Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:31:19.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airport Linz v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Stephan Wittich
Stephan Wittich*
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 248 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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 Decision No. 2 Ob I56/03k, 126 J B L 390 (2004) (OGH Aug. 28, 2003). An English translation of the Supreme Court’s decision, including the relevant parts of the decision of the court of appeal, see infra note 4 and accompanying text, can be found in Wittich, Stephan & Schoiswohl, Michael, Austrian Practice in International Law, Part I: Austrian Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law, 8 Austrian rev. Int’l & Eur. L. 257, 261 (2003)Google Scholar. Austrian case law is available online at <http://www.ris.bka.gv.at>.

2 The SFOR Web site (part of the NATO Web site) includes a concise history of IFOR/SFOR at <http://www.nato.int/sfor/docu/d981116a.htm>. SFOR remained in operation through December 2004, when the European Union’s EUFOR took over.

3 Decision No. 9 C 210/03h-2 (BG Linz Feb. 3, 2003) (on file with author).

4 Decision No. 37 R 48/03a-5 (LG Linz Apr. 17, 2003) (on file with author).

5 Agreement Between the Austrian Federal Government and NATO on the Transit for the Execution of the Multinational Peace Operation in Bosnia, Dec. 14 & 16, 1995, BGB1 1995/869. The English text is reproduced in Hafner, Gerhard & Putzer, Judith, Austrian Diplomatic Practice in International Law, 1 Austrian Rev. Int’l, & Eur. L. 241, 294 (1996)Google Scholar.

6 Decision No. 1 Ob 171/50, SZ 23/143 (OGH May 10, 1950), trans, in 17 ILR 155.

7 Decision No. 2 Ob 243/60, 84 J B L 43 (1962) (OGH Feb. 10, 1961), trans, in 40 ILR 73; see also Fox, Hazel, The Law of State Immunity 285 (2004)Google Scholar. For more recent Austrian decisions on state immunity, see Decision No. 4 Ob 97/01 w (OGH May 14, 2001), reprinted in Wittich, Stephan, Konrad, G. Biihler, Dietrich, Otto, & Schoiswohl, Michael, Austrian Practice in International Law, Part I: Austrian Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law [hereinafter Austrian Judicial Decisions 2001], 6 Austrian rev. Int’l & Eur. L. 281, 296–304 (2001)Google Scholar, trans, in id. at 289-96; Decision No. 8 ObA 20 l/00t, 124 J B L 57 (2002) (OGH June 11, 2001), reprinted in Austrian Judicial Decisions 2001, supra, at 310-13, trans, in id. at 305-09; Decision No. 4 OR 7/01b (LGfZRS Wien Jan. 23, 2001), reprinted in Austrian Judicial Decisions 2001, supra, at 315-16, trans, in id. at 313-15; Decision No. 9 ObA 14/03d (OGH May 7, 2003), reprinted in Wittich, Stephan & Schoiswohl, Michael, Austrian Practice in International Law, Part I; Austrian Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law, 8 Austrian Rev. Int’l & Eur. L. 257,295–303 (2003)Google Scholar, trans, in id. at 287-95. For a discussion of these cases, see Wittich, Stephan, Recent Austrian Cases on Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities, 8 Austrian rev. Int’l & Eur. L. 187 (2003)Google Scholar. In contrast, with regard to enforcement Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reversed its practice and now adheres to the purpose-of-the-property test, see Decision No. 3 Ob 38/86, 90 JBL 733 (1986) (OGH April 3, 1986), trans, in 77 ILR 489.

8 Crawford, James, International Law and Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions, 1983 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 75, 95 (1983)Google Scholar; Schreuer, Christoph, State Immunity: Some Recent Developments 16 (1988)Google Scholar; Fox, supra note 7, at 286.

9 The articles originally elaborated by the International Law Commission were finalized and approved by the Ad Hoc Working Group set up by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly in November 2003, see UN Doc A/C.6/58/L.20. On December 2, 2004, the General Assembly adopted the articles as the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. The convention, included as the annex to Resolution 59/38, at <http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm>, is analyzed in David, P. Stewart, The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 99 AJIL 194 (2005)Google Scholar. See Charles, H. Brower II, Case Report: Republic of Austria v. Altmann, id. at 236, 241 & n.67 (2005)Google Scholar; cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d) (2000).

10 See also Said, Mahmoudi, Case Report: Local Authority of Vasteras v. Republic of Iceland, 95 AJIL 192 (2001)Google Scholar; FOX, supra note 7, at 292-93.

11 See FOX, supra note 7, at 286-92; Crawford, supra note 8, at 94-99.

12 See supra note 5 and accompanying text.

13 Agreement Between the Austrian Federal Government and NATO on Privileges and Immunities, Dec. 15 & 16, 1995, BGB1 1995/870. The English text is reproduced in Hafner & Putzer, supra note 5, at 266.