No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
1 Republic v. High Court Accra, ex parte Attorney General, Civ. Motion No. J 5/10/2013 (Sup. Ct. June 2,2013) (Ghana), at http://pca-cpa.org.
2 For an account of NML Capital’s attempts at enforcement of the New York judgment in France, see Blumrosen, Alexander & Malet-Deraedt, Fleur, Case Report: NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 107 AJIL 638 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Fiscal Agency Agreement Between the Republic of Argentina and Bankers Trust Company, Fiscal Agent (Oct. 19, 1994), at http://www.shearman.com/files/upload/Fiscal-Agency-Agreement.pdf.
4 Quoting NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., No. RPC/343/12, at 12 (High Ct. Accra Oct. 11, 2012), at http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=222#c1081.
5 NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., [2011] UKSC 31, [2011] 2 A.C. 495 (on appeal from Eng.).
6 see “ARA Libertad” (Arg. v. Ghana), Case No. 20, Provisional Measures (ITLOS Dec. 15, 2012) (reported by James Kraska at 107 AJIL 404 (2013)).
7 Quoting Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece Intervening), para. 139(4) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 3, 2012) [hereinafter Germany v. Italy].
8 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 ICJ REP. 12 (Mar. 31).
9 Id., para. 153(4).
10 Id., para. 153(9).
11 see Garcia v. Texas, 131 S.Ct. 2866 (2011); Medellín v. Texas, 554 U.S. 759 (2008); Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) [hereinafter Medellín I].
12 See Medellín I, supra note 11, at 504–14.
13 See id. at 523–27.
14 See supra text at and note 7.
15 Criminal Proceedings Against Albers, Cass., sez. un. pen., 9 agosto 2012, n. 32139, 95 Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 1196, 1205 (2012), quoted in Fontanelli, Filippo, Case Report: Criminal Proceedings Against Albers, 107 AJIL 632, 635 (2013)Google Scholar.
16 id., 95 Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale at 1205.
17 NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., Cour de cassation [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Mar. 28, 2013, Journal Du Droit International 2013, 899, note Cuniberti, available at http://www.courdecas sation.fr/jurisprudence_2/premiere_chambre_civile_568/ (Nos. 11-10.450, 11-13.323, 10-25.938).
18 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, GA Res. 59/38, annex (Dec. 2, 2004) [hereinafter 2004 Convention] (not yet in force).
19 Blumrosen & Malet-Deraedt, supra note 2, at 641–44.
20 The commentaries were not adopted with the 2004 Convention, and the final convention differs from the earlier draft articles. see Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property and Commentaries Thereto, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Third Session, [1991] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 2, at 13, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1991/Add.1 (Part 2), UN Sales No. E.93.V.9 (Part 2) [hereinafter commentaries]; 2004 Convention, supra note 18. The commentaries’ preference for specific waivers contravenes the express language of the 2004 Convention under Article 21(2) that Article 21 is without prejudice to Article 19’s waiver provisions. Furthermore, the legislative history indicates that the drafters of the 2004 Convention considered and rejected the requirement of a specific waiver for Article 21 categories. See General Introduction to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property at xxxvii, xxxix–xl (Roger O’Keefe & Christian J. Tams eds., 2013); Chester Brown & Roger O’Keefe, Article 21, in id. at 334, 346; Cuniberti, supra note 17, paras. 18–20.
21 see commentaries, supra note 20, Art. 19, para. 2, at 58–59.
22 see U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1611(b) (2012); Canada State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, Art. 12.
23 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) Art. 31(4).
24 Courts in other jurisdictions might achieve the same result by broadly interpreting statutory exclusions of proceedings relating to visiting armed forces. See, e.g., State Immunity Act, 1978, c. 33, Art. 16(2) (UK).
25 Jurisdiction of United States Courts in Suits Against Foreign States, H.R. REP. NO. 94-1487, at 31, 32 (Sept. 9, 1976), reprinted in 15 ILM 1398, 1414, 1415 (1976). The early U.S. Supreme Court case The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, which addressed immunity from enforcement of warships under customary international law, did not consider waivers of immunity. 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).
26 Germany v. Italy, supra note 7, paras. 56–57, 118.
27 see Case C-154/11, Mahamdia v. People’s Democratic Republic of Alg., Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, para. 23 (Eur. Ct. Justice May 24, 2012), at http://curia.europa.eu (observing the variety of national approaches to how a state may waive its sovereign immunity). In its judgment, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union agreed with the advocate general’s point that at present customary international law recognizes only limited immunity and preserves space for national jurisdictions to apply their own law to determine the precise scope of immunity. Id., Judgment, paras. 53–56 (July 19, 2012).
28 Germany v. Italy, supra note 7, para. 117.
29 Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in International Law 26 (2012).