Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:29:48.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining the “Private Law” Nature: A Comparison Between Customary State Practice and Turkish Court Rulings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Yasir Gökçe

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This Article uses a combination of doctrinal and comparative analyses to elucidate the most widely-used criteria according to which courts characterize an act as having a private-law nature. Further, this Article identifies the extent to which the Turkish State practice has embraced those criteria. To that end, this Article extracts two such widely-used criteria from patterns in customary State practice. In the end, the Article points out the extent to which those criteria are prevalent throughout the Turkish court rulings and concludes that Turkish caselaw is generally in alignment with the customary State practice in terms of the criteria used to determine a State act's private-law nature.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1461 - 1488
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Fox, Hazel & Webb, Philippa, The Law of State Immunity 213 (3d ed. 2013).Google Scholar

2 Id. Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., State Immunity Act 1978, c. 33 (UK); Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602–11; Gaikoku-tω ni taisuru wagakuni no minji saiban-ken ni kansuru hωritsu [Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with Respect to a Foreign State, etc.], Law No. 24 of 2009, art.8, translated in (Japanese Law Translation [JLT DS]), http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp (Japan); Foreign States Immunity Act 87 of 1981 § 4 (S. Afr.); State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18 (Can.); Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 s 11 (Austl.); O yurisdiktsionnykh immunitetakh inostrannogo gosudarstva i sobstvennosti inostrannogo gosudarstva v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The Federal Law on Jurisdictional Immunity of a Foreign State and a Foreign State's Property in the Russian Federation], art.7.Google Scholar

4 Bankas, Ernest K., The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts 75 (2005).Google Scholar

5 Yang, Xiaodong, State Immunity in International Law 98 (2012).Google Scholar

6 Id. at 393.Google Scholar

7 Id. at 93.Google Scholar

8 Bankas, supra note 4, at 74.Google Scholar

9 Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614 (1992).Google Scholar

10 Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 WLR 356 at 370 (Eng.).Google Scholar

11 International Law Reports 272 (E. Lauterpacht & C.J. Greenwood eds., 1994).Google Scholar

12 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 360 (1993) (citing Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614).Google Scholar

13 Controller and Auditor-General v. Sir Ronald Davison [1996] 2 NZLR 278 (CA) at 288 (N.Z.).Google Scholar

14 Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 609.Google Scholar

16 Id. at 615.Google Scholar

17 Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia, 615 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1985).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 93, 95.Google Scholar

19 Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia, 811 F.2d 1543, 1548 (D.C. Cir. 1987).Google Scholar

20 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993).Google Scholar

21 Id. at 362.Google Scholar

22 Ministry, Jin v. of State Security, 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 141 (D.D.C. 2008).Google Scholar

23 Doe I v. State of Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86, 106 (D.D.C. 2005).Google Scholar

24 Yang, supra note 5, at 82.Google Scholar

25 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 278.Google Scholar

26 Yang, supra note 5, at 84.Google Scholar

27 Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 172 F. Supp. 2d 52, 63 (D.D.C. 2001).Google Scholar

28 International Law Reports, supra note 11, at 344.Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 151.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 152.Google Scholar

32 Bankas, supra note 4, at 70–71.Google Scholar

33 Hof van Cassatie [Cass.] [Court of Cassation], Pas. 24 Dec. 1903, 1903-II-294 (Belg.).Google Scholar

34 Fourth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/357 (1982), reprinted in [1982] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 199, 277, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.1 (Part 1); Malcom N. Shaw, International Law 629 (7th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

35 Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Feb. 10, 1961, Holubek v. The Government of the United States (Austria).Google Scholar

36 Id. Google Scholar

37 Yang, supra note 5, at 102.Google Scholar

38 International Law Reports, supra note 11, at 9.Google Scholar

39 Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Voeten, Erik, How Does Customary International Law Change? The Case of State Immunity, 59 Int'l Stud. Q. 214 (2015).Google Scholar

40 The Un Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: A Commentary 191 (Roger O'Keefe & Christian J. Tams eds., 2013).Google Scholar

41 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property art. 2(2), Dec. 2, 2004, U.N. Doc. A/59/508.Google Scholar

42 State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18 (Can.) (“[C]ommercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a commercial character.”).Google Scholar

43 Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50 (Can.).Google Scholar

44 Id. Google Scholar

45 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 261.Google Scholar

46 Yang, supra note 5, at 103.Google Scholar

47 Littrell v. USA (NO.2) [1994] 4 AII ER 203 at 209.Google Scholar

48 Joseph v. Office of the Consulate Gen. of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar

49 Holy Doe v. See, 434 F. Supp. 2d 925, 941 (D. Or. 2006).Google Scholar

50 Id. at 941.Google Scholar

51 Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, 300 F.3d 230, 241 (2d Cir. 2002).Google Scholar

52 United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645 (S.C., May 22, 1985) (Phil.).Google Scholar

53 Fourth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/357 (1982), reprinted in [1982] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 199, 228, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.1 (Part 1).Google Scholar

54 Eigth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/396 (1986), reprinted in [1986] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 21 at 24, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1986/Add.1 (Part 1). Please note that Article 2(2) of the UN Convention on State Immunity retains the proposal listed in the 1991 draft.Google Scholar

55 Id. at 51. Yugoslavia supported the proposal without reservation, while Canada and Brazil supported the proposal with some reservations.Google Scholar

56 United Nations, General Assembly Sixth Committee, Fifty-Fourth Session, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Rep. of the Chairman of the Working Group ¶20, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/54/L.12 (Nov. 12, 1999).Google Scholar

57 Üçok, Coşkun et al., Türk HUKUK TARIHI [History of Turkish Law] 203 (1996).Google Scholar

58 Akyılmaz, Gül, Osmanlı Hukukundaki Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Yabancı Ülke Vatandaşlığına Geçen Ermenilerin Gayrimenkullerinin Hukuki Statüsü [The Legal Status of the Real Estates of the Armenians who Became Foreign Citizenship in the Framework of the Regulations in the Ottoman Law] 60/2014 Yeni Türkiye 1, 19 (2014).Google Scholar

59 Id. Google Scholar

60 This law's Ottoman Turkish name is “Memaliki Osmaniyede Bulunan Ecnebilerin Hukuk ve Vezayifi Hakkında Kanun-ı Muvakkat.” This law regulates the law applicable to foreign residents, but lacks any provision governing immunity from jurisdiction applied to a foreign State.Google Scholar

61 Docket No: 1950/5402, Decree No: 1950/506481 (Turk.).Google Scholar

62 Docket No: 1968/630, Decree No: 1968/9285 (Turk.).Google Scholar

63 Docket No: 1955/5402, Decree No: 1955/415183 (Turk.).Google Scholar

64 Docket No: 1964/3816, Decree No: 1964/375184 (Turk.).Google Scholar

65 Docket No: 1979/6137, Decree No: 1979/1787 (Turk.).Google Scholar

66 Docket No: 1964/7501, Decree No: 1964/8902 (Turk.).Google Scholar

67 For a more elaborate explanation on the liberal orientation of Turkey during the 1980s, see İzak Atiyas, Economic Institutions and Institutional Change in Turkey During the Neoliberal Era, 47 New Persp. on Turk. 57 (2012).Google Scholar

68 Heper, Metin, The State and Debureaucratization: The Case of Turkey, 42 Int'l Soc. Sci. J. 605, 609 (1990).Google Scholar

69 Letter numbered 3737 of the Directorate General For Laws And Decrees of the Prime Ministry (Başbakanlık Kanunlar ve Kararlar Genel Müdürlüğü) entitled “General Reasoning /Genel Gerekçe”Google Scholar

70 Meclisi, Danışma, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı Adalet Komisyonu Raporu [Report of the Draft Law on International Private Law and Procedural Law and Justice Commission], 100 S. Sayisi 10 madde 33 (1981).Google Scholar

71 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 514.Google Scholar

72 Yang, supra note 5, at 63.Google Scholar

73 Gökçe, Yasir, Uluslararasi Metinler, AB Düzenlemeleri ve ABAD Kararlari Işiğinda Avrupa Birliği’ nde Aile Birleşimi [Family Reunification in the European Union in the Light of International Texts, EU Regulations and ECJ Resolutions] 112 (2013).Google Scholar

74 State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18, art. 2 (“[C]ommercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a commercial character.”) (Can.).Google Scholar

75 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d) (“[A] commercial activity means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act.”).Google Scholar

76 Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 s 11(3) (“[C]ommercial transaction means a commercial, trading, business, professional or industrial or like transaction into which the foreign State has entered or a like activity in which the State has engaged.”) (Austl.).Google Scholar

77 Aybay, Rona, Yargıtay İçtihatlarına Göre Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığı [Judicial Immunity of the Foreign State by the Court of Appeals of the Court of Cassation], 72 TBBD Dergisi 110 (2007); Yasir Gökçe, Mutlak Yargı Bağışıklığından Sınırlı Yargı Bağışıklığına Geçiş Trendi, İş Hukukundan Doğan Uyuşmazlıklarda Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Ülkemizdeki Durum [Transition Trend from Absolute Sovereign Immunity to Restrictive Sovereign Immunity, Sovereign Immunity in Disputes Stemming from Labor Law and the Situation in Turkey], 1 Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 91, 93 (2014); Füsun Arsava, Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının İcrası ve Devletlerin Yargı Bağışıklığı [Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions and Judicial Immunity of States], 8 TAAD 1, 5 (2012).Google Scholar

78 Docket No: 1984/8401, Decree No: 1984/11313 (Turk.).Google Scholar

79 Docket No: 1985/9190, Decree No: 1986/2436 (Turk.).Google Scholar

80 Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar

81 Esas Bakımından Karşı Oy Yazısı (II), Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar

82 Esas Bakımından Karşı Oy Yazısı (III), Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar

83 Docket No: 1989/3896, Decree No: 1989/6648 (Turk.).Google Scholar

84 Docket No: 1991/6-299, Decree No: 1991/406 (Turk.).Google Scholar

85 Docket No: 1993/5620, Decree No: 1993/10875 (Turk.).Google Scholar

86 Docket No: 2001/8947, Decree No: 2001/11405 (Turk.).Google Scholar

87 Docket No: 2002/2431, Decree No: 2002/11163 (Turk.).Google Scholar

88 Docket No: 2009/913, Decree No: 2010/41802 (Turk.).Google Scholar

89 Docket No: 2010/6451, Decree No: 2010/7394 (Turk.).Google Scholar

90 Gökçe, Yasir, Trend Toward the Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity: An Evaluation of This Trend in Respect of Employment Contracts, 6(11) L. & J. Rev. 181, 194 (2015).Google Scholar

91 Id. at 195; Erdin Erdoğan, Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığının Sınırları Hakkında Güncel Sorunlar ve Terör Suçları Açısından Yargı Bağışıklığı [Current Problems about the Limits of Judicial Immunity in the Foreign State and Judicial Immunity in Terms of Terrorism], 65(4) Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fak. Dergisi 3375, 3379 (2016).Google Scholar

92 Docket No: 2004/6469, Decree No: 2004/13007 (Turk.).Google Scholar

93 Docket No: 1984/3729, Decree No: 1984/5731 (Turk.).Google Scholar

94 Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (internal citations omitted) (Turk.).Google Scholar

95 Docket No: 2009/10643, Decree No: 2009/10361 (Turk.).Google Scholar

96 Docket No: 2013/10023, Decree No: 2013/13933 (Turk.).Google Scholar

97 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 13.Google Scholar

98 Id. at 413.Google Scholar

99 See sources cited supra note 3.Google Scholar

100 Bankas, supra note 4, at 74.Google Scholar

101 Yang, supra note 5, at 102.Google Scholar

102 United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645 (S.C., May 22, 1985) (Phil.).Google Scholar

103 Meclisi, supra note 70.Google Scholar

104 See supra note 83 and accompanying text.Google Scholar