Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:34:06.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature and Scope of State Immunity from Jurisdiction and Execution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Leo J. Bouchez
Get access

Extract

The concept of state immunity connotes that a state does not fall under the jurisdiction of foreign courts (immunity from jurisdiction) and that its property located in foreign territory is not subject to attachment and execution (immunity from execution). Thus, state immunity has a twofold nature: immunity ratione personae, in so far as a foreign state is involved, and immunity ratione materiae where foreign state property is at stake.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 3 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

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. A/CN. 4/1 Rev. 1 pp. 30–1.

2. Ibid. p. 52.

3. ILC Yearbook 1971, vol. 2 Part Two, Doc.A/CN. 4/245 p. 20.

4. GAOR, Thirty-second session, Supp. 10 (A 32/10) p. 316, para. 110.

5. Res. 32/152 para. 7.

6. ILC Yearbook 1978, vol. 2 Part Two, Doc.A/33/10 p. 6.

7. A/CN. 4/L 279/Rev. 1.

8. UNGA A/CN. 4/323, 18 June 1979.

9. Doc.A/CN. 4/L. 279, Rev. 1 p. 6.

10. See, Lauterpacht, H., “The problem of jurisdictional immunities of foreign states”, BYIL (1951) p. 221.Google Scholar

11. See, inter alia, Nielsen, F.K., “The lack of uniformity in the law and practice of states with regard to merchant vessels”, 13 AJIL (1919) pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bisschop, W.R., “Immunity of states in maritime law”, BYIL (1922-1923) pp. 159–166Google Scholar; Weiss, A., “Compétence et incompétence des tribunaux à l'égard des états étrangers”, RdC (1923) vol. I pp. 521–549Google Scholar; Garner, J.W., “Immunities of State-owned ships employed in commerce”, BYIL (1925) p. 128 et seq.Google Scholar; Fawcett, J.E.S., “Legal aspects of state trading”, BYIL (1948) p. 34 et seq.Google Scholar; Fensterwald, , “Sovereign immunity and soviet state trading”, Harvard Law Review (1950) p. 614 et seq.Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, loc.cit., p. 220 et seq.; Bishop, W.W., “New US policy limiting sovereign immunity” 47 AJIL (1953) p. 93 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lalive, J.F., “L'immunité de juridictions des états et des organisations internationales”, RdC (1953) vol. III p. 209 et seq.Google Scholar; Sucharitkul, S., State immunities and trading activities (London 1959)Google Scholar; Thommen, T. Kochu, Legal status of government merchant ships in international law (The Hague 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vitanyi, B., “L'immunité des navires d'état”, NILR (1963) p. 33 et seq.Google Scholar; O'Connell, D.P., International Law, vol. II, 2nd ed. (London 1970) p. 841 et seq.Google Scholar; Schmitthoff, C.M. and Wooldridge, F., “The nineteenth century doctrine of sovereign immunity and the importance of the growth of state trading”, The Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (1972) vol. 2 p. 199 et seq.Google Scholar; and Kincaid, P.J., “Sovereign immunity of foreign state-owned corporations”, Journal of World Trade Law (1976) p. 110 et seq.Google Scholar

12. See, inter alia, the commentary attached to the Harvard Draft Convention on the Competence of Courts in regard to Foreign States of 1932, Harvard Law School, Research in international law, 26 AJIL (1932) (Supplement) p. 598.

13. The Charkieh (1873), British International Law Cases, vol. 3 p. 299.

14. 26 AJIL (1932) (Supplement) p. 597.

15. 45 Annuaire (1954) vol. II p. 294.Google Scholar

16. Restatement of the law, Second, Foreign relations law of the United States, adopted and promulgated by the American Law Institute (St. Paul, Minn. 1965) p. 209.

17. Whiteman, M.M., Digest of International Law vol. 6 (Washington 1968) p. 572.Google Scholar

18. Ibid. pp. 573–4.

19. Ibid. pp. 572–3.

20. 221 UNTS p. 92 et seq.

21. See, Vitanyi, B., “L'immunité des navires d'Etat”, NILR (1963) p. 176Google Scholar: “II est vrai que la doctrine soviétique insiste sur le point que la pratique des traités de commerce ne représente qu'une concession unilatérale de la partie soviétique. II ne s'agit ici – selon cette théorie – que d'actes de soumission volontaire à la juridiction locale, qui portent toujours le caractère d'exception et, par conséquent, ne prêtent pas aux généralisations. Sans une renonciation expresse en l'espèce à l'immunité, soit conventionelle, soit individuelle, ni une représentation commerciale, ni une entreprise soviétique ne serait tenue d'accepter la juridiction d'un tribunal étranger.”

22. Lauterpacht, loc.cit., pp. 237–9.

23. Lalive, loc.cit., pp. 286–7.

24. Whiteman, op.cit., p. 579.

25. Schmitthoff and Wooldridge, loc.cit., p. 211 et seq.

26. See in this connection Art. 24 of the European Convention.

27. Weiss, loc.cit., p. 546.

28. See, inter alia, de Vey Mestdagh, K., Acta jure imperii en acta jure gestionis. Enkele aspecten van een onderscheid [Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis. Some aspects of a distinction] (Utrecht 1977)Google Scholar and Die Immunität ausländischer Staaten nach Vöolkerrecht und deutschem Zivilprozesrecht, Berichte von, W. Schaumann und Habscheid, W.J. (Karlsruhe 1968) pp. 103–110.Google Scholar

29. Seidl-Hohenveldern, , “Souveränität und wirtschaftliche Koexistenz”, Clunet (1959) p. 1054.Google Scholar

30. See also, Lémonon, in Annuaire (1952) vol. I p. 26Google Scholar, but according to Art. 4 of the Resolution adopted by the Institut de Droit International in 1954, immunity from jurisdiction should always be granted with respect to public loans, unless the foreign state accepts the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of the forum, Annuaire (1954) vol. II p. 294–295.

31. See, Art. 9 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958).

32. See, the first of the reasons put forward supra in support of the view that the nature of the act prevails over the purpose of the act.

33. See also, Lauterpacht, loc.cit., p. 237.

34. Lalive, loc.cit., p. 287.

35. See, inter alia, Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit., pp. 131–134; Lauterpacht, loc.cit., p. 250 et seq.; Lalive, loc.cit., p. 272 et seq.; Sucharitkul, op.cit., pp. 347–350; Whiteman, op.cit., pp. 709–726; American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law etc. pp. 215–218; Venneman, R., “L'immunité d'exécution des états”. Actes de colloque des 30 et 31 Janvier 1969, (Brussels 1971) p. 119 et seq.Google Scholar

36. See, in addition to the national reports in this volume, inter alia, the views expressed by Lalive, loc.cit., p. 211; Berber, F., Lehrbuch des Vöolkerrechts, vol. I, (Munich 1962) p. 221Google Scholar; Tammes, A.J.P., Internationaal Publiekrecht 2nd ed. (Haarlem 1973) p. 155Google Scholar, Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit., p. 134; Venneman, loc.cit., p. 135.

37. Whitemann, op.cit., pp. 711–12.

38. See, the report by Metzger infra.

39. ILR (1956) p. 198.

40. Annuaire (1952) vol. I p. 53.

41. Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit., pp. 156–7.

42. ILR (1951) pp. 3–9. See also, Vitanyi, loc.cit., pp. 59–60.

43. For recent literature on waiver of immunity see, inter alia, Waring, M.C., “Waiver of sovereign immunity”, Harvard International Law Club Journal, vol. 6, (1964-1965) p. 189Google Scholar et seq.; Kincaid, loc.cit., p. 122 et seq.; Melander, G., “Waiver of immunity”, Nordisk Tidskrift for International Ret (1976) p. 22 et seq.Google Scholar; and Whiteman, op.cit., p. 674 et seq.

44. See, for example, the report by Enderlein infra.

45. See, Restatement of the Law, etc. p. 219.

46. See, Arts. 20–22.

47. AJIL (1932) (Supplement) p. 543 et seq., and Annuaire. (1954) vol. II p. 293 et seq.

48. See, for example, Article 8 of the commercial treaty between the USA and Israel of 23 August 1951, and the comment of Setser, V.G., “The immunity waiver for State-controlled business enterprises in United States commercial treaties”, ASIL Proceedings (1961) p. 100.Google Scholar

49. See, for example, Art. 10 of the agreement between the USSR and France of 3 September 1951, 221 UNTS p. 92 et seq.

50. See, inter alia, Venneman, loc.cit., p. 136 et seq.; Whiteman, op.cit., p. 724 et seq.; Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit., p. 155.

51. See, Jessup, P.C. and Déak, F., “Dexter and Carpenter Inc. v. Kunglig Jarnvagstyrelsen et al.,” 25 AJIL (1931) p. 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. See, in particular, the reports of Higgins, Metzger and Enderlein infra.

53. See also, Kincaid, loc.cit., p. 127.

54. See, for an enumeration of sources in support of this view, Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit., p. 141 et seq. The national reports infra reveal that this view corresponds with the practice of a large number of states.

55. 500 UNTS p. 108.

56. 9 ILM (1970) p. 138.

57. 596 UNTS p. 288.

58. See Art. 33 of the Convention and, for example, Robine v. Consul of Great Britain, Court of Bordeaux, 3 November 1950 Kiss, A.Ch., Répertoire de la Pratique Française en Matière de Droit International Public (Paris 1965) vol. III p. 412.Google Scholar

59. 176 LNTS p. 199 et seq.

60. 516 UNTS p. 218 et seq.

61. 450 UNTS p. 86.

62. See, for a more detailed discussion, Kochu Thommen, op.cit., p. 154 et seq

63. 192 LNTS p. 293.

64. 15 UNTS p. 298, Art. 3(6).

65. See also, Bin, Cheng, The Law of International Air Transport (London 1962) pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

66. See also, Schaumann and Habscheid, op.cit, p. 147.

67. See, the report of Metzger infra.

68. See, the report of Condorelli and Sbolci infra.

69. See, 3.3 supra.