1 See Soviet Republic (Immunity in Greece) case, 40 Thémis 486 (Cour d’Athènes, 1928), reprinted in 4 Annum Digest of Public International Law Cases, No. 109, at 172 (1927-28); Eleanor W.Allen, The Position of Foreign States Before National Courts 301 (1933).

2 See Ilias Bantekas, Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 92 AJIL 765 (1998), Gavouneli, Maria, War Reparation Claims and State Immunity, 50 Revue Hellénique de Droit International 595 (1997)Google Scholar. For a case in which the more traditional approach prevails under similar facts, see Case No. 93/1998 (court of first instance of Larissa), Nomikobhma 1098 (1998).

3 For an overview of the Greek system of civil procedure, see Kerameus, Konstantinos D., Judicial Organization and Civil Procedure, in Introduction to Greek Law 265 (Kerameus, Konstantinos D. & Kozyris, Phaedon J. eds., 2d rev. ed. 1993)Google Scholar. The case of Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 11/2000 (Areios Pagos (Sup. Ct. of Greece), May 4, 2000) [hereinafter Judgment], is not available in an official reporter. The page numbers in this case report are based on a copy of the decision obtained from Areios Pagos. All translations from the Greek are by the authors. The full text of the decision, translated into English, will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Revue Hellénique de Droit International. An earlier stage of this case is discussed in Ilias Bantekas, Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 92 AJIL 765 (1998).

4 On the status of international law in the Greek legal order, see Roucounas, Emmanuel, Grèce, in L’ Intégration du Droit International et Communautaire Dans L’ Ordre Juridique National 287 (Michel Eisemann, Pierre ed., 1996)Google Scholar; Fatouros, A. A., International Law in the New Greek Constitution, 70 AJIL 492, 501 (1976)Google Scholar.

5 Judgment, supra note 3, at 3.

6 Id. Greek courts have long advocated the use of this criterion. See Abouteboul v. L ‘État Hellénique (Tribunal Mixte de Premiere Instance d’Alexandrie, 1948), reported in 1 Revue Hellénique de Droit International 280 (1948).

7 European Convention on State Immunity, May 16, 1972, entered into force June 11, 1976, ETS No. 74, 11 ILM 470 (1972) [hereinafter European Convention]. The text of, and other information about, the Convention is available online through the Council of Europe Web site, <http://www.coe.int/>.

8 Judgment, supra note 3, at 14.

9 The states are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Portugal has signed the Convention but has not yet ratified it. See supra note 7.

10 Judgment, supra note 3, at 4.

11 Express reference is made to Section 1605(a) (5) of the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§1330-1332,1391,1441,1602-1611 (1994 & Supp. II1996); Section 5 of the United Kingdom’s State Immunity Act, 1978, ch. 33; Section 6 of Canada’s Sovereign Immunity Act, 8 R.S.C., ch. S-18 (1985); Section 13 of Australia’s State Immunity Act of 1985, ch. 196; Section 6 of South Africa’s Foreign State Immunity Act of 1981, reprinted in Materials on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, UN Doc. ST/LEG/ SER.B/20, U.N. Sales No. E/F.81.V.10 (1982); and Section 7 of Singapore’s State Immunity Act of 1979, reprinted in id. See Judgment, supra note 3, at 5.

12 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Third Session, [1991] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. COMM’N, p t 2, at 44, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/Add.1 [hereinafter ILC Draft Articles]; see Judgment, supra note 3, at 5-6.

13 1991-II Institut de Droit International Annuaire 268; see Judgment, supra note 3, at 6.

14 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980).

15 892 F.2d 1419 (9fh Cir. 1989).

16 Judgment, supra note 3, at 7.

17 See ILC Draft Articles, supra note 12, at 44 (comment on Art. 12); see also European Convention, supra note 7, Art. 31; State Immunity Act (UK), supra note 11, sec. 16(2).

18 [Authors’ note: Convention (No. IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, with Annex of Regulations, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631; see Gavouneli, Maria, The Status of Humanitarian Law in Greece, 52 Revue Hellénique de Droit International 621, 623 n.5 (1999)Google Scholar.]

19 Judgment, supra note 3, at 10.

20 Mat 10-11.

21 Id. at 14-15.

22 Id. at 15.

23 In addition to Matthias, they were Justices Theodore Bakas, Aristides Krommydas, Georgios Rigos, and Konstantinos Vardavakis.

24 Judgment, supra note 3, at 8.

25 See id. The cases referred to are Letelier v. Republic of Chile, supra note 14, and Liu v. Republic of China, supra note 15.

26 Inter-American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States, Jan. 21, 1983, reprinted in 22 ILM 292 (1983).

27 [1983] 1 A.C. 244.

28 [1995] 3All E.R. 694.

29 See Judgment, supra note 3, at 9.

30 Except for Krommydas, the same group of justices, see supra note 23, dissented on this second point.

31 See Judgment, supra note 3, at 13.

32 Id. at 17.

33 In Regina v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (no. 3), [1999] 2 All E.R.97, [1999] 2WLR 827, the majority of the House of Lords held that international crimes such as torture cannot constitute official acts of a head of state. See statements of Lords Browne-Wilkinson, Hutton, and Saville, [1999] 2A11E.R. at 847,899, 903. Consequently, a former head of state cannot claim immunity for such acts. In 1996 the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, supra note 11, was amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 221, 110 Stat. 1214, 1241 (1996) (codifiedat28U.S.C.§§ 1605(a), 1610(a) (Supp.II1996)). The latter act deprives foreign states, in certain circumstances, of immunity from claims for damages arising from terrorist or similar activities. See Leigh, Monroe, 1996 Amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with Respect to Terrorist Activities, 91 AJIL 187 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (no. 3);Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 311 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1962) (committing fraud not an act of state); United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fl. 1990) (drug trafficking by a de facto head of state not a sovereign act); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos (In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litigation), 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1994) (acts of torture and murder perpetrated for personal benefit not public acts).

35 See I. M. Sinclair, The European Convention on State Immunity, 22 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 254, 283 (1973); see also Marie-Odile Wiederkehr, La Convention européenne sur l’immunité des États du 16 mai 1972, in [1974] Annuaire Francais de Droit International 924.

36 The European Convention constituted a breakthrough in two ways: first, it adopted the principle of restrictive immunity (even through common law countries adhered up to that point in principle to absolute immunity); second, although it respected the strict differentiation between immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from execution, it nevertheless came up with an alternative regime whereby decisions rendered in one member state would be recognized and executed in another member state. The ILC Draft Articles, supra note 12, show a distinct tendency towards more traditional approaches, taking every available opportunity to affirm state immunity, especially regarding immunity from enforcement. Indeed, the tort exception there was conceived in very restrictive terms, and its possible expansion to cover public torts has been the source of some alarm (and may explain why the draft was shelved for so long). For a thorough overview, see Kessedjian, Catherine & Schreuer, Christoph, Le Projet d’ Articles de la Commission du Droit International des Nations-Unies sur les Immunités des États, Revue Générale de Droit International Public 299 (1992)Google Scholar; Hess, Burkhard, The International Law Commission’s Draft Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 4 Eur. J. Int’l L. 269 (1993)Google Scholar.

37 For the states that enacted statutes, see supra note 11. The irony that common law countries found it necessary to pass statutes, whereas civil law countries continued to develop the law on a case-by-case basis, has not escaped the legal community. See, e.g., Schreuer, Christoph H., State Immunity: Some Recent Developments 4 (1988)Google Scholar. Note, however, the enactment of the first ever sovereign immunity statute in a civil law country: Ley 24488 (Inmunidad jurisdiccional de los Estados extranjeros ante los tribunales argentinos), June 22, 1995, Boletín Oficial, June 28, 1995.

38 1 Oppenheim’s International Law 343 (Jennings, Robert & Watts, Arthur eds., 9th ed. 1992)Google Scholar; see Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law 325–83 (5th ed. 1998)Google Scholar; Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It 79 (1994)Google Scholar.

39 The case arose out of a similar episode of wartime pillage and carnage. The First Chamber of Areios Pagos, under Chief Justice Matthias, remanded the case, No. 131/2001 (Feb. 5, 2001) (on file with authors), to the Supreme Special Court (Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio), a constitutional court of limited jurisdiction established under Article 100 of the Greek Constitution. Included within the latter court’s jurisdiction is the determination of whether specific international norms qualify as “generally accepted rules” within the meaning of Article 28(1). See Dagtoglou, Prodromos, Constitutional and Administrative Law, in Introduction to Greek Law, supra note 3, at 21, 29.Google Scholar The particular issue raised by the post-Voiotia case is whether such rules include the tort-liability exception contained in the European Convention.

40 See Schreuer, supra note 37, at 47-51; Chistine Chinkin, A Critique of the Public/Private Dimension, 10Eur.J. Int’l L. 387, 389 (1999).

41 See Fifth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, [1983] 2 Y.B Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 1, paras. 65, 67, UN Doc. A/CN.4/363/Add.1; cf. Eighth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, para. 18, UN Doc. A/CN.4/396 (1986).

42 623 F. Supp. 246, 252 (D.D.C. 1985). For the United States’ sovereign immunity law, see supra notes 11 and 33.

43 See, e.g., Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993); Keith Highet & George Kahale III, Case Report; Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 87 AJIL 442 (1993). In the British context, see Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait, [1996] Times L. Rep. 192, leave to appeal denied, 107 ILR 536 (1996). There is a comment on the latter case by Michael Byers in 1990 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 537 (1996).

44 See supra notes 33-34. Note, however, Higgins, Rosalyn, The Role of Domestic Courts in the Enforcement of International Human Rights: The United Kingdom, in Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts 37, 53 (Conforti, Benedetto & Francioni, Francesco eds., 1997)Google Scholar: “[A]cts in the exercise of sovereign authority (acta iure imperii) are those which can only be performed by states, but not by private persons. Property deprivation might fall in this category; torture would not” (footnote omitted).

45 Nicolaos Georgilis, Eisigitiki Ekthessi [Report] (Mar. 20, 2000), 31 Dike 706 (2000), at 715 [in Greek]; cf. International Law Association, Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences (69th Conference; 2000), obtainable from <http://www.ila-hq.org/>;.see also Prosecutor v. Furundžija Judgment,No.IT-95-17/1-T,para. 156 (Dec. 10,1998), obtainable from <http://www.un.org/icty/ind-e.htm>, reprinted in 38 ILM 317(1999), where it was stated that the universal jurisdiction exercised by states in cases of torture is one of the consequences of the jus cogens character bestowed upon the relevant prohibition by the international community.

46 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

47 See Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Part I, [1980] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 2, at 26, 32, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/ 1980/Add. 1. See also, e.g., International Crimes of State: A Critical Analysis of The ILC’S Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility (Joseph Weiler, Antonio Cassesse, & Marina Spinedi eds., 1989). Note, however, that in his First Report on State Responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN/4/490/Add.3, para. 101 (1998), the new rapporteur, James Crawford, proposed both the deletion of Article 19 from the state responsibility draft and the treatment of international crimes under a separate heading. See UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.600 (2000). For an overview of these developments, see James Crawford, Pierre Bodeau, & Jacqueline Peel, The ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Toward Completion of a Second Reading, 94 AJIL 660 (2000).

48 See Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Part I, supra note 47, at 120 (comment on Art. 19). For a general discussion, see Michael Byers, Conceptualising the Relationship Between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules, 66 Nordic J. Int’l L. 211, 215-16 (1997).

49 See Pellet, Alain, Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, yes! 10 Eur. J. Int’l L. 425, 428–29 (1999)Google Scholar. For ageneral overview, see de Hoogh, A.J.J., The Relationship Between jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Rules in Perspective, 42 Austrian J. Pub. Int’l L. 183 (1991)Google Scholar.

50 See Bianchi, Andrea, Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet case, 10 Eur. J. Int’l L. 237, 262–65 (1999)Google Scholar; Reimann, Mathias, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity: Some Thoughts on Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 16 Mich. J. Int’l L. 403 (1995)Google Scholar; see also Paust, Jordan J., Federal Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Acts of Terrorism and Nonimmunity for Foreign Violators of International Law Under the FSIA and the Act of State Doctrine, 23 Va. J. Int’l L. 191, 193 (1983)Google Scholar.

51 The argument was, however, decisively rejected in Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 LI.S. 428 (1989), Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir., 1994), and Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992). See also Tomuschat, Christian, Individual Reparation Claims in Instances of Grave Human Rights Violations: The Position Under General International Law, in State Responsibility and the Individual 1, 16–18 (Randelzhofer, Albrecht & Tomuschat, Christian eds., 1999)Google Scholar.

52 See Johnson, Thora A., A Violation of Jus Cogens Norms as an Implicit Waiver of Immunity Under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, 19 Md. J. Int’l L. & Trade 259 (1995)Google Scholar; Bianchi, Andrea, Overcoming the Hurdle of State Immunity in the Domestic Enforcement of International Human Rights, in Enforcing International Human Rights In Domestic Courts, supra note 44, at 405, 422-24Google Scholar.

53 See Karagiannakis, Magdalini, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights, 11 Leiden J. Int’l L. 9, 20–21 (1998)Google Scholar; Bröhmer, Juergen, Diplomatic Immunity, Head of State Immunity, State Immunity: Misconceptions of a Notorious Human Rights Violator, 12 Leiden J. Int’l L. 361, 363–66 (1999)Google Scholar.

54 See Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1985); Von Dardel v. USSR, 736 F. Supp. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The notion of implied consent was severely criticized by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. at 442-43. For an overview, see Juergen Bröhmer, State Immunity and the Violation of Human rights 190-96 (1997).

55 Three similar cases are currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights. See McElhinney v. Ireland and United Kingdom, Admissibility, App. No. 31253/96 (Eur. Ct. H.R., Feb. 9, 2000), Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Admissibility, App. No. 35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R, Mar. 1, 2000); Fogarty v. United Kingdom, Admissibility, App. No. 37112/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R., Mar. 1, 2000). The decisions are obtainable from <http://www.echr.coe.int>.