No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Pakistan: Supreme Court Decision in Qureshi V. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Sovereign Immunity; U.S.S.R. Trade Representation*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 March 2017
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.
- Type
- Judicial and Similar Proceedings
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1981
Footnotes
*
[Reproduced from The All Pakistan Legal Decisions provided by the Government of Pakistan.]
References
page 390 note (1) 5-Z 1933 No. 59
page 391 note (1) (1) Soviet Public International Law “Doctrines-Diplomatic Practice by Kazimierz Grzybowski (A. W. Sijthoff Leyden) (Rule of Law Press Durham N. C.) 1970 Edition pages 218-223, 290-291, 295-296, 314-316 and 325 (herein referred to as Crzybowski).
page 392 note (1) Crzybowski.
page 396 note (1) (1854) 14 C B 487
page 397 note (1) (1921) 1 A C 486
page 398 note (1) 1958 L R A C 79—1957) 3 All E R 441
page 399 note (1) P L D 1981 S C 325
page 399 note (2) (1975) 1 All E R 961
page 399 note (3) (1924) 18 L.I. L R 369—(1924) 131 L T 388
page 399 note (4) (1976) 1 All E R 78
page 401 note (1) (1976) 425 U S 682 (698)
page 402 note (1) Rau v. Duruty, Court of Appeal Gand, 14th March, 1879, (1879) 2 Pasicrisic Belge 175, 8 Journal Du Droit International (Clunet) 82 (France 1881) (commercial activity of Peruvian Government held subject to jurisdiction of Belgian Court).
page 402 note (2) E. G. Egyptian Government v. Palestine State Railway Adm’n, Egyptian Mixed Court of Cassation, 17th June, 1942, (Supp. 1919—42) Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (Ann. Dig) 146; See also Brinton, Suits against Foreign States, (1931) 25 AM. J. Int’ LL 50, 52-57.
page 402 note (3) See Russian Trade Delegation Case, Court of Athens, No. 6658, 1930, 59 Clunet 809 (France 1932), (1929-30) Arm. Dig. 312 Note III, Soviet Republic (Immunity in Greece) Case, Court of Athens, No. 1681,1928, (1927-28) Ann. Dig. 172.
page 402 note (4) Banque roumanie de commerce et de Credit de Prague v. Etat Polonais, Commerial Court II for Rumania, 1920, 19 Revue De Droit International Prive (De Lapradelle) 581 (France 1924).
page 402 note (5) State immunity case No. 2, Superior Court Zurich, November, 9 1939, 39 Blatter Fur Zurcherische Rechtsprechung 318 (Switzerland 1940), (1941-42) Ann. Dig. 235.
page 402 note (6) Officina Del Aceite v. Domench (1938-40) Ana Dig. 240.
page 402 note (7) Nederlandse Rijbank, Amsterdam v. Muhlig Union, Teplitz-Schonau. (Ann. Dig. 1947, Case No. 27).
page 402 note (8) Hoffmann v. Dralle (10th May, 1950), 3 Int Law Q. (1950) (576-579). Dralle v. Republic of Czechoslovakia (1950) Int’l L. Rep. 155) (Supreme Court of Austria).
page 402 note (9) The Ramava (1941) 75 Irish Law Times 153; Annual Digest, 1941-42, Case No. 20; Saorstat v. Continental Steamship Co. v. Rafael de las Morenas, 1945 Ir R. 291.
page 402 note (10) Zodiac International Products Inc. v. Polish Peoples Republic 1977) 8 D. L. R. (3d) 277).
page 402 note (11) Claim against the Empire of Iran case (30-4-1963) 45 Int L. R. 57).
page 403 note (1) Heffter Droit international moderne, German edition. 1881, p. 118.
page 403 note (2) Gianzana, L’ dranger dans lc droit civil italien, Turin, 1884-1-81.
page 403 note (3) Rolin, Principes de droit international prive, 1-212, 213.
page 403 note (4) Laurent, Le droit civil international, 111-44, 1880 (Bruxelles).
page 403 note (5) De Paepe, Etudes sur la competence legard des Etats etrangers, etc., Clunnet 22 (1895), pp. 31 et seq.
page 403 note (6) Dalloz, Repertoire, Droits civil, No. 29.
page 403 note (7) Spee, Clunnet 1(1874), p. 32; ibid, 3(1876), pp. 329-435, De la competence etc.
page 403 note (8) Von Bar, Clunnet 12 (1885), 645; Intermationales Private and Strafrecht, 1862, p. 502; Theorie and Praxis des Internationales Privatrecht, t. II. pp. 660 et seq.
page 403 note (9) Fauchille et Bonfils, Manuel, No. 270.
page 403 note (10) Praider Fodere, Traite, t III., No. 1583.
page 403 note (11) Weiss, Traite de droit International Private, V, pp. 94 et seq.
page 403 note (12) Lapradelle, La saisie des fonds russes Berlin, Darras 6(1910), pp. 75 et seq and 779 et seq.
page 403 note (13) Audtnet, La Succession du Duc de Brunswick, R. Gen 1895, p. 385.
page 403 note (14) Pasquale Fiore, Nowvean Droit International Public, t. I, No. 514. See also Demangeat, Reue Pratique 1 (1856), 385, 397; ibid, VII (1859), 182-186; of Gabba, op. cit, Clunnet 15 (1888), pp. 110 et seq; Despagnet et de Boeck, Court de droit international public. No. 257; and Merignhac, Traite, t. I. pp. 262 et seq.
page 403 note (15) Annuaire 1891, p. 436, Art. II ler of the resolution provides: “Les seules actions recevables contre un Etat ctrani sont.... (3) Les actions qui se nip portent a un etablissement de commercial industriel ou a un chemin de jer, exploites par l’ Etat etranger su te territoire”. This appeared to be an appropriate limitation of State immunity at that time.
page 404 note (1) The International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 13 (1964) pages 1193 to 1213, Article “In the Borderline Between the Act of State Doctrine and questions of Jurisdictional Immunity” the learned jurist observed at pages 1195-1196 that “Even though in a few countries the rule of so-called ‘absolute immunity’ is still prevailing, it would be hazardous to maintain, in the light of State practice and of decisions of many municipal Courts, that the exercise of jurisdiction with regard to foreign States in respect of acts jure gestionis would amount to a violation of the law of nations”.
page 404 note (2) State Immunity and Trading Activities in International Law (1959) Edition Chapter 6 “Opinions of writers on absolute and restrictive immunity ; Chapter 7 opinion of writers on Immunities of Government Agencies, engaging in Trade.
page 404 note (3) The Changing Structure of International Law (1964), Chapter 21 State Control over economic activities and the universality of International Law, pages 341 to 346.
page 404 note (4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 13 (1964) “the claim of Sovereign Immunity in the law of International Trade.
page 404 note (5) P L D 1981 (Journal) (May part) pages 56 to 64 “Immunity of Foreign States from the jurisdiction of Courts with special reference to American and English legal systems.”
page 404 note (6) The Conflict of Laws, 9th Edition (1973) page 141, where they observed that “it may well be that English Courts have extended the doctrine of sovereign immunity considerably further than international practice strictly requires. The results have proved unfortunate and have led to widespread dissatisfaction.”
page 404 note (7) Private International Law, 10th Edition (1979) Butterworths, at pages 101, 102, where it is stated that “until very recently, the position at common law was that a foreign State was immune even with regard to its purely commercial activities. However, this wide immunity was rejected by the Privy Council with regard to actions in rem against ships and then a majority in the Court of Appeal, obiter, held that there should be no immunity in the case of actions in personom with regard to a State’s commercial activities. These common law developments are now, in substance embodied in the 1978 Act “Commercial transaction” is defined to include not only contracts for the supply of goods or services but also the provision of finance through loans and the like, and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of such transactions. Even more widely it exte is to “any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority.”
page 404 note (8) Allen, The position of Foreign States before National Courts, 1933.
page 404 note (9) Watkins, The State as Party Litigent (1927) pp. 189-191.
page 404 note (10) Shepard, Sovereigoty and State-owned Commercial Entities, 1951.
page 405 note (1) Brinton, , “Suits against Foreign States.” (1931) 25 A J I L 50 Google Scholar.
page 405 note (2) Garner, , “Immunities of State owned Ships Employed in Commerce,” (1925) 6 R Y I L 128 Google Scholar.
page 405 note (3) Hervey, , “The Immunity of Foreign States, when Engaged in Commercial Enterprises: a Proposed Solution” Michigan (1929) 27 L R 751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 405 note (4) Phillimore, , “Immunite des Etats au point de vue de la jurisdiction et de L’execution forcee,” Hague Recued, (1925-III), 461 Google Scholar.
page 405 note (5) Fensterwald, , “Sovereign Immunity and Soviet State Trading”, (1949-50) 63 H L R pp. 614–642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 405 note (6) Fairman, , ”Some Disputed Applications of the Principle of State Immunity,” (1928) 22 A J I L 560–589 Google Scholar; compare Hayes (1924-25) 38 H L R 599-621.
page 405 note (7) Fox, , “Competence of Courts in regard to “Non-Sovereign” Acts of Foreign States, (1941) 35 A J I L 632–636-640 Google Scholar.”
page 405 note (8) Wolfman, , “Sovereigns a Defendants” (1910) 4 A J I L 373 Google Scholar.
page 405 note (9) Carabiber, a note in (1952), 79 Clunnet 440 et seq.
page 405 note (10) Hennebieq, a note in (1952) 79 Clunnet 244-266.
page 405 note (11) Trachtenberg, a note in (1931) 36 Baras 757-761.
page 405 note (12) De Visscher “Government etrangers en justice,” R. D. I. L. G. 3rd Series, pp. 149,179 and 300-335.
page 405 note (13) Bishop, a note in (1953), 47 A J I L 93-105.
page 405 note (14) Niboyet Traite (1949) Nos. 1759-1771; R. Gen. 43 (1936), pp. 525 et seq ; (1950), pp. 139 et seq.
page 405 note (15) Hyde, International Law, Vol. II, especially at p. 849 ; of Fensterwald, op. cit., at p. 620, Beinton op. at 61 Hayes op. cit, at p. 613.
page 405 note (16) Friedmann, , “The Growth of State Control etc.” (1938) 19 B. Y. I. L. pp. 118, 123, 130Google Scholar.
page 405 note (17) Fawcett, , “Legal, Aspects State Trading”, (1948), 25 B. Y. I. L. pp. 34–38 Google Scholar.
page 405 note (18) Loewenfeld, “Some Legal Aspects of the Immunity of State Property,” Grotius Society Treaty pp. 111-126, “The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity,” 44th Report of 1950, A. J. I. L. pp. 204, 217, and 45th Report, ibid. 1952 at p. 215.
page 405 note (19) Lemonon, “Projet Definin de Resolution de Planstituť’, Annuaire 1952, pp. 1 et. seq. See also the observations of writers in connection with the proposed resolution.
page 406 note (1) Lalive, J. F., “L’immunité de jurisdiction des- Etats et des Organizations internationales,” Hague Recueil, 84 (1953-III), 209.Google Scholar
page 406 note (2) Carter, , “Sovereign Immunity : Substantiation of Claim”, I. C. L. Q. Vol. IV., part 3, 1955, p. 469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ibid. Vol. 1, 1952, p. 543.
page 406 note (3) Lauterpacht”, , The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States,” (1967) 28 H T I L 220–224.Google Scholar
page 407 note (1) (1951) 2 K B 1003
page 407 note (2) (1952) 1 All E R 1261
page 408 note (1) (1957) 3 All E R 441|
page 408 note (2) (1975) 3 All E R 961
page 408 note (3) (1979) 1 Lloyd’s L R 481
page 408 note (4) (1979) 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep. 277
page 408 note (5) Ann. Inter. L C (1925-26) C No. 125
page 408 note (6) Ann. Inter. L C (1927-38) C No. 110
page 408 note (7) Ann. Int. L C (1929-30) C No. 8
page 408 note (8) Ann. Inter. L C (1933-34)
page 414 note (1) (S. D. A.) (N. W. F. P. 1863) p. 579
page 416 note (1) (1907) 2 G I U N F 122
page 416 note (2) (1950) 17 I L R 34 No. 41
page 416 note (3) P L D 1972 S C 139
page 420 note (1) A I R 1921 Pat. 23
page 421 note (1) P L D 1974 S C 180
page 421 note (2) P L D 1965 S C 137
page 421 note (3) P L D 1963 S C 704
page 422 note (1) P L D 1959 S C 387
page 422 note (2) P L D 1960 S C 235
page 422 note (3) 1963 I A 47
page 422 note (4) P L D 1969 S C 430
page 423 note (1) P L D 1969 S C 391
page 423 note (2) 1912 A C 400
page 423 note (3) (3)(1966) 1 Q B D 426
page 423 note (4) P L D 1968 Kar. 443
page 423 note (5) P L D 1971 Kar. 314
page 424 note (1) P L D 1971 Kar. 314
page 425 note (1) P L D 1976 Lah. 930
page 425 note (2) (1961) 2 All E L R 446
page 429 note (1) Hamidullah, The Muslim Conduct of State op. cit., p. 26.
page 430 note (1) Afzal Iqbal, Diplomacy in Islam, p. xxi.
page 430 note (2) T. A. Walker, A History of the Law of Nations, p. 89.
page 430 note (3) Nys Original Priot International, p. 216.
page 431 note (1) Hamidullah, The Muslim Conduct of State, p. 8.
page 431 note (2) (2) Muhammad Talaat, Al Ghunaimi, The Muslim Conception of International Law and the Western Approach, p. 83.
page 431 note (3) Al Ghuanaim, op. cit. Foreward, p. (vii).
page 431 note (4) Majid Khadduri, op. cit., p. 204.
page 431 note (5) Al Ghunami, p. 212.
page 433 note (1) P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 138
page 433 note (2) (1812), 7 Cranch 1l6
page 433 note (3) (1851) 17 Q B 206 (207)
page 434 note (1) (1953) 84 HR 205 at 239
page 434 note (2) (1980) 5 P D 197
page 434 note (3) 1920 P. 3
page 434 note (4) 1938 AC 485
page 435 note (1) (1949) 2 All E R 274
page 435 note (2) (1958) A C 379 (422)
page 435 note (3) (1971) 1 W L R 603 (C A)
page 435 note (4) (1975) 1 W L R 1485
page 435 note (5) 1977 A C 373
page 436 note (1) 1977 All E R 881
page 440 note (1) (1979) 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep. 277 (C A)
page 441 note (2) (1976) 425 U S 682
page 442 note (1) (1977) 81 D L R 656
page 442 note (2) (1908) 1 P. 294
page 442 note (3) (1886) 1 Foro Ital. 913
page 442 note (4) AD (1931-2) Case No. 14
page 442 note (5) AD (1935-7) Case No. 92
page 443 note (1) (1955) 49 AFIL 98
page 443 note (2) I L R 1955 P. 235
page 443 note (3) I L R 1956 P. 195
page 443 note (4) AD (1923-4) Case No. 68
page 443 note (5) AD (1935-7) Case No. 85
page 443 note (6) AD (1946) Case No. 32
page 443 note (7) AD (1925-6) Case No. 125
page 443 note (8) AD (1935-7) Case No. 87
page 443 note (9) AD (1927-8) Case No. 109
page 443 note (10) AD (1931-2) Case No. 187
page 444 note (1) (1920) 28 Z I 506
page 444 note (2) I L R 1950 Case No. 41
page 444 note (3) I L R 1954 P. 101
page 444 note (3a) (1921) ERZ, Vol. 103, pp. 274 ff; AD (1919-22) Case No. 102
page 444 note (4) AD (1938-40) Case No. 94
page 444 note (5) L R 1955 P. 230
page 444 note (6) I L R 1953 P. 178
page 444 note (7) I L R 1951 Case No. 52
page 445 note (1) (1958) 2 I L R 180
page 445 note (2) A D (1947) Case No. 27
page 446 note (1) I L R 1959 Case No. 54
page 448 note (1) Convention for the Unification of certain Rules relating to the Immunity of State-owned Vessels, Brussels, April 10, 1926.
page 449 note (1) (1927 P C I J) A 10
page 450 note (1) P L D 1976 Lah. 930
page 450 note (2) P L D 1972 S C 84
page 450 note (3) P L D 1965 Kar. 425
page 451 note (1) P L D 1971 Kar. 314
page 451 note (2) L R 1966 1 Q B 426
page 453 note (1) P L D 1974 S C 180
page 453 note (2) 1912 A C 400