The author gratefully acknowledges James Crawford, Philip Allott, Christine Gray, Mark Power, Don McRae, and Yves LeBouthillier for their careful reading of, and incisive comments on, earlier drafts of this case comment.

¹ Filártigav. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (CA. 2^nd Cir. 1980).

² R. v. Bow Street Métropolitain Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 3), [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827 (H.L.) [hereinafter Pinochet].

³ Cour de Cassation, 13 March 2001, Judgment No. 1414, in (2001) 105 R.G.D.I.P. 473.

⁴ Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom (2001), 34 E.H.R.R. 273; Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait and Others (1994), 103 I.L.R. 420 (Q.B.); (igg6) 107 I.L.R. 536 (C.A.); leave to appeal to the House of Lords denied 27 November 1996 [hereinafter Al-Adsani].

⁵ Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Republic of the Congov. Belgium), Judgment 14 February 2002, International Court of Justice [hereinafter Arrest Warrant]. See also Case Concerning Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France), hearing on the indication of a provisional measure concluded 29 April 2003, decision forthcoming.

⁶ Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, [2002] O.J. No. 1624 (S.C.J.), per SwintonJ.; äff d by [2004] O.J. No. 2800 (C.A.) [hereinafter Bouzari].

⁷ Ibid, at para. 2. State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18.

⁸ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule Β to the Canada Act 1983 (UK), 1982, c. 11.

⁹ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 90.

¹⁰ Al-Adsani, supra note 4.

¹¹ Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg., Rule 19.02(1) (a).

¹² Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 2.

¹³ Arrest Warrant, supra note 5.

¹⁴ Ibid., separate opinion of Judge Koroma at para. 5.

¹⁵ Fox, H., The Law of State Immunity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 ) at 11.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid, at 18.

¹⁷ The comparisons between the doctrines of state immunity and forum non conveniens should not be taken too far given the inherently discretionary nature of the latter.

¹⁸ Arrest Warrant, supra note 5 at para. 46.

¹⁹ Ibid., joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Koojimans, and Buergenthal at para. 3.

²⁰ Ibid, at para. 4.

²¹ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 15.

²² Molot, H. L. and Jewett, M. L., “The State Immunity Act of Canada” (1982) 20 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 79; Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] S.C.R. 50 at para. 30Google Scholar [here-inafter Re Labour Code].

²³ The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485 at 490 (H.L.) [hereinafter Cristina]; and I Congreso del Partido, [1983] A.C. 244 at 262 (H.L.) [hereinafter I Congreso].

²⁴ Fox, sura note 15 at 101–3; Sinclair, I., “The Law of Sovereign Immunity: Recent Developments” (1980–II) 167 R.C. 113 at 198Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, H., “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States” (1951) 28 B.Y.I.L. 220 at 228Google Scholar; and Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) at 329.Google Scholar

²⁵ Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, XXVI, c. 21. This functional immunity is expressed by the maxim: “Non datur actio adversus legatum, ne ab officio sus-cepto legationis avocetur, ne impediatur legatio.”

²⁶ Sinclair, supra note 24 at 198. Schreiber v. Canada, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269 at para. 13 [hereinafter Schreiber].

²⁷ Fox, supra note 15 at 24–25.

²⁸ Ibid, at 101–23; Sucharitkul, S., “Immunities of Foreign States before National Authorities” (1976–1) 149 R.C. 86 Google Scholar; Trooboff, P. D., “Foreign State Immunity: Emerging Consensus on Principles” (1986–V) 200 R.C. 245 Google Scholar; Sinclair, supra note 24; Pingel-Lenuzza, I., Les immunités des états en droit international (Bruxelles: Editions Bruylant, 1997).Google Scholar See also The Philippine Admirai, [1977] A.C. 373 at 391–401 (P.C.) [hereinafter Philippine Admiral].

²⁹ Trooboff, supra note 28 at 266–67.

³⁰ Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 904 at 907 (1824). This case is not about foreign state immunity. Marshall C.J. used the public/private distinction in ruling that the state of Georgia’s participation in a corporation did not exempt that corporation from being sued in US courts. Georgia’s sovereign privileges and prerogatives did not extend to the corporation.

³¹ De Haber v. Queen of Portugal (1851), 17Q.B. 171 at 206.

³² The Charkieh (1873), 4 L.R. (Adm. & Ecc.) 59 [hereinafter Charkieh].

³³ Parlement Belge (1880), 5 RD. 197 (CA.).

³⁴ Cristina, supra note 23.

³⁵ Fox, supra note 15 at 104.

³⁶ Parlement Belge, supra note 33 at 207.

³⁷ The Schooner Exchanges. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116(1812) [hereinafter Schooner Exchange].

³⁸ Badr, G., State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984) at 11–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H. Lauterpacht, supra note 24 at 229; Sinclair, supra note 24 at 12 2; and TroobofF, supra note 28 at 256.

³⁹ Schooner Exchange, supra note 37 at 144. Marshall C.J. held that the immunity of warships should not extend to “merchant vessels [that] enter for the purposes of trade” for such vessels “are not employed by [a foreign sovereign], nor are they engaged in national pursuits.”

⁴⁰ Trooboff, supra note 28 at 257.

⁴¹ As pithily summarized by Finlayson, J. A. in Joffe v. Milier (1993), 13 O.R. (3^rd) 745 Google Scholar (C.A.) [hereinafter Joffe], in common law there was no immunity “in respect of (1) land situate in the host state, (2) trust funds or moneys lodged for the payment of creditors, (3) debts incurred for service of its property in the host state and (4) commercial transactions entered into with a trader in the host state.” See also Thai-EuropeTapioca Service Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, infra note 47.

⁴² “Historically, in accordance with customary international law, foreign states were granted absolute immunity from proceedings in the courts of other states.” Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 18. Contrast with H. Lauterpacht, supra note 24 at 221: “[I] nsofar as the actual practice of states can be said to be evidence of customary international law, there is no doubt that the principle of absolute immunity forms no part of international custom.”

⁴³ Guttieres v. Elmilik ( 1886), Foro. It. 1886–1, 913 (Corte di Cassazione di Firenze); S.A. des chemins de fer Liégeois-Luxembourgeois c. l’État Néerlandais, Pasicrisie Belge, 1903. Cited in Fox, supra note 15 at 119–20.

⁴⁴ Exparte Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943); and Fox, supra note 15 at 183–85.

⁴⁵ Changing Policy Concerning the Granting of Sovereign Immunity toForeign Governments, Letter to US Acting Attorney-General, ìgMay 1952, (1952) 26 US Department of State Bulletin 984 at 985.

⁴⁶ Foreign State Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 [hereinafter FSIA].

⁴⁷ In 1952, the Privy Council did “not consider that there had been finally established in England any absolute rule”: Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Ans Brendahar, [1952] A.C. 318 at 343 (P.C.); Rahimtoolav. Nizam of Hyderabad, [1958] A.C. 379 (H.L.), where Denning, L. J. objected to the absolute theory; Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, [1975] 1 W.W.R. 1485 at 1490–91Google Scholar (C.A.) [hereinafter Thai-Europe], where Denning M.R. recognized a commercial exception to immunity but held it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

⁴⁸ Trendtex v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 356 (C.A.) [hereinafter Trendtex].

⁴⁹ Philippine Admiral, supra note 28.

⁵⁰ European Convention on State Immunity, E.T.S. No. 074 [hereinafter ECSI]. Fox, supra note 15 at 133.

⁵¹ State Immunity Act, 1978, c. 33 [hereinafter UK SIA].

⁵² Dessaulles v. Republic of Poland, [1944] S.C.R. 275 at para. 1.

⁵³ Saint John (City) v. Fraser-Brace Overseas Corp., [1958] S.C.R. 263 [hereinafter Fraser-Brace].

⁵⁴ Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba S.A.v. The Canadian Conqueror, [1962] S.C.R. 598 at 608.

⁵⁵ Congo v. Venne, [1968] R.P. 6 (Q.B.), affirmed [1969] B.R. 818 (Qué. CA.) [hereinafter Venne]. Later that year, the Court of Appeal confirmed its Venne ruling in Penthouse Studios v. Republic of Venezuela (1969), 8 D.L.R. (3d) 686 (Qué. CA.) [hereinafter Penthouse Studios].

⁵⁶ Congo v. Venne, [1971] S.C.R. 997.

⁵⁷ Zodiak International Products Inc. v. Polish People’s Republic (1978),81 D.L.R. (3d) 656 at 659 (Qué. CA.) [hereinafter Zodiac].

⁵⁸ Smith v. Canadian Javelin (1976), 12 O.R. (2d) 244 (H.C.) [hereinafter Smith] (accepted the rule of “qualified immunity” developed in Thai-Europe, supra note 47, but it did not apply to the facts of the case); Corriveauv. Cuba (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 674 (H.C.) [hereinafter Corriveau] (refused to apply absolute doctrine as the “law is evolving on the subject”); and Khan v. Fredson Travel Inc. (No. 2) (1982),360R. (2d) 17(H.C.) [hereinafter Khan] (held that the absolute “doctrine had been abandoned in commercial matters in Ontario”).

⁵⁹ Under section 2, a “foreign 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 agency of the foreign state; and (c) any political subdivision of the foreign state.”

⁶⁰ Charkieh, supra note 32 at 99–100. See also Thai-Europe, supra note 47 at 1491.

⁶¹ Rahimtoola, supra note 47 at 422; Trendtex, supra note 48 at 386.

⁶² Lauterpacht, supra note 24 at 222–26.

⁶³ Crawford, J., “International Law and Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions” (1983) 54 B.Y.I.L. 75.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Gouvernment espagnole. Cassaux, S. 1849–I–81, Cour de Cassation; Governo Rumeno v. Trutta, Annual Digest, vol. 3, 1925–26. Both cited in Sinclair, supra note 24 at 211.

⁶⁵ Re Labour Code, supra note 22 at 70.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 25.

⁶⁸ Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 at 361 (1193) [hereinafter Nelson].

⁶⁹ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 29.

⁷⁰ Ibid, at para. 28.

⁷¹ Re Labour Code, supra note 22 at para. 22.

⁷² See, however, the dissent of White and Blackmun JJ. in Nekon, supra note 68 at 366–67, where it was supposed that torture could have been viewed as “commercial” had the state hired “thugs” to carry it out instead of using police officers.

⁷³ Constitution of Iran, 28 July 1989, Article 38, text is available at <www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/irooooo_.html> (last visited: 15 March 2003).

⁷⁴ Letelierv. Chile, 488 F. Supp 665 at 673 (D.C. Dist. Ct., 1980) [hereinafter Letelier].

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Joffe, supra note 41.

⁷⁷ Crawford, supra note 63 at p. 96.

⁷⁸ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 31.

⁷⁹ Fox, supra note 15 at 309. See 1891 Resolution, I.D.I. II (1885–1891) Hamburg at 1215.

⁸⁰ Fox, supra note 15.

⁸¹ Commentary on Artide 12 of the Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, in Report of the ILC on the Work of Its 43^rd Session, 1991, Doc. A/46/10(Supp) at 113–18.

⁸² See, for example, the UK SIA, supra note 51 at s. 5 and the US FSIA, supra note 46 ats. 1605(a)(5).

⁸³ Bouzari, supra note 6 at paras. 32–34.

⁸⁴ Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194Rule 17.02(h).

⁸⁵ The position advocated by the US State Department in Schreiber has not been accepted by US courts. See particularly Letelier, supra note 74.

⁸⁶ Schreiber, supra note 26 at para. 36.

⁸⁷ Schooner Exchange, supra note 37 at 136–37.

⁸⁸ As stated by Bingham M.R., “that wrongs be remedied” is the rule of public policy “which has first claim on the loyalty of the law.” X v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633 at 663 (C.A.).

⁸⁹ Schreiber, supra note 26, at para. 37.

⁹⁰ Daniels v. White and the Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 517 at 541 [hereinafter Danieh]. For a detailed discussion of the presumption of international legality, see van Ert, G., Using International Law in Canadian Courts (The Hague: Kluwer, 2002), c. 4.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, UN Doc. A/3g/5i (1985), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force 26June 1987) [hereinafter CAT].

⁹² International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December ig66, UN Doc. A/6136 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 March ig76) [hereinafter ICCPR].

⁹³ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 67g (1969), Can. TS. 1980 No. 37 (entered into force 27 January 1980).

⁹⁴ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 49.

⁹⁵ Ibid, at para. 50. At para. 55, the court also accepted Greenwood’s evidence that, to date, Article 14 of the ICCPR (access to justice) has not been interpreted “to require a state to provide access to its courts with respect to sovereign acts committed outside its jurisdiction.” Insofar as the court’s decision focused almost entirely on the CAT, the following discussion will correspondingly be restricted to that treaty.

⁹⁶ For a detailed account of Article 14’s history and a learned discussion of its scope, see Byrnes, A., “Civil Remedy for Torture Committed Abroad: An Obliga-tion under the Convention against Torture,” in Scott, C., ed., Torture as Tort (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001) at 542–49.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid, at 546, citing Declarations and Reservations to the Convention against Torture, Point 11(3) of the United States’ Statement of Declarations and Reservations, (1990) 136 Congressional Record S17, 492.

⁹⁸ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 51.

⁹⁹ Torture Prohibition Act, S.Y. 1988, c. 26, s. 1.

¹⁰⁰ Bakerv. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.

¹⁰¹ Adams, W., “In Search of a Defence of the Transnational Human Rights Paradigm: May Jus Cogens Norms Be Invoked to Create Implied Exceptions in Domestic State Immunity Statutes?” in Scott, , supra note 96 at 263.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Prosecutor v. Furundzija, 10 December 1998, IT-95–17/I-T at paras. 153–54 (ICTY) [hereinafter Furundzija].

¹⁰³ Pinochet, supra note 2.

¹⁰⁴ Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. The Supreme Court of Canada did not explicitly hold the prohibition of torture to be jus cogens, but commented that the fact that torture is prohibited in numerous international instruments and “that it is considered by many academics to be an emerging, if not established peremptory norm, suggests that it cannot be easily derogated from” (at para. 65). Commentators have criticized the court’s conservatism in not expressly recognizing the jus cogens status of the torture prohibition. Johnson, C. and Power, M. C., “Suresh: Some Aspects of Public International Law” (2002) 28(1)Google Scholar Canadian Council on International Law Bulletin 11.

¹⁰⁵ Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 73.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid, at para. 63.

¹⁰⁷ Argentinas. Amerada Hess, 488 U.S. 428 at 314–36 (1989) [hereinafter Amerada Hess]. In this case, the plaintiffs sued Argentina for damages to their ship caused by military aircraft during the Falklands War.

¹⁰⁸ Siderman de Blake v. Argentina, 965)F.2d 965, at 718 (9th Cir. 1992) [hereinafter Siderman]. Also bound by Amerada Hess were the decisions in Sampson v. Germany, 975 F. Supp 1108 (Dist. Ct. 1997) (Germany immune for mass murder of plaintiff s family and detention in Nazi concentration camp); Smith v. Libya, 101 F.3d 239 (2dCir. 1996) (Libya immune in relation to the bombing of Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie); Princz v. Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994) [herein after Princz] (Germany immune in connection to slave labour in Nazi concentration camps); Nelson, supra note 68 (Saudi Arabia was immune in a claim for torture by police officers).

¹⁰⁹ Arrest Warrant, supra note 5 at paras. 53–58.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., dissenting opinion of Al-Khasawneh J. at para. 7.

¹¹¹ Al-Adsani, supra note 4.

¹¹² European Convention of Human Rights, 1950 E.T.S. No. 5.

¹¹³ Al-Adsani, supra note 4 at para. 66.

¹¹⁴ Ibid. See the dissenting opinions of Judges Rozakis and Calflisch, joined by Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabrai Barreto, and Vajiæ. Judges Ferrari Bravo and Loucaides each issued separate dissenting reasons along similar lines.

¹¹⁵ Ibid, at para. 60.

¹¹⁶ van Ert, supra note 90 at 9.

¹¹⁷ Chung Chi Cheung v. The King, [1939] A.C. 160 at 168 (P.C.).

¹¹⁸ Daniek, supra note 90 at 541.

¹¹⁹ van Ert, supra note go at 168. As the author points out, however, countries that so legislate would likely incur international responsibility. See Commentary to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, Doc. A/56/10(Supp.), Chapter III, Articles 40 and 41.

¹²⁰ Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2000), 183 D.L.R. (4^th) 629 at 659 (F.C.A.).

¹²¹ This proposition is defended in the next section of this comment.

¹²² Jewett, M. L. and Molot, H. L., “State Immunity Act: Basic Principles” (1983) 61 Can. B. Rev. 843 at 854Google Scholar; and Re Labour Code, supra note 22 at para. 30.

¹²³ I Congreso, supra note 23 at 260.

¹²⁴ Schreiber, supra note 26 at para. 1; Hollands. Lampen-Wolfe, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1573 at 1583 (H.L.) [hereinafter Lampen-Wolfe]; Sucharitkul, supra note 28 at 206. See also Yearbook of the ILC, 1980, vol. II–I at para. 90.

¹²⁵ Arguably, insofar as the Canadian SIA was modeled partly on the FSIA (1976) and the UK SIA (1978), which in turn incorporated the terms of the ECSI (1972), supra note 50, the act is perhaps more representative of the custom of the 1970s. See Molot and Jewett, supra notes 22 and 122. See Debates of the House of Commons, 32^nd Legislature, 1^st session, Vol. X, at 10902–04.

¹²⁶ Amerada Hess, supra note 107.

¹²⁷ Philippine Admiral, supra note 28; Trendtex, supra note 48; and I Congreso, supra note 23. Although I Congreso came after the enactment of the UK SLA, the case was decided on the basis of the common law. See Fox, supra note 15 at 157–58.

¹²⁸ Québec: Venne and Penthouse Studios, supra note 55; Zodiak, supra note 57. Ontario: Smith, Corriveau, and Khan, supra note 58. However, see Tritt v. U.S.A (1989), 68 O.R. (2d) 284 (H.C.), where in proceedings initiated before the SLA came into force, Steele J. upheld the immunity plea “because the acts [were] those of a foreign state.” That judgment is to be contrasted with his decision in Carratov. U.S.A. (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 459 (H.C.) [hereinafter Carraio], where, noting the existence of the restrictive doctrine in Canada, Steele J. upheld the immunity plea because the claim concerned “public acts. “ One must conclude that Tritt was wrongly decided or the reasons improperly explained.

¹²⁹ Lorac Transport Ltd. v. The Atra, [1987] 1 F.C. 108 at para. 30 (C.A.).

¹³⁰ Re Labour Code, supra note 22 at para. 25. Cory J., dissenting on another point, agreed at para. 92 that the restrictive doctrine existed in Canada prior to codification, although its evolution had not been as “clear-cut” as in England or the United States.

¹³¹ Currie, J. H., Public International Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001) at 336.Google Scholar

¹³² Sullivan, R., Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3^rd ed. (Toronto: Butter-worths, 1994) ate. 13.Google Scholar

¹³³ Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canadas. T. Eaton Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610 at 614.

¹³⁴ Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18. Section 6.1 was enacted by S.C. 2000, c. 43, S.48.

¹³⁵ The SIA does not apply to the extent that its provisions conflict with those of the Extradition Act, Ibid.; the Visiting Forces Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2; or the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, S.C. 1991, c. 41.

¹³⁶ R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418 at 443 (per Laskin C.J., Estey, Mclntyre, and Lamer JJ, dissenting) [hereinafter Amato]. The majority did not dispute this statement of principle.

¹³⁷ Rawlukv. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70 at paras. 36–56. See Hernandez v. 1206625 Ontario Inc. (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 584 at paras. 38–44, where the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the common law right of action for a taverner’s negligence to the extent that it did not nullify the purpose of competing legislation.

¹³⁸ R.v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654 at 667 and 678.

¹³⁹ Molot and Jewett, supra notes 22 and 122. See also Debates of the House of Commons, supra note 125.

¹⁴⁰ Re Labour Code, supra note 22 at para. 30.

¹⁴¹ Fox, supra note 15 at 136.

¹⁴² Lampen-Wolfe, supra note 124 at 1575–76. Section 16(2) of the UK SIA provides for the act’s own inapplicability in claims involving visiting forces. In Lampen-Wolfe, a claim involving an allegedly defamatory performance report produced by a US military education services officer, section 16(2) was held to result in the SIA’s inapplicability and the immunity issues were resolved under the common law.

¹⁴³ Al-Adsani (C.A.), supra note 4 at 538–47.

¹⁴⁴ Lampen-Wolfe, supra note 124at 1485.

¹⁴⁵ Van Ert, supra note 90 at 49.

¹⁴⁶ Heathfiled v. Chilton, (1767), 4 Burr. 2015.

¹⁴⁷ Fraser-Brace, supra note 53 at 269. See van Ert, supra note 90 at 142–50, for an oudine of the incorporation doctrine in Canada.

¹⁴⁸ Fraser-Brace, supra note 53 at at 268–69.

¹⁴⁹ Re Regina and Palacios (1984), 17 D.L.R. (4^th) 112 (Ont. CA.). In this case, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized the continued salience of the common law of diplomatic immunity after the enactment of the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act, S.C. 1976–77, c. 31, which implemented the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 (18 April 1961) a codification of the rules of customary international law on the matter. After first acknowledging that the customary law of diplomatic immunity was incorporated into the common law (at 118), Blair J.A. noted that the statutory provisions prevailed “wherever they differ from it” (at 119). The court thus implicitly recognized that the statute did not extinguish the preexisting common law of diplomatic immunity and that new customary norms could be received in the common law to the extent of their consistency with the act.

¹⁵⁰ In Amato, supra note 136, EsteyJ. recognized that the “common law would be allowed to develop defences not inconsistent with the provisions of the Code” (at 443).

¹⁵¹ Al-Adsani, supra note 4 at para. 61; Bouzari, supra note 6 at para. 73.

¹⁵² See Garnett, R., “The Defense of State Immunity for Acts of Torture” (1997) Australian Y.B. Int’l L. 97 at 124–26.Google Scholar In contrast, see Bianchi, A., “Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights” (1994) 46 Austrian J. Pub. Intl. L. 195.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ CAT, supra note 91, article 1.

¹⁵⁴ Arrest Warrant, supra note 5, joint separate opinion at para. 72.

¹⁵⁵ Joffe, supra note 41: “The illegal and malicious nature of the acts alleged do not of themselves move the actions outside the scope of the official duties of the responding defendants.” See also Carrato, supra note 128. No peremptory norms were violated in these cases.

¹⁵⁶ Kuwait Airways Corporations. Iraqi Airways Co., [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1147 (H.L.) (Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, though illegal, was held to be an immune acta jure imperii.)

¹⁵⁷ Flatowv. Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 at 12 (D.C. Dist. Ct.) See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 1996, 28 U.S.C.A, para. 1605. Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan have been designated state sponsors of terrorism by the US Department of State.

¹⁵⁸ FSIA, supra note 46 at s. 1605 (a) (3). See also Thai-Europe, supra note 47.

¹⁵⁹ Letelier, supra note 74 at 673. See also Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9^th Cir. 1989) (no discretion to violate foreign law prohibiting murder).

¹⁶⁰ Risk v. Haloversen, 936 F. 2d 393 at 396 (9^th Cir. 1991 ).

¹⁶¹ Controller and Auditor-Generals. Sir Ronald Davison, [1996] 2 N.Z.L.R. 278 at 290 (C.A.). Richardson J. also forcefully argued (at 306) in favour of a public policy exception to state immunity. It is to be noted that New Zealand has no immunity statute and operates solely on the basis of the common law.

¹⁶² Prefecture ofVoiotiav. Germany, 4 May 2000, Case 11/2000, Areios Pagos (Hellenic Supreme Court) [hereinafter Prefecture of Voiotia]. The decision is summarized at (2001) 95 A.J.I.L. 198.

¹⁶³ Siderman, supra note 108; and Princz, supra note 108; Fox, supra note 15 at 269.

¹⁶⁴ Prefecture of Voiotia, supra note 162 at 198 and 204.

¹⁶⁵ Furundzija, supra note 102 at para 155.

¹⁶⁶ Lauterpacht, supra note 24 at 232.

¹⁶⁷ Paust, J., “Federal Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Acts of Terrorism and Non-Immunity for Foreign Violators of International Law” (1983) 23 Virgina J. Intl. L. 191.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Lampen-Wolfe, supra note 124 at 1583.

¹⁶⁹ Trendtex, supra note 48 at 367.