State Immunity and CommercialActivities

Table of contents

Contents

Page No

1. Introduction

2

2. Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

3

1

3. Government Involvement & Limitation

4

4. State Commercial Activities

7

5. Conclusion

14

6. Bibliography

17

1. Introduction:

State is a legal entity and has all rights and duties as a

legal person, and legally state or the sovereigns are immune

from the criminal and civil activities. This immunity has

lawfully given to them just to make the state’s work

smoother and avoid the hurdles from its ways. Before the law

2

of immunity, countless litigation were there against the

sovereigns by filing application against the sovereign to

involve by any mean, then the law of immunity has been made

by the doctrine.1 When one look at the history there is a

maxim which shows “The king can do no wrong” it’s same as to

layman and the lawyer, legally people are stuck at this

historical concept.2 This concept is old and most of people

do not like to accept it but still have to obey this law and

have to bare the concept that the sovereign are immune from

wrongs. Under this concept state cannot do the legal wrong

but immune from civil suits as well as the criminal

proceedings but now there is an exception that in the

personal injury cases and the commercial economic matters

state or the sovereign are not immune. The courts have no

powers to call the sovereign to the court as they create

1Even where the Constitution itself prohibited certain acts by the governmentagainst its citizens, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has at timesintervened to prevent actual protection. Although the Fifth Amendment Providesthat no “private property” shall “be taken for public use without justcompensation”, it was not until the Court of claim was estimated in 1855 (Actof Feb. 24, 1855, c.122, 10 Stat. 612) that effective legal procedures wereestablished to put teeth into the constitutional prohibition. See Borchard,Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale L.J. 1, 28 (1924)2 Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of EdwardI, 515-518 (2 ed. 1899) ; Watkins, The State as a Party Litigant 1-13, 192-207(1927); Borchard, Governmental Responsibility in Tort, 36 Yale L.J. 1 (1926).

3

them about their own subjects. In some of the states state

immunity is separated by its legal entity which can be sued.

It is mentioned in State immunity act that the entities of

state are not concerned as state where sovereign authorities

are personally involve in the matter.3 Two main type of

immunities are most common in the world one is Absolute

immunity this immunity is not available to most of the

officials; it is available only to the state’s acts

committed while performing the official duties unless the

acts of sate are not malice.4 Other one is Restrictive

immunity that is the principle that restricts the limits of

immunity of foreign state’s public acts but it does not

extended to the commercial matters it has some restrictions

on private conduct of the state.5 Trading Corporation in Japan v.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, July 2006 which is not reported

yet is also the example of restrictive immunity.

3 Iyabo Adebiyi, ‘Is The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity a Threat to InvestmentArbitration?’ University of Dundee, 20094 http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/AbsoluteImmunity.html accessed 09-03-125 Restrictive Principle of Sovereign immunity law & legal Definition, http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restrictive-principle-of-sovereign-immunity/ accessed on 10.03.2012

4

2. Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity:

The English concept that King can do no wrong is still

hunting the people; under this concept state always defend

its sovereigns. This doctrine is based on the common law

which is according to British common laws that the king is

always innocent and no one can proceed against the king for

civil or any cases even misconduct. Another major rule in a

sovereign state is that state cannot be sued in its own

courts without permission or consent of that state.6 It is

called as royal fiat that is the permission for suit against

the sovereigns after that Crown Proceeding Act 1947 made the

crown or sovereigns liable for their acts against their own

fait according to is law the crown was liable to the tort

and the contract cases and can be sued on personal bases in

these kind of cases but criminal proceeding are still

prohibited against the sovereign except the provisions are

mentioned in statute.7 The assets of foreign national’s has

no move immunity from the plaintiff and the defendants and6 Neeraj Aarora, ‘Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity’, July 9. 2009,http://www.neerajaarora.com/doctrine-of-sovereign-immunity/ accessed01.03.20127 Sunkin, Maurice. “Crown immunity from criminal liability in English law”.Public Law (winter 2003): 716-729

5

also immunity of jurisdiction8 The sovereigns in United

Kingdom are also immune from civil and criminal activities

by the crown proceeding act which is carried on by the

behalf of UK government. There are also mentioned that how

far the state is liable for its acts in tort first case was

arose by P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. vs. Secretary of State, in the case

plaintiff’s servant was driving a carriage on Calcutta

highway, with a pair of horses of plaintiff. He met an

accident by the negligence of servant’s of government and to

recover the loss of accident plaintiff claimed damages

against the Secretary of State for India. At that time C.J.

Sir Barnes Peacock announced that the doctrine of the King

can do no wrong is not applicable to the East India Company.

The company is liable and the secretary of state is also

liable then the court also distinguishes that when a tort

were committed by public servant by discharge of sovereign

functions then Government would not be liable.9 The US

supreme court has also ruled that in the case where

8 David M & Kisch B, Morris: Conflict of Laws, 7th ed, Sweet and Maxwell press, United Kingdom, 2009, p. 145.9 Neeraj Aarora, july 2009, pera 3

6

government immunity involves the statute must strictly

considered in favour of sovereign and not enlarge beyond the

waiver to the language requires for it.10

3. Government involvement and limitations:

It is the general rule that states and the sovereigns are

immune on any of their acts which are related to state and

while performing state duties. In the matters of state

immunity courts have to decide the immunity of state between

the jurisdiction and the enforcement measures. In last

decodes states were immune by the doctrine of sovereign

immunity on their governmental acts but not immune on the

commercial acts.11 On the enforcement measures states are

more reluctant since they were considered more important

problem than that of jurisdiction.12 There are some

multilateral treaties on the law of sovereign immunity some

soft laws are also there but on the shape of only two

10 United States v. Nordic Village, Inc. 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992)11 P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Interoduction to International Law, 119 (1997).12 C. Schreuer, State Immunity: some Recent developments, 126 (1988); Hafner & Lange,La Convention des Nations Unies sur les Immunities Jurisdictionelles des Etats et de leurs Biens, 50Annuaire Francais de Droit International 45, 68 (2004).

7

multilateral treaties that are European Convention and the

State Immunity Act 197213 and UN Convention on

Jurisdictional Immunities of state and their property of

2004 after the UN convention.14 On the matter of state

immunity 8 states currently ratified The European Convention

on the enforcement measures; this does not codified by

customary international law. This made an obligation on the

member states for complies with the judgments on the rules

prohibiting enforcement measures against states.15 Currently

17 states signed the UN convention and Norway is the state

who has already ratified the convention and it was ratified

by the 30 deposited instruments. UN convention is not a

codified law by international law and depends on the

enforcement measures from when it introduces the categories

of the state property that is immune from the execution.

More on one can say it is related to the property which used

13 European Convention on the State Immunity 1972, 16 May 1972, ETS No. 74,reprinted in 11 ILM 470 (1972).14 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and TheirProperty, 2 December 2004, annex, UN-Doc. A/RES/59/38.15 Explanatory Report on the European Convention on State Immunity, reprintedin A. Dickinson et al. (eds.), State Immunity: Selected Materials and Commentary, 61(2004), Para. 92.

8

for commercial purposes which has entity on which the claim

has directed and that is new concept in international law.16

Now the concept of sovereign immunity has gone narrow and

states are also involve in different kind of issues and some

time by the involvement states have to face some cases where

the states are not immune so individuals can go against the

state and claim damages in some matters. A most recent case

against the state of Iran decided in 2011 that is Kazemi v.

Iran and Ors, Kazemi was a Canadian citizen and Canadian court

decided the state and state officials are liable for the

death of Kazemi during the imprisonment and torture kazemi’s

family can claim the damages against the state and the

officials of Iran.17 That is the limitation of state

immunity states is not always immune while doing wrongs

against the individuals and also against the other states.

Now most of the time states enter in to commercial

activities because now the world is going more commercial

16 ‘State Immunity From Enforcement Measures’ Mag. Eva Wiesinger, university of Vienna, July 200617 Estate of the Late Zahra (Ziba) Kazemi and Stephan (Salman) Hashemi v.The Islamic Republic of Iranand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Saeed Mortazavi and Mohammad Bakhshi, Canada Province of Quebec,District of Montreal, J.S.C, 500-17-031760-062, 25 January 2011

9

and the state officials some time enter in the commercial

agreements between the states and sometime between the

individuals, it is clearly mentioned in the state immunity

act 1978 that there is some exception for the state away

immunity of states and it exempts the immunity by different

means on different matters.

Generally state is immune from the proceeding against it but

some exceptions are here that if the proceedings are in the

courts of United Kingdom then a state is not immune. State

is also not immune when they enter into commercial

transactions or when by the terms of contract state agrees

to perform whole or a part of contract in UK.18 State is

also not immune in employment contracts with an individual,

in serious matters like death or personal injury and the

matters of damages or loss in property state is not

immune.19 State is also not immune in using of immovable

property where state carries interests also not immune in

the issues of patent, designs, trade mark related to UK or

18 State Immunity act 1978, chapter 33, s319 State Immunity Act 1978, (c. 33) s5(a)(b)

10

preceded in UK.20 State is also not immune where the state

is member of the corporate body or in the partnership of

corporate person.21 When state signs an arbitration

agreement then state is not immune from the UK court

arbitration proceedings but only contrary to the arbitration

agreements.22 In the proceeding relating to the commercial

shipping state is not immune one can claim on admiralty

proceeding and also when a ship belonging to that state it

would be against the state specific for shipping and that

time ship is being used for commercial purposes and the

claim for the other ship which were related to other state

and both ships were in use of commercial purposes.23 In tax

matters like the value added taxes or the custom and excise

duties which relates to the commercial matters state is not

immune and can be sued on its liability. On international

level one can say that the sovereign immunities are also

available for the states in international courts but when

the states comes in to contract or act as a contracting body

20 State Immunity Act 1978, (c. 33) ss6,721 Ibid. s8(1)(a)(b)22 Ibid. s9(1)(2)23 Ibid. s10(1,2,3,4,5)

11

then they cannot enjoy the rights of sovereign immunity but

under some provisions of international law and some

conditions states are immune to litigate in other states.24

4. State Commercial Activities:

States are and have always participation in the commercial

activities although they know the restrictions on immunity

of important issues like financial investment activities and

other commercial acts of sovereigns. The world is more

commercial and without the state insolvent in the financial

and commercial sector it is not possible to compete the

goals so state invest in different sectors like funds and

asset management some time invest with some partners or

joint venture with companies, invest with financial and

industrial entities in the banking sectors and some

regularity matters, tax structuring and investments and

issuing bonds etc.25 Sovereign Immunity act defines some

24 Peter Malanczuk, Michael Barton Akehurst, Routledge, ‘Akehurst's modernintroduction to international law’ 7th ed., 1997, Page 11825 Sovereign wealth funds, http://www.whitecase.com/sovereign/ accessed 04 March 2012

12

restrictions on the state immunity commercial acts of a

state is one of that sections by the commercials actions

state directly affect investors and other states so they are

accountable. When investors feel problem with the state they

can go for the arbitration proceedings against a state under

bilateral investment treaty that allows investors for the

proceeding. Individuals can also claim against the states on

the bases of commercial transactions and contracts. Section

3 of the State Immunity Act 1978 discuss about the

commercial transactions of the United Kingdom.26 State is

not immune when they enter into the commercial transactions

or when the state enter into the contract and sign it

whether it is commercial or not then according to the UK

laws they are not immune from the proceeding that commercial

transactions can be for providing of services or for the

supply of goods to an individual or to another state. Any

other matter relating to finance that might be matter of

loan or any transaction and state is also responsible if

they indemnity or guarantee on any of the transaction or any

26 State immunity Act 1978, c33, s3

13

other obligation.27 The agents of the state are also not

immune where the transactions are commercial. In 1990 when

Iraq attacked on Kuwait, Iraqi Airways Corporation acquire

10 Kuwaiti civilian aircrafts and include them their own

airways by a legislation then Kuwaiti airways sued Iraq in

1995 and the court stated that in a foreign state is an

entity is incorporated and working as an agent of that

state, then as a separate entity under section 14(2) that

entity cannot claim the immunity while the immunity could be

decided by its own sovereign authority where the entity in

question has acted as the agent of state.28 In 1973 a

contract has been took place between Cuba and a company of Chili

Play Larga management was a Cuban ship management company and

a state company was operating it in Mambisa. In September

1972 Play larga was sending a cargo order in Chilli but

Mambisa ordered to depart it but it discharged the cargo on

return to Cuba and Marble Islands and sold the cargo to

North Vietnam. Here the court considered that weather act

27 Ibid, s3(1)(2)(3)28 Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co. [1995] 1 WLR 1147, at 1158 (Lord Goff, HL)

14

took place were of private or governmental and stated

neither the Playa Larga release nor the Marble islands cargo

sale was done in Cuba’s sovereignty. So Cuba could not claim

immunity there.29

The other example in the commercial act of the government is

the most famous case Dellah Real Estate, in this case a real

estate company provided services in Saudi Arabia and the

project was to build the accommodation for the pilgrims and

99 year lease were also there which was taken by Pakistan.

Pakistan established a trust named as Awami Hajj Trust and

the trust made an agreement between the Dellah after

resolving cost issues and put an arbitration clause 23 that

if any dispute resulted between them that would be settled

in the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris. Then the

government was changed and the agreement was ceased. Dellah

filed case against government of Pakistan for the breach of

contract and Paris made first award in favour of Dellah and

they want to enforcement in United Kingdom. Pakistan was not

the party in the agreement so under UK jurisdiction that

29 Owner of Cargo lately laden on board the Play Larga v. Owner of the 1 Congreso del Partido, [1981] 3 WLR 328

15

award was not enforced on government of Pakistan’s appeal.

Under French law a person who has name in agreement or not

but have common intention to that person is bound to the

agreement. In this case same intentions were present between

the Government, Trust and the Dellah all were involved in

the negotiation performance and the termination of

agreement. This case was related to Svenska v. Lithuania case

but English law cleared that Lithuania was the party in

agreement and award was enforced but in Dellah case

government was not the party in agreement so the state was

immune from the proceeding.30 But one can say that the

different state has different rules and courts has different

jurisdictions and some time courts come to the different

conclusions on the same point for example French court

enforce the award against Pakistan but the English court

gave immunity on jurisdiction to Pakistan under section

9(1).31

In another case a project of housing complex construction

named Crystal Village was signed by Kazakhstan LLP Tema

30 Dellah Real Estate and Tourism holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, [2010] 3 WLR 147231 Arbitration 2009, 75(40), 555-564

16

Company and AIG, Kazakhstani Company was owned and

controlled by Kazakhstan principles. The project was

cancelled because land was required for national arboretum

and transferred to city of Almaty without provided any

compensation. They purchased the land contract has signed

and began the work. Police along with the city authorities

expelled the constructors from property. Republic of

Kazakhstan and National Bank of Kazakhstan claimed state

immunity but AIG and CJSC Tema Real Estate Company obtained

an arbitration award of 9,951,709 US Dollars and also got

consulting interest from Washington D.C international centre

for settlement of the investment against Kazakhstan. They

wished to enforce the award by the third party debt,

securities and the charging orders that were held in London.

National bank of Kazakhstan applied to discharge the orders

because the NBK property is immune under section 13(2)(b)

and 14(4) of the State immunity act 1978. They also plead

that the cash in London were NBK’s, Kazakhstan is not in

relation to agreement and the cash owned via third party NBK

account. Court stated that the third party’s property was

17

owned by the central bank, and under sections 14(4) and

13(2) property was immune from the UK court jurisdiction and

enforcement and property was not in commercial use under

section 13(4). Court also stated that the key function

related to the central bank and the functions are related to

the government and sovereign authorities for the commercial

purposes and it is for the governmental use not for the

commercial. Central bank assets and the other economic

authorities which has the interests of state that has wider

meaning, that are explained in section 13 and 14 that a

property use or intended to use for the commercial purpose

for the specific time. English court’s decision are related

to the immunity of foreign central bank is difficult and

they decide that assets would immune weather they were in

use or not but the central bank has its interests in that

besides not belong the ultimate beneficial owner.32

The case of Arab monetary Funds v Hashim33were discussed on the

international private law principles about the recognition

32 AIG capital Partner INC v. Kazakhstan, [2006] 1 WLR 142033 Arab Monetary funds v. Hashim (No3) [1991] AC114

18

of foreign corporate entities.34 House of lord decide the

matter by the Tin Council litigation and proceeded that the

IO was created under the international law and it could not

be treated as the legal personality under the English law

without proper authorisation.35 In final decision House of

Lord discussed the foreign international organisation an in

the case Arab Monitory Funds (AMF) were involved in several

operations and it did not exist in the English legal order

but in the common sense, and decided in this case that AMF

inherent the statutory risks for the practical operations of

non member countries. The danger is that the domestic courts

might abstain from dealing the cases relation to the

international organisations under domestic law.36

In Svenska Petroleum case, Svenska and AB Geonafta signed an

agreement for the development of different oil fields,

Geonafta were persistent in expansion of the oil fields then

Svenska claimed against Geonafta for arbitration

34 Cf. James Fawcett & Peter North, Cheshire & North: Private International Law, 11th

ed (London: Butterworths, 1987), 173,901 et seq.35 J H Rayner (Mincing lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry, House of Lords, 26 Oct. 1989, [1990] 3 W.L.R. 969, 81 ILR (1990), 670.36 David B. Hunter, “International Financial Institutions and International Law” Aspen Publishers, P110

19

proceedings. The state was challenged that it was not the

party in the main agreement. The state is not immune in the

proceedings related to the commercial matters and while

handling the matter it is important to know that matter is

related to commercial transaction or not. While commencing

proceeding state argued that there were no commercial

transactions and had purely governmental function, they

reject that the state was a commercial party in the main

agreement and under state immunity act 1978 section 3 by

signing and accepting the clauses of agreement it held as

the commercial transaction. Court decided that Geonafta have

to pay 12,579,000 US dollar to Svenska for enactment of the

final award, the proceedings held in England but the state

put forward that it was immune by section 1 for the

jurisdiction of court. But Svenska put the argument that

under section 3 of state immunity act sate was a commercial

party and precede some commercial transaction. Lithuania

government submit dispute of agreement for arbitration in

Denmark under section 9, but state cannot ask the immunity

if they agree for arbitration in writing then Svenska took

20

advantage of the exception of section 9 that government was

not protected from action and the Denmark arbitration award

was enforced.37 One can say that foreign investor would be

more confirmable in the agreement with a state or its entity

if the arising disputes are determined by the global

adjudication and in other states the results of arbitrations

would be impossible, the government’s argument result when

the government rejects the results of arbitration.38

It can also be under stood by the case of Central Bank of

Nigeria that when a company has association with the

government then immunity applied to the state. In England

the central bank of Nigeria issued the irreversible letter

to pay for the cement which was ordered by the Nigerian

ministry to plaintiff who shipped it to Nigeria. Due to some

confusion of over ordering of Lagos the vassals were delayed

then the bank refused to pay because of delay of the order.

Court stated that the bank was entitled as government status

37 Svenska Petroleum Exloration AB v. Lithuania (No.2), [2007] 2 WLR 87638 Int. A.L.R. 2006, 9(2), 37-39

21

so that the government immunity should not apply in

transactions.39

The proceeding of the anti suit injunctions40 against the

foreign state was discussed in the case of Sabah Shipyard

Pakistan Ltd, a Pakistani company which has Malaysian share

holders had an agreement with a company of state for a

construction project in Karachi, Pakistan. In the agreement

government of Pakistan waved its immunity and jurisdiction

in favour of the English courts. The dispute arose for the

delay to the project and Sabah filled a case in Singapore

and got an arbitration award of 6.84 million US Dollar

against Pakistan. Then government of Pakistan stated that

they was not bound to the decision and the proceeding

started in Pakistan by obtaining an injunction to stop Sabah

for commencing proceeding against Pakistan and claiming for

damages as written in the agreement from English courts. The

case delayed in Pakistani courts Sabah plead that the anti

suit injunction ceased after the expected date that has

39 Trendtex Trading Crop v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 WLR. 35640 Anti suit injection refer to the court’s order that restrict an individualfor the commencement of proceeding or ceased proceeding in another country court, http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/565.cfm, accessed on 07 march 2012

22

passed but Pakistani government did not accept this. Then

Sabah filled an application in English court and David Steel

granted an anti suit injunction in the favour of Sabah from

restricting the proceeding, and stated that there is only

one ground that the proceeding should be suggested in

Pakistan that the forum is more continent for both the

parties. Pakistan has violated the jurisdiction clause that

the waver of sovereign immunity would be granted

jurisdiction to the English court but cannot stop Sabah to

commence proceeding in the English courts and government of

Pakistan vexatious commenced proceeding in Pakistan. Section

13 of State immunity act explained that in injunction state

where no relief for the state during injunction unless the

state approves. Here in the case both exception applies that

are proceeding related to the commercial transactions by the

state and submission to jurisdiction of UK court, under

section 13(3) with the prior consent of the of state the

state can get relief but in this case government of Pakistan

had in guarantee. Commencing the proceeding during the

injunction is a crime and on the same time preceding in

23

English and Pakistani court it creates conflicts in

jurisdiction.41 Anti-suit injections can be enforced

indirectly, when sovereign states enter into an agreement

advantages are there for them during proceeding related to

sate immunity.42

In the most recent judgement of UK Supreme Court in NML

Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina43 the proceeding were for the

enforcement of the judgement against a foreign state in the

matter of commercial transaction on state immunity matter.

Republic of Amanita issued bonds and a Cayman Island company

how was affiliated of a New York based hedge fund purchased

that bonds then Argentina defaulted, the company start

proceeding in the federal court of New York. It was related

to the waiver of the state immunity by the agreement under

which state issued the bonds and s.3 (1) (a) of the State

Immunity Act 1978 also provided that the state is not immune

in commercial transactions. Then with the permission court

serve Argentina out of the jurisdiction, Argentina applied

41 Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v. Pakistan (2004) 1 CLC 14942 I.C.L.Q. 2004, 53(2), 512-51843 [2011] UKSC 31

24

to set the service order out of the jurisdiction. After that

in UK lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Walker for the

enforcement of New York court judgement and announced that

the proceeding were on the jurisdiction and claim falls

under the section 3(1)(a) of the 1978 Act. UK court decided

that the state involvement was commercial and state was

involved in it by an agreement of selling the bonds section

13 explains the commercial transactions that could by about

loans and money matters. In Argentina’s case all the judges

were agreed except Lord Mance, Lord Walker and Lord Collins

that in any reason appeal should be succeeded under the

section of 31 of the 1982 Act and by the submission of

Argentina it waives its immunity in the bonds.

5. Conclusion:

State immunity Act 1978 clearly immune the acts of state to

avoid the unexpected litigations against the state but at

the same time this act get the immunity back from state on

the commercial matters. When a state enters into the

25

commercial transactions and has its direct involvement in

the transactions then state losses its immunity. All the

above discussion results that immunity of a state is

dependent on the case description of the case, and once a

state enter itself in the commercial arena then no immunity

on the economic costs, sometime state got the privilege when

a separate entity enters in agreement and the state has

lesser role in it. There is a sanction that when a foreign

state enter in to an arbitration agreement and signed that

agreement then that state cannot claim immunity from the

arbitrators. Some exception on government property are

available here the immunity is available on diplomatic

property and it is well established by the international

law.44 The legal bases of this diplomatic immunity are found

in customary international laws and also in the treaties.45

Military property is also immune from claiming damages.

44 H. Fox, The law of State Immunity, 390 (2002); Reinisch, State Immunity From Enforcement measures, Analytical Report of the Council of Europe, Pilot Project on State Practice regarding State Immunities, CAHDI, 3, 10(2004)45 Art. 22(3), Art. 30, Viena Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, 18 April 1961, 500 UNITS 95; Art.31, Viena Convention on Consular relations 1963,24 April 1963, 596 UNTS 261.

26

6. Bibliography:

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978, c. 33

Books:

27

Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, by Peter

Malanczuk, Michael Barton Akehurst, Routledge 7 ed., 1997,

Cf. James Fawcett & Peter North, Cheshire & North: Private International Law, 11th ed (London: Butterworths, 1987), 173,901 etseq.

David M & Kisch B, Morris: Conflict of Laws, 7th edn, Sweet andMaxwell, United Kingdom, 2009,

David B. Hunter, “International Financial Institutions and International Law”

Aspen Publishers, P110

Historical Approach to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity;

Pugh, George W. 13 La. L.Rev. 476 (1952-1953).

Pollock and Maitland, ‘The History of English Law before the

Time of Edward I’, 515-518 (2 ed. 1899)

Articles:

August Reinisch, ‘European Court Practice Concerning State

Immunity from Enforcement Measure’ EJIL (2006), Vol. 17 No. 4

Borchard, ‘Governmental Responsibility in Tort’, 36 Yale L.J.

1 (1926).

28

C. Schreuer, State Immunity: some Recent developments, 126 (1988)

European Convention on the State Immunity 1972, 16 May 1972,

ETS No. 74, reprinted in 11 ILM 470 (1972).

Explanatory Report on the European Convention on State

Immunity, reprinted in A. Dickinson et al. (eds.), State Immunity:

Selected Materials and Commentary, 61 (2004),

Gregory C. Sisk, The Continuing Drift of Federal Sovereign ImmunityJurisprudence, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 517 (2008),http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol50/iss2/4

Hazel Fox (1994). A “Commercial Transaction” Under the State

Immunity Act 1978.

Hafner & Lange, La Convention des Nations Unies sur les Immunities

Jurisdictionelles des Etats et de leurs Biens, 50 Annuaire Francais de Droit

International 45, 68 (2004).

International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43 , pp 193-202

doi:10.1093/iclqaj/43.1.193

Iyabo Adebiyi, ‘Is The Doctrine Of Sovereign Immunity a Threat

to Investment Arbitration?’ University of Dundee 2009

Neeraj Aarora, ‘Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity’, July 9. 2009

P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Interoduction to International Law, 119

(1997)

29

State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: a Critique of The

Normative Hierarchy Theory, Lee M. Caplan

United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of

States and Their Property, 2 December 2004, annex, UN-Doc.

A/RES/59/38.

Watkins, ‘The State as a Party Litigant’ 1-13, 192-207 (1927)

Cases:

AIG capital Partner INC v. Kazakhstan, [2006] 1 WLR 1420

AXA General Insurance Limited and others v. The Lord Advocate and others

(Scotland), [2011] CSIH 31

Dellah Real Estate and Tourism holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, [2010]

3 WLR 1472

Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co. [1995] 1 WLR 1147, at

1158 (Lord Goff, HL)

NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina, [2011] UKSC 31

Trendtex Trading Crop v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 WLR. 356

United States v. Nordic Village, Inc. 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992)

Svenska Petroleum Exloration AB v. Lithuania (No.2), [2007] 2 WLR 876

Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Pakistan (2004) 1 CLC 149

30

Webs:

http://www.neerajaarora.com/doctrine-of-sovereign-immunity/

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

http://ccij.ca/programs/cases/index.php?WEBYEP_DI=10

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/current_students/

programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/conflict/

conflict_chpt4.pdf

http://www.whitecase.com/

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/565.cfm

31