i o n a l s employed from the in most e m b a s s i e s s e n d i n g s t a t e , f o r i n t h e main t h e i s always p o l i t i c a l l y f u l f i l m e n t of Furthermore, the work of in the b a s e d and work done

specifically of the

g e a r e d towards t h e sending state. of

sovereign to aid

function the

order

effective special and

performance

the

diplomatic

agent,

the

duty of p r o t e c t i o n has strengthened Embassies therefore do the under not

i n the s t r i c t e s t s e n s e been c o n f i r m e d Articles 22(2) for and sale 29, on

respectively. the the market and

produce

goods

reason

f o r employment c o n t r a c t s o r

employment

73

L a d y Fox, Ibid.

op. c i t .

7 4

536

of the n a t i o n a l s vacancies that

of a given could of the to help

receiving promote

s t a t e i s arguably to f i l l the effective Hence political be be as a

representation logically

sending suggest

state. that

i t would contracts

untenable

employment

characterised prelude

i n t o c o m m e r c i a l a n d non-commercial c a t e g o r i e s what i s immune and what

to determining

i s not immune.

Perhaps t h e p u b l i c

and p r i v a t e

l a w d i s t i n c t i o n may be somewhat fraught

h e l p f u l but a g a i n i t would seem s u c h an approach i s a l s o w i t h d i f f i c u l t i e s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s confuse juridical t h e modern person judge because and t h e r e f o r e a state does by

most l i k e l y t o n o t become a employing a

or

natural

person

simply

r e s i d e n t of t h e forum s t a t e . it the i s suggested t h a t m u n i c i p a l quest of introducing

I n the l i g h t of these courts the

bottlenecks,

must endeavour t o abandon approach into

restrictive

diplomatic practice

law i n r e s p e c t

o f employment with

contracts,

for state

i s unsettled, of s t a t e s . restrictive

coupled
7 5

a clear

d i v e r s i t y i n the

jurisprudence doctrine of

Thus t h e c o n t i n u e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e immunity to resolve these problems

simply undermines t h e f o r c e

of the i n v i o l a b i l i t y

of the person

of the d i p l o m a t i c agent w h i c h on t h e whole i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n nature. embassy This, could however, does n o t mean t h a t dismiss an employee at a senior will s t a f f o f an without any

justification. of the s e n d i n g

A t l e a s t t h e employment p r a c t i c e s state must be based on good

of the s t a f f and good

faith

conscience respect
7 5

i n order

to d i s p e l

l o c a l employee

apprehensions i n

of j o b s e c u r i t y .

Ibid. 537

The the

perception of the

held i n c e r t a i n c i r c l e s that workers sending state be classified

within to

embassy

according

g r a d e s l e a d s us nowhere, s i n c e e v e r y member of t h e work f o r c e i n t h e embassy, one the way or the o t h e r , a i d s i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of

sending s t a t e . and other

Hence p o s i t i o n s such as a s e c r e t a r y , d r i v e r , support s e r v i c e s arguably seem t o

7 6

messenger political of

be

more heart has local

i n many r e s p e c t s than many would b e l i e v e .

The

the whole i s s u e , however i s whether a d i p l o m a t i c as a p r i v a t e person because i t o f f e r e d a I t i s not job

mission to a

acted

national. answer, but imperium and that

t h a t e a s y to come up w i t h a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d acts

s c h o l a r s a r e a g r e e d t h a t the s t a t e n e v e r t h e l e s s i t s diplomatic be a g e n t s always a c t as c i v i l to delimit the scope

and

servants of the in a

i t would of

difficult

activities receiving

s t a t e agents, a hybrid

i.e., civil

servants

resident the

s t a t e on

b a s i s o n e commercial and

other

non-commercial. that the issue of

I t i s a l s o important t o s t a t e more c l e a r l y procedural to immunity is different against But from state one

questions property. important possible claims

relating The point

enforcement always putting could

measures the

former worth

precedes forth take is

latter. although

that

it is

a domestic court

jurisdiction

over c e r t a i n stage of

duly p r e f e r r e d a g a i n s t the judgment the

foreign states, a of difficult the

the next task

enforcing measures

becomes position

since

such

undermine

state in international

S e n g u p t a v. R e p u b l i c of I n d i a (1983) ICR 221 Employment A p p e a l ; Van Der H u l s t v. U.S., 94 I L R 374, The Netherlands Supreme C o u r t ; Canada v. Burke (1992) ILM, 325. 538

76

law.

Thus

although

jurisdiction (execution

may

be

procured,

the

enforcement o f t h e judgment attachment practice of

7 7

forcee)

and pre-judgment by state

(saisie

conservatoire)

a r e not supported peaceful

and t h e r e f o r e

may m i l i t a t e a g a i n s t the opinion

relations writer

states.

I t i s therefore

of the present

that

a r b i t r a t i o n be s t u d i e d

i n depth as a prelude to r e s o l v i n g resort

problems i n t h i s a r e a to the a p p l i c a t i o n

o f the law, o r judges could simply laboris generalis et

o f t h e lex

arbitri,

which means

certain private

international

law p r i n c i p l e s must

be e x p l o r e d t o a i d t h e p r o c e s s . Any s t a t e t h a t potestas within i s ipso iure s o v e r e i g n and t h u s h a s suprema of influence would n o t on i t s own of another state

i t s spheres

a c c o r d submit t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s and i n t h e end b e i n g made t o f a c e entity.

7 8

t h e consequence o f l o s i n g i t s Thus u n t i l s u c h time t h a t t h e i s , t h e corpus of the states

property to a p r i v a t e

two c o n s t i t u t i v e e l e m e n t s o f s t a t e immunity, t h a t and t h e animus

a r e t o t a l l y overshadowed by t h e s p e c t r e of restrictive immunity, sovereign

emerging

doctrine

would c o n t i n u e t o p l e a d t h a t of the f a c t that because therefore

t h e y be a c c o r d e d immunity i n v i e w law i s h o r i z o n t a l i s f a r from eo i n n a t u r e and settled. by The simply

international state cannot

secondly problem
77

practice be

resolved

instanti

See the contribution made by d i f f e r e n t s c h o l a r s on t h e s u b j e c t i n NYIL (1979) 10, where most o f t h e s c h o l a r s have argued t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f e x e c u t i o n i s u n s e t t l e d i n the p r a c t i c e o f s t a t e s , e.g., Bouchez, e t a l . , 10 Neths Yrbk (1979). S e e M. S o r n a r a j a h (1982) ICLQ, V o l . 31, 661 r e l a t i n g t o the problem o f a p p l y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. See a l s o t h e d e c i s i o n o f E n g l i s h a n d A m e r i c a n c o u r t s . 539
78

resigning commercial regards It postulate adhere toward continue better sundry, the to the or

to to

distinction the public and

between private

commercial law

and

nonas

distinctions

state is

activities. therefore the opinion of the present writer to that

t h a t the state

p e r s i s t e n t d i v e r g e n c e between c o u n t r i e s immunity of and that of countries will

gravitating certainly with all a and

doctrine

restrictive someone

immunity along to

unabated

until

comes

perhaps to

philosophical thus bridging swamp" state

approach this is level

likely

appeal

self-imposed left do

deep g u l f . for the allow the support

Certainly, exceptions of state from

"dismal at

undrained not as have to

advocated practice

universally

grounded

derogation

c u s t o m a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. in the the various

A f t e r a l l the p r o v i s i o n s s e t f o r t h do
79

national legislation international law

not but

accurately only

represent to how The state an

p r i n c i p l e s of

show as

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law current immunity exception, countries state in of

i s u n d e r s t o o d i n e a c h of t h e s e c o u n t r i e s . the law is still not a by clear, rule the hence

every

respect the

remains plea

rather

than

notwithstanding that exceptions

l e g i s l a t u r e i n some be increased. that " I t to the

to

state

immunity

P e r h a p s A l e x a n d e r Hamilton was is the inherent suit of i n the an n a t u r e of

r i g h t when he p o s t u l a t e d sovereignty not to be

amenable This is

i n d i v i d u a l without

i t s consent.

J o h n M c E l h i n n e y v. Anthony I v a r John W i l l i a m s and Her M a j e s t y ' s S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r N o r t h e r n I r e l a n d ( d e f e n d a n t s ) , The Supreme C o u r t 175/94, Del ( 1 9 9 5 ) . 540

79

general

sense and t h e g e n e r a l be h a r d

p r a c t i c e o f mankind." mind" to take

I t would issue with

undoubtedly

f o r any " c a n d i d i n respect

Hamilton's p o s i t i o n because the s a i d

of present-day while

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law municipal only law i s over the

law

i s horizontal

hierarchical ruled. The

coupled

with

i t s compulsory

force

treaty

text

currently mixed

registered

with

the

UN

unfortunately

had produced

r e s u l t s and t h e r e f o r e The r i f t would

highly between continue that as

u n l i k e l y t o f i n d f a v o u r w i t h many c o u n t r i e s . the

West and t h e T h i r d World c e r t a i n l y t h e r e f o r e and t h e argument by some leading

unabated

scholars

r e s u l t of t h e demise of t h e USSR t h e c u r r e n c y immunity would supersede that of absolute

of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s simply

premature and non sequitur. It of i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o note that state practice and q u i t e i n respect The

contracts

of employment i s s c a n t y Committee

fragmented.

a t t e m p t by the S i x t h unfruitful. held

to consider

the subject

proved

And i n c i d e n t a l l y , s u b s e q u e n t i n f o r m a l difficulties because

consultations divergent

i n 1994 met w i t h

of the

S e e The F e d e r a l i s t P a p e r s , No. 81, p. 487 (Hamilton) : T h i s does not mean t h a t t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r i s a d v o c a t i n g t h a t s t a t e immunity be m a i n t a i n e d . N o t h i n g on t h i s e a r t h would remain t h e same, f o r e v e r y t h i n g i s bound t o undergo some changes. But such a change must be done w i t h c a r e and s h o u l d not be p r e d i c a t e d on f a i l e d t h e o r i e s o r i n c o m p l e t e t h e o r i e s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e t h e muddy w a t e r i n t h e " d i s m a l swamp." C e r t a i n l y , i f p r o g r e s s i s t o be made, r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s not t h e answer f o r i t h a s s i t vernia verbo c r e a t e d a Pandora's box of difficulties and uncertainties in transnational litigation. I c e r t a i n l y , t h e r e f o r e , s h a r e t h e p o s i t i o n o f M. S o r n a r a j a h on problems r e l a t i n g t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e s t r i c t i v e immunity (1983) ICLQ 661, V o l . 31. 541

80

views

expressed 2.

on d r a f t a r t i c l e As r e g a r d s suggested

11, sub-paragraphs

(a) and (c)

of p a r a g r a p h informal

sub-paragraph the s a i d

( c ) , members o f t h e provision could not

group

that

p o s s i b l y be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , as d e r i v e d from t h e concept Article of n a t i o n a l i t y .

8 1

11 o f I L C d r a f t a r t i c l e s

offers a delicate

balance

between t h e l a b o u r laws of t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e and t h e competing interests individual failed o f t h e sending state, i . e . , t h e employer s t a t e . The

l e g i s l a t i o n passed

i n the seven

common law c o u n t r i e s i t by t h e

t o r e s o l v e t h e problem b u t r a t h e r e x a c e r b a t e d emphasis placed on t h e n a t u r e immunity, test.

increasing U.S.

Although t h e Committee

follows

restrictive

recent

Sixth

m e e t i n g on t h e s u b j e c t shows t h a t i t i s n o t i n favour o f a r t i c l e 11 of the d r a f t article. Ms. Jacobson thus: o f the U n i t e d States

o f f e r e d t h e p o s i t i o n of her country

"The c u r r e n t wording o f d r a f t a r t i c l e 11 ( c o n t r a c t s o f employment) f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s t h e m a j o r labour-employment i s s u e facing diplomatic missions. Her d e l e g a t i o n had r a i s e d b e f o r e i t s c o n c e r n s o v e r t h e c o n f l i c t between l o c a l l a b o u r laws and t h e ability of diplomatic f a c i l i t i e s to perform their mission. Lawsuits against foreign states for actions relating to downsizing, reorganization and closing of diplomatic and c o n s u l a r f a c i l i t i e s , and t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n s from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n b a n k r u p t mandatory s o c i a l s e c u r i t y systems for their l o c a l l y h i r e d p e r s o n n e l had s o u r e d over t h e p a s t years."
8 2

S e e g e n e r a l l y , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission, S e s s i o n , Geneva, 3 May-23 J u l y , 1999. Fifty-Second Committee M e e t i n g .

8 2

8 1

Fifty-First

S e s s i o n A/C

6/52

SR 26 2 Feb. 1998, S i x t h

542

The is

c o n c e r n of the U.S.A. i s j u s t i f i e d , ambivalent since over the

but i t s c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n the (nature test),

years

r e s t r i c t i v e immunity has been made t h e b a s i s o f i t s p r a c t i c e . Immunity so f a r has been g r a n t e d t o s t a t e s i n r e s p e c t of or consular

employment o f n a t i o n a l s o f t h e forum a t d i p l o m a t i c posts, issue Courts where there i s a clear evidence of a on that

t h e employment i n activity. hand, in

8 3

involves in some

t h e performance other

governmental the other

countries,

have

exercised mirrors

jurisdiction

i f t h e employment
8 4

contract

dispute

t h a t of t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r . recognition i s given

However,

i t i s submitted

that general there

t o c o n t r a c t s o f employment, i f

i s a showing t h a t t h e employee's p o s i t i o n i s i n e x t r i c a b l y or involved have with governmental activities. Courts in

related general issues. The

had d i f f i c u l t i e s

i n exploring

t h e above

stated

suggestion,

however,

by t h e w o r k i n g

group

w h i c h was

e s t a b l i s h e d by General 1998,

Assembly r e s o l u t i o n 53/98, o f 8 December

t h a t a d i s t i n c t i o n be made between t h e r i g h t and d u t i e s o f

employees and i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f employment i s in 1961 order, but t h i s i d e a must be e x p l o r e d on d i p l o m a t i c by i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e and t h e 1963

Vienna

Convention

relations

and

U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America v . The P u b l i c S e r v i c e o f Canada o t h e r s , ILR, 94, p. 264; (1992) 65 I L R p. 338.

8 4

(19 9 2) R e i d v. R e p u b l i c o f Maura I L R 101 p . 193: Supreme Court o f A u s t r a l i a ( V i c t o r i a . (1994) Governor o f P i t c a i r n and A s s o c i a t e d I s l a n d v. Sutton, I L R 40, p. 508: New Z e a l a n d C o u r t of A p p e a l . 543

Vienna as

Convention

on C o n s u l a r R e l a t i o n s i n t o t h e d r a f t

articles

a way o f b u i l d i n g consensus among s t a t e s .

The F u t u r e o f t h e Law o f S o v e r e i g n t y Immunity How does one prove t h a t t h e c u r r e n c y o f a r u l e h a s come t o and t h a t a new r u l e h a s come t o

an end o r c o m p l e t e l y abandoned birth i n international law?

T h i s i s n o t an e a s y q u e s t i o n , b u t

such l e g a l parameters be helpful

a s e v i d e n c e of usus and opinio juris c o u l d question. helpful These as parameters, regards the

i n exploring the s a i d n o t been

however, current law,

have status

particularly

of r e s t r i c t i v e i s so because

immunity i n modern

international

and t h i s

local

o r forum l a w i s a c r e a t u r e o f that the jurisprudential flawed. In

sovereignty foundations other words,

coupled of

with

the f a c t immunity

restrictive

are fatally

there

i s no c l e a r c u t which

boundary

between

immune and of

non-immune restrictive Furthermore, immunity, lacks

transactions

according be b a s e d

t o t h e proponents on t h e n a t u r e

immunity must

solely

test.

t h e argument u s u a l l y made i n s u p p o r t o f r e s t r i c t i v e i t would promote justice i n t h e market p l a c e , a s t o prompt a

that

logic

and t h e r e f o r e not c o m p e l l i n g enough

radical

change from s o v e r e i g n immunity t o r e s t r i c t i v e f o r such a change t o command t h e s u p p o r t of restrictive

immunity. of s t a t e s , must be

Arguably, the

underlying

principles

immunity

p r e d i c a t e d on a w e l l r e a s o n e d and grounded s e t o f r u l e s any varied connotations. Any rule of law which

without

has v a r i e d

meaning must be r e j e c t e d ,

o t h e r w i s e i t would d e f e a t t h e purpose

544

of

justice

and t h u s may i n t r o d u c e r e l a t i v i t y

into

international

law. Many have argued that the s t a t e be subjected state, to the and be

jurisdiction

of j u d i c i a l

authorities

o f t h e forum

made t o pay f o r any i n f r a c t i o n s c a u s e d by i t s a c t i o n s the state i s n o t above the law. But which law

and t h a t a r e we

s p e c i f i c a l l y referring to? I f i t i s international

law, t h e n one

i s burdened by t h e f a c t t h a t a l l s t a t e s a r e e q u a l b e f o r e t h e l a w and s o v e r e i g n immunity i s s t i l l of the inescapable idea that s u p p o r t e d by many s t a t e s sovereignty because and

i s inalienable states.

desirable

i n t h e community of independent

However, i n

c a s e o f m u n i c i p a l law ( i . e . , different interpret disturbing result may be

t h e p r o c e d u r a l and r e m e d i a l l a w ) , a because t h e lex of l o c a l fori may

realised

the law according to the d i c t a t e s

law, t h u s

t h e p o s i t i v e normative r u l e s o f g e n e r a l

international rather

law, which i n a l l f a i r n e s s a r e b a s e d on g e n e r a l agreement than s u b j e c t i o n True, state o r harassment. bear

why s h o u l d t h e i n d i v i d u a l which might have

the consequences of hardship on t h e

activities

worked

individual? an agreement dismissal

Or c a n a s t a t e be sued f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e t e r m s o f to b u i l d a nuclear f a c i l i t y ? What about a w r o n g f u l Can an a g g r e s s i o n

o f an employee i n t h e forum an economic

state?

which h a s produced to its the nature t e s t ? tortious

crime be c h a r a c t e r i s e d a c c o r d i n g to justice for

And can a s t a t e be brought

a c t , j u r e imperii?

These a r e d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n s law does n o t have any b u i l d questions. However,

to g r a p p l e w i t h s i n c e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n mechanism i n t a c k l i n g

t h e above s t a t e d 545

in

John

McElhinney Secretary Ireland

v. of

Anthony State that not

Ivor

John

Williams the the

and

Her

Majesty's Court of

f o r Northern statutes evidence the

Ireland, to

Supreme domestic general and the

ruled did

belong the

domain and

therefore law and

p r i n c i p l e of provisions appellant and to

international

that

statutory the

European C o n v e n t i o n t h a t were c i t e d by his not claim deviated representative from g e n e r a l of i t . law The

support therefore simply been

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law court i s totally

right has

because accepted,

international u n d e r s t o o d and not

truly

represents

what

generally lex

acknowledged among

sovereign

s t a t e s as law but fit. Thus the

what t h e that a

fori i n a g i v e n c o u n t r y deems state is has not entered into a

fact

sovereign a

contractual

relationship

with

trader

sufficient

for

t h o s e s t a t e s who or for any

have s t a t u t e s i n p l a c e states to exercise

to e x e r c i s e

jurisdiction over the

other

jurisdiction

contract state,

i n issue without procuring this applies as well to

t h e c o n s e n t of t h e the locus test or

defendant the lex

and

loci delicti,

respecting

t o r t i o u s i n f r a c t i o n s of s t a t e s , because as the nature t e s t law i n the and locus of test the have fact

such m u n i c i p a l a n a l o g i e s no place in public theories the

international were premised functions

light

that

these

upon

unexamined

assumptions

respecting

s t a t u s and in and if

of s t a t e s . law be is regarded as as delicta jure Kuwait seizure

Aggression juris gentium even

international therefore must in

accepted

acta In and

imperii,

it

resulted

economic the use

crimes. of force

Airways Corporation which

involves

546

o f p r o p e r t y , t h e c o u r t o f appeal g r a n t e d i m m u n i t y .

85

However, on denying violated Or i s t h e commercial? of Iraq)

a p p e a l t o t h e house o f L o r d s , the Law L o r d s d i s a g r e e d by immunity article economic Certainly would not to Iraqi Airways.
86

I t i s true

that

Iraq

2 ( 4 ) , b u t i s a g g r e s s i o n acta jure gestionis? crime no, of conversion in a state of war organ a

for Iraqi to

Airways the by

(a s u b s i d i a r y authority refusing of to

dare of

flout Hussein

dictatorial national

government policy bright for

Saddam

follow

directives light

and t h i s

should have g i v e n t h e Law L o r d s t h e the issues of the case eclectically, Airways

t o approach

t h e i n v a s i o n o f Kuwait cannot

and the s e i z u r e

o f Kuwait

aircraft of

be c h a r a c t e r i s e d a s f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s The Law L o r d s should have

S e c t i o n 3 ( 3 ) c o f t h e 1978 A c t .

r a t h e r r e l i e d on j u s cogens as t h e i r r e a s o n f o r t h e judgment. The values only nature t e s t and t h e l o c u s t e s t a r e d e r i v e d from human

without

much r e g a r d t o s t a t e

v a l u e s and t h e r e f o r e must law r a t h e r of states. than to The

be a p p l i e d t o t h e needs law,

of m u n i c i p a l activities

international

i . e . , the

judgments i n Senguta

v . R e p u b l i c of I n d i a , Alcorn v. R e p u b l i c o f ex hypothesi would n o t Texas

Colombia, Canada v. Bucke, and Mcelhinney o f f e n d common s e n s e . and Milling Corp. Bank v. v.

However, d e c i s i o n s such a s T r e n t e x t , Federal Republic Societe des of N i g e r i a ,

Cameroon's Robber, I

Development

Establissement

K u w a i t A i r w a y s C o r p o r a t i o n v. I r a q i A n o t h e r ( 1 9 9 3 ) , The Times 27 October 122. K u w a i t A i r w a y s C o r p o r a t i o n v. I r a q i Another, p e r L o r d Goff (1995) IWLR 1147. 547
86

85

Airways

Company and

Airways

Company and

Congreso d e l P a r t i d o , N o n r e s i d e n t Nigeria, and Kuwait Airways

P e t i t i o n e r v. C e n t r a l Bank of leave much to be of

Corporation,

d e s i r e d , i f c a r e f u l l y b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e needed r e q u i r e m e n t usus, thus exposing the fallacy i n the nature test,

for i t i s

not easy sometimes t o s e p a r a t e t h e n a t u r e t e s t test. It is submitted that as a result of

from the purpose

the

rules

of

the

i n t e r s t a t e system, nature t e s t other states in and

s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s a r e r a d i c a l l y opposed t o t h e to the j u r i s d i c t i o n or r u l e that of

t h u s u n w i l l i n g t o submit

f o r t h e r e i s no state practice

persuasive principle which stipulates

well state

grounded

a c t i v i t i e s be d i s t i n g u i s h e d a c c o r d i n g t o l o c a l d a t a as a p r e l u d e to e x e r c i s i n g The nature jurisdiction over s u b j e c t s of to international law. i t is

test,

t h e r e f o r e , i s open

q u e s t i o n because

based on unfounded mythology o f j u s t i c e w i t h o u t any The appeal Its

coherence. i t s great

law o f s o v e r e i g n immunity, however, has l o s t West and in terms been t h e r e f o r e may of equity and never be the in

i n the

same a g a i n . the market without test. with

weakness has

stability and

place

well

explored,

debunked

exposed

s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i n h e r e n t weakness i n t h e n a t u r e The suggestion, in however, the light that of i t the be replaced of has Latin met

difficulties countries,

position

American states

t h e new

commonwealth A f r i c a n s t a t e s and

other

from A s i a , e.g., Sovereign

India, China, e t c . immunity, g i v e n the current position of states,

would c o n t i n u e t o be t h e g u i d i n g l i g h t but one must a l s o concede that although restrictive immunity 548 was a mistake, it would

persist it is

as a r u l e of thumb i n i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . appropriate to suggest that it should not be used

But as that or

shackles it is

to b i n d s o v e r e i g n wholly of premised

s t a t e s because of the upon the transitory a i r of

very f a c t conditions

functions

states.

There

i s an

sophistry

associated best.

w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e immunity and It Session General i s equally in 1991 the with important ILC a

i t i s i n r e a l i t y nebulous a t to state the that at its

Forty-Third to the

submitted

draft that

articles an

Assembly

recommendation be

international draft

c o n f e r e n c e of p l e n i p o t e n t i a r i e s articles its so as

convened to examine t h e The

to have a c o n v e n t i o n concluded. 49/61 of the the of 9th December Somewhere Committee 1994 last

Assembly i n accepted the the

resolution

duly year

recommendation recommended possibility Session the 9th that

ILC. Sixth up a

Assembly into the

that of

should

look the

setting

working group a t

Fifty-Fourth of on

to consider outstanding substantive articles. and The Sixth

issues in respect

draft

Committee commenced i t s work at the meeting were

November 1998

a l l speakers

agreed

a w o r k i n g group be 52/151. At

formed as e n v i s a g e d i n G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y its 2569th meeting an agreement i . e . , on some 7 was May

resolution reached 1999,

where a and the

working said

group was so far

established, has made

group to deal

insightful

s u g g e s t i o n s as to how out of t h e States concept of draft are state

w i t h the u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e s a r i s i n g

articles. still for divided purpose over of issues relating to the for a

immunity, of a c o n t r a c t ,

criteria

d e t e r m i n i n g the

commercial c h a r a c t e r 549

c o n c e p t of

state

enterprise

in

relation

to

commercial

transactions,

c o n t r a c t s o f employment and measures o f c o n s t r a i n t a g a i n s t s t a t e property. So f a r we do n o t have any accepted s e t o f r u l e s on

jurisdictional suggestions states. find a

immunities o f s t a t e s , b u t one i s h o p e f u l t h a t t h e group would find f a v o u r w i t h many

of the working

Certainly great d i f f i c u l t i e s common understanding and

still

e x i s t i n a quest t o t o t h e problems

solution

r e l a t i n g t o sovereign immunity.

550

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION: A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR RESOLVING THE

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CONTROVERSY

551

The analysis

f o l l o w i n g conclusions are derived

from t h e p r e c e d i n g

as regards t h e r i g h t s o f t h e s o v e r e i g n s t a t e and t h a t

of the p r i v a t e trader. (1) from case The d o c t r i n e law, s t a t e must be of state practice immunity, as can be gathered of learned

and t h e w r i t i n g s de lege lata as

scholars,

designated

customary

international

law, a p r o d u c t o f e a r l y

European

meta-juridical judgment o f

p h i l o s o p h y which found a p p l i c a t i o n

i n the classic

Chief J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l i n 1812, i n v o l v i n g p r i v a t e s u i t s a g a i n s t Napoleon o f France, f o r having f o r c i b l y Schooner Exchange, a l b e i t American c i t i z e n s . did find favour acquired t i t l e belonging t o the t o two

a private property

That t h e d e c i s i o n many judges

i n t h e Schooner Exchange became well

with

and t h e r e f o r e o f states

established century disputed.

opinio

or grounded i n t h e p r a c t i c e part

i n the 19th cannot be

up t o t h e e a r l y

o f the 20th

century

I n other words, t h e r e was enough evidence o f usus and

juris sive necessitatis for i t s acceptance among

sovereign states. West.

This,

however, i s g r a d u a l l y

changing i n t h e

552

THE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN META-JURIDICAL PHILOSOPHY ON AMERICAN COURTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS The W r i t i n g s of P u b l i c i s t s Grotius Pufendorf Bynkershoek Vattel Citations i n Pleadings 16 9 25 92 Court Citations 11 4 16 38 Court Quotations 2 8 2 22

(a) legal

Professor

Edwin

D.

Dickinson,

leading

American work,

scholar,

p r e p a r e d t h e above

statistics.

Vattel's

f o r example, became a source book and an e s s e n t i a l a u t h o r i t y i n American law. (b) The s t a t i s t i c s are clear evidence o f how American jurisprudence respecting the theory of international

c o u r t s r e l i e d on t h e w r i t i n g s o f G r o t i u s , Pufendorf, Bynkershoek and V a t t e l t o d e c i d e cases between 1789-1820. Vattel, f o r example, were specifically cited Bynkershoek and i n t h e Schooner

Exchange i n 1812. (c) Thus Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek and V a t t e l ,

a l t h o u g h d i d n o t s t u d y s t a t e immunity s p e c i f i c a l l y , however t h e philosophical writings o f these scholars d i d influence the A c a r e f u l review Grotius,

development o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a t e immunity. of history, however, and V a t t e l would show that

Gentili,

Bynkershoek personal

expended

their

energies

i n studying

immunities

of foreign

sovereigns

and problems o f

diplomatic immunities.
553

(2)

Whenever t h e r e i s doubt as t o t h e e x a c t

scope o f

an

a p p l i c a b l e r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, t h a t i s , when t h e r e i s no t r e a t y , then the s a i d r u l e must be i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e essential elements of customary international law. This

approach, however, becomes q u i t e d i f f i c u l t because o f t h e s t a t e voluntarist approach, i.e., the consent of states to of

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s determined from t h e conduct o r b e h a v i o u r the subjects of the lawmakers themselves, The subjects law of which i n the

main law, and Thus

requires

proper are

proof. also

international agents right.

technically, judges

lawmakers,

enforcement own

o f t h e law a t the same t i m e i n t h e i r

given t h e h o r i z o n t a l nature o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, t h e r e i s every indication that that developing immunity c o u n t r i e s would c o n t i n u e be and This maintained sheer lack because of to of insist their and the the

sovereign

collective

self-interest advancement. Sixth

capital by of

technological work of the

argument i s s u p p o r t e d and the proceedings

Committee

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law immunities 1980-1988) . (3) Large of

Commission's d r a f t a r t i c l e s on s t a t e s and their

jurisdictional (ILC Report

foreign

property

markets

in

industrialised

centres

regarding

t r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s would not d e c l i n e i f c o u n t r i e s s u b s c r i b e t o the t e n e t s o f absolute immunity, t o prove by c l e a r evidence f o r so f a r no one has been a b l e harm caused t o date to

o f any s e r i o u s

t o p r i v a t e t r a d e r s as a r e s u l t o f a c c o r d i n g a b s o l u t e immunity t h e i r f o r e i g n business p a r t n e r s , i . e . , f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n Thus t h e application or the introduction

554

states.

of

the

restrictive

immunity confound

into

transnational

litigation

would

not help but of adjudicative courts of

the s i t u a t i o n

because

t h e mechanism jurisdiction by

competence and t h e enforcement are rendered less effective

o f domestic

the horizontal

nature

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. (4) that C o u n t r i e s would continue t o pray i n view lacks i n their defence t h a t the

t h e y be g r a n t e d immunity

of the fact

doctrine of r e s t r i c t i v e Secondly, and the

immunity

usus and opinio juris.

as a r e s u l t o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n loopholes i n national legislation, lawyers would

c o n t i n u e d e f e n d i n g f o r e i g n s t a t e s b e f o r e domestic c o u r t s . (5) of True, i t would be i n o r d e r o r a p p o s i t e i f t h e concept

a b s o l u t e immunity i s m o d i f i e d t o move i n a b r e a s t w i t h time, promoting in good faith, good conscience and substantial This

thus

justice

transnational

business

transaction.

p r o p o s i t i o n , however, i s n o t a d v o c a t i n g a wholesale enactment o f n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n couched i n r a d i c a l terms w h o l l y l a c k i n g o f usus and opinio juris. against facile I n t h i s r e s p e c t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o guard or locally enacted legislation

legislation

somewhat couched i n s u p p o r t o f p r i v a t e t r a d e r s over t h e r i g h t s of states, f o r the legal f o u n d a t i o n o f s t a t e immunity t o some That i s why t o date i t has remained t h e litigation respecting suits

e x t e n t s t i l l has m e r i t . starting point

i n international

a g a i n s t f o r e i g n s t a t e s b e f o r e domestic c o u r t s . issue can v i g o r o u s l y be argued

For lawyers, t h e

b o t h ways, e.g., Trendtex, I

555

Congreso d e l P a r t i d o , Rolimpex, Alcom, P h i l i p p i n e s Embassy Case and Sengupta. (6)

1

I t i s e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n o r

c o d i f i c a t i o n has i t s own i n h e r e n t problems: (1) (2) That i t i s less f l e x i b l e . That i t i s less adaptable t o changes i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. (3) That i t i s impossible t o cover sovereign e.g., issues immunity controversy every through aspect of the

legislation, t o cover

t h e State that v. fell

Immunity A c t 1978 f a i l e d before the court India

t o consider i n (1983) ICR 2 2 1 .

Sengupta

Republic

of

American s c h o l a r s , f o r example, i n r e c e n t t i m e s have c a l l e d f o r t h e amendment o f t h e 197 6 FSIA. (4) The meaning o f t h e terms commercial t r a n s a c t i o n and s o v e r e i g n a u t h o r i t y i n respect o f d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t impleading national are n o t w e l l explained i n the various

legislation.

There i s t h e r e f o r e t h e need laws

f o r amendments t o be made t o t h e v a r i o u s e n a c t e d respecting state (5) immunity.

The e l u c i d a t i o n on s u b s i d i a r y organs o f t h e s t a t e o r "separate e n t i t y " , e.g., 14 o f t h e 1978 UK A c t i s far from adequate. The e x p l a n a t i o n , f o r example, Trading Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f doubt was inconclusive and thus

given

i n Trendtex without

Nigeria,

(1978) 1 A l l ER 89.
556

leaving

certain

q u e s t i o n s unanswered,

i . e . , mixed

a c t i v i t y of states. (7) certainly Treaty bring provision about would be most helpful and will

stability

i n transnational must

business

transaction. multilateral should e n t e r

Thus

bilateral

treaties

be p r e f e r r e d t o that states

treaties. into

I t i s further treaties

suggested

bilateral

i n order t o provide f o r contracts. t o waive But i t immunity Thus allow to

waiver o f immunity i n cases appears because while waiver some countries would

o f commercial n o t be a b l e

of constitutional

constraints,

e.g., Colombia. countries allow may

constitutional to

provisions others

o f some do

jurisdiction, or This

not

waiver to

jurisdiction property.

enforcement simply

measures

i n respect

state

confounds

t h e problem;

that

i s why

perhaps b i l a t e r a l t r e a t i e s would be most a p p r o p r i a t e . (8) problems practical A Proposal f o r t h e Development can o n l y be o f t h e Law. resolved The

of state approach.

immunity One

through a these

such

approach

f o r resolving

problems i s t o a l l o w t h e l a w t o grow t h r o u g h a g r a d u a l process, thus encouraging m u n i c i p a l to work rather court than judges t o put t h e i r them to legal local

reasoning

restrict

l e g i s l a t i o n , which a r e i n most cases n o t r e f l e c t i v e o f customary international aspirations. law and sometimes such an enacted approach with would simplistic build into source

Secondly,

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law f l e x i b i l i t y , of comparative literature

c e r t a i n t y and an abundant t o draw

f o r t h e judge

on, thus

removing a penumbra o f doubt as t o t h e l e g i t i m a t e l e g a l b a s i s o f

557

national

l e g i s l a t i o n i n respect t o general

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. a

T h i r d l y , t o promote t h e development o f sovereign immunity law, national judicial authority faced w i t h the issue of

granting

immunity o r denying immunity must choose a road o f e c l e c t i c i s m by making reference laws and first general be t o the h i s t o r y international of the subject,

municipal These must

law f o r guidance. by comparative In

or

further and
such

carefully practice
as

supplemented the world

literature
connection,

state

over.
juris

this
opinio

parameters

usus,

opinio

juris sive necessitatis must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , where t h e issues appear n o t t o be c l e a r c u t , must rely on a "proviso" o r what scholars a municipal have

but court

called the

"residual

c l a u s e , " i . e . , t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e , e q u i t y and

good conscience t o r e s o l v e t h e problem. (9) now t h e r e immunity. strictly, The k e r n e l o f t h e whole s u b j e c t m a t t e r i s t h a t as o f of relative adhered t o respect the

i s no agreed p r i n c i p l e on t h e q u e s t i o n One important is practice each that state must must be

however,

that

fundamental r i g h t o f each other. of restrictive public immunity and

The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e concept birth t o the d i s t i n c t i o n which has

has given acts

between

private

of the state,

admittedly most

confused t h e s u b j e c t t o such h e i g h t s as t o make i t There i s , therefore, no u n i f o r m rule nor a i t is

elusive.

uniform practice suggested issues, that regard

t o follow. when c o u r t s must be

Given these d i f f i c u l t i e s , are faced w i t h sovereign be paid

immunity t o the

had, o r a t t e n t i o n

following factors:
558

(1)

The s t a t e and i t s economic and t h e T h i r d World.

o r g a n i s a t i o n , e.g.,

China

(2) (3)

The c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e s t a t e . The political system of the state, which and must

encompass

structural e.g.,

differentiation while

cultural such as

secularisation, Britain, subsystem France,

some c o u n t r i e s t h e USA, as

Germany and others

have a

high

autonomy,

such

Russia,

China,

North Korea, have a subsystem most T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s Nigeria, Sudan, Cuba,

c o n t r o l . Furthermore,

such as L i b y a , Zimbabwe, etc., have promobilised

a u t h o r i t a r i a n systems. (4) The difference i n the a c t i v i t y o f s t a t e s and state

economic (5) The

vehicles. state organs and entities, as and

v a l u e p l a c e d on legal

regards

authority,

ownership, possession

representation. These suggestions are i n which the being put forth i n order litigation to promote be and

conditions centred on

sovereign

immunity

would

specific

issues respecting

t h e behaviour

needs o f s t a t e s coupled w i t h t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e b a l a n c i n g of the j u s t i f i e d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e r as a g a i n s t the right of the state, rather than simply resign to the

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether a g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i v i t y or n o t . attributes This approach c e r t a i n l y of the s t a t e , e.g.,

i s commercial

would e c l i p s e t h e entrenched equality and

t h e independence,

d i g n i t y of states.

I t i s t h e r e f o r e submitted t h a t balancing the

559

rights

of the l i t i g a t i n g

p a r t i e s i n respect o f t h e i s s u e i n a

g i v e n case would produce a b e t t e r r e s u l t than arguably r e s i g n t o a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e acts o f t h e s t a t e , a method a l l too often made t h e cornerstone of national

legislation. (10) submitted immunity created I n order de lege be t o promote ferenda t h a t a balance of justice, of i t is

the doctrine entirely

restrictive i t has

forsaken

o r abandoned

because

c o n f u s i o n and indeed has made t r a n s n a t i o n a l

litigation

more u n c e r t a i n and d i f f i c u l t than ever before. g i v e n by t h e p r o t a g o n i s t s crystallise conducted

distinction

Thus t h e promise

o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity t h a t i t would

i n t o t h e promotion o f e q u i t y and j u s t i c e has been on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds

between acta jure

due t o t h e f a c t
and acta jure

that the
gestionis

imperii

quaere

jure

privoto

i s simply

impracticable

f o r t h e whole

concept i s q u i t e d i f f i c u l t o f a p p l i c a t i o n . (11) The f o r m a t i o n o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n t r a c t between a

s t a t e and a f o r e i g n p r i v a t e e n t i t y r e q u i r e s a l o t o f h a r d work and good l e g a l d r a f t i n g , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n complex l e g a l

principles. avoid special dispute

Be t h i s as i t may, i t i s suggested t h a t i n o r d e r t o f u t u r e " disputes before m u n i c i p a l courts, a

"litigating

c l a u s e be i n s e r t e d t o be f i r s t r e s o l v e d

i n t o the contract

calling

f o r any

amicably based on t h e p r i n c i p l e o f This

novation ad interim o r t h r o u g h a process o f c o n c i l i a t i o n .

approach would a f f o r d t h e two opposing p a r t i e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to get t h e i r differences resolved instead o f throwing their

e f f o r t s i n t o t h e uncharted seas by canvassing t h e i r

560

differences

before rekindle

national t h e problem

judicial

authority

which

i n turn

would

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity,

a l l too often

wholly predicated

on t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t s jure imperii

and acts j u r e gestionis. (12) A c a r e f u l review o f a l l t h e n a t i o n a l legislationi n

p l a c e would show t h a t mixed a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e s and t h e concept of act of state were ignored or were not given any

consideration. states

I t i s suggested t h a t these mixed a c t i v i t i e s o f as a discrete by Goff category J, f o r diplomatic

be designated as was Or a

resolution Partido.

suggested

i n I Congreso d e l exemption" be duly

"discretionary

function so t h a t

accorded t o government e x e c u t i v e s better possible difficult resort position t o take swift

t h e y would be i n a free from suit or a

decisions

litigation, political

so as t o p r e v e n t o r economic

a disaster
2

or a r r e s t

problem.

Or a judge

could

t o the a p p l i c a t i o n the p r i n c i p l e

o f t h e maxim, salus populi suprema of self-preservation t o deal with

lex, i . e . ,

problems r e s p e c t i n g

mixed a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e s , because t h e s a i d and s e c u r i t y o f a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e and t h e n a t i o n a l s of

p r i n c i p l e permits the welfare to override

the r i g h t s o f i t s c i t i z e n s

f o r e i g n s t a t e s under e x c e p t i o n a l is undoubtedly recognised

circumstances. nations

This p r i n c i p l e and

by many

o f the world

therefore

would n o t o f f e n d

common sense.

Thus i f Country A

The Trendtex case which d e a l t w i t h t h e N i g e r i a n Cement case; and t h e De Sanchez, i n v o l v i n g t h e use o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers, are good examples where t h e " d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n exemption" concept can be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t a t t r a c t i n g an avalanche o f s u i t s from i n d i v i d u a l s .
561

e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h a p r i v a t e e n t i t y B, can i t be immune by a subsequent p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n which prima facie might have been g e n u i n e l y prompted by an unexpected event even though i t As a l r e a d y s t a t e d above, such

breaches t h e i n i t i a l t r a n s a c t i o n ? problems be r e s o l v e d through

t h e maxim salus populi suprema lex

o r a " d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n exemption" be f o l l o w e d by t h e judge t o promote j u s t i c e . (13) I t i s submitted t h a t l o c a l jurisprudence or municipal

j u r i s p r u d e n c e should n o t be r e a d i l y t r a n s l a t e d from t h e i n t e r n a l plane into public i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i f such laws are n o t

s u p p o r t e d ex abundanti cautela by g e n e r a l

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, f o r

t h e r e l a t i o n s o f s t a t e s cannot be c o n s i d e r e d on an equal f o o t i n g as regards t h e p o s i t i o n o f n a t u r a l persons w i t h i n a must n o t be judged polity. strictly

Thus

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law problems t o municipal

according law

law c r i t e r i a b u t r a t h e r by i n t e r n a t i o n a l

standards. (14) The new states o f Asia and A f r i c a , according bound to

international customary

law, a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y

by t h e r u l e s o f of their

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law e x i s t i n g a t t h e time

independence. any emerging

But these c o u n t r i e s on t h e other hand can p r e v e n t customary law from becoming binding on them

provided thereafter said rule,

the said continue

countries

oppose

the rule

ab initio and t o the respect

t o maintain

consistent

opposition

i . e . , the persistent objector rule. I n this

A s i a n and A f r i c a n s t a t e s and o t h e r T h i r d World s t a t e s which have recently currency gained independence have the right to resist the

o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s t r i c t i v e immunity ex debito.
562

(15)

Customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n some unique

cases may

be c r e a t e d eo instanti ( i . e . , spontane). However, state

i m m e d i a t e l y o r i n s t a n t l y o r droit immunity or r e s t r i c t i v e immunity Thus i n before

cannot be created eo instanti w i t h o u t s t a t e p r a c t i c e . concrete terms, claims o r arguments made by states

m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s based on a w e l l founded r u l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law or interest are s t a t e practice because such claims or

arguments show how i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s p e r c e i v e d and understood in a given state. this category. Legal Municipal court decisions also f a l l The November 1987 c o m p l a i n t C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee Immunity Act against neatly

into

made by t h e the United "excessive as state

Asian-African States 1976

Sovereign

respecting be d e s i g n a t e d

jurisdiction," practice. (16) into

f o r example,

can a l s o

(See Doc No AALCC/IM/87/1 [Nov. 1987] f o r d e t a i l s . ) The International articles Law Commission test, Thus has i n c o r p o r a t e d which has been draft foreign of

the draft

t h e purpose legislation.

rejected articles states domestic seemingly

i n most n a t i o n a l are accepted

i f these

as a t r e a t y t e x t , tool

i t would g i v e

an e f f e c t i v e

i n challenging the j u r i s d i c t i o n

c o u r t s on many grounds, a l t h o u g h t h e r e appears t o be a stringent requirement imposed upon when t h e purpose

t e s t i s t o be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . (17) controversy parties entente Part Another panacea t o r e s o l v i n g t h e s o v e r e i g n i s to resort to arbitration, t o g e t h e r based where immunity litigating

would be brought cordiale.

on t h e p r i n c i p l e o f

This method was sometime ago suggested i n of

563

I I of the r e s o l u t i o n

the 45th

Conference

of the

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n a t Lucerne m s u g g e s t i o n was q u i c k l y equitable method likely criticised

1952.

However, t h e Thus an

and s i m p l y b u r i e d . t h e acceptance

t o command

o f a l l and

sundry must f o l l o w sound p r i n c i p l e s whereby t h e l e x f o r i and t h e lex arbitri can be c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d t o a v o i d c o m p l i c a t i o n s . Which means t h a t t h e attempt t o a r b i t r a t e would not open t h e

door f o r t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n local court without to settle first their giving

over t h e d i s p u t e by a parties the

the l i t i g a t i n g

opportunity contract. aid

differences

per t h e terms o f t h e

I t i s suggested h e r e i n t h a t t h e domestic c o u r t must rather than f r u s t r a t e him. And t h e umpire i s where the three

t h e umpire

advised

t o follow

the principle

of equity,

elements o f e q u i t y can be p u t t o use, e.g., e q u i t y intra legem, i.e.,

praeter

a d o p t i n g t h e laws t o t h e f a c t s
legem, i.e.,f i l l i n g gaps

o f a g i v e n case, equity
infra
3

i n t h e law and equity

legem, i . e . , a p p l y i n g o n l y j u s t laws and r e j e c t i n g u n j u s t l a w s ,

3

M i c h a e l A k e h u r s t (1976) 25 ICLQ 801. I t i s suggested t h a t arbitration i s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e which must be taken seriously. For i t would appear most c o u n t r i e s would p r e f e r s e t t l i n g t h e i r d i s p u t e s o r d i f f e r e n c e s amicably r a t h e r t h a n throw their disputes within t h e realm o f t h e domestic j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a forum s t a t e . The enactment o f l e g i s l a t i o n by some l e a d i n g Western n a t i o n s as r e g a r d s t h e l i m i t i n g o f immunity would continue t o c r e a t e c o n t r o v e r s y i n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e immunity i s n o t w e l l grounded i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f a g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f c o u n t r i e s o f t h e w o r l d . The argument by some scholars t h a t t h e r u l e o f s t a t e immunity would c o m p l e t e l y be abandoned i n t h e s h o r t e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e i s non sequitur and perhaps premature; see t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission's Report from 1978-1988 and t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e purpose t e s t i n t h e d r a f t a r t i c l e s o f t h e ILC Report (1991) . There i s c e r t a i n l y an expression o f opinio non juris by a g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f c o u n t r i e s o f t h e developing w o r l d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e immunity. And these e x p r e s s i o n s show how i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s understood i n these countries.
564

or t h e whole s u b j e c t of a r b i t r a t i o n c o u l d be d e l o c a l i s e d , thus applying the concept of the lex marcatorial, i . e . , where the and

o r d i n a r y process

of l o c a l a r b i t r a t i o n proves v e r y d i f f i c u l t

u n a t t a i n a b l e i n a given case. (18) registered I f the t r e a t y with the UN text on sovereign to immunity the currently required

fails

attract

r a t i f i c a t i o n s , and f a i l i n g a l l the suggestions p u t f o r t h h e r e i n , then i t would be most apposite i f a plea i s made for the

establishment of a special court f o r the settlement of sovereign immunity natural issues. person and For a in reality legal be disputes brought litigate between before before a the the

state

cannot

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court. World Court in c i v i l

Thus o n l y s t a t e s may

( A r t i c l e 34).

S p e c i a l c o u r t s have been e s t a b l i s h e d such as

law c o u n t r i e s w i t h success and t h e s u g g e s t i o n

i s here p u t f o r t h would go a long way i n t e r n a t i o n a l business persons.

t o promote s t a b i l i t y i n natural state

t r a n s a c t i o n s between s t a t e s and

I n t h i s regard the c o n t r o v e r s y o f s u b j e c t i n g a

t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f another s t a t e would be r e s o l v e d o r p u t t o rest. and This must s p e c i a l c o u r t must have a compulsory the be practice narrowly of the world to jurisdiction but i t s legal

follow should

court, cater

functions

structured

for

issues a r i s i n g from sovereign immunity s p e c i a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o u r t or t r i b u n a l reasons advanced an above, affront such to the

controversy.

Thus i f a

i s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r the of of political states, the

problems dignity

embarrassment,

v i o l a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e of s t a t e e q u a l i t y and t h e problems o f

565

jurisdiction minimised (19) THEORY,

would

disappear

overnight,

o r would

perhaps

be

i n the eyes of sovereign s t a t e s . Finally, I v e n t u r e t o propose a COMPARATIVE DOMINANT to balance the nature t e s t as

i . e . , i f a court wishes

a g a i n s t the purpose t e s t .

T h i s approach

may encompass f i r s t t h e A f t e r t h i s the regard to the

c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of t h e i s s u e s of a given case. problem status legal must be b r o k e n down into p i e c e s having

of the s t a t e entity. This

and t h e r i g h t s then must be

of the n a t u r a l

person or test

followed

by a l o g i c a l

where t h e r i g h t s Which means t h a t carefully be

of the state t h e primary or

and t h e i n d i v i d u a l and s e c o n d a r y

a r e balanced. would and or i s

purpose t e s t s t h e primary

compared

balanced

against

secondary nature t e s t s more w e l l the grounded or

t o determine

which one predominates

r e s p e c t i n g the a c t i v i t i e s and b r e a c h

o f t h e s t a t e qua In this judiciously Thus

contract

transaction test

i n issue. would

respect

the purpose

and t h e n a t u r e t e s t

be compared t o d e t e r m i n e where but t h e purpose test

whether t o g r a n t immunity o r not. predominates immunity must be

granted, appears

i f , on t h e o t h e r

hand,

the nature

of the a c t i v i t y

dominant, t h e n immunity must be d e n i e d o r t h e m a t t e r be r e f e r r e d to arbitration. Municipal courts are therefore urged to

incorporate the purpose t e s t to promote justice

i n t o t h e i r working

f o r m u l a i n order business

and t r a n q u i l l i t y

i n transnational

transactions.

T h i s approach

may n o t r e s o l v e a l l t h e i n t r a c t a b l e

problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t a t e immunity, b u t would a t l e a s t h e l p t h e judge in to ask t h e r i g h t manner q u e s t i o n s and t o e x p l o r e t h e i s s u e s than simply resign only to the

a meaningful

rather

566

d i s t i n c t i o n between commercial and non-commercial a c t i v i t i e s o f states. True, fervent p e r f e c t i o n i s not a human v i r t u e , of the present favour with writer judges, hence i t i s the modest legal

expectation would find

that

these and

proposals scholars.

lawyers

But b e f o r e

I put down my pen I s h a l l o f those interested

humbly beg t o study

crave the indulgence t o t a k e note thus:

i n reading t h i s

o f what S i r F r e d e r i c k P o l l o c k s a i d

some t i m e ago,

"Those who make no m i s t a k e s , i t h a s been s a i d will n e v e r make anything; and t h e j u d g e who i s a f r a i d o f c o m m i t t i n g h i m s e l f may be c a l l e d sound and s a f e i n h i s own g e n e r a t i o n , but w i l l n o t have no mark on t h e l a w . " By S i r F r e d e r i c k P o l l o c k J u d i c i a l C a u t i o n and V a l o u r (1929) 45 LQR 293.

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l and Lord Denning t h e r e f o r e must be h i g h l y commended f o r t h e i r courage and c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e development of t h e law o f sovereign immunity and a l l o t h e r judges and

s c h o l a r s who have a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g elusive shall subject. a l l be left Thus without their sagacious

of t h i s we any

reasoning without

i n t h e middle

o f t h e ocean

n a v i g a t i n g f o r c e , b u t now, we do have a n a v i g a t i n g f o r c e and may therefore the s t a t e These someday r e a c h the shore. and t h e law? I s t h e r e any u n i t y between by law? to

And can t h e s t a t e be j u s t i f i e d questions. However, behind once we

are d i f f i c u l t

begin

understand that

the underlying p r i n c i p l e s from j u s t i c e

positive

law, and root to

i t i s different

and t h e r e f o r e g i v e s

t h e compulsive

o r d e r o f t h e s t a t e then one would be j u s t i f i e d t o

567

argue t h a t The that

i t i s quite

cumbersome

to j u s t i f y

t h e s t a t e by law. says

e r a o f n a t u r a l law h a s g i v e n law be c o n s t r u e d a s an o r d e r

way t o p o s i t i v e law which o f human c o m p u l s i o n .

Can i t

be s a i d t h a t s o v e r e i g n

s t a t e s be s u b j e c t e d t o t h i s c o m p u l s i o n i n vertical

view o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s l o c a l l y b a s e d and t h e r e f o r e in every respect? The a n s w e r i s i n t h e n e g a t i v e , state immunity and the

hence t h e long expression of

controversy opinio non

respecting juris

i n respect

of r e s t r i c t i v e

immunity by

Third

World c o u n t r i e s .

568

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS

A k e h u r s t , M., A Modem Introduction e d i t i o n , London, 1991.

to International

Law, F o u r t h

Akehurst, M . , /Malahczuk, P., A Modern Introduction International Law, S e v e n t h e d i t i o n , L e i d e n , 1997. A l l e n , E. W . , The Position of Foreign States Courts Chiefly in Europe, New York, 1933. A l l o t t , N. A., Essays in African before

to

National

Law, London, 1960. Politics -A

Almond, G. A., and P o w e l l , B.E., Comparative Developmental Approach, Boston, 1966. Amerasinghe, C. F., S t a t e Responsibility Cambridge, 1981.

for Injuries

to Aliens,

Amin, S. H., Theory of Changed Circumstances Trade, Leiden/London, 1982. Anand, R. P., New States and International Anene, J . C , and Brown, Centuries, London, 1970. Appadorae, A., The Substance G. , Africa

in

International

Law, London, 1972. in the 19

th

and

20

zh

of Politics, New D e l h i , 1968. -- An Analytical and Prognostic

Badr, G. M. , S t a t e Immunity View, The Hague, 1984.

Barker, J . C. , The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges Immunities: A Necessary Evil?, London/Vermont, 1997. B e a l , J . , Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, New York, 1935. Bedjaoui, Prospects, M. , (ed.), International P a r i s / D o r d r e c h t , 1991. Law Achievements

and

and

B h a t t a c h a r y y a , B., A First Course of Political Science with Constitutions of Indian Republic and Pakistan, C a l c u t t a , 1949. Bishop, W. W. , International e d i t i o n , Boston, 1953. Law Cases and Materials, Third

B l a u s t e i n , A.P., and F l a n z , G.H., ( e d s . ) , C o n s t i t u t i o n s of the Countries of the World, New York, 1975-2001, v o l s , v i - x x . Bokor-Szego, H., New S t a t e s and International Law, Moscow, 1970.

569

B r i e r l y , J . L., The Law of Nations, Waldock, London, 1963. B r i g g s , H. W . , The Law of Nations: Second e d i t i o n , New York, 1952. B r o w n l i e , I . , Principles e d i t i o n , Oxford, 1990. of Public

Sixth

edition

by C. H.

M.,

Cases, Documents

and Notes,

International

Law,

Fourth

Brownlie, I . , Basic Documents e d i t i o n , Oxford, 1995. Bryce, R., Studies in History

in

International

Law,

Fourth

and Jurisprudence, Maier G., Public

New York, 1901. Law,

B u e r g e n t h a l , T., and H a r o l d New York, 1990. Butler, 1990.

International

W. E . , ( e d . ) , Perestroika

and International

Law, London,

Bynkershoek, C., De foro legatorum, Bynkershoek, C , (Oxford 193 0 ) . Quaestionum juris

1721, (Oxford publici

1940). Duo, 1737,

libri

Calvo, C , L e Droit International Theorique e d i t i o n , P a r i s , 1896, v o l s , i - v i . C a r l s t o n , K.S., York, 1946. The Process of

et. Practique,

Fifth

International

Arbitration,

New

C a r t e r , E., and T r i m b l e , P.R., International Chen, T., The International

Law, Boston, 1990. Cambridge, 1951. Law,

Law of Recognition, P., Private

C h e s h i r e , C. C , and North, T w e l f t h e d i t i o n , London, 1992.

International

Coleman, P., The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and Custom of Ancient and Rome, London, 1911, V o l . i i . C u r r i e , B., Selected C a r o l i n a , 1963. D'Amato, A., York, 1971.

Greece

Essays on the Conflict of Laws, Duke, North

The Concept

of Custom

in International

Law,

New

Danilenko, G. M., Law-making Dodrecht/London, 1992.

in

the International

Community,

Davidson, B., The Search for Africa,

London, 1994.

570

de V a t t e l , E., Le droit des gens, Ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, applique a la conduite et aux affairs des nationes et des souverains, 1758. ( T r a n s l a t i o n by C. G. , Fenwick, Classics of International Law, Washington, 1916, V o l . i i i . ) Dicey, A. V.,and C o l l i n s , London, 1993. D i c k i n s o n , E . D., New York, 1920. L., Conflict of Laws, T w e l f t h edition,

The Equality

of States

in International

Law,

Dixon, M., and McCorquodale, R. , Cases International Law, Second e d i t i o n , 1995. Dugard, J . , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Town, 1994. Law: A South African

and

Materials

on

Perspective,

Cape

Dunning, I . N. A., A History of Political to Montesquieu, New York, 1905. Ehrenzweig, A. A., Private iii. Ehrenzweig, A. A., 1962. Treatise International,

Theories

from

Luther

Leiden,

1973, V o l s , i -

on the Conflict

of Laws, S t . P a u l ,

E l i a s , T.O., New Horizons E l i a s , T.O., Africa and Boston/London, 1988. Elias, 1975. T.O., Judicial

in International the Development

Law, L e i d e n , 1979. of International Law,

Process

in

Commonwealth

Africa,

Accra,

F a l k , R. A. , The Role of Domestic Legal Order, New York, 1964. Fawcett, J . S., London, 1963. The British

Courts

in the

International

Commonwealth

in International

Law,

Fenwick, C.G., International York/London, 1948.

Law,

Third

edition,

New

Folsom, R.H., Gordon, M . W . , and Spangle, J.A. J r . , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Business Transactions, S t . P a u l , 1988. Friedman, 1953 . W. , Expropriation in International Law, New York,

Gonidec, P.F., Les droite Africains,

P a r i s , 1968.
(

Hamilton, A., Madison, J . , and J a y , J . The Federalist Papers - American Classics About Government, Number 81, New York, 1961.

571

H a r r i s , D. J . , Cases and Materials e d i t i o n , London, 1998. Henkin, L., How Nations Behave,

on International

Law,

Fifth

Second e d i t i o n , New York, 1979. Twelfth edition,

Holland, T. E., The Elements Oxford, 1916. Hurwitz, L., The Accountability and C o n n e c t i c u t , 1981. Hyde, Vols,

of Jurisprudence,

State as the Redress

Defendant -of Individual

Governmental Grievances,

C.C., International i-iii. The English

Law,

Second

edition,

Boston,

1945,

Ingman, T., 1994. Jessup, 1949.

Legal

Process,

Fifth

edition,

London,

P., A Modern

Law of Nations,

Second e d i t i o n ,

New

York,

Kalderen, L., S i d d i g i n , Q.S., Guidelines on Legal Negotiations York/London, 1984. K e l s e n , H., Principles Harvard, 1966. of

et al., Sovereign Borrowers with Commercial Lenders, New

International

Law,

Second

edition,

Labouret, H., Africa before Lauterpacht, International

the White Man, London, 1962. Sources and Analogies in

H., Private Law Law, London, 1927.

L a u t e r p a c h t , H., Recognition Lawson, C, Unintentional 1982. and Harm

in International

Law, London, 1947.

Markesinis, B.S., Tortious Liability for in the Common Law and the Civil Law, Oxford,

Leech, M.E., O l i v e r , C.T., and Sweeney, J.M., Legal System, New York, 1988.

The

International

L i l l i c h , R., and Brower, C. M., I n t e r n a t i o n a l Arbitration in the 21st Century -- Towards Judicialization and Uniformity, New York, 1994. L i n s a y , A. D., Lowenfeld, A., Paul, 1993. Lugard, F.D., The Essentials International of Democracy, Litigation Oxford, 1935. and Arbitration, St.

The Portuguese Africa, in International

Harvard, 1959. Law, Oxford, 1973.

Mann, F.A., Studies

572

Maury, R., B u l l e t i n P a r i s , 1947.

d'

Institut

Francaise

d' Africa

Noire,

Minogue, M., and Molloy, J . , ( e d s . ) , African -- Selected Documents, Cambridge, 1974. M o r r i s , J . H. C , The Conflict

Aims

and

Attitudes

of Laws, London, 1993. Law: I n Honour of

Nawaz, M. K. , ( e d . ) , Essays on International K r i s h a Rao, - s i j t h o f f / L e i d e n , 1976. Nkrumah, K., Class Struggle Nkrumah, K., The Challenge in Africa,

London, 1970.

of the Congo, London, 1974. of the Law of Nations, Second

Nussbaum, A., A Concise History e d i t i o n , New York/London, 1962. O'Connell, D.P., International 1970, V o l s , i and i i .

Law,

Second

edition,

London,

Oppenheim, L., International Law, N i n t h e d i t i o n , R., and Watts, A., London, 1992. V o l . i . Peace, p a r t 1; V o l i , Peace, p a r t s 2-4. Padmore, G., Africa -- How Britain Rules Africa, Institutions of West

by J e n n i n g s , Introduction,

London, 1936. Africa, Second

P r i c e , J . H., Political e d i t i o n , London, 1975. Ramberg, J . , Cancellation 1970. Rodney, W . ,

of Contracts

of Affreightment,

London,

How Europe Underdeveloped of Western

Africa, London, 1982. Philosophy, Tenth edition,

R u s s e l l , B., A History London, 1964. Ryder, A.F.C.,

Benin and the Europeans

1485-1877,

London,1969. Theory, New

Sabine, G., and Thorson, T., A History York, 1973. Sanders, A.J.G.M., International Context, Durban, 1979. Sasson, D. , and Bradlow, International Debt Obligations, Schreuer, C., S t a t e Cambridge, 1993. Immunity

of Political

Jurisprudence

in the African

D., Judicial New York, 1987. -Some

Enforcement

of

decent

Developments,

573

Schwarzenberger, G., e d i t i o n , London, 1960. Shaw, M., International

Manual

of

International

Law,

Fourth

Law, F o u r t h e d i t i o n , Cambridge, 1997. International Arbitration, London,

Simpson, J . L . , and Fox, H., 1959. Smith, R.S., The Kingdom

of Yoruba, London, 1969. of Nationalized Property, Dordrecht,

S o r n a r a j a h , M., The P u r s u i t 1986.

S t a r k e , C. F., International Law, S h e a r e r ) , London/Boston, 1994. Sucharitkul, International S., S t a t e Immunities Law, London, 1959.

(Eleventh

edition

by I . A.,

and

Trading

Activities

in

T h i r l w a y , H.W.A., I n t e r n a t i o n a l L e i d e n , 1972.

Customary Law and

Codification,

Tunkin, G . I . , Theory of International B u t l e r ) , London, 1976. Tunkin, G.I., Droit Theoriques, P a r i s , 1965. USSR I n s t i t u t e 1967. International

Law

(Translated

by W. E.,

Public

--

Problemes

of H i s t o r y :

A History

of Africa,

Moscow, 1918-

V e r z i j l , J.H.W., International Law in Historical L e i d e n , S i j t h o f f , 1968-1976. V o l s , i - v i i i Villiger, M.E., L e i d e n , 1985. Customary International Law and

Perspective,

Treaties,

Von Glahn, G., Law Among tiacions, New York/London, 1981. Waddis, J . , A r m i e s and Politics, New York, 1977. W a l l a c e , R., 1986. Ward, 1951. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (A Student Introduction), London,

E., The History

of

the Gold

Coast

and Ashanti,

London,

Watkins, R., The State as a Party Litigant, New York, 1927. White, 1961. G., Nationalisation of Foreign Property, Leiden/London,

Wolf, M.,

P r i v a t e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, Oxford, 1972. International Law, Warsaw, 1994.

Wolfke, K., Custom i n Present

574

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS

Akehurst, M . , "Jurisdiction BYIL 145.

i n International

Law", 46

(1972-73)

Anand, R. P., " A t t i t u d e o f A s i a n - A f r i c a n S t a t e s Towards C e r t a i n Problems of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", i n Snyder, F., and S a t h u r a t h e r , S., ( e d s . ) , T h i r d World Attitudes to International Law, London, 1987. Angell, E., YLJ 150. " S o v e r e i g n Immunity: The Modern Trend", 35 (1925)

A s i a n - A f r i c a n L e g a l C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee, " F i n a l Report of t h e Commission on Immunity of S t a t e s i n R e s p e c t o f Commercial and o t h e r T r a n s a c t i o n s o f P r i v a t e C h a r a c t e r " , Colombo, (1960). Atkeson, T. B., and Ramsey, S. D., "Proposed Amendment of t h e F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t " , 79 (1985) AJIL 770. Baty, T., "De F a c t o S t a t e s , S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s " , 45(1951) 166. B i r d , S., "The S t a t e Immunity A c t of 1978: 13 (1979) The International Lawyer 619. B l a i r , W., "The L e g a l S t a t u s o f C e n t r a l E n g l i s h Law", 57 (1998) Cambridge LJ 374. AJIL

An E n g l i s h Update",

Bank

Investment

in

Boguslavsky, M. M., " F o r e i g n S t a t e Immunity: S o v i e t D o c t r i n e and P r a c t i c e , " 10 (1979) NYIL 167. Borchard, E. M., "Can an U n r e c o g n i s e d (1921-22) YLJ 543. Government Sue?", 31

Bouchez, L. J . , "The Nature and Scope o f S t a t e J u r i s d i c t i o n and E x e c u t i o n , " 10(1979) NYIL 3. Brandon, 358. M. , "Report

Immunity from

on D i p l o m a t i c Immunity", 1

(1952)

ICLQ

Bray, W., and Benkes, M., "Recent Trends i n t h e Development of S t a t e Immunity i n South A f r i c a Law", 7 (1981) SAYIL 13. Garner, J.W., " L e g a l S t a t u s of Commerce", 20 (1926) AJIL 759. Government Ships Employed i n

Brower, C. N. , "Jurisdiction over Foreign Sovereigns: L i t i g a t i o n v. A r b i t r a t i o n " , 17 (1983) The International Lawyer 681.

575

Cardozo, M. H., " S o v e r e i g n Immunity: Day i n C o u r t " , 67 (1954) HLR 608.

The

Plaintiff

Deserves a

C a r l , B. M., " F o r e i g n Governments i n American C o u r t s - The U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t i n P r a c t i c e " , 33 (1979) S o u t h w e s t e r n Law Journal 1009. C a r t e r , P. B., (1950) ILQ 78. "Immunity o f F o r e i g n S t a t e from J u r i s d i c t i o n , " 3

C a r t e r , P. B., " S o v e r e i g n Immunity, S u b s t a n t i a t i o n of C l a i m s " , 4 (1955) ICLQ 469. Cartoon, B. J . , Chance L o s t " , 96 "The D o c t r i n e of S o v e r e i g n Immunity: (1979) South Africa LJ 26. Another

C a s t e l , J . G., "Immunity of a F o r e i g n S t a t e F r e n c h P r a c t i c e " , 46 (1952) AJXL 520.

from E x e c u t i o n :

Charney, J . , "The P e r s i s t e n t O b j e c t o r R u l e and t h e Development of Customary I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", 26 (1985) BYIL 1. Cook, K. F., "Counting t h e Dragon's T e e t h - F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunity and I t s Impact on I n t e r n a t i o n a l A v i a t i o n L i t i g a t i o n " , 46 (1980) J o u r n a l o f A i r Law and Commerce 687. Cosby, M. G., "Commercial A c t i v i t y under t h e F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunities A c t of 1976: Toward a More P r a c t i c a l D e f i n i t i o n " , 34 (1982) Baylor Law Review 295. Crawford, J.R., "A F o r e i g n S t a t e I m m u n i t i e s A c t of A u s t r a l i a " , 8 (1978) Australian YIL 71. Crawford, J.R., "International Law and Foreign D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Immune T r a n s a c t i o n s " , 54 (1983) BYIL Davidson, Lingering 111. J.S., "State Immunity i n t h e English Death", 33(1982) Northern Ireland Legal Sovereigns: 75. Courts A Quarterly

Delaume, G.R., "Long-Arm Jurisdiction S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t " , 74 (1980) A J I L Delaume, G.R., 73 (1985) AJIL Delaume, G.R., 79 (1979) AJIL "Economic Development 319. "The 185. and

under 640.

the

Foreign

S o v e r e i g n Immunity",

S t a t e Immunity A c t of the U n i t e d Kingdom",

E d i t o r s : " S o v e r e i g n Immunity f o r Commercial F o r e i g n Governments", 58 (1948) YLJ 176. Editors: "Jurisdictional (1954) YLJ 1148. Immunity of

I n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s of

Foreign

Sovereigns",

63

576

Ehrenzweig, A., "A P r o p e r Law i n a Proper Forum - A Restatement of t h e Lex Fori Approach", 18 (1965) Oklahoma L Rev 34 0. Ehrenzweig, A., " C o n t r a c t s i n t h e C o n f l i c t Performance", 59 (1959) Columbia L Rev. 1171 E l i a s , T.O., "The A d a p t a t i o n o f (1960) Journal of African Law 2. Imported o f Laws, Part I I ,

Law

i n Africa",

Erasmus, G. , " P r o c e e d i n g s A g a i n s t F o r e i g n S t a t e s - The A f r i c a n F o r e i g n S t a t e s I m m u n i t i e s A c t " , 8 (1981) SAYIL 92.

South

Erasmus, G. , " E x e c u t i o n o f Judgments A g a i n s t F o r e i g n S t a t e s " , 100 (1983) S o u t h African LJ 516. Fairman, C , "Some D i s p u t e d A p p l i c a t i o n S t a t e Immunity", 22 (1928) AJIL 566. F a w c e t t , J . E . S., (1947) BYIL 376. "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l of the P r i n c i p l e of

Trade O r g a n i s a t i o n " , 24

F e l l e r , A. H., "Procedure i n C a s e s I n v o l v i n g Immunity of F o r e i g n S t a t e s i n C o u r t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " , 25 (1931) AJIL 83. Fensterwald, B. J . , " S o v e r e i g n Immunity T r a d i n g " , 63 (1949-50) H a r v a r d L Rev 614. and Soviet State

F i t z m a u r i c e , G., " S t a t e Immunity from t h e P r o c e e d i n g s i n F o r e i g n C o u r t s " , 14 (1933) BYIL 101. Fox, H., "Enforcement J u r i s d i c t i o n , F o r e i g n S t a t e D i p l o m a t i c Immunity", 34 (1985) ICLQ 115. Fox, W. T. R., "Competence o f C o u r t s i n Regard t o A c t s o f F o r e i g n S t a t e s " , 33 (1941) AJIL 632. P r o p e r t y and

Non-Sovereign

Friedman, W. , "Changing S o c i a l Arrangements i n S t a t e T r a d i n g S t a t e s and T h e i r E f f e c t on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", 24 (1959) Law and Contemporary Problems 350. Friedman, W. , "The Growth o f S t a t e C o n t r o l o v e r t h e I n d i v i d u a l and I t s Effects upon the Rules of I n t e r n a t i o n a l State R e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , 19 (1938) BYIL 118. Gibbons, J . J . , "The E l e v e n t h Amendment and S t a t e S o v e r e i g n Immunity - A R e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , 83 (1983) Columbia L Rev. 1889. G i r i f a l c o , S. A., "The E l e v e n t h Amendment, S o v e r e i g n Immunity and F u l l F a i t h and C r e d i t . No C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Refuge f o r a S t a t e as a Defendant", 42 (1980) Univ. of Pittsburgh L Rev 37.

577

Hagerdorn, R. B., "The F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunities Act: D e f i n i n g Commercial A c t i v i t y and D i r e c t E f f e c t s J u r i s d i c t i o n " , 25 (1985) Santa Clara Law Review 105. Hanbury, H. G., "The P o s i t i o n of F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n E n g l i s h C o u r t s " , 8 (1955) C u r r e n t Legal Problems 1. Hamson, C. J . , "Immunity of F o r e i g n S t a t e s : t h e F r e n c h C o u r t s " , 27(1950) BYIL 293. The Before

Practice

of

Hanson, C. J . , "The F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t . The Use of Pre-Judgment Attachment t o E n s u r e S a t i s f a c t i o n of A n t i c i p a t e d Judgments", 2 (1980) Northwestern Journal of Int Law and Business 517. "Harvard U n i v e r s i t y " , "Harvard D r a f t Convention on Competence of C o u r t s i n Regard t o F o r e i g n S t a t e s " , 26 (1932) AJTL Supp, 451. Hayes, A., "Private Claims (1924-25) H a r v a r d L Rev 399. against Foreign Sovereigns", 38

Hervey, J . G., "The Immunity of F o r e i g n S t a t e s when Engaged i n Commercial E n t e r p r i s e -- A Proposed S o l u t i o n " , 27 (1929) Mich LR 731. H i g g i n s , R. , " C e r t a i n U n r e s o l v e d Immunity", 29 (1982) NYIL 265. H i g g i n s , R,, P r a c t i c e " , 10 "Execution (1979) NYIL Aspects of the Law of State

of S t a t e 35.

Property:

United

Kingdom

H i g g i n s , R., "Recent Developments i n the Law of Immunity i n the U n i t e d Kingdom", 21 (1977) AJTL 423.

Sovereign

H i g g i n s , R. , "The Death Throes of A b s o l u t e Immunity: Government of Uganda b e f o r e the E n g l i s h C o u r t s " , 73 (1979) 465. J e s s u p , P. C , Functions?", 40 "Has t h e Supreme (1946) AJIL 168. Court Abdicated One

The AJIL

of I t s

Johnson, D. H. N., "The 75) A u s t r a l i a n YBIL 1. Korowicz, M. S., I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law",

P u z z l e of S o v e r e i g n Immunity", 6

(1974-

"Some P r e s e n t A s p e c t s of S o v e r e i g n t y 102 (1961-1) Hague Recueil 1. Property 119. of Foreign

in

Kuhn, A. K. , "Immunity of t h e a g a i n s t E x e c u t i o n " , 28 (1934) AJIL

States

Kunz, J.L., "Privileges and Immunities O r g a n i z a t i o n s " , 41 (1947) AJIL 828. Kunz, J . L . , "The Nature of Customary Law", 47

of

International

(1953) AJIL

664.

578

Kunz, J . L . ,

"The Nature

o f Customary Law", 47 (1953) AJIL 664.

L a l i v e , J . F . , "The F i r s t 'World Bank' A r b i t r a t i o n ( H o l i d a y I n n s v. Morocco)Some L e g a l Problems", 51 (1980) BYIL 123. L a u t e r p a c h t , H., "The Problems of J u r i s d i c t i o n a l F o r e i g n S t a t e s " , 28 (1951) BYIL 220. I m m u n i t i e s of

Lee, R. D., " J u r i s d i c t i o n over Foreign S t a t e s f o r A c t s of T h e i r Instrumentalities: A Model f o r A t t r i b u t i n g L i a b i l i t y " , 94 (1984) YLJ 394. L e s q u i l l o n e , E . , " F r u s t r a t i o n , F o r c e Majeure, W e g f a l l d e r G e s c h a e f t g r u n d l a g e " , 5 (1979) Droit Commerce International 507. Improvision et Pratique -du

L i s s i t z y n , 0., " S o v e r i g n Immunity a s a Norm o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", i n Friedmann, W . , Henkin, L . and L i s s i t z y n , 0., ( e d s . ) , Transnational Law in a Changing Society, Essays in Honour of Philip C. Jessup, New York, 1972, p. 188. Mann, F.A., " S t a t e C o n t r a c t s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l (1967) BYIL 1. Arbitration", 4

Mann, F.A., "The D o c t r i n e o f J u r i s d i c t i o n i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", 111 (1964-1) Hague Receil 1. Mann, F.A., "The S a c r o s a n c t i t y o f t h e F o r e i g n A c t o f S t a t e " , 59 (1943) LQR. 42. Mann, F.A., "The S t a t e Immunity A c t 1978", 50 (1979) BYIL Marasinghe, M. I . , "A Reassessment (1977) Ottawa Law Review 474. M a r k e s i n i s , B. S., "The Changing 36 (1977) Cambridge L. J. 211. of S o v e r e i g n 43. 9

Immunity",

Law of S o v e r e i g n

Immunity",

Marston, G., "State Immunity -Recent United Kingdom Developments", 13 (1979) Journal of World Trade Law 349. McDougall, A., "The P o s i t i o n of F o r e i g n e r s i n Egypt T e r m i n a t i o n of t h e Mixed C o u r t s " , 26 (1949) BYIL 358. on t h e

McNair, Arnold D., "Judicial Recognition of S t a t e s Governments, and t h e Immunity o f P u b l i c S h i p s " , 2 (1921-22) 57. M e r r i l l s , J . G., LQR 330. "The Scope o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity", 93

and BYIL

(1977)

Metzger, S. D., "Immunity of F o r e i g n S t a t e P r o p e r t y Attachment o r E x e c u t i o n i n t h e USA", 10 (1979) NYIL 131.

from

579

Molot, H.L., and J e w e t t , M.L., "The S t a t e Canada", 20(1982) Canadian Yrbk Int. L. 79.

Immunity A c t of

Narayana, R. K., " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f F o r e i g n S t a t e s i n I n d i a - Some A s p e c t s " , 23 (1983) Indian Journal of International Law 389. Nwogugu, E . I . , "Immunity o f S t a t e P r o p e r t y -- The C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a i n F o r e i g n C o u r t s " , 10 (1979) NYIL 179. O'Brien, T. A., "The V a l i d i t y o f t h e F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunity Defence i n S u i t s Under t h e Convention on t h e R e c o g n i t i o n and Enforcement of F o r e i g n A r b i t r a l Awards", 7 (1983-84) Fordham ILJ 321. P a u l s s o n , J . A., " S o v e r e i g n Immunity from J u r i s d i c t i o n : F r e n c h Case Law R e v i s i t e d " , 19 (1985) The International Lawyer 277. P e l l , T. J . , "The F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t o f 1976. D i r e c t E f f e c t s and Minimum C o n t a c t s " , 14 (1981) Cornell Int. Law Journal 97. Raghavan, G. G., " S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t h e C o n f l i c t of Laws -Some Recent Trends", 18 (1980) The Indian Year Book of International Affairs 160. R e i s e n f e l d , S.A., " S o v e r e i g n Immunity f o r F o r e i g n V e s s e l s i n Anglo-American Law", 25 (1940) Minn L Rev 297. Ryan, R. H., " D e f a u l t s and Remedies under I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bank Loan Agreements w i t h F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Borrowers", 1 (1982) Univ. of IL Law Rev 89. S c h m i t t o f f , CM., "The C l a i m s o f S o v e r e i g n Immunity i n t h e Law of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Trade", 7 (1958) ICLQ 460. Schreuer, Decisions 508. C, "Concurrent J u r i s d i c t i o n of N a t i o n a l J u d i c i a l by Domestic C o u r t s " , 13 (1976) Houston Law Review

S c h r e u e r , C , "The Impact of I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s on t h e P r o t e c t i o n of Human R i g h t s i n Domestic C o u r t s " , 4 (1974) The Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 60. Shaw, M., "The US F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t 1976", 128 (1978) The New Journal 368. Simonds, K.R., "The ^ R a t i o n a l e ' of D i p l o m a t i c Immunity", (based on Ghosh v D'Rozario), 11 (1962) ICLQ 1204. S i n c l a i r , I . , "The European (1973) ICLQ 254. Convention on S t a t e Immunity", 22

580

Sinclair, I . , "The Law of Sovereign Immunity, Developments", 167 (1980-11) Hague Recueil 113.

Recent

Singer, M . , "Abandoning R e s t r i c t i v e S o v e r e i g n Immunity: An A n a l y s i s i n Terms o f J u r i s d i c t i o n t o P r e s c r i b e " , 26 (1985) Harvard ILJ 1. S a r e n s e n , M., " P r i n c i p l e s de D r o i t (1960-11) Hague R e c u e i l 1. International Public", 101

S o r n a r a j a h , M., "Problems i n A p p l y i n g t h e R e s t r i c t i v e Theory of S o v e r e i g n Immunity", 31 ICLQ (1982) 661. S t e i b e r g e r , H., ( e d . ) , " S t a t e Immunity", 10 (1984) of Public International Law 440. Encyclopaedia

S t e i n , L., "The Approach o f t h e D i f f e r e n t Drummer: The P r i n c i p l e of P e r s i s t e n t O b j e c t o r i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", 26 (1985) Harvard ILJ 457. Steyn, L., " A r b i t r a t i o n Law Reform: Towards a New Act", 6(1991) I n t L Arb Kept 27. Arbitration

S u c h a r i t k u l , S., "Developments and P r o s p e c t s o f t h e D o c t r i n e of S t a t e Immunity -- Some A s p e c t s o f C o d i f i c a t i o n and P r o g r e s s i v e Development", 29 (1982) NILR 252. S u c h a r i t k u l , S., "Immunities o f F o r e i g n S t a t e s b e f o r e N a t i o n a l Authorities - Some A s p e c t s of P r o g r e s s i v e Development of Contemporary International Law", i n Estudios de Derecho Internacional Homenaje al Professor Miaja de la Muela, 1, 1979 477. S u c h a r i t k u l , S., "Immunities of F o r e i g n S t a t e s A u t h o r i t i e s " , 149 (1976-1) Hague Recueil 87. before National

S u c h a r i t k u l , S., " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s P r o p e r t y " , (1978-88), 30 (1990) ILM 1554.

and T h e i r

Sullivan, G. B., " I m p l i c i t Waiver o f S o v e r i g n Immunity by Consent t o A r b i t r a t i o n T e r r i t o r i a l Scope and P r o c e d u r a l L i m i t s " , 18 (1983) Texas ILJ 329. T a y l o r , M.E., "The A c t of S t a t e D o c t r i n e - R e s o l v i n g Debt S i t u s Confusion", 86(1986) Columbia L Rev. 594. Thompson, J . G., " F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n Immunity - The S t a t u s of L e g a l E n t i t i e s i n S o c i a l i s t C o u n t r i e s a s Defendants under t h e F o r e i g n S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t i e s A c t of 1976", 12 (1979) V a n d e r b i l t J Transn L 165. T r i g g , G. , "An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Convention on S o v e r e i g n Immunity? Some Problems i n A p p l i c a t i o n of t h e R e s t r i c t i v e Rule", 9 (1982) Monash University Law Review 74. 581

T r i g g , G., " R e s t r i c t i v e Sovereign Immunity: The State as I n t e r n a t i o n a l Trader", 53 (1979) The Australian Law Journal 244 . T r o o b o f f , P.D., "Foreign S t a t e Immunity: Emerging P r i n c i p l e s " , 200 (1986-V) Hague R e c u e i l 235. Consensus on

Verhoeven, J., "Immunity from Execution o f F o r e i g n States i n B e l g i a n Law", 10 (1979) NYBIL 73. von Mehren, R. B., "The F o r e i g n Sovereign Immunities Act 1976", 17 (1978) Col J Trans L 33. Wade, E.C.S., "Act o f S t a t e i n E n g l i s h Law: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law", 15(1934) BYIL 98. Waldock, H., "General Course 106(1962-11) Hague Recueil 54. on Public I t s Relations with

International

Law",

Weiss, A., "Competence ou incompetence des t r i b u n a u x a l e g a r d des E t a t s e t r a n g e r s " , (1923- I ) Hague Recueil 525. Wetter, J. G., "Pleas o f Sovereign Immunity and Act o f Sovereignty b e f o r e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A r b i t r a l T r i b u n a l s " , 13 (1981) J o u r n a l o f International Arbitration and Politics 571. White, R. C. A., "State Immunity E n g l i s h Courts", 26 (1977) ICLQ 674. White, R. C. A., 72 . and International Law i n

"The S t a t e Immunity Act 1978", 42 (1979) MLR

W i l l i a m s , B., "Forebears o f Menes i n Nubia: 1 (1987) J o u r n a l o f Near Eastern Studies 46.

Myth o r R e a l i t y ? " ,

Wolfman, M., "Sovereigns as Defendants", 4 (1910) AJIL 373. Wortley, A. B., "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Today", I n t e r a c t i o n o f P u b l i c and P r i v a t e 85 (1954-1) Hague Recueil 245.

Young, C. K., "Defending L i t i g a t i o n A g a i n s t a Foreign A i r l i n e under t h e Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act", 51 (1986) Journal of Air Law and Commerce 461.

582

STATUTES Foreign Sovereign Immunities A c t 1976; 15 (1976) ILM 1388. State Immunity Act (1978). State Immunity A c t o f Singapore (1979). The A u s t r a l i a n Sovereign Immunity A c t (1985). The Canadian Sovereign Immunity A c t (1982). The P a k i s t a n Sovereign Immunity A c t (1981). The South A f r i c a n Sovereign Immunity Act (1981).

TREATIES European Convention (1982) ILM 470. on S t a t e Immunity (1972)/Reprinted i n 11

C o u n c i l o f Europe, "Explanatory Reports on European Convention on S t a t e Immunity and t h e A d d i t i o n a l P r o t o c a l " , Basel, (1972). Vienna Convention on D i p l o m a t i c R e l a t i o n s (1961) 500 UNTS 95. Vienna Convention on Consular R e l a t i o n s (1963) 596 UNTS 261.

SOURCES Reports on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l immunities o f s t a t e s and t h e i r property. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (ILC), 1978, V o l . I I (Part Two), paras 179-190, Document A/33/10, Chap. V I I I . P r e l i m i n a r y Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C., 1979, V o l . I I ( p a r t One), Document A/CN.4/323. Second Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C.,1980, Vol.11 (part One), pp. 199-230, Document A/CN.4/331 and Add. 1. T h i r d Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C.,1981, V o l . I I (Part One), pp.125-150, Document A/CN.4/340 and Add. 1. Fourth Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C.,1982, V o l . I I (Part One), pp 199-229, Document A/CN.4/357. F i f t h Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C. ,1983, V o l . I I (Part One), pp,25-56, Document A/CN.4/363 and Add. 1. S i x t h Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C, 1984, v o l . I I (Part One), PP. 5-58, Document A/CN.4/376 and Add. 1 and 2. Seventh Report, Yearbook of the I.L.C, 1985, v o l . I I (Part One), PP. 21-47, Document A/CN.4/388. Eight Report, Document A/CN.4/396.
583

Rapporteur P r o f e s s o r I a n B r o w n l i e , Topic - "Contemporary Problems Concerning t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Immunity o f S t a t e s " , (Basle 1991). - I n s t i t u t e o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, ( I n s t i t u t e de D r o i t I n t e r n a t i o n a l ) Annuaire (Yearbook). V o l . 62, P a r t 1, P r e p a r a t o r y work, Session o f C a i r o , (1987) pp 13-104. - I n s t i t u t e o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law ( I n s t i t u t e de D r o i t I n t e r n a t i o n a l ) Annuaire (Yearbook). V o l . i i (Basle 1991). pp 389-460. [ O r g a n i z a t i o n o f American S t a t e s ] " I n t e r - A m e r i c a n D r a f t Convention on J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Immunity o f S t a t e s " , Approved by the I n t e r - A m e r i c a n J u d i c i a l Committee, [Jan. 2 1 , 1983], 22 (1983) ILM 292. The M o n t r e a l D r a f t Convention on S t a t e Immunity [Approved by t h e " I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n , " i n 1982], ILR Report, 1994, 454. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n Proceedings on S t a t e Immunity, (ILA Report o f 4 5 Conference (1952). JLA Report, Vol.45 (1952) 210-232.
th

P r o f e s s o r Lowenfeld, A., "The D o c t r i n e o f Sovereign Immunity". ILA Report o f 4 4 Conference, 1950, 240. (ILA Report o f 1950,240. )
th

584

TABLE OF CASES A L i m i t e d v. B. Bank and Bank o f X (1998) 111 ILR 590. Abbot v . Republic o f South A f r i c a , Spanish C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court, 1 J u l y 1992; 177 BOE Sup 2 4 J u l y 1992, 34.
th

A b o u j d i d v. Singapore A i r l i n e L t d . 494 N.E 2 Aero-Trade I n c . v . Republic o f H a i t i , (1974); (1974) 13 ILM 969.

nd

1055

(N.Y. 1986). 1281 SDNY

376 F.Supp.

A l f r e d D u n h i l l o f London I n c . v . The Republic o f Cuba 425 US 682 (1976); (1976) 66 ILR 212. A l i Akbar v. U n i t e d Arab Republic (1966) HIR SC 230; ILR 489; [1966] 1 S.C.R. 319. Alcom v. Republic o f Columbia American Corp. (1978) . [1984] A.C. 580. 448 F.Supp. 622 (1983) 64

v. Federal Rep o f N i g e r i a ,

Arab Republic o f Egypt v. Gamal-Eldin (1997) 104 ILR 673. Arab Republic o f Egypt v. C i n e t e l e v i s i o n I n t (1984) 65 ILR 425.

A r r i b a L t d . V. Petroleous Mexicanos (1992) 103 ILR 491. A s o c i a c i o n de Reclamantes v . U n i t e d Mexican S t a t e s 735 F.2d 1517 (1984) . Asylum Case, (1950) ICJ Reports 266. A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand Banking Group L t d . V. A u s t r a l i a 29 ILM 670. Baccus SRL v. S e r v i c i o N a t i o n a l d e l T r i g o [1957] 1QB 438. Banco N a c i o n a l de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 US 398 (1964). Banque C e n t r a l e de l a Republique de Turquie v. Weston Compagnie de Finance e t d Investissement S.A. (1978) BGE 104 l a , 367 ; (1984) 65 ILR 417.
1

(1990)

B e r i z z i Bros. Co. v. SS Pesaro 271 US 562 (1926). Birch Shipping Corp. v. Embassy o f t h e U n i t e d Tanzania 507 F.Supp. 311 (1980). Republic o f

Blankard v. Galdy (1694) 2 Salk 411.

585

Camdex I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d v. Bank of Zambia [1996] 3 WLR Cameroons Development

759.

Bank v. S o c i e t e des Establissement Robber (1988) 77 ILR 532. (1992) ILRM 325;

Canada v. Employment Appeals T r i b u n a l & Burke (1994) 95 ILR 467.

Candor and F i l v e r n v. M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e (1995) 101 ILR 394. Carey v. N a t i o n a l O i l Corp. 592 F.2d 673 (1979).

C h a l i a p i n e v. USSR, (1937) D a l l o z p e r i o d i g u e Part 1, p. 63. Chicago B r i d g e and (1982) 62 ILR 511. Iron Company v. Islamic Republic o f Iran

Chisholm v. Georgia. (1793) 2 D a l l .

419. 160. Federazione Italiana

Chung Chi Cheung v. The King [1939] A.C. Consorzio A g r a r i o d i T r i p o l i t a n i a Consorzi A g r a r i , (1985) 65 ILR 265. v.

C o n t i n e n t a l Shelf Case, T u n i s i a v. L i b y a , Congo v. Venne (1983) 64 ILR 24. Czarnikow v. Rolimpex [1979] A.C. 351.

(1985) ICJ Reports 13.

Duke o f Brunswick v. The King o f Hanover 17.

[1848] 2 H.L.

Cas. 1,

De Sanchez v. Banco C e n t r a l de Nicaragua 770 F.2d 1385 De Haber v. Queen o f P o r t u g a l [1851] 17 Q.B. 171. De Howorth v. The SS I n d i a (1921) CPD 451.

(1985).

D i t t a Campione v. D i t t a P e t i Nitrogenmuvek, S t a t o Ungherese (unreported) (1972) n. 3368 1 Session, Corte de Cassazione.

s t

D a l a h i t e v. U n i t e d States (1953) 97 LED

1427.

Drexel Burnham Lambert Group I n c . v. Committee o f Receivers f o r G a l a d e r i 810 F.Supp. 1375 (1993); (1996) 103 ILR 532. Duncan v. Cammell L a i r d and Co. Egyptian Government C. ILR 146. [1924] A.C. 624.

P a l e s t i n e S t a t e Railways Adm.,(1947) 11

Empire o f I r a n Case (1963) BverfGE 16; (1963) 45 ILR 57.

586

Enterprise ILR 82.

Perignon

v. Governement des E s t a t s - U n i s ,

(1972) 45

E t a t du Peroce C. K r e g l i n g e r P.B. 1857-11-348. Ex p a r t e Republic o f Peru 318 US 578 (1943). Ex p a r t e Sulman case (1924) C.P.D. 407. Exchange N a t i o n a l Bank Case 595 F.Supp. 502 (1984). F r o l o v a v. USSR 559 F.Supp. 358 (1983); 761 F.2d 370 (1985). German Immunities i n Poland (1935-1937) 8 ILR 239. Case, Clunet 66 (1939) p. 767;

Governement Ottoman C. Gaspary, P.B. 1 9 1 1 - I I I - 1 0 4 . Gray v . Permanent M i s s i o n o f Peoples Republic U n i t e d Nations 433 F.Supp. 816 (1978). o f Congo t o t h e

Guggenheim v. S t a t e o f Vietnam (1961) 44 ILR 74; 1112. G u t t i e r e s C. E l m i l i k . I 913. Haile Selassie 545. F. I t . ,

(1962) 56 AJIL

1886-1-913,; Foro I t a l i a n o , 1986

v . Cable and W i r e l e s s

L t d (No. 1 ) ,

[1938] Ch.

Haile Selassie

(No. 2 ) , [1939] Ch 182.

H a r r i s C o r p o r a t i o n v. N a t i o n a l I r a n i a n Radio & T e l e v i s i o n 691 F.2d 1344 (1982). Hassard v. Mexico, 29 Misc NY 511 Havre Case, P.B. 1879-11-175. H e l i c o p t e r o s Nacionales 408 (1984) . de Colombia SA v. E l i z a b e t h H a l l 466 US (1899).

H e l l e n i c Lines v. Moore 345 F.2d 978,

(1965).

H e l l f e l d Case (1910) 20 Zeitschrift Fur Internationales Recht, 416; (1911) 5 AJIL 490. Heusala v. T u r k i s h State S92/44.3.1993:120. H i l l v. UAR(Unreported) No. 144-162 (SDNY 1961).

587

Hispano American M e r c a n t i l SA v. C e n t r a l Bank of N i g e r i a [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rept. 277. Hoffmann v. D r a l l e (1950) 17 ILR 155. I Congreso Del P a r t i d o [1981] 3 WLR IAM v. OPEC 469 F.3d 1354 (1981). 328

I n t e r Science Research & Development Services (Pfy) L t d . v. Republic Popular De Mocambique (1980) (2) SA 111(T); (1983) 64 ILR 689. I p i t r a d e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S.A. F.Supp. 824 (1978). v. Federal Republic o f N i g e r i a 465

I s b r a n d t s e n Tankers I n c . v. P r e s i d e n t o f I n d i a (1977); (1972) 66 AJIL 396.

446

F.2d

1198

John McElhinney v. Anthony Ivor John W i l l i a m s and Majesty's Sec. Of S t a t e f o r N. I r e l a n d (1992) 103 ILR 311.

Her

John McElhinney v. Anthony I v o r John W i l l i a m s and Her Majesty's Sec. o f S t a t e f o r N. I r e l a n d (1995) 104 ILR 691. Johnson v. Peddlar [1921] 2 A.C. 262.

Juan Ysmael and Co. v. Government o f t h e Republic o f Indonesia [1955] A.C. 72. K a f f r a r i a P r o p e r t y Co Pty L t d v. Govt o f t h e Republic o f Zambia (1980) (2) SA 709 ( E ) ; (1980) 64 ILR 708.

Kahan v. P a k i s t a n F e d e r a t i o n [1951] 2 K.B. K r a j i n a v. Tass Agency [1949] 2 A l l E.R.

1003.

274.

Kuwait Airways Corp. v. I r a q i Airways Comp., and another [1995] 1WLR 1147. Le Governement Espagnol v. Cassaux S. 1849-1-81 ; D.P. 1849-1-5.

L e t e l i e r v. Republic o f C h i l e 488 F.Supp. 665, (1980); (1980) 19 ILM 409. Libya American O i l Co. v. Jamahiriya (1982) 62 ILR 225. Socialist People's Libyan Arab

Libya Arab S o c i a l i s t People's Jamahiriya v. Rossbeton (1992) 103 ILR 63.

588

Littrell 203 .

v. U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America

(No. 2)

[1994] 4 A l l E.R.

L u t h e r v. Sagor [1921] 3 KB 532

CA. Pr. 517.

Manning v. S t a t e o f Nicaragua (1857) 14 How.

M a r i t i m e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Nominees Establishment v. The Republic o f Guinea. 693 F.2d 1094 (1982). Matsuyama and Sano v. The 168. Mellenger v. New 604 . R e p u b l i c o f China (1927-1928) 4 ILR

Brunswick Development

Corporation

[1971] 1

WLR

Mexico V. Hoffman 324 US 30

(1943). 149.

M i g h e l l v. S u l t a n o f Johore [1894] QB

M i l i t a r - L i q u i d i e r u n g s a m t (1922) Weekblad case No. 10928. MK v. Rep o f Turkey (1994) 94 ILR 350. Monnoyer e t Bernard C. Et A l . A.D. 1927-1928 Case No. 112. Francais, P.B. 1927-III-129 ;

M o r e l l e t C. Governo Danese ,Giur. I t . 1883-1-125. N a t i o n a l C i t y Bank v. The Republic o f China 348 US 356 (1955). and ILM

N a t i o n a l American Corp. v. F e d e r a l Republic o f N i g e r i a C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a 448 F.Supp. 622 (1978); (1977) 16 505. Nelson v. Saudi A r a b i a (1992) 82 ILR 189.

Nicaragua v. admissibility,

U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America, (1984) ICJ Reports p. 392.

Jurisdiction

and

Nicaragua v. U n i t e d States o f America, M e r i t s (1986) ICJ Reports pl4 .

N o r t h Sea C o n t i n e n t a l Shelf Cases (1969) ICJ Reports p. 3. Order o f M a l t a r v. P i c c o l i (1974) 65 ILR 308.

Paquete Habana 175 US 677 (1900) . P a r k i n v. Government of Republic Dem du Congo and Another (1971) 1 SA 259 (W); (1983) 64 ILR 668.
589

Parlement Beige,

[1879] 4 PD

129. (1878) . 20

Pennover v. N e f f , 95 US 714

P e r r u c c h e t t i C. Puig Y Cassauro F . I t . 1929-1-112 ; R i v i s t a (1928) 521; A.D. 1927-1928 Case No. 247. P h i l i p p i n e Admiral [1977] A.C. Philippine 146 . Embassy Case (1977) 373. BverfGE 46, 342; (1984) 65

ILR

Planmount L t d . v. Rep. ILR 268. Porto Alexandre

of Z a i r e [1981] A l l E.R.

1110,

(1983)

64

[1920] P.

30. 313 (1934).

P r i n c i p a l i t y o f Monaco v. M i s s i s s i p p i 292 U.S. Radwan v. Radwan [1972] 3 A l l E.R. 967.

Rahimtoola v. Nizam o f Hyderabad [1958] A.C. Reid v. Republic of Nauru (1995) 101 ILR Republic of "A". 193.

379.

Embassy Case (1988) 77 ILR 230.

488.

Republic of L a t v i a Case (1955) 22 ILR Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman 324 U.S. Rovin Sales Co. (1975). v. S o c i a l i s t Rep

30 (1945). F.Supp. 1298,

of Romania 403

Societe Anonyme Chemins des Fer Liegeois-Luxembourgeois v. E t a t Neerlandais, P.B. 1903-11-294. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) 7 Cranch 116.

Sengupta v Republic of I n d i a

[1983] ICR 221. (1992). (1983).

Sieur Mouracade v. Yamen 119 JD 1 398

Sken v. Federated Republic of B r a z i l 566 F.Supp. 1414 Scotia (1871) 14 Wallace 170.

Societe l e Gostorg e t USSR v. A s s o c i a t i o n of France ExportA.D. 1925-26 Case No. 125.

590

S o c i e t e pour l a F a b r i c a t i o n de Cartouches l a Guerre de B u l g a r i e , P.B. 1889-111-62. S p a c i l v. Crowe 489 F.2d 614 (1974).

C.

Col M M i n i s t r e

de

Spanish S t a t e v. S o c i e t e Anonyme de L'Hotel George V. ILR 61.

(1973)

65

The N a t i o n a l N a v i g a t i o n Company o f Egypt v. T a v o u l a r i d i ' s , C o s t i ) , (1927-28) 4 ILR 173. S t o r e l l i v. Governo d e l l a Repubblica Francese R e v i s t a 17 236, 239-241; A.D. 1923-24, Case No. 66. Strousberg v. Republic o f Costa Rica (1880) 44 LT.199.

(S.S.

(1925)

Tani v. Russian Trade D e l e g a t i o n s i n I t a l y

(1947) 15 ILR 141.

Texas T r a d i n g and M i l l i n g Corp. v. Federal Republic o f N i g e r i a , US Court o f Appeals, 647 F.2d 300 (1981). Thai-Europe Tapioca S e r v i c e L t d v. Government o f P a k i s t a n [1975] 3 A l l E.R. 961. Thakrar v. Home S e c r e t a r y [1974] QB 684.

T h i r d Avenue A s s o c i a t i o n and Another v. Permanent M i s s s i o n of Repuplic o f Z a i r t o the U n i t e d N a t i o n s (1994) 99 ILR 295. The Bank of US v. P l a n t e r s Bank o f Georgia, 9 Wheat 904 The Arantzazu Mendi [1939] A.C. 256. (1824) .

The USA and Rep of France v. D o l l f u s Mieg e t Cie SA. and Bank of England [1952] A.C. 582. The Kingdom o f Morocco v. (1984) 65 ILR 331. S o c i e t a I m m o b i l i a r e Forte B a r c h e t t o

The Kingdom of Rumania v. Guaranty (1918) . The J u p i t e r [1924] P. 236.

T r u s t Co.

250 Fed. Supp. 341

The Annette: The Dora. [1919] P.105. The P r i n s F r e d e r i k [1820] 2 Dods. 451.

The C r i s t i n a

[1938] A.C.

485.

The Anonymous Case [1722] 2 P W M S 75.

591

Trans-American Steamship Corp. v. Somali Dem. Republic 767 998 (1985). Transp Corp v. TS/T Manhattan 405 F.Supp. 1244 (1975).

F.2d

Transaero I n c . v. La Fuerza Aarea B o l i v i a n a ,

(1997) 107 ILR 308. [1977] 1 A l l

Trendtex T r a d i n g Corp. v. C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a E.R. 881. C.A. Typaldos C. Manicomio d i Aversa, G i u r . I t .

1886-1-228, 229.

Uganda Co. Holdings L t d v. Government o f Uganda [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rept. 481. U n i t e d Kingdom v. Norway (1951) ICJ Reports 116. US v. The P u b l i c S e r v i c e A l l i a n c e o f Canada (1993) ICR 221. Van Der Hurst v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , Vavasseur v. Krupp (1994) 94 ILR 373. 351. 461 US 480 (1983);

[1878] LR 9 Ch.D

V e r l i n d e n BV v. C e n t r a l (1982) 63 ILR 390.

Bank of N i g e r i a

V i c t o r y Transport I n c . v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y t r a n s p o r t e s , 336 F.2d 354 (1964). Weber v. USSR, A.D. 1919-42, Case (No.) 74; (1947) 11 ILR 140.

Zernicek. v. Brown and Root I n c . and Others (1993) 92 ILR 442.

592

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS

AJIL BYIL C a l i f o r n i a LR Col LR Com LR C o r n e l l LQR Dods F ( o r Fed) F 2d F Supp HLR ICLQ ILA Report ILQ ILR KB ( o r KBD)

American J o u r n a l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law B r i t i s h Year Book o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law C a l i f o r n i a Law Review Columbia Law Review Commonwealth Law Reports C o r n e l l Law Q u a r t e r l y Review Dodson's A d m i r a l t y Reports Federal Reporter Federal Reporter (Second Federal Supplement Harvard Law Review I n t e r n a t i o n a l and Comparative Law Q u a r t e r l y Report o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Q u a r t e r l y I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Reports (Lauterpacht) Series) (1811-22)

King's Bench D i v i s i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h High Court o f J u s t i c e

LL New R LQR Mich LR Minn LR MLR NYULQR QB ( o r QBD)

Lloyd's L i s t Newspaper Reports Law Q u a r t e r l y Review Michigan Law Review Minnesota Law Review Modern Law Review New York U n i v e r s i t y Law Q u a r t e r l y Review Queen's Bench D i v i s i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h High Court o f J u s t i c e
593

TLR US USCA WLR YLJ ILCR Chic LR Penn LR Stan LR

Times Law Reports U n i t e d States R e p o r t e r (Supreme Court) U n i t e d States Code A n n o t a t e d Weekly Law Reports Yale Law J o u r n a l I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Commission Report Chicago Law Review Pennsylvania Law Review S t a n f o r d Law Review

594

APPENDIX I

E U R O P E A N C O N V E N T I O N ON S T A T E I M M U N I T Y AND A D D I T I O N A L P R O T O C O L 1972

PREAMBLE The :nember States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto. Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members; Taking into account the fact that there is in international law a tendency to restrict he cases in which a State may claim immunity before foreign courts; Desiring to establish in their mutual relations common rules relating to the scope of the immunity of one State from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, and signed to ensure compliance with judgments given against another State; Considering that the adoption of such rules will tend to advance the work of haronisation undertaken by the member States of the Council of Europe in the legal field. Have agreed as follows: C H A P T E R I. IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION ~ Article J

1. A contracting State which institutes or intervenes in proceedings before a court another Contracting State submits, for the purpose of those proceedings, to the jurisiction of the courts of that State. Such a Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the ourts of the other Contracting State in respect of any counterclaim: fa) ased; arising out of the legal relationship or the facts on which the principal claim is

(b) if, according to the provisions of this Convention, it would not have been entied to invoke immunity in respect of that counterclaim had separate proceedings been ought against it in those courts. 3. A Contracting State which makes a counterclaim in proceedings before a court another Contracting State submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of that State with spect not only to the counterclaim but also to the principal claim. Article 2 A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of anher Contracting State if it has undertaken to submit to the jurisdiction of that court her:

170
(a) (b) (c) by international agreement; by an express term contained in a contract in writing; or by an express consent given after a dispute between the parties has Article 3 1. A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction another Contracting State if. before claiming immunity, it takes any step it ings relating to the merits. However, if the State satisfies the court that it c acquired knowledge of facts on which a claim to immunity can be based un taken such a step, it can claim immunity based on these facts if it does so possible moment. 2. A Contracting State is not deemed to have waived immunity if i t ; a court of another Contracting State in order to assert immunity. Article 4 1. Subject to the provisions of Article 5. a Contracting State canno nity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another Contracting State if tl relate to an obligation of the State, which, by virtue of a contract, falls to in the territory of the State of the forum. 2. (a) (bj (c) Paragraph 1 shall not apply: in the case of a contract concluded between States; if the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing; if the State is party to a contract concluded on its territory and

of the State is governed by its administrative law. Article 5 1. A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdictio another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to a contract of emplo; the State and an individual where the work has to be performed on the ' State of the forum. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:

(a) the individual is a national of the employing State at the time wh< ings are brought; (bj at the time when the contract was entered into the individual national of the State of the forum nor habitually resident in that State; or (cj the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing, u dance with the law of the State of the forum, the courts of that State jurisdiction by reason of the subject-matter. 3. Where the work is done for an office, agency or other establishn in Article 7, paragraphs 2 (a) and (bj of the present Article apply only if, contract was entered into, the individual had his habitual residence in I State which employs him. Article 6 1. A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdictic another Contracting State if it participates with one or more private pe pany.association or other legal entity having its sent, registered office oi of business on the territory of the State of the forum, and the proceedi

171
relationship, in matters arising out of that participation, between the State on the one hand and the entity or any other participant on the other hand. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if it is otherwise agreed in writing. Article 7 1. A contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if it has on the territory of the State of the forum an office, agency or other establishment through which it engages, in the same manner as a private person, in an industrial, commercial or financial activity, and the proceedings relate :o that activity of the office, agency or establishment. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if all the parties to the dispute are States, or if the parties have otherwise agreed in writing. Article 8 A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate: fa) to a patent, industrial design, trade-mark, service mark or other similar right which, in the State of the forum, has been applied for, registered or deposited or is otherwise protected, and in respect of which the State is the applicant or owner. lb) to an alleged infringement by it, in the territory of the State of the forum, of such a right belonging to a third person and protected in that State; (cj to an alleged infringement by it, in the territory of the State of the forum, of copyright belonging to a third person and protected in that State; (d) to the right to use a trade name in the State of the forum. Article 9 A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to: (a) its rights or interests in. or its use or possession of, immovable property: or

(b) its obligations arising out of its rights or interests in, or use or possession of, immovable property and the property is situated in the territory of the State of the forum.
y

Article

10

A Contracting State cnnot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to a right in movable or immovable property arising by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia. Article 11.

A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State in proceedings which relate to redress for injury to the person or damage to tangible property, if the facts which occasioned the injury or damage occurred in the territory of the State of the forum, and if the author of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time when those facts occurred. Article 12

1. Where a Contracting State has agreed in writing to submit to arbitration a disute which has arisen or may arise out of a civil or commercial matter, that State may

172
not claim immunity f r o m the jurisdiction o f a court o f another Contracting Stat' territory or according to the law o f which the arbitration has taken or will take respect o f any proceedings relating t o : (a) (b) (cj the validity or interpretation of the arbitration agreement: the arbitration procedure; the setting aside of the award,

unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provides. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to an arbitration agreement between States. Article 13

Paragraph 1 o f Article 1 shall not apply where a Contracting State asserts, in ings pending before a court o f another Contracting State to which it is not a pi it has a right or interest in property which is the subject-matter of the proceed the circumstances are such that i t would have been entitled to immunity i f the ings had been brought against i t . Article 14

Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as preventing a court of Cc State f r o m administering or supervising or arranging for the administration o f such a trust property or the estate o f a bankrupt, solely on account of the fac other Contracting State has a right or interest in the property. Article 15

A Contracting State shall be entitled to immunity f r o m the jurisdiction o f of another Contracting State i f the proceedings do not fall within Articles 1 court shall decline to entertain such proceedings even if the State does not appi CHAPTER I I . PROCEDURAL RULES Article 16

1. In proceedings against a Contracting State in a court of another C State, the following rules shall apply. 2. The competent authorities o f the State o f the forum shall transmit

the original or a copy o f the document by which the proceedings are institi a'copy of any judgment given by default against a State which was defen proceedings, through the diplomatic channel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs o f the State, for onward transmission, where appropriate, to the competent autho documents shall be accompanied, i f necessary, by a translation into the o f f i c i i or one of the official languages, o f the defendant State. 3. Service o f the documents referred to in paragraph 2 is deemed to effected by their receipt by the Ministry o f Foreign Affairs. 4. . The time-limits within which the State must enter an appearand against any judgment given by default shall begin to run two months after which the document by which the proceedings were instituted or the copy ment is received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 5. If its rests with the court to prescribe the time-limits f o r entering an or for appealing against a judgment given by default, the court shall allow tl

173
:ss than two months after the date on which the document by which the proceedings re instituted or the copy of the judgment is received by the Ministry o f Foreign Affairs. 6. A Contracting State which appears in the proceedings is deemed to have waived ny objection to the method of service. 7. If the Contracting State has not appeared, judgment by default may be given gainst it only if it is established that the document by which the proceedings were instiuted has been transmitted in conformity with paragraph 2. and that the time-limits for ntering an appearance provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 have been observed. Article 1 7 No security , bond or deposit, however described, which could not have been required i the State o f the forum of a national of that State or a person domiciled or resident here, shall be required of a Contracting State to guarantee the payment o f judicial costs r expenses. A State which is a claimant in the courts of another Contracting State shall iay any judicial costs or expenses for which it may become liable. Article 18

A Contracting State party to proceedings before a court of another Contracting State nay not be subjected to any measure of coercion, or any penalty, by reason o f its failure ir refusal to disclose any documents or other evidence. However the court may draw any onclusion it thinks f i t from such failure or refusal.
Article 19

1. A court before which proceedings to which a Contracting State is a party are stituted shail. at the request of one of the parties or. if its national law so permits, of s own motion, decline to proceed with the case or shall stay the proceedings i f other roceedings between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same purose. /'a) are pending before a court of that Contracting State, and were the first to be nstituted: or (b) are pending before a court of any other Contracting State, were the first to be nstituted and may result in a judgment to which the State party to the proceedings must ive effect by virtue of Article 20 or .Article 25. 2. Any Contracting State whose law gives the courts a discretion to decline to proeed with a case or to stay the proceedings in cases where proceedings between the same arties. based on the same facts and having the same purpose, are pending before a court f another Contracting State, may, by notification addressed to the Secretary General o f he Council o f Europe, declare that its courts shall not be bound by the provisions o f aragraph 1.

CHAPTER I I I . EFFECT OF JUDGMENT Article 20

1. A Contracting State shall give effect to a judgment given against it by a court of nother Contracting State: (a) if, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 to 13, the State could not laim immunity from jurisdiction: and (bj i f the judgment cannot or can no longer be set aside i f obtained by default, or i f t is not or is no longer subject to appeal or any other form of ordinary review or to nnulment.

174
2. Nevertheless, a Contracting State is not obliged to give effect to such a judgmei in any case: (a) where i t would be manifestly contrary to public policy in that State to do so, > where, in the circumstances, either party had no adequate opportunity fairly to prese his case; (b) where proceedings between the same parties, based on the same facts and havii the same purpose: (i) are pending before a court of that State and were the first to be instituted: fii) are pending before a court of another Contracting State, were the first to 1 instituted and may result in a judgment to which the State party to the procee ings must give effect under the terms o f this Convention; (cj where the result o f the judgment is inconsistent with the result of another jud ment given between the same parties: by a court o f the Contracting State, i f the proceedings before that court we the first to be instituted or i f the other judgment has been given before the jud ment satisfied the conditions specified in paragraph 1 (b): or (ii) by a court o f another Contracting State where the othe judgment is the first satisfy the requirements laid down in the present Convention; (dj where the provisions o f Article 16 have not been observed and the State has n< entered an appearance or has not appealed against a judgment by default. 3. In addition, in the case provided for in .Article 10, a Contracting State is m obliged to give effect to the judgment. (a) i f the courts o f the State of the forum would not have been entitled to assun jurisdiction had they applied, mutatis mutandis, the ruies o f jurisdiction (other th< those mentioned in the Annex to the present Convention) which operate in the Sta against which judgment is given: or (b) i f the court, by applying law other than that which would have been applied accordance with the rules o f private international law o f that State, has reached a resu different from that which would have been reached by applying the law determined t those rules. However, a Contracting State may not rely upon the grounds o f refusal specified sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above i f it is bound by an agreement with the State o f tl forum on the recognition and enforcement o f judgments and the judgment fulfils t l requirement of that agreement as regards jurisdiction and, where appropriate, the la applied. Article 21 (i)

1. Where a judgment has been given against a Contracting State and that State do not give effect thereto, the party which seeks to invoke the judgment shall be entitled i have determined by the competent court o f that State the question whether effe: should be given to the judgment in accordance with Article 20. Proceedings may also 1 brought before this court by the State against whicti judgment has been given, i f its la so permits. 2. Save in so far as may be necessary for the application o f Article 20, the cor petent court o f the State in question may not review the merits o f the judgment. 3. Where proceedings are instituted before a court o f a State in accordance wit paragraph 1: (a) the parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings;

175
ents produced by the party seeking to invoke the judgment shall not be ation or any other like formality; i r i t y , bond or deposit, however described, shall be required o f the party lgment by reason o f his nationality, domicile or residence; ty invoking the judgment shall be entitled to legal aid under conditions )le than those applicable to nationals o f the State who are domiciled and lontracting State shall, when depositing its instrument o f ratification, ccession, designate the court of courts referred to in paragraph 1. and inaiy General of the Council o f Europe thereof. Article 22

racting State shall give effect to a settlement to which it is a party and made before a court o f another Contracting State in the course of the : provisions o f Article 20 do not apply to such a settlement. State does not give effect to the settlement, the procedure provided for in be used. Article 23

i o f execution or preventive measures against the property o f a Contracte taken in the territory o f another Contracting State except where and to the State has expressly consented thereto in writing in any particular

CHAPTER IVi. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS Article 24

istanding the provisions o f .Article 15, any State may, when signing this iepositing its instrument o f ratification, acceptance or accession, or at by notification addressed to the Secretary General o f the Council o f that, in cases not falling within Article 1 to 13, its courts shall be enlin proceedings against another Contracting State to the extent that its ed to entertain proceedings against States not Party to the present Condeclaration shall be w i t h o u t prejudice to the immunity f r o m jurisdiction States enjoy in respect o f acts performed in the exercise o f sovereign ire imperii). irts o f a State which has made the declaration provided f o r i n paragraph ver be entitled to entertain such proceedings against another Contracting risdiction could have been based solely on one or more o f the grounds e Annex to the present Convention, unless that other Contracting State i in the proceedings relating to the merits without first challenging the le court. visions of Chapter I I apply to proceedings instituted against a Contract>rdance with the present Article. :laration made under paragraph 1 may be withdrawn by notification Secretary General o f the Council o f Europe. The withdrawal shall take iths after the date o f its receipt.but this shall not affect proceedings the date on which the withdrawal becomes effective.

176
Article 25

1. Any Contracting State which has made a declaration under Article 24 sh cases not falling within Article 1 to 13, give effect to a judgment given by a court other Contracting State which has made a like declaration: (a) and (b) i f the court is considered to have jurisdiction in accordance with the f o i l paragraphs. 2. (a) (b) However, the Contracting State is not obliged to give effect to such a judgr if there is a ground for refusal as provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 20; i f the provisions of paragraph 2 o f Article 24 have not been observed. i f the conditions prescribed in paragraphs 1 (b) o f Article 20 have been f u i

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, a court o f a Contracting State si considered to have jurisdiction for the purpose o f paragraph 1 (b): (a) i f its jurisdiction is recognised in accordance with the provisions o f an agre to which the State o f the forum and the other Contracting State are Parties; (b) where there is no agreement between the two States concerning the recog and enforcement o f judgments in civil matters, i f the courts o f the State o f the would have been entitled to assume jurisdiction had they applied, mutatis mutand rules o f jurisdiction (other than those mentioned in the Annex to the present Cc tion) which operate in the State against which the judgment was given. This pre does not apply to questions arising out o f contracts. 4. the Contracting States having made the declaration provided for in A r t i may, by means o f a supplementary agreement to this Convention, determine the c: stances in which their courts shall be considered to have jurisdiction for the purpc paragraph 1 (b) o f this Article. 5. I f the Contracting State does not give effect to the judgment, the proc provided for in Article 21 may be used. Article 26

Notwithstanding the provisions o f Article 23, a judgment rendered against ; tracting State in proceedigs relating to an industrial or commercial activity, in w h i State is engaged in the same manner as a private person, may be enforced in the Si the forum against property o f the State against which judgment has been given exclusively in connection with such an activity, i f (a) both the State of the forum and the State against which the judgment ha given have made declarations under Article 24; (b) the proceedings which resulted in the judgment fell within Articles 1 to were instituted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24; and (cj 20. CHAPTER V . G E N E R A L PROVISIONS Article 27 the judgment satisfies the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 (b) o f .

1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the expression "Contracting shall not include any legal entity o f a Contracting State which is distinct therefrc is capable of suing or being sued, even i f that entity has been entrusted with functions.

177
ings may be instituted against any entity referred to in paragraph 1 beo f another Contracting State in the same manner as against a private , the courts may not entertain proceedings in respect of acts performed :he exercise o f sovereign authority (acta jure imperii)ngs may in any event be instituted against any such entity before those esponding circumstances, the courts would have had jurisdiction i f the been instituted against a Contracting State. Article 28

prejudice to the provisions of Article 27. the constituent States of a not enjoy immunity. , a Federal State Party to the present Convention, may, by notifica> the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, declare that its conjay invoke the provisions of the Convention applicable to Contracting the same obligations. Federal State has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 2. ents on a constituent State of a Federation shall be made on the MinU'fairs o f the Federal State, in conformity with .Article 16. eral State alone is competent to make the declarations, notifications ions provided for in the present Convention, and the Federal State alone iroceedings pursuant to .Article 34. Article 29

onvention shall not apply to proceedings concerning: :urity; >r injury in nuclear matters; duties, taxes or penalties. Article 30

onvention shall not apply to proceedings in respect o f claims relating to seagoing vessels owned or operated by a Contracting State or to the :s and of passengers by such vessels or to the carriage o f cargoes owned State and carried on board merchant vessels. Article 31

is Convention shall affect any immunities or privileges enjoyed by a in respect o f anything done or omitted to be done by, or in relation es when on the territory of another Contracting State. Article 32

e present Convention shall affect privileges and immunities relating to le functions o f diplomatic missions and consular posts and o f persons iem. Article 33

: present Convention shall affect existing or future international agreeelds which relate to matters dealt w i t h in the present Convention.

178
Article 34 1. Any dispute which might arise between two or more Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice on the application of one of the parties to the dispute or by special agreement unless the parties agree on a different method of peaceful settlement of the dispute.
9

2. However, proceedings may not be instituted before the International Court of Justice which relate to: fa) a dispute concerning a question arising in proceedings instituted against a Contracting State before a court of another Contracting State, before the court has given a judgment which fulfills the condition provided for in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 20; (b) a dispute concerning a question arising in proceedings instituted before a court of a Contracting State in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 21, before the court has rendered a final decision in such proceedings. Article 35

1. The present Convention shall apply only to proceedings introduced after its entry into force. 2. When a State has become Party to this Convention after it has entered into force, the Convention shall apply only to proceedings introduced after it has entered into force with respect to that State. 3. Nothing in this Convention shall apply to proceedings arising out of, or judgments based on, acts, omissions or facts prior to the date on which the present Convention is opened for signature. CHAPTER VI. F I N A L PROVISIONS Article 36 1. The present Convention shall be open to signature by the member States of the Council of liurope. It shall be subject to ratification or acceptance. Instruments of ratification or acceptance shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. 2. The Convention shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of the third instrument of ratification or acceptance. 3. In respect of a signatory State ratifying or accepting subsequently, the Convention shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or acceptance. Article 37

1. After the entry into force of the present Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may, by a decision taken by a unanimous vote of the members casting a vote, invite any non-member State to accede thereto. 2. Such accession shall be effected by depositing with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe an instrument of accession which shall take effect three months after the date of its deposit
r

3. However, if a State having already acceded to the Convention notifies the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of its objection to the accession of another non-member State, before the entry into force of this accession, the Convention shall

179
Article 38 may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instruments of ance or accession, specify the territory or territories to which the shall apply. '_ may, when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or later date, by declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the extend this Convention to any other territory or territories specified and for whose international relations it is responsible or on whose :d to give undertakings. ation made in pursuance of the preceding paragraph may, in respect itioned in such declaration, be withdrawn according to the procedure 40 of this Convention. Article 39

permitted to the present Convention. Article 40

icting State may, in so far as it is concerned, denounce this Convennotification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of iciation shall take effect six months after the date of receipt by the >f such notificationr This Convention shall, however, continue to s introduced before the date on which the denunciation takes effect, en in such proceedings. Article 41

eneral of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of >e and any State which has acceded to this Convention of: e; of an instrument of ratification, acceptance or accession; entry into force of this Convention in accordance with Articles 36 ition received in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 2 of ru cation received in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 4 of tion received in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 1 of val of any notification made in pursuance of the provisions of 5 24; tion received in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 2 of tion received in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 3 of an received in pursuance of the provisions of Article 38; ion received in pursuance of the provisions of Article 40 and the iation takes effect.

180
ANNEX The grounds o f jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (a), ol . 20, paragraph 2 o f Article 24 and paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (b), of Article 25 ; following: (a) the presence in the territory o f the State o f the forum o f property beloni the defendant, or the seizure by the plaintiff of property situated there, unless the action is brought to assert proprietary or possessory rights in that prope arises from another issue relating to such property; or the property constitutes the security for a debt which is the subject-matter action; (b) the nationality o f the plaintiff; (cj the domicile, habitual residence or ordinary residence o f the plaintiff witl territory o f the State o f the forum unless the assumption o f jurisdiction on ground is permitted by way o f an exception made on account o f the particular s matter o f a class o f contracts; (d) the fact that the defendant carried on business within the territory o f t h of the forum, unless the action arises f r o m that business; fe) a unilateral specification o f the forum by the plaintiff, particularly in an ii A legal person shall be considered to have its domicile or habitual residence w has its seat, registered office or principal place o f business.

A D D I T I O N A L PROTOCOL T O THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON STATE IMMUNITY The member States o f the Council of Europe, signatory to the present Protoco Having taken note o f the European Convention on State Immunity - here referred to as "the Convention" - and in particular Articles 21 and 34 thereof; Desiring to develop the work of harmonisation in the field covered by the C tion by the addition of provisions concerning a European procedure for the sett of disputes, Have agreed as follows: PARTI Article I

1. Where a judgment has been given against a State Party to the Conventi that States does not give effect thereto, the party which seeks to invoke the j u shall be entitled to have determined the question whether effect should be givei judgment in conformity with Article 20 or Article 25 of the Convention, by ins proceedings before either: (a) the competent court of that State in application of Article 21 of the ( tion; or (b) the European Tribunal constituted in conformity with the provisions o f of the present Protocol, provided that that State is a Party to the present Proto has to made the declaration referred to in Part I V thereof.' The choice between these two possibilities shall be final. 2. I f the State intends to institute proceedings before its court in accordar the provisions o f paragraph 1 o f Article 21 o f the Convention i t must give noti intention to do so to the party in whose favour the judgment has been given; tl may thereafter institute such proceedings before the European Tribunal. Oi

181
psed. the party in whose favour the judgment has been given may no longer eedings before the European Tribunal. in so far as may be necessary for the application o f Articles 20 and 25 of >n, the European Tribunal may not review the merits of the judgment. PART I I Article 2 dispute which might arise between two or more States Parties to the col concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall be i the application of one of the parties to the dispute or by special agreeEuropean Tribunal constituted in conformity with the provisions o f Part I I I t Protocol. The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake not to subpute to a different mode of settlement. e dispute concerns a question arising in proceedings instituted before a State Party to the Convention against another State Party to the Convenstion, arising in proceedings instituted before a court o f a State Party to the i accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, i t may not be referred to Tribunal until the court has given a final decision in such proceedings. edings may not be instituted before the European Tribunal which relate to :erning a judgment which it has already determined or is required to deter! o f Part I of this Protocol. Article 3 i the present Protocol shall be interpreted as preventing the European determining any dispute which might arise between two or more States Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof and which litted to it by special agreement, even i f these Parties, or any o f them, are the present Protocol. PART I I I Article 4 shall be established a European Tribunal in matters o f State Immunity to :s brought before it in conformity w i t h the provisions of Parts I and I I o f itocol. uropean Tribunal shall consist of the members o f the European Court o f and, in respect o f each non-member State o f the Council o f Europe which > the present Protocol, a person possessing the qualifications required o f at Court designated, with the agreement of the Committee o f Ministers o f Europe, by the government o f that State for a period o f nine years. esident o f the European Tribunal shall be the President o f the European n Rights. Article 5

proceedings are instituted before the European Tribunal in accordance ions o f Part I o f the present Protocol, the European Tribunal shall consist :omposed o f seven members. There shall sit as ex officio members o f the lember o f the European Tribunal who is a national o f the State against tnent has been given and the member o f the European Tribunal who is a

182
national of the State o f the forum, or, should there be no such member in one other case, a person designated by the government of the State concerned to sit capacity of a member o f the Chamber. The names o f the other five members s chosen by lot by the President of the European Tribunal in the presence of the Re 2. Where proceedings are instituted before the European Tribunal in acco with the provisions o f Part I I of the present Protocol, the Chamber shall be cons in the manner provided for in the preceding paragraph. However, there shall si officio members of the Chamber the members of the European Tribunal who are als of the States parties to the dispute or, should there be no such member, a designated by the government of the State concerned to sit in the capacity of a n of the Chamber. 3. Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affect interpretation of the Convention or o f the present Protocol, the Chamber may, time, relinquish jurisdiction in favour o f the european Tribunal meeting in i session. The relinquishment of jurisdiction shall be obligatory where the resolu such question might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously deliver Chamber or by the European Tribunal meeting in plenary session. The relinqui of jurisdiction shall be final. Reasons need not be given for the decision to rel jurisdiction. Article 6 1. The European Tribunal shall decide any disputes as to whether the T r i b t jurisdiction. 2. The hearings o f the European Tribunal shall be public unless the Trib exceptional circumstances decides otherwise. 3. The judgments o f the European Tribunal, taken by a majority of the m present, are to be delivered in public session. Reasons shall be given for the judgr the European Tribunal. I f the judgment does not represent in whole or in part animous opinion of the European Tribunal, any member shall be entitled to d separate Opinion. 4. The judgments o f the European Tribunal shall be final and binding uj: parties. Article 7 1. The European Tribunal shall draw up its own rules and fix its own proced

2. The Registry o f the European Triubnal shall be provided by the Registrai European Court o f Human Rights. Article 8 1. The operating costs of the European Tribunal shall be borne by the Coi Europe. States non-members of the Council o f Europe having acceded to the Protocol shall contribute thereto in a manner to be decided by the Committee o ters after agreement with these States. 2. The members of the European Tribunal shall receive for each day o f compensation to be determined by the Committee o f Ministers.

183
PART I V Article 9 ate may, by notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Counthe moment o f its signature of the present Protocol, or o f the deposit o f f ratification, acceptance or accession thereto, declare that it will only be I I to V of the present Protocol. notification may be withdrawn at any time. PART V Article 10

sent Protocol shall be open to signature by the member States o f the pe which have signed the Convention. It shall be subject to ratification Instruments o f ratification or acceptance shall be deposited with the il o f the Council o f Europe. sent Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date o f the |th instrument of ratification or acceptance. :t o f a signatory State ratifying or accepting subsequently, the Protocol force three months after the date o f the deposit of its instrument o f ratitance. ler State o f the Council of Europe may not ratify or accept the present \ having ratified or accepted the Convention. Article 11

Iwhich has acceded to the Convention may accede to the present Prol i n t o force. ession shall be effected by depositing with the Secretary General o f the an instrument of accession which shall take effect three months after losit. Article 12

| is permitted to the present Protocol. Article 13

racting State may, in so far as i t is concerned, denounce the present i o f a notification addressed to the Secretary General o f the Council o f |inciation shall take effect six months after the date o f receipt by the j f such notification. The Protocol shall, however, continue to apply t o |uced in conformity with the provisions o f the Protocol before the i denunciation takes effect. lion of the Convention shall automatically entail denunciation o f the

184
Article 14

The Secretary General ot" the Council o f Europe shall notify the member Sta the Council and any State which has acceded to the Convention of: (a) (b) any signature of the present Protocol. any deposit o f an instrument o f ratification, acceptance or accession;

(c) any date of entry into force o f the present Protocol in accordance with A 10 and 11 thereof; (d) any notification received in pursuance o f the provisions o f Part IV and any drawal of any such notification; (ej any notification received in pursuance o f the provisions o f Article 13 ai date on which such denunciation takes effect. In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signi present Protocol. Done at Basle, this 16th day o f May 1972, in English and French, both texts equally authoritative, in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council o f Europe shall transmit tied copies to each o f the signatory and acceding States.

RESOLUTION (72) 2 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNC EUROPE CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON STATE IMM U N I T Y ADOPTED A T THE 206TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPl ON 18 J A N U A R Y 1972 The Committee o f Ministers o f the Council o f Europe, Having taken note o f the text o f the European Convention on State Immunity; Considering that one of the aims of this Convention is to ensure compliance judgments given against a State, Recommends the governments o f those member States which shall become f to this Convention to establish, for the purpose o f Article 21 o f the Convention, cedure which shall be as expeditious and simple as possible.

APPENDIX I I

THE UNITED STATES GN S O V E R E I G N I M M U N I T I E S A C T O F 1976

AN ACT jurisdiction of United States courts in suits against foreign states, the which foreign states are immune from suit and in which execution may heir property, and for other purposes. by the Senate ess assembled, 1976". and House of Representatives of the United States of That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Sovereign

That chapter 85 o f title 28. United States Code, is amended by insert;fore section 1331 the following new section: \ions against foreign states | t n c t courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount any nonjury civil action against a foreign state as defined in section ttle as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the \t entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 o f this title or jle international agreement. jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief strict courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has action 1608 of this title. joses o f subsection (b), an appearance by a foreign state does not |irisdiction with respect to any claim for relief not arising out o f any jrrence enumerated in sections 1605-1607 o f this title.". ig in the chapter analysis of that chapter before: . question; amount in controversy; costs." litem: |against foreign states". ection 1332 o f title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking |and (3) and substituting in their place the following: >f a State and citizens or subjects o f a foreign state; >f different States and in which citizens or subjects o f a foreign state |es;and state, defined in section 1603(a) o f this title, as plaintiff and -itizens ferent States.".

186
Sec. 4. () That title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting afte: 95 the following new chapter: "CHAPTER 97. J U R I S D I C T I O N A L IMMUNITIES O F F O R E I G N ST "Sec. "1602. "1603. "1604. "1605. "1606. "1607. "1608. "1609. "1610. "1611. - - - - Findings and declaration of purpose. Definitions. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state. Extent of liability. Counterclaims. Service; time to answer default. Immunity from attachment and execution of property of afdreign s Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution. Certain types of property immune from execution. of purpose

" 1602. Findings and declaration

"The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the. foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the of justice and would protect the rights of. both foreign states and litigants r States courts; Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisd foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their coi property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunit henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in co with the principles set forth in this chapter. " 1603. Definitions

"For purposes of this chapter: "(a) A 'foreign state', except as used in section 1608 of this title, include: cal subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign defined in subsection (b). "(f) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity: "(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
;

"(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thei majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign political subdivision thereof, and "(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as d section 1332 (<r) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third "(c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters, continental o; subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. . "(d) A'commercial activity'means either a regular course of commercial or a particular commercial transaction of act. The commercial character of ar shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or p transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose. "(e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a forei means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial con the United States. " 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction

"Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a the time of enactment of this act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisd

187
arts o f the United States and o f the States except as provided in sections 1605 to f this chapter. 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

) A foreign state shall not be immune f r o m the jurisdiction o f courts o f the States i n any case: ) i n which the foreign state has waived its- immunity either explicitly or by imin, notwithstanding any withdrawal o f the waiver which the foreign state may t to effect except i n accordance w i t h the terms o f the waiver; I i n which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried o n i n the States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed i n the United States in conw i t h a commercial activity o f the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside i t o r y o f the United States i n connection w i t h a commercial activity o f the foreign sewhere and that act causes a direct effect i n the United States; in which rights i n property taken i n violation o f international law are i n issue t property or any property exchanged f o r such property is present i n the United n connection with a commercial activity carried on i n the United States by the state; or that property or any property exchanged f o r such property is owned or d by an agency or instrumentality o f the foreign-state and that agency or instruty is engaged i n a commercial activity i n the United States; i n which rights i n property in the United States acquired by succession or gift i i n immovable property situated i n the United States are i n issue; or not otherwise encompassed i n paragraph (2) above, in which money damages dit againstya'foreign state f o r personal injury or death, or damage to or loss o f r, occurring i n the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission o f sign state or o f any official or employee o f that foreign state while acting within e o f his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply t o : "(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to rise or perform a discretionary f u n c t i o n regardless o f whether the discretion be td, or I "(B) any claim arising out o f malicious prosecution, abuse o f process, libeL Ber, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference w i t h contract rights: I A foreign sate shall not be immune f r o m the jurisdiction o f the courts o f the States i n any case i n which a suit in admiralty is brought to enforce a maritime r o t a vessel or cargo o f the foreign state, which maritime lien is based upon a r i a l activity o f the foreign state: Provided, That: I notice o f the suit is given by delivery o f a copy o f the summons and o f the l i t t o the person, or his agent, having possession o f the vessel or cargo against l i e maritime lien is asserted; but such notice shall not be deemed to have been m, nor may i t thereafter be delivered, i f the vessel or cargo is arrested pursuant to l >btained on behalf o f the party bringing the suit - unless the party was unaware I v e s s e i or cargo o f a foreign state was involved; i n which event the service o f ptoH r e s t shall be deemed to constitute valid delivery o f such notice; and ' I notice to the foreign state o f the commencement o f suit as provided in section B t h i s title is initiated within ten days either o f the delivery o f notice as provided fltion (b) (1) o f this section or, in the case o f a party who was unaware that the I cargo o f a foreign state was involved, o f the date such party determined the o f the foreign state's interest. B notice is delivered under subsection (6) (1) o f this section, the maritime lien H e a f t e r be deemed to be an in personam claim against the foreign state which at I owns the vessel or cargo involved: Provided, That a court m a y n o t award judg-

188
ment against the foreign state i n an amount greater than the value o f the vessel or cargo upon which the maritime lien arose, such value to be determined as o f the time notice is served under subsection (2>)(1) o f this section. " 1606. Extent of liability

" A s to any claim f o r relief w i t h respect to which a foreign state is not entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1607 o f this chapter, the foreign state, shall be liable i n the same- manner and t o the same extent as a. private individual under like circumstances; but a foreign state except f o r an agency or instrumentality thereof shall n o t be liable f o r punitive damages; i f , however, i n any case wherein death was caused, the law o f the place where the action o r omission occurred provides, or has been construed to provide, f o r damages only punitive i n nature, the foreign state shall be liable f o r actual or compensatory damages measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting f r o m such death which were incurred by the persons f o r whose benefit the action was b r o u g h t "1607.

Counterclaims

" I n any action brought by a foreign state, or i n which a foreign state intervenes, i n a court o f the United States or o f a State, the foreign state shall not be accorded immunity w i t h respect to any counterclaim; "(o) f o r which a foreign state would not be entitled to immunity under section 1605 o f this chapter had such claim been brought i n a separate action against the foreign state; or "(b) arising put o f the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter o f the claim o f the foreign state; or "(c) to the extent that the counterclaim does not seek relief exceeding in amount o f differing i n kind f r o m that sought by the foreign state. " 1608. Service; time to antwer; default

"(a) Service i n the courts o f the United States and o f the States shall be made upon a foreign state or political subdivision o f a foreign state: "(1) by delivery o f a copy o f the summons and complaint i n accordance with any special arrangement f o r service between the p l a i n t i f f and the foreign state or political subdivision; o r " ( 2 ) i f no special arrangement exists, by delivery o f a copy o f the summons and complaint in accordance w i t h an applicable international convention on service o f judicial documents; or " ( 3 ) i f service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by sending a copy o f the summons and complaint and a notice o f suit, together w i t h a translation o f each into the official language o f the foreign state, by any f o r m o f mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk o f the court to the head o f the ministry o f foreign affairs o f the foreign state concerned, or " ( 4 ) ~ i f service cannot be made w i t h i n 30 days under paragraph (3), by sending t w o copies o f the summons and complaint and a notice o f suit, together w i t h a translation o f each into the o f f i c i a l language o f the foreign state, by any f o r m o f mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk o f the court t o the Secretary of State i n Washington, District o f Columbia, to the attention o f the Director o f Special Consular Services - and the Secretary shall transmit one copy o f the papers through diplomatic channels to the foreign state and shall send to the clerk o f the court a certified copy o f the diplomatic note indicating when the papers were transmitted. As used in this subsection, a 'notice o f suit* shall mean a notice addressed t o a foreign state and i n a f o r m prescribed by the Secretary o f State by regulation.

189
the courts of the United States and o f the States shall be made upon tentality o f a foreign state: y of a copy o f the summons and complaint in accordance with any for service between the plaintiff and the agency or instrumentality; ial arrangement exists, by delivery o f a copy o f the summons and an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent autholt or by law to receive service o f process i n the United States; or i n applicable international convention on service o f judicial documents; cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), and i f reasonably caltl notice, by delivery o f a copy o f the summons and complaint, totion o f each into the official language o f the foreign state: xected by an authority o f the foreign state or political subdivision stter rogatory or request or ny f o r m o f mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and diserk o f the court to the agency or instrumentality to be served, or rected by order o f the court consistent w i t h the law o f the place s be made. ill be deemed to have been made: e of service under subsection (a)(4), as of the date of transmittal fled copy of the diplomatic note; and ier case ounder this section, as o f the date o f receipt indicated in the and returned postal receipt, or other proof o f service applicable to e employed. ion Brought i n a court o f the United States or o f a State, a foreign division thereof, or an agency or instrumentality o f a foreign state r or other responsive pleading to the complaint w i t h i n sixty days i made under this section. mt by default shall be entered by a court o f the U n i t e d States or o f sign state, a political subdivision thereof, or an agency o r instrumenate, unless the claimant establishes his claim or right t o relief by evii the court. A copy o f any such default judgment shall be sent to the ical subdivision in the manner prescribed f o r service i n this section. uty from attachment and execution of property of a foreign state ing international agreements t o which the United States is a party at ait o f this Act the property i n the United States o f a foreign state m attachment, arrest and execution except as provided i n sections is chap ter. ions to the immunity from attachment or execution rty in the United States o f a foreign state, as defined i n section ter, used f o r a commercial activity i n the United States, shall not be unent in aid o f execution, or f r o m execution, upon a judgment f the United States or o f a State after the effective date o f this Act, state has waived its i m m u n i t y f r o m attachment in aid o f execution her explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal o f n state may purport t o effect except i n accordance w i t h the terms

190
"(2) the property, is o r was used f o r the commercial activity upon which the claim is based, or "(3) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights i n property which has been taken i n violation o f international law or which has been exchanged f o r property taken i n violation o f international law, or "(4) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in property: "(A) which, is acquired by succession or g i f t , or

" ( ) which is immovable and situated i n the United States: Provided, That such property is not used f o r purposes o f maintaining a diplomatic or consular mission or the residence o f the Chief o f such mission, or " ( 5 ) the property consists o f any contractual obligation or any proceeds f r o m such a contractual obligation to indemnify or hold harmless the foreign state or its employees under a policy o f automobile or other liability or casualty insurance covering the claim which merged into the j u d g m e n t "(b) I n addition to subsection (a), any property i n the United States o f an agency or instrumentality o f a foreign state engaged i n commercial activity i n the United States shall not be immune f r o m attachment i n aid o f execution, or f r o m execution, upon a judgment entered by a court o f the United States or o f a State after the effective date o f this A c t , i f : " ( 1 ) the agency or instrumentality has waived its immunity f r o m attachment in aid of execution or f r o m execution either explicitly or implicitly, notwithstanding any w i t h drawal o f the waiver the agency or instrumentality may purport to effect except i n accordance w i t h the terms o f the waiver, or "(2) the judgment relates to a claim f o r which the agency or instrumentality is not immune by virtue o f section 160S (a) (2), (3), or (5), or 1605 (b) o f this chapter, regardless o f whether the property is or was used f o r the activity upon which the claim is based. "(c) No attachment or execution referred to in subsections (a) and (b) o f this section shall be permitted until the court has ordered such attachment and execution after having determined that a reasonable period o f time has elapsed following the entry o f judgment and the giving o f any notice required under section 1608 (e) o f this chapter. "(d) The property o f a foreign state, as defined i n section 1603 (a) o f this chapter, used f o r a commercial activity in the United States, shall not be immune f r o m attachment prior to the entry o f judgment in any action brought in a court o f the United States or o f a State, or prior to the elapse o f the period o f time provided in subsection (c) o f this section, i f : "(1) the foreign state has explicitly waived its immunity f r o m attachment prior to judgment, notwithstanding any withdrawal o f the waiver the foreign state may purport to effect except i n accordance w i t h the terms o f the waiver, and " ( 2 ) the purpose o f the attachment is to secure satisfaction o f a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state, and not to obtain jurisdiction. "1611. Certain typei of property immune from execution

"(a) Notwithstanding the provisions o f section 1610 o f this chapter, the property of those organizations designated by the President as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided by the International Organizations Immunities Act shall not be subject to attachment o r any other judicial process impeding the disbursement o f funds to, or on the order o f , a foreign state as the result o f an action brought in the courts o f the-United States or o f the States.

191
ithstanding the provisions of section 1610 o f this chapter, the property e shall be immune f r o m attachment and f r o m execution, i f : roperty is that o f a foreign central bank or monetary authority held f o r t, unless such bank or authority, or its parent foreign government, has d its Immunity f r o m attachment i n aid o f execution, or f r o m execution, ; any withdrawal o f the waiver which the bank, authority or government effect except in accordance with the terms o f the waiver; or operty is, or is intended to be used in connection w i t h a military activity is o f a military character, or is under the control o f a military authority or defense agency." E analysis o f "Part I V . Jurisdiction and Venue" o f title 28, United States 1 by inserting after: s Court.", /item: ional Immunities o f Foreign States.". section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at ie following new subsection: I action against a foreign state as defined i n section 1603 (a) o f this title |judicial district i n which a substantial part o f the events or omissions occurred, or a substantial part o f property that is the subject o f udicial district in which the vessel or cargo o f a foreign state is situated, ted under section 1605 (6) o f this title; iidicial district i n which the agency or instrumentality is licensed to do ; business, i f the action is brought against an agency or instrumentality i defined i n section 1603 (b o f this title; or failed States District Court f o r the District o f Columbia i f the action is foreign state or political subdivision thereof.". ction 1441 o f title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at I following new subsection: action brought i n a State court against a foreign state as defined in ' this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action Removal the action shall be tried by the court without j u r y . Where on this subsection, the time.limitations o f section 1446 (b) o f this I at any time f o r cause shown.". brovision o f this Act or the application thereof to any foreign state is (validity does not affect other provisions or applications o f the Act effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end i Act are severable. | shall take effect ninety days after the date o f its enactment. (1,1976.

APPENDIX I I I

4ITED KINGDOM S T A T E IMMUNITY ACT 1978

make new provision w i t h respect to proceedings in the United Kingdom ther States; to provide f o r the effect o f judgments given against the in the- courts o f States parties to the European Convention on State ike new provision w i t h respect to the immunities and privileges o f heads connected purposes. (20th July 1978) d by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and w i t h the advice and ords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, i n this present Parliament i the authority o f the same, as follows: PARTI 1GS I N UNITED K I N G D O M BY OR AGAINST OTHER STATES Immunity from jurisdiction

State is immune f r o m the jurisdiction o f the courts o f the United Kingtvided in the following provisions o f this Part o f this A c t . shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even oes not appear i n the proceedings i n question. Exceptions from immunity

State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect o f which i t has liction o f the courts o f the United Kingdom. | may submit after the dispute giving rise to the proceedings has arisen ten agreement; but a provision i n any agreement that i t is t o be gov| f the.United Kingdom is not to be regarded as a submission. ; deemed to have submitted: (instituted the proceedings; or subsections (4) and ( 5 ) below, i f i t has intervened or taken any step |>n (3)(i) above does not apply to intervention or any step taken for niunity; or Ian interest in property in circumstances such that the State would t o immunity i f the proceedings had been brought against i t .

194
(5) Subsection (3 )(ft) above does not apply to any step taken by the : ignorance o f facts entitling i t to immunity i f those facts could not reasonably ha ascertained and immunity is claimed as soon as reasonably practicable. (6) A submission in respect o f any proceedings extends.to any appeal bu any counter-claim unless i t arises out o f the same legal relationship or facts as the (7) The head o f a State's diplomatic mission in the United Kingdom, or thi for the time being performing his f u n c t i o n , shall be deemed to have authority tc on behalf o f the State i n respect o f any proceedings; and any person who has into a contract on behalf o f and w i t h the authority o f a State shall be deemed authority to submit on its behalf i n respect o f proceedings arising out o f the cont 3. (a) (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating t o :

a commercial transaction entered into by the State; or

(ft) an obligation o f the State which by virtue o f a contract (whether a con transaction or n o t ) falls to be performed wholly or partly i n the United Kingdom (2) This section does not apply i f the parties to the dispute are States otherwise agreed in writing; and subsection ( l ) ( f r ) above does not apply i f the i (not being a commercial transaction) was made in the territory o f the State co and the obligation i n question is governed by its administrative law. V (3) (a) I n this section "commercial transaction" means: any contract f o r the supply o f goods or services;

(6) any loan or other transaction f o r the provisic n o f finance and any guar indemnity i n respect o f any such transaction or o f any other financial obligation; (c) any other transaction or activity (whether o f a commercial, industria cial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or i n ' engages otherwise than i n the exercise o f sovereign authority; but neither paragraph o f subsection (1) above applies to a contract o f empi between a State and an individual. 4. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to a con employment between the State and an individual where the contract was mad United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly o r partly performed there. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, this section does not apply i f

(a) at the time when the proceedings are brought the individual is a nat the State concerned; or (ft) at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a o f the United Kingdom nor habitually resident there; or (c) the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed i n writing.

(3) Where the work is f o r an office, agency or establishment maintaine< State i n the United Kingdom f o r commercial purposes, subsection (2)(a) and (. do not exclude the application o f this section unless the individual was, at t when the contract was made, habitually resident in that State. (4) Subsection (2)(c) above does not exclude the application o f this where the law o f the United Kingdom, requires the proceedings to be brought court o f the United Kingdom. (5) I n subsection (2)(ft) above "national o f the United Kingdom" means o f the United Kingdom and Colonies, a person who is a British subject by virtu tion 2, 13 or 16 o f the British Nationality Act 1948 or by virtue o f the British I i t y Act 1965, a British protected person within the meaning o f the said Act o f a citizen o f Southern Rhodesia.

195
In this section "proceedings relating to a contract o f employment" includes gs between the parties to such a contract in respect o f any statutory rights or which they are entitled or subject as employer or employee. A State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect o f : death or personal i n j u r y ; or damage to or loss o f tangible property, an act or omission i n the United Kingdom. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating t o :

any interest o f the State i n , or its possession or use o f , immovable property i n 1 Kingdom; o r any obligation o f the State arising out o f its interest i n , or its possession or use ch property. A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to any interest o f the lovable or immovable property, being an interest arising by way o f succession, la vacantia. The fact that a State has or claims an interest in any property shall not precourt f r o m exercising i n respect o f it any jurisdiction relating to the estates o f >ersons or persons o f unsound mind or to insolvency, the winding up o f comthe administration o f trusts. A court may entertain proceedings against a person other than a State noting that the proceedings relate to property: which-is i n the possession or control o f a State; or in Which a State claims an interest, e would not have been immune had the proceedings been brought against i t or, vithin paragraph (ft) above, i f the claim is neither admitted nor supported by s evidence^ A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating t o : any patent, trade-mark, design or plant breeders' rights belonging to the State aed or protected i n the United Kingdom or f o r which the State has applied in .'Kingdom; " an alleged infringement by the State in the United Kingdom o f any patent, :, design, plant breeders' rights or copyright; or the right to use a trade or business name in the United Kingdom. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to its membership

corporate, an unincorporated body or a partnership which: has members other than States; and is incorporated or constituted under the law o f the United Kingdom or is conn or has its principal place o f business in the United Kingdom, eedings arising: between the State and the body or its other members or, as the e, between the. State and the other partners. [Tiis section does not apply i f provision to the contrary has been made by an in writing between the parties to the dispute or by the constitution or other establishing or regulating the body or partnership in question. 1) Where a State has agreed in writing to submit a dispute which has arisen, e, to arbitration, the State is not immune as respects proceedings in the courts ed Kingdom which relate t o the arbitration.

196
(2) This section has effect subject to any contrary provision teethe arbitratic agreement and does not apply t o any arbitration agreement between States. 10. (a) (b) ceedings. (2) (a) (6) A State is not immune as respects: an action i n rem against a ship belonging to that State; or an action i n personam f o r enforcing a claim i n connection w i t h such a ship, (1) : This section applies t o : Admiralty proceedings; and proceedings on any claim which could be made the subject o f Admiralty pr

if, at the time when the cause o f action arose, the ship was in use or intended f o r use f commercial purposes. ' (3) Vlfoere ah~action^ta r ^ to a State f o r t forcing a claimKm connection w i t h another ship belonging to that State, subsecti (2)(a) above does not apply as respects the first-mentioned ship unless, at the time wh the cause o f action relating to the other ship arose, both ships were i n use or intend for use f o r commercial purposes. (4) A State is not immune as respects:

(a) an action i n rem against a cargo belonging t o that State i f both the cargo a the ship carrying i t were, at the time when the cause o f action arose, in use or intend for use f o r commercial purposes; or (b) an action in personam f o r enforcing a claim in connection w i t h such a carg< the ship carrying i t was then i n use or intended f o r use as aforesaid. (5) I n the foregoing provisions references t o a ship or cargo belonging to a St include references to a ship or cargo i n its possession or control o r i n which i t claims interest; and, subject to subsection (4) above, subsection (2) above implies to prope other than a ship as i t applies to a ship. (6) Sections 3 to 5 above do not apply to proceedings o f the k i n d described subsection (1) above i f the State in question is a party to the Brussels Convention s the claim relates to the operation o f a ship owned or operated by that State, the earn o f cargo or passengers on any such ship or the carriage o f cargo owned by that State any cither ship. 11. (a) (ft) A State is not immune as respects; proceedings relating to its liability f o r : value added tax, any duty o f customs or excise or any agricultural levy; or rates in respect o f premises occupied by i t f o r commercial purposes. Procedure 12. (1) A n y w r i t or other document required to be served f o r instituting i ceedings against a State shall be served by being transmitted through the Foreign . Commonwealth Office to the Ministry o f Foreign Affairs o f the State and service shal deemed to riave been effected w h e n t h e w r i t or document is received at the Ministry. (2) A n y time for entering an appearance (whether prescribed by rules o f cour otherwise) shall begin to run t w o months after the date on which the w r i t or docum is received as aforesaid. (3) A State which appears i n proceedings cannot thereafter object that subsed (1) above has not been complied w i t h i n the case o f those proceedings. (4) No judgment in default o f appearance shall be given against a State excep

197
t i o n (1) above has been complied w i t h and that the time f o i entering an ended by subsection (2) above has expired. ' of any judgment given against a State i n default of appearance shall be igh the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ministry o f Foreign tate and any time for applying to have the judgment set aside (whether es o f court or otherwise) shall begirt to run two months after the date y o f the judgment is received at the Ministry. tion (1) above does not prevent the service o f a w r i t or other document > which the State has agreed and subsections (2) and (4) above do not ce is effected in any such manner. ction shall not be construed as applying t o proceedings against a State er-claim or to an action in rem; and subsection (1) above shall not be cting any rules o f court Whereby leave is required f o r the service o f prourisdiction. ': 0 penalty by way o f committal or fine shall be imposed i n respect o f iusal by or on behalf o f a State to disclose or produce any document or 1 f o r the purposes o f proceedings to which i t is a party. t to subsections (3) and (4) above: ihall not be given against a State by way o f injunction or order f o r nee o r f o r the recovery o f land or other property; and >perty o f a State shall not be subject to any process f o r the enforcement r arbitration award or, i n an action i n rem, f o r its arrest, detention or tiofi (2) above does n o t prevent the giving o f any relief or the issue o f l the written consent o f the State concerned; and any such consent :ontained i n a prior agreement) may be expressed so as to apply to a generally; but a provision merely submitting t o the jurisdiction o f the e regarded as a consent f o r the purposes o f this subsection. t i o n (2)(fr) above does not prevent the issue o f any process i n respect h is f o r the time being in use or intended f o r use f o r commercial puruse not falling w i t h i n section 10 above, this subsection applies to propr t y to the European Convention on State I m m u n i t y only i f jcess is f o r enforcing a judgment which is final w i t h i n the meaning o f below and the State has made a declaration under Article 24 o f the icess is f o r enforcing an arbitration award. ad o f a State's diplomatic mission i n the United Kingdom, or the person g performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to give on te any such consent as is mentioned i n subsection (3) above and, f o r the action (4) above, his certificate to the effect t h a t any property is not i n for use by or on behalf o f the State f o r commercial purposes shall be dent evidence o f that fact unless the contrary is proved. application o f this section to i Scotland: srence to " i n j u n c t i o n " shall be construed as a reference t o " i n t e r d i c t " ; agraph (b) o f subsection (2) above there shall be substituted the follow* le property o f a State shall n o t be subject to any diligence f o r enforcing or order o f a court or a decree arbitral or, i n an action i n rem, t o arrest-

198
(c) any reference to "process" shall be construed as a reference to " d i any reference to "the issue o^any process" as a reference to "the doing o f d and the reference i n subsection (4)(A) above to "an arbitration award" as a reft "a decree arbitral". .. . > Supplementary provisions

14. (1) The immunities and privileges conferred by this Part o f this A c t any foreign or commonwealth State other than the United Kingdom; and refere State include references t o : (a) the sovereign or other head o f that State i n his public capacity; (ft) the government o f that State; and (c) any department of-that government, but n o t to any entity (hereafter referred to as a "separate e n t i t y " ) which is dist the executive organs o f the government o f the State and capable o f suing or beii (2) A separate entity is immune f r o m the jurisdiction o f the courts o f tl Kingdom i f , and only i f : (a) the proceedings relate to anything done by i t i n the exercise o f authority; arid (b) the circumstances are such that a State (or, i n the case o f proceedings section 10 above applies, a State which is not a party to the Brussels Conventic have been so immune. ; (3) I f a separate entity (not being a State's central bank o r other monetai i t y ) submits to the jurisdiction i n respect o f proceedings i n the case o f whic titled to. immunity by virtue o f subsection (2) above,, subsections (1) t o (4) o f ' . above shall apply to i t in-respect o f those procedures as i f references to a references to t h a t entity _ . Property o f a State's central bank or other monetary authority sh regarded f o r t h e purposes o f subsection (4) o f section 13 above as i n use or int use-for commercial purposes; and where-any such bank or authority is a sepai subsections, ( l ) . t o . ( 3 ) o f that section .shall apply to i t as i f references to a J references, to the- bank o r authority. (5) Section 12 above- applies t o proceedings against the constituent terri federal State; and Her. Majesty may by Order i n Council provide f o r the other o f this Part o f this Act to apply t o any such constituent territory specified i n as they apply to a State. (6) Where the provisions o f this Part o f this A c t do not apply to a c territory by virtue o f any such Order subsections (2) and (3) above shall applj i t were a separate entity. L5. (1) I f i t appears to Her Majesty t h a t the immunities and privileges by this Part o f this. A c t ' i n relation to any State: (a) dom;or exceed those accorded' by the law o f that State i n relation to the Ui

(b) are less than those required by any treaty, convention or other i n agreement to which that State and the United Kingdom are parties, Her. Majesty may by Order i n Council provide f o r restricting or, as the ca extending those immunities and privileges to such extent as appears to Her be appropriate.

199
(2) Any statutory instrument containing an Order under this section shall be subto annulment in pursuance of a resolution o f either House o f Parliament. 16. (1) This Part o f this Act does not affect any immunity o r privilege conferred the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 or the Consular Relations Act 1968 ; and: (a) section 4 above does not apply to proceedings concerning the employment of members o f a mission withm the meaning o f the Convention scheduled to the said : o f 1964 or o f the members o f a consular post within the meaning o f the Convention eduled to the said A c t o f 1968; (ft) section 6(1) above does not apply to proceedings concerning a State's title to ts possession o f property used f o r the purposes o f a diplomatic mission. (2) This Part o f this Act does riot apply to proceedings relating to anything done or in relation to the armed forces o f a State while present in the United Kingdom I, i n particular, has effect subject to the Visiting Forces Act 19S2. (3) This Part o f this Act does not apply to proceedings to which section 17(6) o f Nuclear Installations Act 1965 applies. (4) This Part o f this Act does not apply to criminal proceedings.

(5) This Part o f this Act does not apply to any proceedings relating to taxation er than those mentioned i n section 11 above. 17. (1) In this Part o f this A c t : "the Brussels Convention" means the International Convention f o r the Unification o f Certain Rules Concerning the Immunity o f State-Owned Ships, signed in .'Brussels on 10th A p r i l 1926; "commercial purposes" means purposes o f such transactions or activities as are mentioned i n section 3(3) above; "ship" includes hovercraft. (2) In sections 2(2) and 13(3) above references to an agreement include references i treaty, convention or other international agreement (3) For the purposes o f sections 3 to 8 above the terriroty o f the United Kingdom 11 be deemed to include any dependent territory i n respect o f which the United Kingn is a party to the European Convention on State I m m u n i t y . (4) I n sections 3(1), 4(1), 5 and 16(2) above references to the United Kingdom inde references to its territorial waters and any area designated under section 1(7) o f Continental Shelf A c t 1964. (5) I n relation to Scotland in this Part o f this Act "action i n rem" means such an ion only i n relation to Admiralty proceedings. PART I I JUDGMENTS AGAINST U N I T E D KINGDOM I N CONVENTION STATES 18. (1) This section applies to any judgment given against the United Kingdom a court in another State party to the European Convention on State I m m u n i t y , being idgment: (a) given i n proceedings i n which the United Kingdom was not entitled to immuf by virtue o f provisions corresponding to those o f sections 2 to 11 above; and (ft) which is final, that is to say, which is not or is no longer subject to appeal or, iven in default o f appearance, liable to be set*aside.

200
(2) Subject to section 19 below; a judgment to which this section i recognised i n any court i n the United Kingdom as conclusive between the i n a l l proceedings founded on the same cause o f action and may be reliec defence or counter-claim i n such proceedings! (3) Subsection (2) above (but not section 19 below) shall have effi t i o n to r a n j r settlement entered into by the United Kingdom before a co State party t o the Convention which under the law o f that State is treatei to a j u d g m e n t (4) I n this section references to a court i n a State party to the Conv references to a court i n any territory i n respect o f which i t is a party. 19. (1) ment: A court need not give effect to section 18 above i n the <

(a) -,iTtoido so would be manifestly contrary to public policy or i f an proceeaUngs i n which the judgment was given had no adequate opportunity case; or (ft) i f the judgment was given w i t h o u t provisions corresponding to t l 12 above having been complied w i t h and the United Kingdom has not ente ance or applied to have the judgment set aside. (2) A court need not give effect to section 18 above i n the case o f a j

(a) i f proceedings between the same parties, based o n the same fa< the same purpose ( 0 are pending before a court i n the United Kingdom and were i instituted; or (if) are pending before a court i n another State party to the Conven first to be instituted and may result i n a judgment to which t h apply; or (ft) i f the result o f the judgment is inconsistent w i t h the result o f ment given i n proceedings between the same parties and: (i) the other judgment is by a court i n the United Kingdom and eit ceedings were the first to be institutedor the judgment o f t h a t before the first-mentioned judgment became f i n a l w i t h i n the. m< section ( l ) ( f t ) o f section 18 above; or (if) the other judgment is by a court i n another State party to the Cc that section has already become applicable to i t (3) Where the judgment was given against the United Kingdom i n p respect o f which the United Kingdom was not entitled to immunity by viri sion corresponding to section 6(2) above, a court need not give effect t above i n respect o f the judgment i f the court that gave the judgment: (a) would not have had jurisdiction i n the matter i f i t had applied m l tion corresponding to those applicable to such matters i n the United Kingdc (ft) applied a law other than that indicated b y the United Kingdom n international law and would have reached a different conclusion i f i t had at so indicated. (4) I n subseciton (2) above references t o a court i n the United Kinj references to a court i n any dependent territory in respect o f which the Uni is a party to the Convention, and references to a court i n another State part vention include references to a court i n any territory i n respect o f which i t i

.201
PART m MISCELLANEOUS A N D SUPPLEMENTARY 20. (1) Subject to the provisions o f this section and to any necessary modifications, the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 shall apply t o : (a) (6) (c) a sovereign or other head o f State; members o f his family forming part o f his household; and his private servants,

as i t applies to the head o f a diplomatic mission, to members o f his family forming part af his household and to his private servants. (2) The immunities and privileges confereed by virtue o f subsection ( l ) ( a ) and (b) bove shall not be subject to the restrictions by reference to nationality or residence entioned i n Article 37(1) or 38 in Schedule 1 to the said A c t o f 1964. (3) Subject to any direction to the contrary by the Secretary o f State, a person on iOm immunities and privilees are conferred by virtue o f subsection (1) above shall be ntitled to the exemption conferred by section 8(3) o f the Immigration A c t 1971. ( 4 ) Except as respects value added tax and duties o f customs or excise, this secn does not affect any question whether a person is exempt f r o m , or immune as ects proceedings relating t o , taxation. ( 5 ) This section applies to the sovereign or other head o f any State on which imunities and privileges are conferred by Part I o f this A c t and is without prejudice to e application o f that Part to any such sovereign or head o f State i n his public capacity. 2 1 . A certificate by or on behalf o f the Secretary o f State shall be conclusive evice o n any question: (a) whether any country is a State f o r the purposes o f Part I o f this Act, whether iy territory is a constituent territory o f a federal State f o r those purposes or as to the >n or persons to be regarded f o r those purposes as the head or government o f a ite; (b) whether a State is a party to the Brussels Convention mentioned i n Part I o f Act; (c) whether a State is a party to the European Convention on State Immunity, nether i t had made a declaration under Article 24 o f that Convention or as to the tones i n respect o f which the United Kingdom or any other State is a party; (</.) whether, and i f so when, a document has been served or received as mentioned section 12(1) or (5) above. 22. (1) In this Act " c o u r t " includes any tribunal or body exercising judicial funcms; and references to the courts or law o f the United Kingdom include referrences to e courts or law o f any part o f the United Kingdom. (2) I n this A c t references to entry o f appearance and judgments i n default o f earance include references to any corresponding procedures. (3) I n this Act "the European Convention on State I m m u n i t y " means the Convenn o f that name signed i n Basle on 16th May 1972. (4) (a) (b) I n this Act "dependent territory" means: any o f the Channel Islands; the Isle o f Man;

(c) any colony other than one f o r whose external relations a country other than : United Kingdom is responsible; or

202
(d) any country or territory outside Her Majesty's dominions i n which Her t y has jurisdiction i n right o f the government o f the United Kingdom. (5) Any power conferred b y this Act to make an Order in Council includes to vary or revoke a previous Order. 23. (1) This Act may be cited as t h e State I m m u n i t y Act 1978.

(2) Section 13 o f the Administration o f Justice (Miscellaneous Provisioi 1938 and section 7 o f the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Ac (which become unnecessary i n consequence o f Part I o f this A c t ) are hereby repea (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, Parts 1 and I I o f this Act do not apply ceedings in respect o f matters that occurred before the date o f the coming into f this Act and, i n particular: (a) sections 2(2) and 13(3) do not apply to any prior agreement, and "(fr) sections 3, 4 and 9 do not apply t o any transaction; contract or arbi agreement, entered into before that date. (4) Section 12 above applies to any proceedings instituted after the c o m l force o f this Act. (5) This Act shall come into force on such date as may . be specified by ai made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument. (6) This A c t extends to Northern Ireland.

(7) Her Majesty may by Order i n Council extend any o f the provisions o f tl w i t h or without modification, to any dependent territory.

APPENDIX I V

HE SINGAPORE STATE IMMUNITY ACT 1979

o make provisions with respect to proceedings in Singapore by or against and f o r purposes connected therewith. [26 October 1979] PARTI PRELIMINARY This Act may be cited as the State Immunity Act, 1979. set to subsection (3), Part I I does not apply to proceedings in respect o f iccurrcd before the commencement o f this Act and, i n particular: sction (2) o f section 4 and subsection (3) o f section IS do not apply to any :nt; and sns 5, 6 and 11 do not apply to any transaction, contract or arbitration >efore that date. on 14 applies to any proceedings instituted after the commencement o f In this A c t : ial purposes" means purposes o f such transactions or activities as are menection (3) o f section 5; dudes any tribunal or body exercising judicial functions; ludes hovercraft. s Act: :nces t o an agreement i n subsection (2) o f section 4 and subsection (3) o f lude references to a treaty, convention or other international agreement; mces to entry o f appearance and judgments in default o f appearance i n es to any corresponding procedures. PART I I FEEDINGS I N SINGAPORE BY OR AGAINST OTHER STATES Immunity from jurisdiction

K State is immune f r o m the jurisdiction o f the courts o f Singapore except the following provisions o f this Part.

204
(2) A court shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even t l the State does not appear i n the proceedings i n question. Exceptions from immunity

4. (1) A State" is n o t immune as respects proceedings i n respect o f which submitted to the jurisdiction o f the courts o f Singapore. (2) A State may submit after the dispute giving rise t o the proceedings has aria by a prior written agreement; but a provision i n any agreement that i t is to be govi by the law o f Singapore is not to be regarded as a submission. (3) (a) (b) A State is deemed to have submitted: i f i t has instituted the proceedings; or subject to subsections (4) and (5), i f i t has intervened or taken any step i . .

proceedings.-

(4) Paragraph (6) o f subsection (3) does not apply to intervention or any step i for the purpose only o f : (a) claiming immunity; or (6) asserting an interest i n property i n circumstances such that the State would been entitled to immunity i f the proceedings had been brought against i t . (5) Paragraph (b) o f subsection (3) does not apply to any step taken by the St ignorance o f facts entitling i t to immunity i f those facts could not reasonably have ascertained and immunity is claimed as soon as reasonably practicable. (6) A submission i n respect o f any proceedings extends t o any appeal but n any counter-claim unless i t arises out o f the same legal relationship or facts as the cL (7) The head o f a State's diplomatic mission i n Singapore, or the person fc time being performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to subm behalf o f the State i n respect o f any proceedings; and any person who has entered i contract on behalf o f and w i t h the authority o f a State shall be deemed to have au ity, to submit on its behalf i n respect o f proceedings arising out o f the contract. 5. (a) (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relation t o :

a commercial transaction entered into by the State; or

(ft) an obligation o f the State which by virtue o f a contract (whether a commi transaction or not) falls to be performed wholly or partly in Singapore, but this subsection does not apply to a contract o f employment between a State at individual. (2) This section does not apply i f the parties to the dispute are States or have o wise agreed i n writing; and paragraph (6) o f subsection (1) does not apply i f the con (not being a commercial transaction) was made i n the territory o f the State conce and the obligation m question is governed by i U administrative'law. (3) (a) I n this section "commercial transaction" means: any contract f o r the supply o f goods or services;

(b) any loan or other transaction f o r the provision o f finance and any guarant indemnity i n respect o f any such transaction or o f any other financial obligation; am (c) any other transaction or activity (whether o f a commercial, industrial, final professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which i t enj otherwise than i n the exercise o f sovereign authority. 6. (1) A/State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to a contract oi

205
it between the State and an individual where the contract was made in Singapore ork is to be wholly or partly performed in Singapore. Subject to subsections (3) and (4), this section does not apply if: at the time when the proceedings are brought the individual is a national of the ncerned; at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a citizen of e nor habitually resident in Singapore; or the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing. Where the work is for an office, agency or establishment maintained by the Singapore for commercial purposes, paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) do ude the application of this section unless the individual was, at the time when ract was made, habitually resident in that State. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) does not exclude the application of this section le law of Singapore requires the proceedings to be brought before a court in this section "proceedings relating to a contract of employment" includes proI between the parties to such a contract in respect of any statutory rights or | which they are entitled or subject as employer or employee. . State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of: death or personal injury; or lage to or loss of tangible property, ' an act, at omission in Singapore. [1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to: ay interest of the State in, or its possession or use of, immovable property in |?;or ay obligation of the State arising out of its interest in, or its possession or use \ch property. State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to any interest of the lovable or immovable property, being an interest arising by way of succession, i vacantia. lie fact that a State has or claims an interest in any property shall not preclude from exercising in respect of it any jurisdiction relating to the estates of persons or persons of unsound mind or to insolvency the winding up of cornhe administration of trusts. court may entertain proceedings against a person other than a State notwithat the proceedings relate to property: finch is in the possession or control of a State; or i which a State claims an interest, |e would not have been immune had the proceedings been brought against it or, paragraph (b), if the claim is neither admitted nor supported by prima ice. I State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to: py patent, trade-mark or design belonging to the State and registered or propore or for which the State has applied in Singapore; alleged infringement by the State in Singapore of any patent, trade-mark, opyright; or

206
(c) the right to use a trade or business name in Singapore. 10. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to its membei of a body corporate, an unincorporated body or a partnership which: (a) has members other than States; and (b) is incorporated or constituted under the law of Singapore or is controlled 1 or has its principal place of business in Singapore, being proceedings arising between the State and the body or its other members or, a: case may be, between the State and the other partners. (2) This Section does not apply, if provision to the contrary has been made b agreement in writing between the- parties to the dispute or by the constitution or o instrument establishing or regulating the body or partnership in question. 11. (1) Where a State has agreed in writing to submit a dispute which has arisei may arise, to arbitration, the State is not immune as respects proceedings in the cour Singapore which relate to the arbitration. (2) This section has effect subject to any contrary provision in the arbitration a) ment and does not apply to any arbitration agreement between States. 12. (1) This section applies to: (a) Admiralty proceedings; and (b) proceedings on any claim which could be made the subject of Admiralty ceedings. > (2) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a ship belonging to that State; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a ship, if, at the time when the cause of action arose, the ship was in use or intended for usi commercial purposes. (3) Where an action in rem is brought against a ship belonging to a State foi forcing a claim in connection with another ship belonging to that State, paragraph (i subsection (2) does not apply as respects the first-mentioned ship unless, at the 1 when the cause of action relating to the other ship arose, both ships were in us* intended for use for commercial purposes. (4) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a cargo belonging to that State if both the cargo and ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intended use for commercial purposes; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a car) the ship carrying it was then in use or intended for use as aforesaid. (5) In the foregoing provisions references to a ship or cargo belonging to a Stat dude references to a ship or cargo in its possession or control or in which it claim interest; and, subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) applies to property other th; ship as it applies to a ship. 13. A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to its liability for: (a) any customs duty or excise duty; or (b) any tax in respect of premises occupied by it for commercial purposes. ^ Procedure

14. (1) Any writ or other document required to be served for instituting proa

207
State shall be served by being transmitted through the Ministry of Foreign lore, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State and service shall be e been effected when the writ or document is received at the Ministry. ime for entering an appearance (whether prescribed by rules of court or U begin to run two months after the date on which the writ or document foresaid. te which appears in proceedings cannot thereafter object that subsection m complied with in the case of those proceedings. dgment in default of appearance shall be given against a State except on jsection (1) has been complied with and that the time for entering an sxtended by subsection (2) has expired. y of any judgment given against a State in default of appearance shall be irough the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore, to the Ministry of s of that State and any time for applying to have the judgment set aside ribed by rules of court or otherwise) shall begin to run two months after ich the copy of the judgment is received at the Ministry. :tion (1) does not prevent the service of a writ or other document in any ich the State has agreed and subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where ed in any such manner. sction shall not be construed as applying to proceedings against a State by r-claim or to an action in rem; and subsection (1) shall not be construed as ules of court whereby leave is required for the service of process outside o penalty by way of committal or fine shall be imposed in respect of any al by or on behalf of a State to disclose or produce any document or on for the purposes of proceedings to which it is a party. Lto subsections (3) and (4): hall not be given against a State by way of injunction or order for specific for the receovery of land or other property; and perty of a State shall not be subject to any process for the enforcement or arbitration award or, in an action in rem, for its arrest, detention or tion (2) does not prevent the giving of any relief or the issue of any proritten consent of the State concerned; and any such consent (which may a prior agreement) may be expressed so as to apply to a limited extent or provision merely submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts is not to be nsent for the purposes of this subsection. ph (b) of subsection (2) does not prevent the issue of any process in erty which is for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial ad of a State's diplomatic mission in Singapore, or the person for the arming his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to give on behalf r such consent as is mentioned in subsection (3) and, for the purposes of lis certificate to the effect that any property is not in use or intended for half of the State for commercial purposes shall be accepted as sufficient fact unless the contrary is proved.

208
PART ID SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 16. (1) The immunities and privileges confened by Part II apply to any f< commonwealth State other than Singapore; and references to a State include re to: (a) the sovereign or other head of that State in his public capacity; (b) the government of that State; and (c) any department of that government. but not to any entity (hereinafter referred to as a separate entity) which is distu the executive organs of the governments of the State and capable of suing or beii (2) A separate entity is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts in Sing and only if: (a) the proceedings relate to anything done by it in the exercise of sovereigr ity;and (b) the circumstances are such that a State would have been so immune. (3) if a separate entity (not being a State's central bank of other monetary ity) submits to the jurisdiction in respect of proceedings in the case of which titled to immunity by virtue of subsection (2), subsections (1) to (4) of section apply to it in respect of those proceedings as if references to a State were refer that entity. (4) Property of a State's central bank or other monetary authority shall regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) of section IS as in use or intended for commercial purposes; and where any such bank or authority is a separate en sections (1) to (3) of that section shall apply to it as if references to a State we ences to the bank or authority. (5) Section 14 applies to proceedings against the constituent territories of; State; and the President may by order provide for the other provisions of this apply to any such constituent territory specified in the order as they apply to a S : .(6> Where the provisions of Part II do not apply to a constituent territory b of any:such order subsections (2) and (3) shall apply to it as if it were a separate < 17. If it appears to the President that the immunities and privileges confe Part U. in relation to any State: (a) exceed those accorded by the law of that State in relation to Singapore; < (b) 'are less than those required by any treaty, convention or other inten agreement to which that State and Singapore are parties, the President may, by order, provide for restricting or, as the case may be, ex those immunities and privileges to such extent as appears to the President to to priate?
;

18. A certificate by or on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall elusive evidence on any question: (a) whether any country is a State for the purposes of Part II, whether any t is a constituent territory of a federal State for those purposes or as to the persor sons to be regarded for those purposes as the head or government of a State; (b) whether, and if so when, a document has been served or received as me in subsection ( l l o r (5) of section 14.

209
i Part II does not affect any immunity or privilege applicable in Singapore to and consular agents, and subsection (1) of section 8 does not apply to promcerning a State's title to or its possession of property used for the purposes latic mission. rt II does not apply to: aceedings relating to anything done by or in relation to the armed forces of a : present in Singapore and, in particular, has effect subject to the Visiting > minal proceedings; and >ceedings relating to taxation other than those mentioned in section 13.

APPENDIX V

UCISTANI STATE IMMUNITY ORDINANCE 1981

ORDINANCE NO. VI of 1981 AN ORDINANCE

to amend and consolidate the law relating immunity of States from the jurisdiction of courts
is expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to the immunity the jurisdiction of courts; as the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it Ice immediate action; fore, in pursuance of the Proclamation of the fifth day of July, 1977, read (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 (C.M.L.A. Order No. 1 of 1977), and II powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to make and following Ordinance: titled extend and commencement. ' Ordinance, 1981. nds to the whole of Pakistan. come into force at once. etation. In this Ordinance, "court" includes any tribunal or body exermctions. Immunity from jurisdiction I immunity from jurisdiction. (1) A State is immune from the jurisdicts of Pakistan except as hereinafter provided. t shall give effect to the immunity conferred by subsection (1) even if the ppear in the proceedings in question. Exceptions from immunity lion to jurisdiction. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings ich it has submitted to jurisdiction. : may submit to jurisdiction after the dispute giving rise to the proceed>r by a prior agreement; but a provision in any agreement that it is to be law of Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a submission. In this subsection and in subsection (3) of section 14, "agreement" ininvention or other international agreement. shall be deemed to have submitted: instituted the proceedings; or to subsection (4) it has intervened or taken any step in the proceedings. (1) This Ordinance may be called the

212
Clause (A) of subsection (3) does not apply : to intervention or any step taken for the purpose only of: claiming immunity; or asserting an interest in property in circumstances such that the State woul been entitled to immunity if the proceedings had-been brought against it; (b) to any step taken by the State in ignorance of the facts entitling it to imri if those facts could not reasonably have been ascertained and immunity is claii soon as reasonably practicable. (5) A submission in respect of any proceedings extends to any appeal but any counter claim unless it arises out of the same.legal relationship or facts as the c (6) The head of a State's diplomatic mission in Pakistan, or the person for th being performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to submit on be the State in respect of any proceedings; and any person who has entered into a cc on behalf of and with the authority of a State shall be deemed to have authority mit on its behalf in respect of proceedings arising out of the contract. 5. Commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in Pakistan. State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to: (a) a commercial transaction entered into by the State; or (b) an obligation of the State which by virtue of a contract, which may or m be a commercial transaction, falls to be performed wholly or partly in Pakistan. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a contract of employment between a St: an individual or if the parties to the dispute are States or have otherwise agi writing; and clause (b) of that subsection does not apply if the contract, not 1 commercial transaction, was made in the territory of the State concerned and the tion in question is governed by its administrative law. (3) In this section "commercial transaction" means: (a) any contract for the supply of goods or services; (ft) any loan or other transaction for" the provision of finance and any guara indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; < (c) any other transaction or activityy whether of a commercial, industrial, fir professional or other similar character; into which a State eneters or in which it < otherwise than in the exercise of its.sovereign authority. 6. Contracts of employment. (I) A State is not immune as respects proa relating to a contract of employment between a State- and an individual where ti tract was made, or the work is to be wholly or partly performed, in Pakistan. Explanation. In this subsection, "proceedings relating to a contract of e ment" includes proceedings between the parties to such a contract in respect statutory rights or duties to whrJi they are entitled or subject as employer or emp (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) at the time when the proceedings-are brought the individual is a nationa State concerned; or (b) at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a cil Pakistan nor habitually resident in Pakistan;or (c) the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing. (3) Wher^ the work is for an office, agency or establishment maintained State in Pakistan for commercial purposes, clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) exclude the application of subsection (1) unless the individual was, at the time wl contract was made, habitually resident in that State. (4) (a) (1) (ii)

213
ause (c) of subsection (2) does not exclude the application of subsection (1) law of Pakistan requires the proceedings to be brought before a court in wnership, possession and use of property. (1)A State is not immune as oceedings relating to: ly interest of the State in, or its possession or use of, immovable property in r ly obligation of the State arising out of its interest in, or its possession or use :h property. State is not immune as respects proceedings, relating to any interest of the lovable or immovable property, being an interest arising by way of succession, la vacantia. he fact that a State has or claims an interest in any property shall not preclude from exercising in respect of such property any jurisdiction relating to the deceased persons or persons of unsound mind or to insolvency, the winding up lies or the administration of trusts. court may entertain proceedings against a person other than a State notwithhat the proceedings relate to property: hich is in the possession of a State; or i which a State claims an interest, :e would not have been immune had the proceedings been brought against it or, eferred to-in clause (b), if the claim is neither admitted nor supported by prima nee. '' tents, trade marks, etc. A State is not immune as respects proceedings rey patent, trade mark, design or plant breeders' rights belonging to the State registered or protected in Pakistan or for which the State has applied in alleged infringement by the State in Pakistan of any patent, trade mark, t breeders' rights or copyright; or e right to use a trade or business name in Pakistan. "embership of bodies corporate, etc. (1) A State is not immune as respects s relating to its membership of a body corporate, an unincorporated body or ip which: s members other than States; and incorporated or constituted under the law of Pakistan or is controlled from, principal place of business in, Pakistan, eedings arising between the State and the body or its other members or, as the be, between the State and the othr partners. ubsection (1) does not apply if provision to the contrary has been made by an t in writing between the parties to the dispute or by the constitution or other t establishing or regulating the body or partnership in question. rbitrations. (1) Where a State has agreed in writing to submit a dispute which , or may arise, to arbitration, the State is not immune as respects proceedings rts of Pakistan which relate to the arbitration. ubsection (1) has effect subject to the provisions of the arbitration agreement not apply to an arbitration agreement between States.

214
11. Ships used for commercial purposes. (1) The succeeding provisions of tl tiorrapply to: (a) Admiralty proceedings; and (b) proceedings on any claim which could be made the subject of Admiralt ceedingi. (2) A State is nof immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a ship belonging to it; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a ship if, at the time when the cause of action arose, the ship was in use or intended for t commercial purposes. (3) Where an action in rem is brought against a ship belonging to a State 1 forcing a claim in connection with another ship belonging to that State clause (a) < section (2) does not apply as respects the first-mentioned ship unless, at the time the cause of action relating to the other ship arose, both ships were in use or ini for use for commercial purposes. (4) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a cargo belonging to that State if both the cargo a ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intent use for commercial purposes; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a c the ship carrying, it was then in use or intended for use as aforesaid. (5) In the foregoing provisions references to a ship or cargo belonging to a Si elude references to a ship or cargo in its possession or control or in which it cla interest; and, subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) applies to property other ship as it applies to a ship. (6) Section 5 and 6 do not apply to proceedings of the nature mentioned : section (1) if the State in question is a party to the Brussels Convention and the relates to the operation of a ship owned or operated by that State, the carriage o: or passengers on any such ship or the carriage of cargo owned by that State on an) ship. Explanation. In this section, "Brussels Convention" means the Internationi vention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning the Immunity of StateShips signed in Brussels on the tenth day of April, 1926, and "ship" includes hovei 12. Value added tax, customs-duties, etc A State is not immune as respec ceedings relating to its liability for: (a) value added tax, any duty of customs or excise or any agricultural levy; oi (ft) rates in respect of premises occupied by it for commercial purposes. Procedure 13. Services of process and judgment in default of appearance. (1) Any nc other document required to be served for instituting proceedings against a State s served by being transmitted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State and service shall be deemed to have b fected when the notice or document is received at the latter Ministry. (2) Any proceedings in court shall not commence earlier than two months ai date on which the notice or document is received as aforesaid.

215
ice which appears in proceedings cannot thereafter object that subsection en complied with as respects those proceedings. idgment in default of appearance shall be given against a State except on jsection (1) has been complied with and that the time for the commenceedings specified in subsection (2) has elapsed. >y of any judgment given against a State in default of appearance shall be irough the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to the Ministry of rs of the State and the time for applying to have the judgment set aside run two months after the date on which the copy of the judgment is reatter Ministry. ction (1) does not prevent the service of a notice or other document in o which the State has agreed and subsections (2) and (4) do not apply is effected in any manner. receding provisions of this section shall not be construed as applying to lainst a State by way of a counter-claim or to an action in rem. procedural privileges. (1) No penalty by way of committal to prison or nposed in respect of any failure or refusal by or on behalf of a State to disice any document or information for the purposes of proceedings to which ct to subsections (3) and (4). shall not be given against a State by way of injunction or order for specific r for the recovery of land or other property; and roperty of'a State, not being property which is for the time being in use or ise for'commercial purposes, shall not be subject to any process for the )f a judgment or arbitration award or, in an action in rem, for its arrest,
lie.

ction (2) does not prevent the giving of any relief or the issue of any prowritten consent of the State concerned; and any such consent, which may n a prior agreement, may be expressed so as to apply to a limited extent lat a provision merely submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts shall not be a consent for the purposes of this subsection. ead of a State's diplomatic mission in Pakistan, or the person for the time ing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to give on behalf of such consent as is mentioned in subsection (3) and, for the purposes of ibsection (2), his certificate that any property is not in use or intended for lehalf of the State for commercial purposes shall be accepted as sufficient it fact unless the contrary is proved. Supplementary provisions entitled to immunities and privileges. (1) The immunities and privileges Act apply to any foreign State; and references to State include refeTvereign or other head of that State in his public capacity; eminent of that State; and partment of that government, entity, hereinafter referred to as a "separate entity", which is distinct litive organs of the government of the State and capable of suing or being

216
(2) A separate entity is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of Pakii and only if: (). the proceedings relate to anything done by it in the exercise of sovereign i ityjand (b) the circumstances are such that a State would have been so immune. (3) If a separate entity, not being a State's central bank or other monetary; ity, submits-to. the jurisdiction in respect of proceedings in the case of which it is e to immunity by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, the provisions of subsecti to (3) of section 14 shall apply to it in respect of those proceedings as if referent State were references to that entity. (4) Property of a State's central bank or other monetary authority shall regarded for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 14 as in use or intended for commercial purposes; and where any such bank or authority is a separate entity tions (1) and (2) of that section shall apply to it as if references to a State wer ences to the bank or authority. (5) Section 13 applies to proceedings against the constituent territories of a State; and the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, for the other provisions of this Ordinance to apply to any such constituent t< specified in the notification as they apply to a State. (6) Where the provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to a constituent t< by virtue of a notification under subsection (5), the provisions of subsections (2) shall apply to it as if it were a separate entity. 16. Restriction and extension of immunities and privileges. (1) If it appear Federal Government that the immunities and privileges conferred by this Ordin relation to any State: (a) exceed those accorded by the law of that State in relation to Pakistan; or (b) are less than those required by an treaty, convention or other inten agreement to which that State and Pakistan are parties, the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, provide for ing or, as the case may be, extending those immunities and privileges to such ext< may deem fit. 17. Savings, etc. (l)This Ordinance does not affect any immunity or i conferred by the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 (IX of 1972); and (a) section 6 does not apply to proceedings concerning the employment members of a mission within the meaning of the Convention set out in the First ule to the said Act of 1972 or of the members of a consular post within the me; the Convention set out in the Second Schedule to that Act; (b) subsection (1) of section 7 does not apply to proceedings concerning a title to, or its possession of, property used for the purposes of a diplomatic missic (2) This Ordinance does hot apply to: (a) proceedings relating to anything done by or in relation to the armed foi State while present in Pakistan; (b) criminal proceedings; or (c) proceedings relating to taxation other than those mentioned in section I 1. Proof as to certain matters. A certificate under the hand of a Secretar Government of Pakistan shall be conclusive evidence on any question. (a) whether any country is a State for the purposes of this Ordinance, whet

217
itory is a constituent territory of a federal State for those purposes or as to the peror persons to be regarded for those purposes as the head or government of a State; or (b) whether, and if so when, a document has been served or received as mentioned ubsection (1) or subsection (5) of section 13. 19. Repeal Sections 86 and 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 8), are hereby repealed.

APPENDIX VI

T H E SOUTH AFRICAN F O R E I G N STATES IMMUNITIES ACT 1981 ACT

To determine the extent of the immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic; and to provide for matters connected herewith.
e it enacted by the State President and the House of Assembly of the Republic of i Africa, as follows: (I) (i) In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates: "commercial purposes" means purposes of any commercial transaction as defined in section 4 (3); (ii) "consular post" means a consulate-general, consulate, consular agency, trade office or labour office; (iii) "Republic" includes the territorial waters of the Republic, as defined in ^section 2 of the Territorial Waters Act, 1963 (Act No. 87 of 1963); (iv) "separate entity" means an entity referred to in subsection (2) (i). ) Any reference in this Act to a foreign state shall in relation to any particular pi state be construed as including a reference to: ) the head of state of that foreign state, in his capacity as such head of state; ) the government of that foreign state; and ) any department of that government, ot including a reference to: I any entity which is distinct from the executive organs of the government of that foreign state and capable of suing.or being sued; or ) any territory forming a constituent part of a federal foreign state. (1) A foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the blic except as provided in this Act or in any proclamation issued thereunder. ) A court shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even though ireign state does not appear in the proceedings in question. ) The provisions of this Act shall not be construed as subjecting any foreign state i criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic. (1) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of epublic in proceedings in respect of which the foreign state has expressly waived its nity or is in terms of subsection (3) deemed to have waived its immunity. ) Waiver of immunity may be effected after the dispute which gave rise to the edings has arisen or by prior written agreement, but a provision in an agreement t is to be governed by the law of the Republic shall not be regarded as a waiver. ) A foreign state shall be deemed to have waived its immunity:

220
(a) if it has instituted the proceedings; or (b) subject to the provisions of subsection (4), if it has intervened or taken any : in the proceedings. (4) Subsection (3) (6) shall not apply to intervention or any step taken for the | pose only of: _ (j) claiming immunity, or (fc) asserting an interest in property in circumstances such that the foreign s would have been entitled to immunity if the proceedings had been brought against it. (5) A waiver in respect of any proceedings shall apply to any appeal and to counter-claim arising out of the same legal relationship or facts as the claim. (6) The head of a foreign state's diplomatic mission in the Republic, or the per for the time being performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to w: on behalf of the foreign state its immunity in respect of any proceedings, and any per who has entered into a contract on behalf of and with the authority of a foreign si shall be deemed to have authority to waive on behalf of the foreign state its immunit respect of proceedings arising out of the contract. 4. (1) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the court the Republic in proceedings relating to: (a) a commercial transaction entered into by the foreign state; or (b) an obligation of the foreign state which by virtue of a contract (whether a c( mercial transaction or not) falls to be performed wholly or partly in the Republic. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the parties to the dispute are foreign state: have agreed in writing that the dispute shall be justiciable by the courts of a fore state. (3) In subsection (1) "commercial transaction" means: (a) . any contract for the supply of services or goods; (b) any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee indemnity in respect of any such loan or other transaction or of any other finam obligation; and (c) any other transaction or activity of a commercial, industrial, financial, p fessional or other similar character into which a foreign state enters or in which it gages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority, but does not include a contract of employment between a foreign state and an indh uaL 5. (1) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts the Republic in proceedings relating to a contract of employment between the fore state and an individual if: (a) the contract was entered into in the Republic or the work is to be perfom wholly or partly in the Republic; and (b) at time when the contract was entered into the individual was a South Afrit citizen or was ordinarily resident in the Republic; and (c) at the time when the proceedings are brought the individual is not a citizen the foreign state. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if: (a) the parties to the contract have agreed in writing that the dispute or any dispi relating to the contract shall be justiciable by the courts of a foreign state; or (b) the proceedings relate to the employment of the head of a diplomatic mission

221
:r of the diplomatic, administrative, technical or service staff of the mission or ployment of the head of a consular post or any member of the consular, le, administrative, technical or service staff of the post. foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the proceedings relating to: death or injury of any person; or nage to or loss of tangible property, n act or omission in the Republic. A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of c in proceedings relating to: interest of the foreign state in, or its possession or use of, immovable propepublic; obligation of the foreign state arising out of its interest in, or its possession [ch property; or interest of the foreign state in movable or immovable property, being an ig by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia. iction (1) shall not apply to proceedings relating to a foreign state's title or possession of, property used for a diplomatic mission or a consular post. ireign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the roceedings relating to: patent, trademark, design or plant breeder's right belonging to the foreign red or protected in the Republic or for which the foreign state has |e Republic; or leged infringement by the foreign state in the Republic of any patent, tesign, plant breeder's right or copyright; or it to use a trade or business name in the Republic. A foreign state which is a member of an association or other body (whethsrson or not), or a partnership, which: lembers that are not foreign states; and irporated or constituted under the law of the Republic or is controlled lublic or has its principal place of business in the Republic, imune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic in proceedings to the foreign state's membership of the association, other body or hership;and | between the foreign state and the association or other body or its other ers or, as the case may be, between the foreign state and the other partion (1) shall not apply if: its of an agreement in writing between the parties to the dispute; or is of the constitution or other instrument establishing or governing the tier body or partnership in question, Justiciable by the courts of a foreign state. foreign state which has agreed in writing to submit a dispute which has rise, to arbitration, shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the Republic in any proceedings which relate to the arbitration.

222
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if: (a) the arbitration agreement provides that the proceedings shall be broug courts of a foreign state; or (b) the parties to the arbitration agreement are foreign states. _ 11. (1) A foreign state shall not be immune from the admiralty jurisdictic court of the Republic in: ~ (a) an action in rem against a ship belonging to the foreign state; or (*) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a s J if, at the time when the cause of action arose, the ship was in use or intended ft commercial purposes. (2) A foreign state shall not be immune from the admiralty jurisdiction of s of the Republic in: (a) an action in rem against any cargo belonging to the foreign state i f cargo and the ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, intended for use for commercial purposes; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with any sue the ship carrying it was, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or for use for commercial purposes. (3) Any reference in this section to a ship or cargo belonging to a foreign : be construed as including a reference to a ship or cargo in the possession or co foreign state or in which a foreign state claims an interest, and, subject to the ] of subsection (2), subsection (1) shall apply to property other than a ship as it a ship. 12. A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the cou Republic in proceedings relating to the foreign state's liability for: (a) sales tax or any customs or excise duty; or (b) rates in respect of premises used by it for commercial purposes. 13. (1) Any process or other document required to be served for instit ceedings against a foreign state shall be served by being transmitted through tl ment of Foreign Affairs and Information of the Republic to the ministry < affairs of the foreign state, and service shall be deemed to have been effected process or other document is received at that ministry. (2) Any time prescribed by rules of court or otherwise for notice of in defend or oppose or entering an appearance shall begin to run two months aft< on which the process or document is received as aforesaid. (3) A foreign state which appears in proceedings cannot thereafter objec section (1) has not been complied with in the case of those proceedings. (4) No judgment in default of appearance shall be given against a foi except on proof that subsection (1) has been complied with and that the time of intention to defend or oppose or entering an appearance as extended by (2) has expired. (5) A copy of any default judgment against a foriegn state shall be t through the Department of Foreign Affairs and information of the Repul ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state, and any time prescribed by ml or otherwise for applying to have the judgment set aside shall begin to run t\ after the date on which the copy of the judgment is received at that ministry. (6) Subsection (1) shall not prevent the service of any process or other d<

223
any manner to which the foreign state has agreed, and subsection (2) and (4) shall not apply where service is effected in any such manner. (7) The preceding provisions of this section shall not be construed as applying to proceedings against a foreign state by way of counter-claim or to an action in rem, and subsection (1) shall not be construed as affecting any rules of court whereby leave is required for the service of process outside the jurisdiction of the court. 14. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3): (a) relief shall not be given against a foreign state by way of interdict or order for specific performance or for the recovery of any movable or immovable property; and (ft) the property of a foreign state shall not be subject to any process for the enforcement of a judgment or an arbitration award or, in an action in rem, for its attachment or sale. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent the giving of any relief or the issue of any process with the written consent of the foreign state concerned, and any such consent, which may be contained in a prior agreement, may be expressed so as to apply to a limited extent or generally, but a mrere waiver of a foreign state's immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic shall not be regarded as a consent for the purposes of this subsection. (3) Subsection (1) ( i ) shall not prevent the issue of any process in respect of property which is for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes. 15. (1) A separate entity shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic only if: '{a)' the proceedings relate to anything done by the separate entity in the exercise of sovereign authority; and (b) the circumstances are such that a foreign state would have been so immune. (2) I f a separate entity, not being the central bank or other monetary authority of a foreign state, waives the immunity to which it is entitled by virtue of subsection (1) in respect of any proceedings, the provisions of section 14 shall apply to those proceedings as i f references in those provisions to a foreign state were references to that separate entity. (3) Property of the central gank or other monetary authority of a foreign state shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 14 as in use or intended for use for commercial purposes, and where any such bank or authority is a separate entity the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of that section shall apply to it as if references in those provisions to a foreign state were references to that bank or authority. 16. I f it appears to the State President that the immunities and privileges conferred by this Act in relation to a particular foreign state: (a) exceed or are less than those accorded by the law of that foreign state in relation to the Republic; or (b) are less than those required by any treaty, convention or other international agreement to which that foreign state and the Republic are parties, he may by proclamation in the Gazette restrict or, as the case may be, extend those immunities and privileges to such extent as appears to him to be appropriate. 17. A certificate by or on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information shall be conclusive evidence on any question: (a) whether any foreign country is a state for the purposes of this Act; (6) whether any territory is a constituent part of a federal foreign state for the said purposes;

224
(c) as to the person ot persons to be regarded for the said purposes as the head of state or government of a foreign state; (d) whether, and i f so when, any document has been served or received as contemplated in section 13 (1) or (5). 18. This Act shall be called the Foreign States Immunities Act, 1981, and shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

APPENDIX VII

TANADIAN STATE IMMUNITY ACT 1982

ACT

ovide for state immunity in Canadian courts [Assented to 3rd June, 1982; came into effect July 15, 1982]
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and ouse of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: SHORT TITLE 1. This Act may be cited as the State Immunity Act. INTERPRETATION 2. In this Act, igency'of a foreign state" means any legal entity that is an organ of e foreign state but that is separate from the foreign state; lommercial activity" means any particular transaction, act or conduct any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a mmercial character; oreign state" includes (a) any sovereign or other head of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state while acting as such in a public capacity, (b) any government of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state, including any of its departments, and any agencies of the foreign state, and (c) any political subdivision of the foreign state: lolitical subdivision" means a province, state or other like political bdivision of a foreign state that is a federal state. ^ STATE IMMUNITY

3. (1) Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune >m the jurisdiction of any court in Canada. (2) In any proceedings before a court, the court shall give effect to e immunity conferred on a foreign state by subsection (1) notwithtnding that the state has failed to take any step in the proceedings. 4. (1) A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a urt if the state waives the immunity conferred by subsection 3(1) by omitting to the jurisdiction of .the court in accordance with subsecn(2)or(4).

226
Stats submits to jurisdictHn

(2) In any proceedings before a court, a foreign state submits the jurisdiction of the court where it (a) explicitly submits to the jurisdiction of the court by writt agreement or otherwise either before or after the proceedings co mence; (ft) initiates the proceedings in the court; or (c) intervenes or takes any step in the proceedings before t court. (3) Paragraph (2)(c) does not apply to (a) any intervention or step taken by a foreign state in proceed! before a court for the purpose of claiming immunity from the ju diction of the court; or (6) any step taken by a foreign" state in ignorance of facts entitl it to immunity i f those facts should not reasonably have been aa tained before the step was taken and immunity is claimed as sooi reasonably practicable after they are ascertained. (4) A foreign state that initiates proceedings in a court or t intervenes or takes any step in proceedings before a court, other tl an intervention or step to which paragraph (2)(c) does not apply, s mits to the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any third party i ceedings that arise, or counter-claim that arises, out of the sub} matter of the proceedings initiated by the state or in which the si has so intervened or taken a step. (5) Where, in any proceedings before a court, a foreign state i mits to the jurisdiction o f the court in accordance with subsection or (4), such submission is deemed to be a submission by the state to jurisdiction o f such one or more courts by which those proceed may, in whole or in part, subsequently be considered on appeal o the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 5. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a ct in any proceedings that relate to any commercial activity of the fori state. 6. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a ci in any proceedings that relate to (a) any death or personal injury, or (6) any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada. 7. (1) A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction court in any proceedings that relate to (a) an action i n rem against a ship owned or operated by the s or (6) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection' such a ship, if, at the time the claim arose or the proceedings were commenced ship was being used or was intended for use in a commercial activitj

Exception

Third party proceedings and counterclaims

Appeal and

Commercial activity

Death and property damage

Maritime law

Cargo

(2) A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a c in any proceedings that relate to (s) an action in rem against any cargo owned by the state if, a

227
time the claim arose or the proceedings were commenced, the cargo and the ship carrying the cargo were being used or were intended for use in a commercial activity; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such cargo if, at the time the claim arose or the proceedings were commenced, the ship carrying the cargo was being used or was intended for use in a commercial activity.
Idem

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a ship or cargo owned by a foreign state includes any ship or cargo in the possession or control of the state and any ship or cargo in which the state claims an interest. 8. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to an interest of the state in property that arises by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia. PROCEDURE AND RELIEF

Property in Canada

Service on a foreign state

9. (1) Service of an originating document on a foreign state, other than on an agency of the foreign state, may be made (a) in any manner agreed on by the state; (b) in accordance with any international Convention to which the state is a party; or (c) in the manner provided in subsection (2). (2) For the purposes of paragraph (l)(c), anyone wishing to serve an originating document on a foreign state may deliver a copy of the document, in person or by registered maiL to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs or a person designated by him for the purpose, who shall transmit it to the foreign state.

Service on an agency of a foreign state

(3) Service of an originating document on an agency of a foreign state may be made (a) in any manner agreed on by the agency; (b) in accordance with any international Convention applicable to the agency; or (c) in accordance with any applicable rules of court. (4) Where service on an agency of a foreign state cannot be made under subsection (3), a court may, by order, direct how service is to be made. (5) Where service of an originating document is made in the manner provided in subsection (2), service of the document shall be deemed to have been made on the day that the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs or a person designated by him pursuant to subsection (2) certifies to the relevant court that the copy of the document has been transmitted to the foreign state. (6) Where, in any proceedings in a court, service of an originating document has been made on a foreign state in accordance with subsection (1), (3) or (4) and the state has failed to take, within the time limited therefor by the rules of the court or otherwise by law, the initial step required of a defendant or respondent in such proceedings in that court, no further step toward judgment may be taken in the pro-

Idem

Date of service

Default judgment

228
ceedings except after the.expiration of at least sixty days following the date of service of the originating document.
Idem

(7) Where judgment is signed against a foreign state in any proceedings in which the state has failed to take the initial step referred to in subsection (6), a certified copy of the judgment shall be served on the foreign state (o) where service of the document that originated the proceedings was made on an agency of the foreign state, in such manner as is ordered by the court; or (b) in any other case, in the manner specified in paragraph (1 )(c) as though the judgment were an originating document.

Idem

(8) Where, by reason of subsection (7), a certified copy of ajudg-! ment is required to be served in the manner specified in paragraph (1) (c), subsections (2) and (5) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require. (9) A foreign state may, within sixty days after service on it of a certified copy o f a judgment pursuant to subsection (7), apply to have the judgment set aside. 10. (1) Subject to subsection (3), no relief by way of an injunction, specific performance or the recovery of land or other property may be granted against a foreign state unless, the state consents in writing to such relief and, where the state so consents, the relief granted shall not be greater than that consented to by the state. (2) Submission by. a foreign state to the jurisdiction of a court is not consent for the purposes of subsection (1). (3) This section does not apply to an agency of a foreign state. 11. - (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), property of a foreign "state that is located in Canada is- immune from attachment and execution and\ in the case of an action in rt?m, from arrest, detention, seizure and forfeiture-except where (a) the state has, either explicitly or by implication, waived its immunity from attachment, execution, arrest, detention, seizure or forfeiture, unless-the foreign , state has withdrawn the waiver of immunity in accordance with any term thereof that permits such withdrawal; (b) the property is used or is intended for a commercial activity; or (c) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in property that has been acquired by succession or gift or in immovable property located in Canada.

Application to set uide default judgment No injunction, specific performance, etc., without consent

Submission not content Agency of a foreign state Execution

Property of an agency of a foreign state is not immune

(2) Subject to subsection (3), property of ah agency of a foreign state is not immune from attachment and execution and, in the case of an action in rem, from arrest, detention, seizure and forfeiture, for the purpose of satisfying a judgment of a court in any "proceedings in respect of which the agency is not immune from the jurisdiction of the court by reason of any provision of this Act. I~ (3) Property of a foreign state... (a) that is used or is intended to be used in connection with a military activity, and

Military property

229
(b) that is military in nature or is under the control of a military authority or defence agency is immune from attachment and execution and, in the case of an action in rem, from arrest, detention, seizure and forfeiture. (4) Subject to subsection (5), property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority that is held for its own account and is not used or intended for a commercial activity is immune from attachment and execution. (5) The immunity conferred on property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority by subsection (4) does not apply where the bank, authority or its parent foreign government has explicitly waived the immunity, unless the bank, authority or government has withdrawn the waiver of immunity in accordance with any term thereof that permits such withdrawal. 12. (1) No peanlty or fine may be imposed by a court against a foreign state for any failure or refusal by the state to produce any document or other information in the course of proceedings before the court. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an agency of a foreign state. GENERAL 13. (1) A certificate issued by the Secretary of State for External .Affairs, or on his behalf by a person authorized by him, with respect to any of the following questions, namely, (a) whether a country is a foreign state for the purposes of this Act, (b) whether a particular area or territory of a foreign state is a political subdivision of that state, or (c) whether a person or persons are to be regarded as the head of government o f a foreign state or of a political subdivision of the foreign state, is admissible in evidence as conclusive proof of any matter stated in the certificate with respect to that question, without proof of the signature of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or other person or of that other person's authorization by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. (2) A certificate issued by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, or on his behalf by a person designated by him pursuant to subsection 9(2), with respect to service of an originating or other document on a foreign state in accordance with that subsection is admissible in evidence as conclusive proof of any matter stated in the certificate with respect to such service, without proof of the signature of the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs or other person or of that other person's authorization by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. 14. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by order restrict any immunity or privileges under this Act in relation to a foreign state where, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the immunity or privileges exceed those accorded by the law of that state.

230
Vmtixg Fortes Act. Diplomatic md Consular Privilege* end Ir&tmaitietAci

15. Where, in any proceeding or other matter to which a provision of this Act and a provision of the Visiting Forces Act or the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act apply, there is a conflict between such provisions, the provision of this Act ceases to apply in such proceeding or other matter to the extent of the conflict. 16.. Except to the extent required to give effect to this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed or applied so as to negative or affect any rules of a court, including rules of a court relating to service of a document out of the jurisdiction of the court 17. This Act does not apply to criminal proceedings or proceedings in the-nature of criminal proceedings. COMMENCEMENT

Rules of court not aiTected

Application

Coning into force

18. This Act or any provision thereof shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation.

r i

APPENDIX V I I I

H E ILA MONTREAL DRAFT CONVENTION ON STATE IMMUNITY (1982)

es Party to this Convention. to achieve a further harmonization of the law of State Immunity, on the following Articles:

i "tribunal includes any court and any administrative body acting in an ive capacity. itate "~ "foreign State" includes: government of the State; other State organs; icies and instrumentalities of the State not possessing legal personality net from the State; constituent units of a federal State. y or instrumentality of a foreign State which possess legal personality om the State shall be treated as a foreign State only for acts or omissions 1 in the exercise of sovereign authority, Le. jure imperii ial Activity "commercial activity" refers either to a regular course of commercial > r a particular commercial transaction or act It shall include any activity tion into which a foreign State enters or in which it engages otherwise than rcise of sovereign authority and in particular: urangemen for the supply of goods or services; financial transaction involving lending or borrowing or guaranteering finanbligations. g this definition, the commercial character of a particular act shall be detereference to the nature of the act rather than by reference to its purpose.

\ Foreign State from adjudication a foreign State shall be immune from the adjudicatory jurisdiction of a pr acts performed by it in the exercise of its sovereign authority, Le. jure

232
imperii. It shall not be immune in the circumstances provided in Article III. ARTICLE in Exceptions to Immunity from Adjudication A foreign State shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the forum State to adjudicate in the following instances inter alia: A. Where the foreign State has waived its immunity from the jurisdiction of the forum State either expressly or by implication. A waiver may not be withdrawn except in accordance with its terms. 1. An express waiver may be made inter alia: (a) by unilateral declaration; or (b) by international agreement; or (c)"~by a provision in a contract; or~ (d) by an explicit agreement. 2. An implied waiver may be made inter alia: (a) by participating in proceedings before a tribunal of the forum State. (i) Subsection 2(a) above shall not apply i f a foreign State intervenes or takes steps in the proceedings for the purpose of: (A) claiming immunity; or (B) asserting' an interest in the proceedings in circumstances such that it would have been entitled to immunity i f the proceedings had been brought against it; (ii) In any action in which a foreign State participates in a proceeding before a tribunal in the forum State, the foreign State shall not be immune with respect to any counterclaim or setoff (irrespective of the amount thereof): (A) for which a foreign State would not be entitled to immunity under other provisions of this Convention had such a claim been brought in a separate action against the foreign State; or (B) arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim of the foreign State; (hi) In any action not within the scope of subsection 2(A)(ii) above in which a foreign State participates in a proceeding before a tribunal in the forum State,'the foreign State shall not be immune with respect to claims arising between the parties from unrelated transactions up to the amount of its adverse claim. (b) by agreeing in writing to submit a dispute which has arisen, or may arise, to arbitration in the forum State or in a number of States which may include the forum State. In such an instance a foreign State shall not be immum with respect to proceedings in a tribunal of the forum State which relate to: .'. -o;,. , (i) the constitution or appointment of the arbitral tribunal; or (ii) the validity or interpretation of the arbitration agreement or th< award, or (iii) the arbitration procedure; or (iv) the setting aside of the award. B. Where the cause of action arises out of: 1. A commercial activity carried on by the foreign State; or 2. An obligation of the foreign State arising out of a contract (whether or not; commercial transaction but excluding, a contract of employment) unless thi parties have otherwise agreed in writing. C. Where the foreign State enters into a contract for employment in the forum State, o
v

233
work under such a contract is to be eprformed wholly or partly in the forum md the proceedings relate to the contract. This provision shall not apply if: it the time proceedings are brought the employee is a national of the foreign tate; or it the time the contract for employment was made the employee was neither a ational nor a permanent resident of the forum State; or "" lie employer and employee have otherwise agreed in writing. rovision shall not confer on tribunals in the forum State competence in respect >loyees appointed under the public (administrative) law of the foreign State. the cause of action realtes to: he foreign State's rights or interests in, or its possession or use of, immovable roperty in the forum State; or Obligations of the foreign State arising out of its rights , or interests in, or its ossession or use of, immovable property in the forum State; or Jghts or interests of the foreign State in movable or immovable property in the arum State arising by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia. the cause of action relates to: itellectual or industrial property rights (pantet, industrial design, trademark, opyright, or other similar rights) belonging to the foreign State in the forum tate or for which the foreign State has applied in the forum State; or L claim for infringement by the foreign State of any patent, industrial design, rademark, copyright or other similar right; or he right to use a trade or business name in the forum State. the cause of action relates to: ieath or^personal injury; or lamage to or loss of property. :tions 1 and 2 shall not apply unless the act or omission which caused the injury or damage occurred wholly or partly in the forum State, the cause of action relates to rights in property taken in violation of interal law and that property or property exchanged for that property is: i the forum State in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the >rum State by the foreign State; or iwned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign State and lat agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the forum tate.

rv
Process ceedings against a foreign State under these articles the following rules shall i shall be made upon a foreign State: y transmittal of a copy of the summons, notice of suit, and complaint in rcordance with any special arrangement in writing for service between the lain tiff and the foreign State; or y transmittal of a copy of the summons, notice of suit, and complaint in scordance with any applicable international agreement on service of judicial >cuments;or Y transmittal of a copy of the summons, notice of suit, and complaint through plomatic channels to the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign State; or y transmittal of a copy of the summons, notice of suit, and complaint in any her manner agreed between the foreign State and the forum State.

234
B. Service of documents shall be deemed to have been effected upon their recei the ministry of foreign affairs unless some other time of service has been pre* in an applicable international convention or arrangement. C. The time limit within which a State must enter an appearance or appeal again! judgment or order shall begin to run sixty days after the date on which the sum or notice of suit or complaint is deemed to have been'effectively received in t dance with this article. ARTICLE V Default Judgments No default judgment may be entered by a tribunal in a forum State against a ft State, unless service has been effected in accordance with Article IV and a claim 01 to relief is established to the satisfaction of the tribunaL ARTICLE V I Extent of Liability A. As to any claim with respect to which a foreign State is not entitled to imm under this Convention, the foreign State shall be liable as to amount to the extent as a private individual under like circumstances; but a foreign State sha be liable for punitive damages. If, however, in any case wherein death or othc has occurred, the law of the place where the action or omission occurred provid has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the foreign shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages measured by the primary 1 < curred by the persons for whose benefit the suit was brought. B. Judgments enforcing maritime liens against a foreign State may not exceed the of the vessel or cargo, with value assessed as of the date notice of suit was served ARTICLE VTI Immunity from A ttachment and Execution A foreign State's property in the forum State shall be immune from attache arrest, and execution, except as provided in Article V I I I . ARTICLE V I I I Exceptions to Immunity from Attachment and Execution A. A foreign State's property in the forum State, shall not be immune from any sure for the enforcement of a judgment or an arbitration award if: 1. The foreign State has waived its immunity either expressly or by implii from such measures. A waiver may not be withdrawn except in accordanci its terms; or 2. The property is in use for the purposes of commercial activity or was in u the commercial activity upon which the claim is based; or 3. Execution is against property which has been taken in violation of interna law, or which has been exchanged for property taken in violation of intern al law and is pursuant to a judgment or an arbitral award establishing rig such property. B. In the case of mixed financial accounts that proportion duly identified of t count used for non-commercial activity shall be entitled to immunity. C. Attachment or execution shall not be permitted, i f : 1. /The property against which execution is sought to be had is used for dipk or consular purposes; or

235
The property is of a military character or is used or intended for use for military purposes; or 3. The property is that of a State central bank held by it for central banking purposes; or 4. The property is that of a State monetary authority held by it for monetary purposes; unless the foreign State has made an explicit waiver with respect to such property. D. In exceptional circumstances, a tribunal of the forum State may order interim measures against the property of a foreign State available under this convention for attachment, arrest, or execution, including prejudgment attachment of assets and injunctive relief, if a party present a prima facie case that such assets within the territorial limits of the forum State may be removed, dissipated or otherwise dealt with by the foreign State before the tribunal renders judgment and there is a reasonable probability that such action will frustrate execution of any such judgment. ARTICLE IX Miscellaneout Provisions A. This Convention is without prejudice to: 1. Other applicable international agreements; 2. The rules of international law relating to diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, to the immunities of foreign public ships and to the immunities of international organizations. B. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as conferring on tribunals in the forum State any additional competence with respect to subject matter. 2.

,0

S B.

o
IT)
0 0

3 O
X

o .e u
9 M

a c

e g

<
O u Z <
-I
LU O
Li

i s
E

"5 a
c

.2

e c

.2 2

* e

-a
3

=5

4*

to U o S 2 a.

v -2 a
C " D

o .5

c
3

LU

E
J

E S

I
3

2t

S .5 - < a c - a) e 5 .O

If.s s

a u a .
t -

D
on

e Z

o an c

^1
< sa
'.5 u 5 &o e
f 3

a*

<

!
s

*
2

| S 'S 5 S5
"
" HI

i!
Q uu H **

o
w

Si U
e _ a

S.E . 2 B E b> c 2 * e u u ^* S

t %

c e ) XI

"u

.2? 5 3 r; S u u u o - J * ; 8 n v2 la a u * ~ l i-a t O 5 a.2 u

u

a u * u c ~ u

u, c c o o 3 s u u

e * o to

.8
> <s

e <
fc

<

61

--a
- c c u "5 E

II

M
. E * - i

ca

E o <
5

e d S> -JS r

u * 2 S. u ft!
UJ

a ." s
e U

3 <

3 _ *

c o

u u
V

o
_;
c
v,

-1 3 C <

H
3 c

o c 3 E E
Z

u >
u -=

o. s o. u

(C

v o *s < ^

9
a
M

v X o

x J

. C

II a E

2 *.

E x

.-

"i's x
3 C

II
,_ c
o.2 u u
5-5

al
^
"J ,

o
CO

is?

- a

e c o
eg 2

< o .

e -S ft i
y-5

a* c

u o o o u _

Ii f
O

a
3

ao
- e .a o o

s|
a

o
u

8f
c

3 ft
I/)

2 12 2 5
ft-=

I
u c u u > E .2 a 5 ) u
J o eb

c za u

u c ft

O u

2,12

a E ^ ft
.2

" 3

.18
c
C

c c
. a _

3 3

II
3
X Q

5.

Ct u
. 2 --

c u
"2 -~
^

o 'S..a
a _
a ^

u c c

. i
E a u
m.2

1
X

ft
3
=

2 -

: " 3

"*

.2

"i

O V in a .

_ c _. e c u
S

z s 5 i 2 2 S
. 2 , "3

8 as S
v.E
v
3

: .-a

C a ii "
'5

-Si
u
C

j s a >u C
w

"3 3

< =vi

j a

0 3-2

: c
1

is
rs u
_^ u
U

x "r a
. C. 'J

t il
a

11
00

i: u i j
c

.. w

a y

~ 3 C - * C U w - .vj a
w

1 .2P = = S -2. 2. i 2 H vi 3 ft = 2 < ;

S

- w ^ .2
c

_ e 3 x - >><
M < = = .32 O O
u

w ,

'IS |
a-;
u

- y I a ~ I ' E a
a:

sz
X

* s * .2 S E l s 3" x c y I:
VI

c a c c - u = t ~ JJ
^
s

o a 2 0 ^ u

w 3

= H
3 2
J-

" 3
U

-2

ft c. = ^ u c
VI

2 -

.3 C C

'w

> y i 3

.J L u ;

^ a - 73

-a 5 a ! "

-3 :^:^x

u
a
X

^ 5u 5 < = < f f uIt c ^ -J r-i - J

v.
a 2

c.

I = .i

a i! X a
. ha

< _

a c so c 30 S a c

" 3

. 'S

_, _ 3

x
3

u
w

c u

< 1
>
73
X

I-Ia

u x
O O
-VI

5
J

: =

X
o

Ia' =
O
00

c
BO t) 1 3 3

u c
5 c c

. _ -*

a
'X

"

ii a ;

3^
a
o

.1 ft g
a S

x u

3.2 ?

Islis
> -

ii x
j c c

a <_ i o

JI:
ft-?
Si a E c E
O
X

**

'"3

c v O a
" 3 =

O. a

" S< .
0 >

1%
V

a. a
C

73 00 =

a r -o ^ o ^; a x w a o 93

._ x

_ c C a
3 ,_

O >. O O u <x

c o
C V

E
u
( -

ft a u

w '5

>

C
t
-2

Ji

u o c c o
73

"a

31
a
O O

>, 5 * - 73 2

i~ x
y

.2

<

^ : ^ a
3

-j S 5 a t
"

j ' c x 2 *"=,=
ft 5

ill
5 .> u 1 2 11 73
3
a 3

u c
<
VJ

_ c ,*P

v
V

2 5

J a S
u
=

'

S8 a * c
ci

.2 5
73

^ ft j a a <._
X Q.

c
G

4li
5

ao
_ 0

ii -

c " v E ^
0

c u

III
n

1 A . ^ .3
C

2 a u .= i 2 * - I " x u" s E "5 3 C vi C > ? "5 C x 3 v2 a y; V I < 5 u u : -1 =-3 V = 3 - x x^ ^ in >c 3 u ft a a 73 ~" a ' IJ a

ji

c .E u u u

<

u x a

.c 5 ,3

" 1
a

73
C *

u v u c

73 .= X

S =.3
" 3 ^

e c
5

9 X

5 S r = = c > 2

x
so c

<- .2 Ji
0

I? "
.2 ^ - .2
3

a . :C 'J
=
^

" a g

c a
^

w73

i ^ S ?

e 2 z

ft

o
o
3 C

T3
C

u a
C O

c u a
3 u 3

.5 c?

= 2 S c a JL

E > > _o "E. E

V

o
o.
u

<
" 3 C

i-

2 -Si *" 2 . e c c 5 o E =U 5 *u u

3 c u ? o . i U . r =
>A

J.

O . ^
E ^ 3 ,2 A o. O ^
E

"5
J t i
> -

-3 JC = = 3 e aa i u
3 u

1
5

2 A C O3 O

u < c o
c a

so
c

>. a
V

3.

c3 X

c o u
a 55 e oo

2.S

* s a
c .3 a _a

c
0

t o

I S X to O u -a u

si'
S E "
i

o
ha

u -s - a*
c = J;

t> u x " 2 -

.u C 5 2 _ C D 3 2 ~ * c a,

8
E '
;

a.

-3

c j

-~
7i O

o. E E "o c u a " E
c o
-

H,"
a - <

S '1-2
v

1
_ C

?
xa

5 c rC - o a'5 3 2 :
P

.1 a-s
a - u > ^ > Ji C. a H c- i _ .

"5. . 2 5 il T ^ .a
' 5 2 2 "i c

a ox

Q. CL

c c
1

5S

o
9

c
_. c

c
p

3
v5
c

S
.
^ 3

o
-D

i. c u = = o a

a x a so x a
C
V

u
E

= 3

a fx-

>. c

o > c c c E

8 M

"3

- u

.3 ^ a _ u i 3 3

1 2
~~ "r c "3 = .=

i l l
* "a >
u

-5
c
C

a. ! :

"

3 w

2'

u
s i f u c .c T " . x, so a a

_,
x J

3=2

2
73

-S
_

I u J H a 55 i

c _ o o c a G a

S. ^
E

"

!;

<g
~~ a

M 2 3 a c c a a o E <
c
a

Si

c a 2

3^ ^ s u < J3 , . i ~ > o = c - c oa o i 2 0 s * fi .2 y u 1 U a "3 3 = a

v 2
4.

-S ~ c

a c

.2

| r .

a " O

- >

2-5
3
1
w

n ^

- c ^ ^ .2 o
i

x 3

J ^ ^ '

c o

o
-3
.ii

a >. a x C a g >J

3 a a -3 u

1 *

u c
- S 3 2 a
a

3
2 a u j>

.2 . s 0 . 0
'tZ

.2
S

E x 3

a c x c c a x . v 2* I --'-g x - | 8
v
=

" 3 -3 U

C B O

> i
W

c a u c o E E o U

C-3

00

0 -3

C o.

SI

5 Si c J u u

?8
c.

3!

X 3

c
O u .
a = o c o a a

2:
C

o -a " c OX
3
c z 3 C 3 c a

c *
a
U

_ ii x c 9

s ^ 2 8o o 8 " S to

o ~ a " c a iTQ 2 a ~ > c

a

> .5
C

o c

3 a

II

u a

=^ 1 ^> 1
^ a
M

^
to c
so

J5 5 . 2 o * .2
c c

w S x " c

=
3

= o 1

is II " c F. u a 3 " 3 5! > < 2 c 'u ,E s -a o u i u J S c u

0

i 3* i so > 55-= C c c s U 3 .5P"3 ^ u

,31 5 : >. y a. u

^ J |

0 5

-r *

- a " 2

"=

S S
i_ e .2 o -a S c c >2 ; 5 S.r

3
a 1 * a E
vi

u c a u x S O' u u u

x _ 3 ^ o .s .3; c. r- a X ' ' a c

= 3 =
o -3 E 5 a.S

|
u ^

5=

S o - o 2 a u a a 3 ? o 2- 3 -> c -5 S SX a U i 1 -S.2 -5 X a J.g = 2 - a o q !L-= fe= *" a c x A -s ? 2 i_ 3 x e u U " ' u a S -X >_ X u o .u a O 5 S *J " c > > " E, u a 'E X c a > > o - E S2 v 3 c u o - a 55 a .E So. ~ * a 2 c x 55 50 a s ^ O - u X . _x 3 a 3 J - 3 2 to 2 a 2 = - * o - - > > so v x 0 - . i 5 x " a eo u u S E 2"S!= ? u .e a .s 55 . < -* o. x . 2 a ,2 x I ' M ^ ^.E u 00 u a u _c a c a 3 ^ a S - ^ J! si ."5 .0 . E E 3>'a * >

rs

1!

s X a - c _ * u n -> a c c

I |'ZS 8.
c

so c

j o

S g

= S c

^1

I I .fa

a a -

c I ^ >. " I I u 3 C 9 2; 2 o .2 a =a a 3 a 55 " c

a

s 2:
5 :

i
Si

. 8s

as

- S
= ca
c

c so .SPu

A SO

.A -71

ij

E
<

c s

a a 5 u a E a ^ '3 X =J a a ~
5

to .3 - Cc
c

so

a=

S..S

5 ci
w

=P-8
o

1
9

2J-

e o

00 *1

i l a l

8 *
c O

s s. s
c - o oo.2 c S s.2

E E .c "* o
u a c
90

si g
E
Jl s

eocx "5 e.S 2 *u J * 3

";

o. u

8 S
a

** 'e,

8"
ate -

5>j3 =
2

J C -*

"E E -3
9
3

J I
n

5 a a a . a as u

C 3

a 5

f i eo a e.E c a O

E u "2 a

c o

* .
u a

c o c - fc o "5 a
~ u C

c = S o a S 6.? c.2 a ,2 3 2 S H C a a X g a - -5 C
a

e g u 3 u a
E

* .c c u ! a E >, . S f > S .-a

i ! ._
A

C u

wi u

3 - g

*
9

E u

II

<
*

8 l
-e a J 5
1 . 3 :

u o 2 2 3 ~ c "> J E ~ " C Z9 t_ ~* ' u 5." c c < PC.2 2 2.3 = a S.S

a a u

J
-

5
5 ~ i 3 2 I
C ;

6
3
3

*" u
^

.3 C 3 a

1) *S

u a i

e 5 " c

3
5.5

<-s
C C

a "a

u a

J: a - *

o X o u a c

S
u

S P S a . 2 E S c a c ..SP - w J l a
3
Q. SO

2 "2

-3

2 . 5 a

8 E 5-S a S ? a

s
e c o 8 o
a

<

s
C

.c > > 8 e a 3 SI a

8
V

S8 Si _c
eo

IS
a

a u

a a E g -o

l 5
3 C

eo
c

c o _ a 0 a a
Q. _

>, 8 "g -8

. E c u
a _

e 5 . 2
a 41 e

s
2 a
a

* .

o 2 o

.a
u

c S "

a .
A M M

2.S

3
u 8 o
* a a ^ a .2 5 a a -

eo w o a S *5

C E
C >

|||
u
I. U

- -a

_c > > >

- I ?
3 C O l w c

a u
1A

J
J?

u u s
3

s
C

if
2

'c2
a 3

a
1

S a

< S c
a

S 5 -a a E

si
2

ji

a a O

> *- o

-a
w 2 o

E
J

a.

E
c a

o &

I
S < 9 ^ 1

c
a

u o c - a j : < ^ a

. ! 2 eb

c c a a

-C _ .2
c

eo e .

>
E

i
a 5

a a
2

>. a > Q.^3 x> c

5
t!

I
V!

a '2 "G c" c .2 -2 3 *2

c o

^ w.- " 5 .. a u u a .a a8 < l a 2 2 J, a a

-

a u

s
w

<
a . "a

a & H S a ^ O | J 8
c - >

.ap S .5? 3 is'S u g . u e 1 " g S i < 8. o St 5 8 "o

u
OX) -~> eo c e

.is %2

38

2-S ,E 2 o u c S a
?

* 3 S <

I I
c c
90

a <

^. c

"S ^
6
a

s, .s u
o

5 :c

3 " SI X
C

3 -

o < _ 8 a."5 2
a a " O

- _

r a.

13*
? o

5 5 S
3

5 a *

I s
a

til
2 'so

< "2

J5 = a y wi
D.

. -

-"3

8
^

to a ^ = 1.

j: c c a o oo

3 '*> ao sue:

e o I ? 2 1
oo u a a c 5
3

>*2 .a V) u Z u

S i 9 a a oSO c r\ eo ' c

u E

8 o 8."

J l
5

a w

af Is
0 ?

> -o

s >

00 c a

So

I 1
"3

2
J a

.2
a

> u 3 H CP > U JC

I I a 2 8
<~ * " c

,.2P a _ -a u

3.E c
_

^6"
w

u u o -C c -* c

; 2
. . 2 o c U 3 3 i c

jjj
c c

c c !r o w a

S 2
U

P I s : s ^ 2 -

u 2 >

.2 5 3 a u c.3
U 3 -O f O ' u ' C U 3

11
- c .
a 'S r c 2 - c

B
c

u *E i;

X 10

a Sj

-2
"3 _

1 X2-S

a
2
-3 ^ w c

T,

>, c - . Sc.
< > u z <

' >.
w

1 1 it 5 o = e u a

VI

u l.r a.a-

.= a

2 " 3
u

u
e

x > u u

J=

'5
= u

u so >

c c
U u
VI

E _ c O E c ' 2 5 o
a a

o
^ - -r.

1 ' ^
u

'J

!1
c t

o
3

=
io

>
'X
J

= z 2 - ' -S 5 1 1= u; -a ' = 5 ac u

a s-j 5
= a x e. p _ y = iZ a j! c

ii ? ^
^

5
2

V c u

u S
=
5

H i
1 1 1

-1
U

2 5
-

eo-c

><

3 5

u x: c a

| a j f 5

n
2^ c
c I

.2 5 8
3

2 2 'is a
= u

6 0

. r3

a u o

E u 3
^

' 3

2s s3s
c.
u

- < 7 i "2 c 5 .=
so

/*S

o a "S J ' | 1 a - ii = 9 5 .2 u u w a .E 2 S o c a .!> u -2 - l . ^ .2 u - ? a t. 2 2 g ^ _a c ,y z op .. ^ C a a = u _ ^ ^3 8_ X ~ -O -- . 3 = a *>= C- c <

C
l u

i
u

-3

u
u

c a c n so = --0 . u z u a J .=

_ . o
= 3

>1

_ c

5 5 * o t a < _ u on o S 3
.3
3

>

. = -./..= 3 i .3 o O u s > u .2

T;

m
N

>

f 5 - s J-I

-3
i

^ * c
u

3 C
*

so u c .a

E -

- C J _ C u

i 3
1/1

2 -zl
S c v.=
r\
J

s
J

S/5 ."

^ U

<* >

f , M

>.;<

3 l

^ /~ ^-

I- s . -E"3
. 3 ^

li

S 3

X.

U
M

i;

< 2 o u u .- 3
c
u

o a 8 = a S 3
e a

O 3

c C

' - -

* c c

3 u -3

vi O

o
ha

c.3

a S>

'5
"5. o. o
c
u

5
13 3 C .3
O -3 3 >
M

c
CJ

c s 8 8 S> o. E
a c w c
a

'= a
1

E 8^
= o

E 3 E

3
u

3 ;s i_ > S "3 c3 2 o V> Z 2 8 o C

| J I JE,
VI

ij
u

.3 3
D. C O

u E
-y\

5 "

*f
2 3
8
c

c ep u k_ .0 c

n C

"3

" c
3 '

|a S.E a * v, co a ao 2 * c 3 _

o E

E E o o a e 3

vi

o o 3 R c c 2 c 2 s so Co -, SB 5 a a.
-

8 - w O 3 c a. o 3 u S

it ^ u so c -5.
3 eo w c a o O 5

so " . C "3 .3 a u ^ vi

t
t>

= sE c
C

o .
a

VI

g 8-S

o
^

i2 c S o 1.2

S 3
3
C *

V >

!
8

J*
o 8
u

CO

"3 C

.2-3 5
: a -i =
!

S.-S c a u c c 5 o - o
C
c

\S
a

*
3

3
C .3

I!
a
c

a -O
c "

.2 1 !
3
3 u

k.
. - . C o * 3

ui

So .
i

"3 a . < u

S - J ao
O

u
U

u a

' 5 D'3 so"

! a u
O

a
-C
VI

.2

E E c U

a .3 O 3 _ u a CO c ^ u

I!

5 5

J S
73 3

E 3 S a _

x-2 s i

.E a S r 2 S
c

a _ o

3 5

*n
VI
%

a a 1 a a c 3
O

oo c

- c."
g

l 2 =
3

3 2 E - o c *x - S vl U W - O S i _ c .a J= E. a o U

"

! l 'o E o
y

"a > > 2"2l

w u 3 S Q. Ji S
K u

c
M

3w

to . . 5 2 o
v

a a * S C .so a

.2
3 u

3 . c v

u c

a >2
S

s u
2

SO t o a 3
a

2
eo v c

.vj v, w O 3 w ^

<

- a a

* 2 .

, 23 < o < .5 o v vi o Z V
* a = ^

3-2 . > S f >2 o c c ! t 'u : a a f o u so a. ^ > -e

.

a "3

c 1=

n = --' 3
a 3 a

H H
_
u _ C a t

- ._ 3 w

o = o a -* *-S . a s s 3 -J co 8.a . s > = co u u 3 y 2. 5 >Sue

S
-" c

c > "g 2 - c 1S e 2 u L X u = c

a c S3.E .a<,

*a

c a a 1
E

50 >> c

c s

J*
3

. u >
V)

- 5 w > u i : 1 o.s 5 * a - S 3 -sc. Q.O. ; ? a a : VI 38

e
u

c Si ha u
a

VI

VI

' a i_ C u x u "S u.tt 2

D.

- - o o 2 8^.2 '"Hoc
30 _u

o a.

E o 5 ^
a eo u a c " O t ^- .= a ^ 0 a "

a s

" S J{-S _ o c 3 "5 w i = i

5 5 2 >

c c .2 * y 2 u -a <" X
I '

-3
3

a X "

.= o c c
t a

58

c- '5J5
,3

S '

s
o
X
"3
U

--5 3, 5 a : .c c - *_
"3 u u c u

2 a = ; 5 *
i-

a
^

Mr c
es 0
z a ) u
w

u.

a u

3 u

x u S C
3

a -s . u i> = 6 | s
E vi
u

E - >

1 x . E o c .9- u o _ a 5 - E.S a o -r S a en a 2* w w u u J5.5-I c

2l 111 J * 2 a
3

i
. " 3

a
c.

S-a

*u
u c a O
3

a eo > u a

^
U

"3 * 'J u "= -= 5 -S 5

u = u ,

> .-f'~

13

<

VI

= 5
'"

>

, -=

S s J S
u

^
a c
c

a
p u
c

i -^ 3 2 J2 = x .. b < c

55 2
C

U 3

y "r
h3

s 3 - 3 - - C 3 -2 "5 = != 5 J .a,y C
u C ~

as <

J * 5

c 5ii = -15 c c. c
3

= c

>. 5 C.

s E

-c * u
C >
U

' Z

- I I
u

E c ~
^

i l l ; 3 ~

-./i

2 ^ * * = it _ ^ =
3
1

> < c a vi ^- w C U _ c S J!
< 5

"2 a i! ~ i c o 1 i2 o
X ^ a 'A

a c
a = i i 5 - -

5 < c c
u J u

1 X
/

* H

E a c .=

^ a-

< >. 2 . a I S 3 >

c .2

H 2 u c x u x .x = ii u i V >
v > a

9
X
0

c-2
a CO
C C
w

so-3
C C

o
X

_ c

u fe

a
3
U
C

C
K

a " O

is
eo c u 5 S
a y

5 5
a c u

(ft Uc
# a

o c
3

x = u u
I

so 2 .2 CO
c

SO a 3

o "3 .2 a P 2 I
3

c. u c u i
X ( 3

~ . = -c 5sa so o o 2 o - < =
2 a 2

x
3 .

ti -O.*? a > v >

3.

o S
C C O

c S. ?
3 "~ y > "3

. s
a

It u
W w

io a .
c a

eo c o

.2

5 " 5

u oo c i

3 .a > c. c > >u

a a

eo ,- o
u

w a C O c

c c u
= a

-MIL

u
*J

^ 3 8 u is a
= -X r-

Is
c >

.1
"3
C

v a

"3

I 1
5 -5

c. s

!=
. .

C. 3
i
S

O C u 5 vi
B
(ft

u a > > Sx
3

c u E eo eo c 3 J2 _3_
3

a " - ^ . 2 = =.2 00 u = oJ
5 5

u (ft .a c x Ji

a 9 if
X
=.

a c a

-3

o c a * 5 v ' J x so
u

~ = c u c J 5 >i a .2 t S 3 u a S55 s 3 CO eft so-3 .! | i 3 C " * "3 e u S s u ' (ft 3 ! a u i V x _ a J i2 I X t> U J X k_ o s > a a t _ .2 a -3 o ~ c e x a .2 a 3 "3 = S . S i ! a ^ u a >..2 O " o b <" C 2 O 3 CO "3 2H 3 3 o "3 s 1 5 O .. C _o C 5i = * x p - c * Z - 5- = - 3 o * a 3^5 g 3. c a u .= 3 "* U _ 3 so W. so 3 .u 41 X ^ : i IH '5 a a y k in 2 d > * = - c. c ~ s " j : > s 3 U 2 S s c < = >
c a = a
..

u |

u u a > a ^

2 i .1

u " .a > <

O a CO ><

" 3 *u

s :a <- =
c u P
0

. ' " u c k_ 7 5 .

a x

x.2 a * v y U . 2
3

x c; ti.2x c -2 ,_

II

-3

sj.i< a

li
3

:-

I J . H c a S .= x U CO c s jo so eb 3 a o al i s v x

c c c o 2> I" -3 J . _ o
8
3

; e a,

31

t -

S c 5

J!
w

tv 2. i E -3 i s - u i c = M e. u ^ sue si it*x

^a

u x c o
-

a "". a
Q.
u

u 3 .i a o u S.S

s O * x a ^ ...-; x .o c
S

St to P c

l-s 3 i
at o - a S c Si u 2: u C u

^* Is a S e v_ a - w " * 3 3 u >c> a =
u c

C- eg at 3 a f

o 5. >. ~ u O a

a O a J = u a 2 g - s l = c c c t Ci _? . 3 : 2

3 a 2-
a

B. j .

o , >x c
A c U

c.

V) 2 z <
C J UJ

u E a

O c o

8.2P a ,3 5

1 <
D..a a "go a vi St _; s .Su
U f

o it - s u > jt 2 c u
w a

.2 c/5 . a o

2 u o t j u a

= u so u

a ^ K : i=

E-S
g

c c
OA n

1 1

s i .%

3 a 2 ^

.a. -a
5
C c

Cfl i l u
8

u a
U "3

,0 1 a (J5 c - .a O = 5 > 3 =

u X

> I Is
.S OS

. a g 1.1 .11

fc= a O a o l/J u 9 C a e
c

u "a x c a 2 a J) e as "5
h>

< = c u

"3

2
M ^

u E B e l > -c a w

J 1-3
8 u = C 2 c 3 s a c
* u u .2 a

- a 22 _ a c e . V -3 o a ._ " e. S a .8- _ u C 3 3 -1; 3 -3 y >3 u . | : a

"
BO

5 - > = w u a

s
U

,o a " i s f *o ^ " 3 C c U V : so . o 'J : ' "3 2 3 J

i a-a

' " u E - E E on ot V a
o

p
M

SO C

u > -a > a.

Is
^ M u

"
S " " 5J.

. 2 2

_ "
"3 C E J:

= x u

3 < a S" a * 3 = 3a ~ -n U a

~ c u - 3 a _ c 2. a "" > ri . J J a X
-

-J .1

u o Is a c _ _
u

a
M

'

u O

d ) u 3 a fc U

tf2 S a . a i o. = -3 u 5 a e. C J 3 C . 2 5 .2 a E a u u U* w 2 i a " o * u _ 2 - (A c = j - a o < >o U * * > .t; a I j ? SC. u a y u - ii c

a

^ a E -

a-

o >. a

J1 l|
ta

so c

w c ^ a it O w.

* i

>. 2 u a

S a

III

l i t **t

o c c = o

a T3 _ u c o c o so c o u _ 2 8 S 2 C a
tl u 3

so a
u u

HI
** U ^ X
x
5

IS
" c < ao o c

d-f: -c a f a o u a <2 a u i a.s <

= = 1 . C S Vt . w i w a 5

-C

3s
o
3 41 OB O O. O

i "3
a s o c c " >
O w

la
o u i a 2 E Z
3

i f H
O C

Hi
u "3 U u

" K P >-, S c JS o ' "3 2 ^ l i e 3 = - a a

1
u
1

&

'u

o 2 a .S c to T c u. . 5
b 0

" > a E
w

o o .!! -

a a >

a >. 2 2 S a

t . o

1 2

It**
a 1
<

_ a u ._ 2 r o c c c "o O 00 _ i l l
- u u

w w l s E S S
c

; -s

S .e .2 -

u u C Ea u
a

5 0.3 S

S...-lB "c. . & 5 i

2 - 2 2 x--= u = S a- 8.2 a * 6 S ^ > - .a c g e. a E

t.
2

i 'S < c l o = 2 .2 Z" 5 1*1 .2 a

a
00

a
.=

o
C4

o " 1 2 a 5 | | .8 8
*

1 IS s at-5 E-5 - ^ x ?2. E o a E o2 < x c a a a _ _ u 8. u ^ r c o E v C Oc u

1

2 2
iT

o u o
>> a u , > < = -

>> BO
-

o-S '5. S
u

jj -

3
-x a.

M !
= <J c a X u a >* X 2 E - C O

5.s > U "5 "3 "

1

O.X 9
3

.rs a

VI

o a -

-a

r a j ; ;2

U 2 a I * co >5 - o
as
c

,
C M = w

a
u

= u O y 5 5 a c g * 3

o < u O - OO - v2 c fe 2 x a i 5 . X = . a c _ u 2 u c u 5.1 c ~ > a 3 u c a ^ S I u u x c ^2 s ~ X 3 s r S 3 50 > < f i r 3 - ex" a a VI u ^ "3 " = u

.2 x i- T; ~' o / t> Q 2 o X "3

O

o >.= a"" C = i_" X . a. 2 " u w C = 3 O = 2=! c .2 2 * i S2

5

1 ?
a

L.

= 28

c ~ w y

3 - X 3 u _ * ' S

C a x !X _ * > u .5 > , x ^"3 C 3 2 5 = = t uI W ? t L = C a 0=5 a S. 8 2 U V) 3 a O a U u "3

2 =

a.a

c "> " 5 b
3

00

c o a
e ^

a o Ea

c o
3 eo

ii u o w
X ' _

y .2 * g
s

?o

2 o
CL

u-3 g
3 .2 .= -3

&

a
-

a x x i a _ u 3 " ^ cix
^ ^ u c " S S a = 3 C -3 V
<-

. -3 =

>

. o - "3

i f
u
r

S e c 2 a 3 c a

u c x a . i 5
u
a

i. C
= -3 u

5
vi u

1-2
o C
3 c

2 "3 3 u 3

m
^
u

O
k

2 - ? 1 3
3 JZ *
c

I s
.= c
!

'-3 v.

a = 5 "2 = 3
5
W U

D u

3 3

8 o

Ji

v 5 3 2 5

c a ,u C a 3 c ' 3 U o 3 .i V I. V u y 3 a c 1 2 c 2 I * C O 1 3 c 3 o
_
7 5

ji
3 u c = o .= u C C a E = u
c

e. .Id
j; c . ji

*'
3 . = a

. u a

>-

-rz ~ 7<" =:= _ eo <-

>5
u 3.

"S3
u 3

^ S u 11 ^

= S c 8 t u c .x - - 3 3 u
^an

E'of U > ?P 2 e"3 a: 2 _ E. r-Ss =o:s

3

8 3

I I I U VI V MI

8u _^

u S O= " , u -3 c a yi c ^ > ' r c x x c C ^ a v 3 a 2.= c 8 ii u u i"3 * X 5 n. u

^ C

y < C ? i . o ? 5J = ^3 5 = C i! i 3 C 3 y y
S x c t f s t : a M . u y, _ ^

3 5" a 3 5

! a .>

= 5 <

a J

t>

>

a u
Stat

u X 1. 0

eo u
c

O
tale a

.y

u c "3 X B O U X u > > S ' a - 2 JL c a - O C C c

ao_ so a u 2

Ol,

y 2 L
V!

eo c

3 O

c c

w a iX a a a c
a 3 a

c a so 0 e

l is "A r~ c a S 0 :E -2 "2 ^2 i c u
0 3

" D S

U VI u X ?
-
0

"

t-i
X C a -x 5 2 B O > >
- *>

C O c
so

3 eo

i>

i i 8 .3
s ;
;

'
g .

x
0

> - >>

S x

VI

.SP u v2
if a "e

C a o

spe

>> a

fled

i w
C a

E,_. s
x c u 3 g a
V)

E C o c u
v. c

tm
O 0 c S >
sj

c O c u E

S U > c oox -

1:
a
c v>

x .5

0.

^_

-n

a 7j

x . S o :

e P

c a
u a

J
u

S
X "3 u

.-2

i s so _ -!2 a"
, !

<
3
a
1

a c

a
(A

-a 2

VI tm
>> ep i: u

E -o 3-3

.= 3 a a vi fc= i0 0

E =" ? vi O x

8 C a s: 8 D -a "2 S 2
3 x 3

II
O
C vi 3

3 -o tn o H
u a ^ . 3
0

"

8.8
to

i c 3 a j.9< i a. iB2 ; V! so c O c ep. 'C 's .

e a _

a a

.2 ^

i
w

, a
0

v C O 5 c w .2P u u

5
v) . e s

M
3

.2 o c E '

a "5

a u. 5 m

a c

0 0 0

SI

=^
B0l_

E
3 vi

a E
u

0 0 S t

O
a JO x . y -3 3 a d a

v.

<C vi 'u a c ~ g.a y 3 to C . C =2 2 a 5 3 i l U a g. 5 in a "C a -a * 3 a a a c ^_ u J u | 2 5= J s g c h X x o y v n = 'c a a " u "2; ^ S VI >, a J a a " I X -C a - a a S>2 H-a *J

1 5 l s ^ o 5 " 2 E S 3 a
* a
<

C 3 3*

vi

IS

a
_

i a
a 0

"E

8 8 .2 v. x - -a <- c 8 c "a
u

<-iS , .2 3 i , e a. a v, 00 S u c 2

a 2
3 0

ft^

2
VI

c s-s X

v2
u

V *"

a.?
a u u u
u .

ir i
o. e u

x V,

8 I 3
. . VI

-s
x c

O o c a. S - S
a 3 a u S

1
a
VI

c u c1 a is * a u O 8 C U C eo. J 5 c _ c .E c r 3 eo * 3 <" i 3 3 a o .2 C u u > > < - > c -5

-

<

x > x

j -a v. t i! 5
0

S
VI

8.2
" v, a a u 3 a
2

= 3

c.

y 1. < = a _ a fr s 3, a. 3 C u
W -

u.

s S

-5 X -

y -' 5 2- 5 2
c

11

e ^ s

a
VI

C a

X ' tl , o ' J a s c * 1 3 2 * u
1

liq

<

10

3 fe.O

itniillcd by tc (nil is

s c s

Jl

J?
c S

i f ? a I I I V& Zt S a l 3-2 iE * f e J 2 V "* "1 3 a u =

c

it
U
O a % > E 5

1 ?
a 9 S _

.2 111* w 5 _ i) * ~ E IT . r -a i s ' a
w

l i

x in

c u.

IS

8 e

"

t -o
Ow 0

11

g
u

8 o 'till ~ a a * o 5

ss<g

_ E

1 3

s=

el

w e u *

8*1-3

c t* r a v 1s ,1 Sc'SS

fl

5
5, ' f l

P Sa 2^ =
41 a*

Hit
H i - 3 -

S 2

w _ aj e c : *J j? 6* a e a - ^
w

It
a Q V

S 5-35
_ ^

? = a.
u -

ft
:ms

1*11
< a

- a s ;

it w

<
D

e 5

II.

DRAFT A R T I C L E S ON JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF STATES AND THEIR PROPERTY PART I INTRODUCTION Article Scope o f the 1 articles and i t s property

present

p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s a p p l y to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s o f

i m m u n i t y of a S t a t e another State.

Article Use the p u r p o s e s of the present of

terms

articles: a S t a t e , however named, e n t i t l e d to

"court" judicial "State" the

means any o r g a n o f functions; means: and i t s various of

State

o r g a n s of

government;

constituent

units

a federal

State; to p e r f o r m State;

p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s of the S t a t e v h i c h a r e e n t i t l e d a c t s i n the e x e r c i s e of the s o v e r e i g n a u t h o r i t y of the

a g e n c i e s o r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s of the S t a t e and o t h e r e n t i t i e s , to t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d to p e r f o r m a c t s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o the s o v e r e i g n a u t h o r i t y of the S t a t e ; representatives of the State acting ia that capacity;

"commercial t r a n s a c t i o n " any c o m m e r c i a l c o n t r a c t s u p p l y of s e r v i c e s ;

means: or transaction for the s a l e o f goods or

any c o n t r a c t f o r a l o a n o r o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n o f a f i n a n c i a l n a t u r e , i n c l u d i n g any o b l i g a t i o n o f g u a r a n t e e o r o f i n d e m n i t y i n r e s p e c t o f any s u c h l o a n o r t r a n s a c t i o n ; any o t h e r c o n t r a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n o f a c o m m e r c i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , t r a d i n g or p r o f e s s i o n a l n a t u r e , but not i n c l u d i n g a c o n t r a c t of employment of p e r s o n s . t e r m i n i n g whether a c o n t r a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n i s a "commercial n" u n d e r p a r a g r a p h 1 ( c ) , r e f e r e n c e s h o u l d be made p r i m a r i l y t o t h e t h e c o n t r a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t i t s p u r p o s e s h o u l d a l s o be t a k e n n t i f , i n the p r a c t i c e of the S t a t e w h i c h i s a p a r t y to i t , t h a t

purpose i s r e l e v a n t to determining the non-commercial c h a r a c t e r o f the contract or t r a n s a c t i o n . 3. The p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h s 1 and 2 r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e o f t e r m s i n t h e p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s a r e without p r e j u d i c e to the use of t h o s e terms or to the m e a n i n g s w h i c h may be g i v e n t o them i n o t h e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s o r i : the i n t e r n a l l a w o f any S t a t e .

Article 3 Privileges and i m m u n i t i e s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e p r e s e n t articlss

1. T h e p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s a r e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e p r i v i l e g e s and i m m u n i t i e s e n j o y e d by a S t a t e under i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e exercise of the functions of: (a) i t s diplomatic missions, consular posts, s p e c i a l missions, missions to i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , o r d e l e g a t i o n s t o o r g a n s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e s ; and (b) persons connected with them.

2. The p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s a r e l i k e w i s e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o p r i v i l e g e s and i m m u n i t i e s a c c o r d e d under i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w t o Heads o f S t a t e r a t i o n e personae.

Article 4 N o n - r e t r o a c t i v i t y of the present articles

Without p r e j u d i c e to the a p p l i c a t i o n of any r u l e s s e t f o r t h i n the p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s t o w h i c h j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i m m u n i t i e s o f S t a t e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y a r e s u b j e c t under i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s , t h e a r t i c l e s s h a l l n o t a p p i y t o any q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l [immunities o f S t a t e s o r t h e i r p r o p e r t y a r i s i n g i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n s t i t u t e d p.gainst a S t a t e b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y i n t o f o r c e pf t h e p r e s e n t . a r t i c l e s f o r t h e S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d . "

PART I I GENERAL P R I N C I P L E S Article State 5

immunity

A S t a t e e n j o y s i m m u n i t y , i n r e s p e c t o f i t s e l f a n d i t s p r o p e r t y , from t h e i r i s d i c t i o n of the courts of another State s u b j e c t to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f the esent a r t i c l e s .

Article Modalities

6 to S t a t e immunity

for giving effect

A S t a t e s h a l l g i v e e f f e c t to S t a t e i m m u n i t y u n d e r a r t i c l e 5 by r e f r a i n i n g :om e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e i t s c o u r t s a g a i n s t a n o t h e r ;ate and t o t h a t e n d s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t i t s c o u r t s d e t e r m i n e on t h e i r own l i t i a t i v e t h a t t h e immunity of t h a t o t h e r S t a t e under a r t i c l e 5 i s r e s p e c t e d . A p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a S t a t e s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d i s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t another State i f that other S t a t e : (a) i s named a s a p a r t y to t h a t p r o c e e d i n g ; o r to have been

(b) i s n o t named a s a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g b u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n feet seeks t o a f f e c t the property, r i g h t s , i n t e r e s t s or a c t i v i t i e s o f t h a t her S t a t e .

Article Express

consent to e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n a

A S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e u t of a n o t h e r S t a t e w i t h regard to a matter o r c a s e i f i t h a s e x p r e s s l y l s e n t e d t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e c o u r t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e iter or c a s e : (a) (b) (c) cific by i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t ; i n a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t ; or by a d e c l a r a t i o n b e f o r e proceeding. the court

o r by a w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n a

Agreement by a S t a t e f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w o f a n o t h e r S t a t e i l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n s e n t t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e r t s of t h a t o t h e r S t a t e .

Article Effect

8 a court a

of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a proceeding before

A S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n rt of another S t a t e i f i t has: (a) itself instituted the proceeding; or

i n a proceeding before

(b) i n t e r v e n e d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r t a k e n any o t h e r s t e p r e l a t i n g t o t h e i-ts. However, i f t h e S t a t e s a t i s f i e s t h e c o u r t t h a t i t c o u l d n o t h a v e l i r e d knowledge o f f a c t s on w h i c h a c l a i m t o i m m u n i t y c a n be b a s e d u n t i l >r i t took s u c h a s t e p , i t c a n c l a i m i m m u n i t y b a s e d o n t h o s e f a c t s , i d e d i t d o e s s o a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e moment.

r

A S t a t e s h a l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e c o n s e n t e d t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f s d i c t i o n by a c o u r t o f another S t a t e i f i t i n t e r v e n e s i n a p r o c e e d i n g o r s any o t h e r s t e p f o r t h e s o l e p u r p o s e o f :

(a)

invoking

i m m u n i t y ; or interest i n property at issue i n the

(b) a s s e r t i n g a r i g h t or proceeding.

3. The a p p e a r a n c e of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a S t a t e b e f o r e S t a t e a s a w i t n e s s s h a l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n s e n t by t h e e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e c o u r t .

a c o u r t of_anoth the former S t a t e

4. F a i l u r e on t h e p a r t o f a S t a t e t o e n t e r an a p p e a r a n c e i n a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o u r t of a n o t h e r S t a t e s h a l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n s e n t by t h e f o r m e r S t a t e to t h e e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e c o u r t .

Article

Counter-claims 1. A S t a t e i n s t i t u t i n g a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o u r t of a n o t h e r S t a t e canno i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i n r e s p e c t o f any c o u n t e : c l a i m a r i s i n g out o f t h e same l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p or f a c t s a s t h e p r i n c i p a l claim. 2. A S t a t e i n t e r v e n i n g to p r e s e n t a c l a i m i n a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o u r t c a n o t h e r S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i n r e s p e c t o f any c o u n t e r - c l a i m a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o r f a c t s a s the c l a i m p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e . 3. A S t a t e making a c o u n t e r - c l a i m i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t i t b e f o r e a c o u r t of another S t a t e c a n n o t invoke immunity from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i n r e s p e c t of t h e p r i n c i p a l c l a i m .

PART I I I PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH STATE IMMUNITY CANNOT BE Article 10 INVOKED

Commercial

transactions

1. I f a S t a t e e n g a g e s i n a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h a f o r e i g n n a t u r a l oi j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n and, by v i r t u e o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s o f p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n f a l l w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a c o u r t of another S t a t e , the S t a t e cannot invoke i m m u n i t y from t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o c e e d i n g a r i s i n g o u t o f t h a t commercia transaction. 2. P a r a g r a p h 1 does n o t (a) i n the case apply: or agreed

of a commercial t r a n s a c t i o n between S t a t e s ;

(b) i f the otherwise.

p a r t i e s to the

commercial t r a n s a c t i o n have e x p r e s s l y

3. The i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n e n j o y e d by a S t a t e s h a l l n o t be a f f e c t e d w i t h r e g a r d to a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s to a c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n engaged

1!

in by a S t a t e e n t e r p r i s e o r o t h e r e n t i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e S t a c e i n d e p e n d e n t l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t y and i s c a p a b l e o f : (a) suing or being sued; and

w h i c h h a s an

(b) a c g u i r i n g , owning o r p o s s e s s i n g and d i s p o s i n g o f p r o p e r t y , p r o p e r t y w h i c h che S t a t e h a s a u t h o r i z e d i t t o o p e r a t e o r manage.

including

Article Contracts

11

o f employment

1. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e agreed between t h e S t a t e s concerned, a S t a t e cannot invoke i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s o t h e r w i s e c o m p e t e n t i n a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s t o a c o n t r a c t o f employment between t h e S t a t e a n d a n i n d i v i d u a l f o r work p e r f o r m e d o r t o be p e r f o r m e d , i n whole o r i n p a r t , i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h a t o t h e r S t a t e . 2. Paragraph 1 does not apply i f : functions closely related

(a) t h e employee h a s been r e c r u i t e d t o perform to t h e e x e r c i s e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y ;

(b) the s u b j e c t of the proceeding i s the recruitment, employment o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f an i n d i v i d u a l ;

renewal of

(c; t h e e m p l o y e e was n e i t h e r a n a t i o n a l n o r a h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f t h e forum a t t h e t i m e when t h e c o n t r a c t o f e m p l o y m e n t was c o n c l u d e d ; (d) the employee i s a n a t i o n a l of the employer S t a t e the p r o c e e d i n g i s i n s t i t u t e d ; o r a t t h e t i m e when

(e) t h e e m p l o y e r S t a t e and t h e e m p l o y e e have o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d i n w r i t i n g , s u b j e c t t o a n y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n f e r r i n g on t h e c o u r t s o f t h e S t a t e o f t h e forum e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n by r e a s o n o f t h e subject-matter of the proceeding.

Article Personal injuries

12

and damage t o p r o p e r t y

U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d between t h e S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d , a S t a t e c a n n o t invoke i m m u n i t y f r o m j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s otherwise competent i n a proceeding which r e l a t e s to p e c u n i a r y compensation for d e a t h o r i n j u r y t o t h e p e r s o n , o r damage t o o r l o s s o f t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y , caused by an a c t o r o m i s s i o n w h i c h i s a l l e g e d t o be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , if t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n o c c u r r e d i n whole o r i n p a r t i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h a t other S t a t e and i f t h e a u t h o r o f t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n was p r e s e n t i n t h a t t e r r i t o r y a t t h e time o f the a c t or o m i s s i o n .

570

Article

13 use o f property

O w n e r s h i p , p o s s e s s i o n and

U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d between th S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d , a S t a t e c a n n o t invoke immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n before a c o u r t of another S t a t e which i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a p r o c e e d i n g which r e l a t e s to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f : (a) any r i g h t or i n t e r e s t o f the S t a t e i n , o r i t s p o s s e s s i o n or use o or any o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e a r i s i n g o u t of i t s i n t e r e s t i n , or i t s p o s s e s s i o n o r u s e o f , immovable p r o p e r t y s i t u a t e d i n t h e S t a t e of the forum (b) any r i g h t or i n t e r e s t o f the S t a t e i n movable o r a r i s i n g b y w a y o f s u c c e s s i o n , g i f t or bona v a c a n t i a : o r immovable proper

(c) any r i g h t or i n t e r e s t o f the S t a t e i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of p r o p e r t y , s u c h as t r u s t p r o p e r t y , the e s t a t e of a bankrupt or the p r o p e r t y a company i n t h e e v e n t o f i t s w i n d i n g - u p .

Article Intellectual and

14 property

industrial

U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d b e t w e e n the S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d , a S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a p r o c e e d i n g which r e l a t e s t o : (a) t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of any r i g h t of t h e S t a t e i n a p a t e n t , i n d u s t r i i d e s i g n , t r a d e name o r b u s i n e s s name, t r a d e mark, c o p y r i g h t o r any o t h e r f o r i of i n t e l l e c t u a l or i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t y , which e n j o y s a measure of l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n , e v e n i f p r o v i s i o n a l , i n the S t a t e o f t h e forum; o r (b) an a l l e g e d i n f r i n g e m e n t by the S t a t e , i n t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e S t a i o f t h e forum, o f a r i g h t of t h e n a t u r e m e n t i o n e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h ( a ) w h i c h b e l o n g s t o a t h i r d p e r s o n and i s p r o t e c t e d i n t h e S t a t e of t h e forum.

Article Participation

15 collective bodies

i n companies or o t h e r

1. A S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s to i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a company o r o t h e r c o l l e c t i v e body, w h e t h e r incorporat or u n i n c o r p o r a t e d , being a p r o c e e d i n g c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between tl S t a t e and t h e body o r t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e r e i n , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e bod] (a) and (b) i s i n c o r p o r a t e d or c o n s t i t u t e d under the law of the S t a t e of f o r u m o r h a s i t s s e a t or p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n t h a t S t a t e . the has participants other than S t a t e s or international organizations;

2. A S t a t e c a n , h o w e v e r , i n v o k e i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n i n s u c h a p r o c e e d i n g i f t h e S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d have so a g r e e d or i f t h e p a r t i e s to t h e

d i s p u t e have p r o v i d e a by an agreement i n w r i t i n g o r i f t h e i n s t r u m e n t e s t a b l i s h i n g o r r e g u l a t i n g t h e body i n q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s t o t h a t effect.

Article

16

S h i p s owned o r o p e r a t e d by a S t a t e 1. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d between t h e S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d , a S t a t e w h i c h owns or o p e r a t e s a s h i p c a n n o t i n v o k e immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t of a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s t o the o p e r a t i o n o f -that s h i p , i f a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r o s e , t h e s h i was u s e d f o r o t h e r t h a n government n o n - c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s . 2. P a r a g r a p h 1 d o e s n o t a p p l y t o w a r s h i p s and n a v a l a u x i l i a r i e s n o r does i t a p p l y t o o t h e r s h i p s owned o r o p e r a t e d by a S t a t e and u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y on government n o n - c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e . 3. For the purposes of t h i s a r t i c l e , "proceeding which r e l a t e s to the o p e r a t i o n o f t h a t S h i p " means, i n t e r a l i a , any p r o c e e d i n g i n v o l v i n g t h e determination of a c l a i m i n respect of: (a) (b) (c) (d) collision or other a c c i d e n t s of n a v i g a t i o n ; s a l v a g e and g e n e r a l a v e r a g e ; relating to the ship;

assistance, repairs,

s u p p l i e s or other c o n t r a c t s

consequences of p o l l u t i o n o f the marine

environment.

4. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d between t h e S t a t e s c o n c e r n e d , a S t a t e c a n n o t invoke i m m u n i t y from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e w h i c h i s o t h e r w i s e c o m p e t e n t i n a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h r e l a t e s to t h e c a r r i a g e o f c a r g o on board a s h i p owned o r o p e r a t e d by t h a t S t a t e i f , a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r o s e , t h e s h i p was u s e d f o r o t h e r t h a n government n o n - c o m m e r c i a l purposes. 5. P a r a g r a p h 4 d o e s n o t a p p l y t o any c a r g o c a r r i e d on b o a r d t h e s h i p s r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a g r a p h 2 n o r does i t a p p l y t o any c a r g o owned by a S t a t e and used o r i n t e n d e d f o r u s e e x c l u s i v e l y f o r government n o n - c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s . 6. S t a t e s may p l e a d a l l m e a s u r e s o f d e f e n c e , p r e s c r i p t i o n and l i m i t a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y w h i c h a r e a v a i l a b l e t o p r i v a t e s h i p s and c a r g o e s and t h e i r o w n e r s . 7. I f i n a proceeding there a r i s e s a question r e l a t i n g to the n o n - c o m m e r c i a l c h a r a c t e r o f a s h i p owned o r o p e r a t e d by a S t a t e by a S t a t e , a c e r t i f i c a t e s i g n e d by a d i p l o m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e competent a u t h o r i t y o f t h a t S t a t e and communicated t o t h e c o u r t evidence of the c h a r a c t e r of t h a t s h i p or cargo. g o v e r n m e n t and o r c a r g o owned or other s h a l l serve as

A r t i c l e 17 Effect o f an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t

I f a S t a t e e n t e r s i n t o an agreement i n w r i t i n g w i t h a f o r e i g n n a t u r a l 0 1 j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n t o s u b m i t t o a r b i t r a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t i n g t o a commerci; t r a n s a c t i o n , t h a t S t a t e c a n n o t i n v o k e immunity from j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e which i s o t h e r w i s e competent i n a p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h relates to: (a) (b) (c) unless t h e v a l i d i t y o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o.f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t ; the a r b i t r a t i o n procedure; or t h e s e t t i n g a s i d e o f t h e award; provides.

t h e a r b i t r a t i o n agreement o t h e r w i s e

PAST I V
X

STATE IMMUNITY FROM MEASURES OF CONSTRAINT I N CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS. BEFORE A COURT A r t i c l e 18 State i m m u n i t y from m e a s u r e s o f c o n s t r a i n t

1. No m e a s u r e s o f c o n s t r a i n t , s u c h a s a t t a c h m e n t , a r r e s t and e x e c u t i o n , a g a i n s t p r o p e r t y o f a S t a t e may be t a k e n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e u n l e s s and e x c e p t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t : (a) the State indicated: (i) (ii) (iii) has e x p r e s s l y consented to the t a k i n g of such measures a

by i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t ; by an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t o r i n a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t ; or communication

by a d e c l a r a t i o n b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r by a w r i t t e n a f t e r a d i s p u t e between t h e p a r t i e s has a r i s e n ;

of

(b) the S t a t e has a l l o c a t e d o r earmarked p r o p e r t y f o r t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n the c l a i m which i s the o b j e c t of t h a t proceeding; o r

(c) the p r o p e r t y i s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n use or i n t e n d e d f o r u s e by t h e S t a f o r o t h e r t h a n government non-commercial purposes and i s i n t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e S t a t e o f t h e forum a n d h a s a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c l a i m w h i c h i s t h e o b j e of the p r o c e e d i n g o r w i t h the agency or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y a g a i n s t which t h e p r o c e e d i n g was d i r e c t e d .

2. C o n s e n t t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n under a r t i c l e 7 s h a l l n o t i m p l j c o n s e n t t o t h e t a k i n g o f m e a s u r e s o f c o n s t r a i n t u n d e r p a r a g r a p h 1, f o r w h i c h s e p a r a t e c o n s e n t s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y .

157

Article Specific

19 property

c a t e g o r i e s of

1. The f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , o f p r o p e r t y o f a S t a t e s h a l l n o t ;e c o n s i d e r e d a s p r o p e r t y s p e c i f i c a l l y i n use o r i n t e n d e d f o r u s e by t h e S t a t e :or o t h e r t-han g o v e r n m e n t n o n - c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s under p a r a g r a p h 1 ( c ) o f i r t i c l e 18: (a) p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g any bank a c c o u n t , w h i c h i s u s e d o r i n t e n d e d f o r ise f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n o f t h e S t a t e o r i t s c o n s u l a r i o s t s , s p e c i a l m i s s i o n s , m i s s i o n s to i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , or e l e g a t i o n s to organs of i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s or to i n t e r n a t i o n a l onferences; (b) ilitary (c) tate ; property of a m i l i t a r y purposes; property of the c h a r a c t e r or used or intended f o r use for

c e n t r a l bank o r o t h e r m o n e t a r y a u t h o r i t y o f

the

(d) p r o p e r t y forming p a r t of the c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e of the..State or p a r t E i t s a r c h i v e s and n o t p l a c e d o r i n t e n d e d t o be p l a c e d on s a l e ; (e) iltural ile. p r o p e r t y f o r m i n g p a r t o f an e x h i b i t i o n of o b j e c t s o f s c i e n t i f i c , or h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t and n o t p l a c e d o r i n t e n d e d t o be p l a c e d on

Paragraph t i d e IS.

1 i s without

p r e j u d i c e to p a r a g r a p h 1 ( a ) and

(b) of

PART V MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Article S e r v i c e of 20 process a proceeding

S e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s by w r i t o r o t h e r document i n s t i t u t i n g l i n s t a s t a t e s h a l l be e f f e c t e d : (a) i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h any a p p l i c a b l e i n t e r n a t i o n a l t h e S t a t e o f the forum and t h e S t a t e c o n c e r n e d ; o r (b) (i) i n the absence of such a convention:

convention

binding

by t r a n s m i s s i o n t h r o u g h d i p l o m a t i c c h a n n e l s F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the S t a t e concerned; or

to the M i n i s t r y of

(ii)

by any o t h e r means a c c e p t e d by t h e S t a t e c o n c e r n e d , by t h e law o f t h e S t a t e o f t h e forum.

i f not

precluded

S e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a g r a p h 1 ( b ) ( i ) i s deemed t o h a v e n e f f e c t e d by r e c e i p t o f t h e d o c u m e n t s by t h e M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s .

1574

3. T h e s e documents s h a l l be the o f f i c i a l l a n g u a g e , or one concerned.

a c c o m p a n i e d , i f n e c e s s a r y , by o f the o f f i c i a l l a n g u a g e s , o f

a translation the S t a t e

4. Any S t a t e t h a t e n t e r s an a p p e a r a n c e on the m e r i t s i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t i t may n o t t h e r e a f t e r a s s e r t t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s not c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h s 1 and 3.

d.

Article Default 1. A d e f a u l t judgement s h a l l c o u r t h a s found t h a t : (a) the requirements been c o m p l i e d w i t h ; laid not be

21

judgement rendered a g a i n s t a State unless the

down i n p a r a g r a p h s

1 and

3 of

article

20

(b) a p e r i o d o f n o t l e s s t h a n f o u r months h a s e x p i r e d f r o m t h e d a t e w h i c h t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e w r i t o r o t h e r document i n s t i t u t i n g a p r o c e e d i n g h been e f f e c t e d o r deemed t o h a v e been e f f e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p a r a g r a p h and 2 o f a r t i c l e 20; and (c) the jurisdiction. present articles do not preclude i t from e x e r c i s i n g

2. A c o p y o f any d e f a u l t j u d g e m e n t r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t a S t a t e , a c c o m p a n i e d n e c e s s a r y by a t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o t h e o f f i c i a l l a n g u a g e o r one o f t h e o f f i c i i l a n g u a g e s o f t h e S t a t e c o n c e r n e d , s h a l l be t r a n s m i t t e d t o i t t h r o u g h one o; the means s p e c i f i e d i n p a r a g r a p h 1 of a r t i c l e 20 and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t paragraph. 3. The t i m e - l i m i t f o r a p p l y i n g t o have a d e f a u l t j u d g e m e n t s e t a s i d e s h a ] not be l e s s t h a n f o u r months and s h a l l b e g i n to r u n from t h e d a t e on w h i c h copy o f t h e j u d g e m e n t i s r e c e i v e d o r i s deemed t o h a v e b e e n r e c e i v e d by the State concerned.

Article Privileges and

22 court proceedings -

immunities during

1. Any f a i l u r e o r r e f u s a l by a S t a t e t o comply w i t h an o r d e r o f a c o u r t c a n o t h e r S t a t e e n j o i n i n g i t t o p e r f o r m o r r e f r a i n from p e r f o r m i n g a s p e c i f i c a c t or t o p r o d u c e any document o r d i s c l o s e any o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of a p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l e n t a i l no c o n s e q u e n c e s o t h e r t h a n t h e s e w h i c may r e s u l t from s u c h c o n d u c t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e . In p a r t i c u l a r , no f i n e o r p e n a l t y s h a l l be i m p o s e d on t h e S t a t e by r e a s o n o f s f a i l u r e or r e f u s a l . 2. A S t a t e s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e any s e c u r i t y , b o n d o r d e p o s i t however d e s c r i b e d , t o g u a r a n t e e t h e payment o f j u d i c i a l c o s t s o r e x p e n s e s i any p r o c e e d i n g t o w h i c h i t i s a p a r t y b e f o r e a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e .

71 AUSTRALIA: FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 1985* [ A p r i l 1, 1 9 8 6 ]

Foreign States Immunities Act 198S

No. 196 of 1985
T A B L E OF PROVISIONS PART I P R E L I M I N A R Y Section I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Short tide Commencement Interpretation External Territories Act to bind Crown Savings of other laws Application Application to courts PART I I - I M M U N I T Y FROM J U R I S D I C T I O N 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. -General immunity from jurisdiction Submission to jurisdiction Commercial transactions Contracts of employment Personal injury and damage to property Ownership, possession and use of property, & c . Copyright, patents, trade marks, & c . Membership of bodies corporate, & c . Arbitrations Actions in rem Bills of exchange Taxes Related proceedings Application of Part to separate entities Service of initiating process by agreement Service through the diplomatic channel Other service ineffective Waiver of objection to service Judgment ir. default of appearance Enforcement of default judgments Power to grant relief PART I V E N F O R C E M E N T 30. 31. 32. 33. Immuniu Waiver of Execution Execution from execution immunity from execution against commercial property against immovable property, & c .

duced from t h e t e x t provided by t h e I.L.M. Corresponding r A u s t r a l i a . The A c t was a s s e n t e d t o on December 16, came i n t o f o r c e on A p r i l 1, 1986, e x c e p t f o r S e c t i o n 18 t i o n 18(2) concerns a f o r e i g n s t a t e ' s immunity from " s i s t e r est i n admiralty. Under p r e s e n t A u s t r a l i a n law, s i s t e r - s h i p not a v a i l a b l e , but i t i s l i k e l y t o be i n t r o d u c e d i f t h e a t i o n s of t h e A u s t r a l i a n Law Reform Commission (ALRC) i n i t s C i v i l A d m i r a l t y J u r i s d i c t i o n ( 1 9 8 6 ) , a r e adopted. Untime, S e c t i o n 18(2) i s i n o p e r a t i v e and was, a c c o r d i n g l y , not to" e n t e r i n t o f o r c e . 85 .Act f o l l o w s t h e recommendations o f t h e ALRC i n i t s Report r e i g n S t a t e Immunity (1984) A summary o f t h o s e recommendathe t e x t o f the Commission's proposed l e g i s l a t i o n appear a t 1398 (1984). The 1985 A c t d i f f e r s from t h e ALRC's p r o p o s a l s a t the v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s i n P a r t I I c r e a t i n g e x c e p t i o n s t o rom j u r i s d i c t i o n u s e the formula "not immune i n a proceeding as the proceeding c o n c e r n s . . . " { s e e S e c t i o n s 1 1 ( 1 ) , 1 2 ( 1 ) , 1 5 ( 1 ) , 1 6 ( 1 ) , 1 7 ( 1 ) , 19, 20 and 21] which was thought t o be se than t h e ALRC's language " i n a p r o c e e d i n g concerning".]
3 2 :