Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T07:24:11.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Staatenimmunität und Gerichtszwang. By Helmut Damian. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer Verlag, 1985. Pp. xv, 261. Index. English summary. DM 78.

Review products

Staatenimmunität und Gerichtszwang. By Helmut Damian. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer Verlag, 1985. Pp. xv, 261. Index. English summary. DM 78.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

C.-T. Ebenroth
C.-T. Ebenroth*
Affiliation:
University of Constance
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 963 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Bistline, & Stephenson, , Development of the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Int’l Fin. L. Rev., August 1982, at 20Google Scholar; Brower, , Jurisdiction over Foreign Sovereigns: Litigation v. Arbitration, 17 Int’l Law. 681 (1983)Google Scholar; Brower, Bistline & Loomis, , The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 in Practice, 73 AJIL 200 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delaume, , Public Debt and Sovereign Immunity: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 71 id. at 399 (1977)Google Scholar; Martin, , Sovereign Immunity—Limits of Sovereign Judicial Control, 18 Harv. Int’l L.J. 429 (1977)Google Scholar; see generally Stevenson, J., Browne, J. & Damrosch, L., United States Law of Sovereign Immunity Relating to International Financial Transactions (1983)Google Scholar; Ebenroth, C.-T., Bankingon the Act of State (1985)Google Scholar; and Feldman, , The United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 in Perspective: A Founder’s View, 35 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 302 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Schaumann, , Die Immunitat auslandischer Staaten und Volkerrecht, 8 Bergesvr 44 (1968)Google Scholar.

3 The author therefore considers foreign states as always immune from domestic jurisdiction and state enterprises immune on the condition that they engage in sovereign functions (p. 32).

4 See generally Ebenroth, C.-T., Auswirkungen des “Waiver Bv Conduct”-Konzeptsauf Den Grenzüberschreitenden Wirtschaftsverkehr (1985)Google Scholar.

5 Hill, , Sovereign Immunity and the Act of State Doctrine, Theory and Policy in United States Law, 46 Rabelsz 118 (1982)Google Scholar; Singer, , The Act of State Doctrine of the United Kingdom: An Analysis with Comparisons to United States Practice, 75 AJIL 283 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kleiner, B., Internationales Devisen-Schuldrecht, para. 23.22 (1985)Google Scholar; Mann, F. A., Foreign Affairs in English Courts 134 (comity)Google Scholar; 164 ff (history and evolution of the act of state doctrine); and 183 ff (Britishact of state doctrine) (1986).

6 C.-T. Ebenroth, supra note 1, at 45; Ebenroth, & Teitz, , Winning (or Losing) by Default: The Act of State Doctrine, Sovereign Immunity and Comity in International Business Transactions, 19 Int’l Law. 225 (1985)Google Scholar.

7 Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, 570 F.Supp. 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Allied Bank Int’l v. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, 566 F.Supp. 1440 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff’d, 733 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1984), reh’g granted, July 3, 1984, rev’d, 757 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1985).

8 The author’s opinion that sovereign immunity is merely a concretization of comity (p. 12) cannot be approved.

9 See Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, 500 UNTS 95.

10 See also § 1608(a)(3) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602–1611(1982).

11 See, e.g., § 1603(d) of the FSIA, supra note 10; §2 of the Act to Provide for State Immunity in Canadian Courts of 1982, ch. 95, reprinted in 21 ILM 798 (1982); 16 BVerfGe 16, 27 (1962). By contrast, §3(l)(b) of the British State Immunity Act 1978, ch. 33, reprinted in 17 ILM 1123 (1978), mandates reference to the foreign act’s form.

12 See also Art. 11, EurÜStI; §5 of the British State Immunity Act, supra note 11.

13 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 778 (Q.B.), [1981] 1 All E.R. 1092 (C.A.), [1981] 2 All E.R. 1064 (H.L.).

14 Quoted in Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976); Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 369 (1934).

15 With regard to the book’s subtitle, “Fundamentals and limits of state immunity from attachment and execution under public international law,” the author tries the reader’s patience a little bit too far, as there are more than 100 pages of “preliminary studies” to be gone through before the discussion of the principal subject begins.