Should Foreign State Immunity be Abolished?

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Garnett
Keyword(s):  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State

Part III The Current International Law of State Immunity, 16 State Immunity from Enforcement: General Aspects

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Survey ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
Commercial Use ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
General Aspects ◽  
State Territory

This chapter provides a general survey of State practice and an analysis of the elements involved in immunity from enforcement as provided by UNCSI in its Part IV on State Immunity from Measures of Constraint. State immunity continues to bar to a very large extent the enforcement of judgments given by national courts against foreign States. Again and again thwarted judgment creditors have sought to attach assets of foreign States within the forum State territory, only to be refused orders for execution by national courts. Nonetheless, change is taking place, with a number of national courts, applying the now widely recognized exception to enforcement in respect of commercial property in commercial use, seeking additional ways to render enforcement immunity less absolute in respect of the adjudicated liabilities of the foreign State.

Part III The Current International Law of State Immunity, 14 Immunity from Adjudication: The Employment Exception in respect of (1) A Foreign State and (2) An International Organization

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Standard Terms ◽  
Sick Pay

This chapter examines the exception for employment as it pertains to States and international organizations. Whilst the employment — its terms for performance, remuneration, including sick pay, overtime, and other benefits, notice and procedures for dismissal or termination — may be provided in an individual contract or imported from standard terms of employment or collective bargaining agreements, there may also be a considerable overlay of statutory or mandatory provisions that the national labour law imposes or in respect of which increasingly the forum State has assumed regional or international law obligations. There are also certain generally accepted practices relating to employment to be taken into account in considering the scope of the immunity of a foreign State and international organization as regards employment claims brought before the national courts of another State.

scholarly journals IMMUNITY OF THE STATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE TRANSPORT LAW: COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Tatyana N. Ivanova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
Legislative Regulation

This article is a study of issues of state immunity in international private transport law. The article as a whole is of an overview nature and will be useful for further research in this area. The author explores the legal regulation of the issue in countries such as Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, North Korea, Ukraine, Norway, Turkey. The paper also examines the development trends of the doctrine of the immunity of a foreign state abroad as a whole, highlights general and special features in the legislative regulation of the immunity of a foreign state in the above countries, and also provides and analyzes relevant judicial practice. In addition, the author explores the issue of jurisdictional immunity in the field of transport law, as well as the question whether it is necessary to involve the state in international commercial arbitration, and concludes that there are no obstacles to the participation of states in arbitration, as the very signing by the state of an arbitration clause means the state’s voluntary renunciation of jurisdictional immunity. In conclusion, based on the analysis, the author formulates some general trends in the legal regulation of foreign immunity abroad. Based on the analysis, it is also concluded that in foreign countries, for the most part, there is no legislative regulation of issues of jurisdictional immunity in international private law.

scholarly journals Jam v. International Finance Corp.

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-811
Author(s):  
Chimène I. Keitner ◽  
Scott Dodson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Finance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Foreign Governments

In Jam v. International Finance Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA) affords international organizations (IOs) the same immunity from suit in U.S. courts that foreign governments currently enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which codifies the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) had argued that the IOIA, which grants international organizations the “‘same immunity’ from suit … ‘as is enjoyed by foreign governments’” (p. 15), should be understood to provide international organizations with absolute immunity, which it argued foreign governments enjoyed prior to the United States’ explicit adoption of the restrictive theory in 1952. Under the restrictive theory, a foreign state is immune from suit for its sovereign acts (acta jure imperii), but not for its commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). By interpreting language in the IOIA as granting the “same immunity” to international organizations as foreign governments enjoy at the time the suit is filed, the Supreme Court aligned the regime for IO immunity with that of foreign state immunity, except in cases where the IO's founding charter provides a different rule or where the executive branch has explicitly limited immunity. It remains to be seen what IO activities are deemed “commercial” under this regime and what types of transactions are found to have a sufficient nexus to the United States to fall within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception.

Kingdom of Spain v. Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.á.r.l.

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 593-628
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Law

593Arbitration — Arbitration award — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Article 54 — Recognition and enforcement of award — Distinction between enforcement and recognition proceedings — International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) implementing ICSID Convention in domestic law — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — ICSID Convention, 1965 — International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaTreaties — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Articles 54 and 55 — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaState immunity — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Exceptions to immunity — Exception where foreign State agreeing by treaty to submit to jurisdiction — Spain acceding to ICSID Convention — Whether constituting submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign State immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award594Jurisdiction — State immunity — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Spain acceding to ICSID Convention — Whether constituting submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether Federal Court of Australia having jurisdiction — The law of Australia

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document