Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:04:50.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FORTY YEARS ON: STATE IMMUNITY AND THE STATE IMMUNITY ACT 1978

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2019

Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Lloyd-Jones*
Affiliation:
Lord Lloyd-Jones is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses some of the changes in international law and foreign relations law which have impinged on the operation of the State Immunity Act 1978 in the first 40 years of its operation and some of the ways in which it has been supplemented by judicial decisions. It addresses, in particular, the initial need for legislation in this field, the circumstances in which agents of a State may be entitled to immunity, the relationship between State immunity in domestic law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the relationship of State immunity and rules of jus cogens, and the respective scope of State immunity and principles of non-justiciability.

Keywords

public international lawState immunityState Immunity Act 1978foreign relationsjus cogensnon-justiciability
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 247 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press 

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.)

Footnotes

This article is based on the Grotius Lecture given by Lord Lloyd-Jones at Goodenough College on 18 October 2018. He would like to thank his Judicial Assistants Ewan McCaig and Courtney Grafton for their assistance in the preparation of the lecture, Anthony Wenton, a Research Associate at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, for his editorial assistance and Professor Eirik Bjorge for his comments.

References

1 Fox, H and Webb, P, The Law of State Immunity (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar.

2 Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah [2017] UKSC 62, per Lord Sumption at [52]. Sanger, A, ‘The Limits of State and Diplomatic Immunity in Employment Disputes’ (2018) 77 CLJ 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Cia Naviera Vascongado v SS Cristina (The ‘Cristina’) [1938] AC 485.

4 Alfred Dunhill of London Inc v Republic of Cuba, 425 US 682 (1976) 701–703.

5 Claim against the Empire of Iran (1963) 45 ILR 57, 79–82.

6 The Philippine Admiral [1977] AC 373.

7 ibid 402.

8 ibid 402–403.

9 Trendtex v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529.

10 ibid 552–553.

11 I Congreso del Partido [1983] 1 AC 244.

12 ibid 267.

13 ibid 272 and 276 respectively.

14 ETS 074. The Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom on 4 October 1979. Eight States are currently parties (at 13 February 2019): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

15 Section 20(1)(a), Part III.

16 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (adopted 2 December 2004), art 2(1)(b)(iv).

17 Twycross v Dreyfus (1877) 5 Ch D 605.

18 Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379, 393; Fox and Webb (n 1) 186.

19 R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Trawnik (Court of Appeal, 18 February 1985).

20 Propend Finance Pty Ltd v Sing (1997) 111 ILR 611.

21 ibid 669.

22 Claim against the Empire of Iran case (1963) 45 ILR 57, 81; Church of Scientology case (1978) 65 ILR 193, 198; Herbage v Meese (1990) 747 F Supp 60, 66; Jaffe v Miller (1993) 95 ILR 446, 457–9; 13 OR (3d) 745, 758–9. See also Schmidt v Home Secretary of the Government of the United Kingdom (1994) 103 ILR 322, 323–5; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Subpoena) (1997) 110 ILR 607, 707 (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia).

23 See also R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147, 269, 285–286; Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573, 1583; Chuidian v Philippine National Bank (1990) 734 F Supp 415.

24 Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank NV per Tugendhat J. [2005] EWHC 2944 (QB); [2006] 1 WLR 3323. See also [2007] EWCA Civ 953; [2008] 1 WLR 51.

25 A Dickinson et al., State Immunity: Selected Materials and Commentary (Oxford University Press 2004) 407–8.

26 See section 2(7), State Immunity Act for deemed authority.

27 Jones v Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; [2007] 1 AC 270.

28 Mr. Jones claimed aggravated and exemplary damages for assault and battery, trespass to the person, false imprisonment and torture against the Ministry of the Interior of Saudi Arabia and Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz.

29 Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27) per Lord Bingham at [10]–[11].

30 Despite the absence of express provision in the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, US law appeared to be developing along similar lines: Chuidian v Philippine National Bank, 912 F. 2d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 1990); 92 ILR 480. See also Trajano v Marcos, 978 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1992); 103 ILR 521; Hilao v Marcos, 25 F3d 1467, 1470; 104 ILR 119 Park v Shin, 313 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002). However, see Samantar v Yousuf, US Supreme Court, 130 S.Ct. 2278 (2010) considered below.

31 Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27) [12]–[13].

32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2001) vol II, Pt Two; J Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press 2002) 106–9.

33 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) 19 December 2005, at [213]–[214].

34 Thus in Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank NV (n 24) it was immaterial that the alleged defamatory publication was alleged to be malicious.

35 I Congreso del Partido (n 11) per Lord Wilberforce at 272. See also Herbage v Meese (n 22); McElhinney v Williams, Irish Supreme Court, [1995] 3 IR 382; 104 ILR 691, 702–3; X Yang, State Immunity in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2012) 438–40.

36 cf the observations of Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance in Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69; [2016] AC 1355 at [117]–[118], [150]–[151].

37 Samantar v Yousuf 130 S.Ct. 2278 (2010). See Fox and Webb (n 1) 256–8.

38 Mr. Mohamed Ali Samantar had been Vice-President and Minister of Defence of Somalia from 1980 to 1986 and Prime Minister from 1987 to 1990.

39 Section 1603(b) defines ‘an agency of instrumentality of a foreign state’ as meaning any entity (1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

40 Samantar v Yousuf (n 37) 2287.

41 ibid 2288–2899.

42 ibid 2290.

43 ibid 2292 quoting Chuidian v Philippine National Bank, 912 F. 2d 1095, 1102 (CA9 1990).

44 Because that party has ‘an interest relating to the subject of the action’ and ‘is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may … as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest’. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 19(a)(1)(B).

45 See Republic of Philippines v Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 867 (2008).

46 cf Kentucky v Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).

47 Yousuf v Samantar 699 F. 3d 763 (4th Cir 2012).

48 Golder v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 524; Ashingdane v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 528.

49 Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573.

50 ibid 1588.

51 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 11.

52 ibid [48].

53 ibid [54], [56]. The Court adopted identical reasoning in two other cases decided at the same time: McElhinney v Ireland (2001) 34 EHRR 13 and Fogarty v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 12.

54 Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163.

55 Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27).

56 [2015] 3 WLR 301. cf Fawaz Al Attiya v Hamad Bin-Jassim Binjaber Al Thani [2016] EWHC 212 (QB) Blake J.

57 Jones v United Kingdom (2014) 59 EHRR 1, at [162], [164].

58 Benkharbouche (n 2) [75].

59 cf Rahmatullah v The Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 3846, per Leggatt J at [90].

60 Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah [2017] UKSC 62 [35]–[36].

61 cf Sir Philip Sales and Joanne Clement, ‘International Law in Domestic Courts: The Developing Framework’ (2008) 124 LQR 388, 405–7; R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office [2009] 1 AC 756, per Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood at [68]; R (Badger Trust) v Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 768 (Admin), reversed on other grounds [2010] EWCA Civ 807; R (ICO Satellite Limited) v The Office of Communications [2010] EWHC 2010 (Admin).

62 Benkharbouche (n 2) [35].

63 ibid [36] referring to Cudak v Lithuania (2010) 51 EHRR 15, paras 67–74 and Sabeh El Leil v France (2012) 54 EHRR 14, paras 58–67. In both cases the Strasbourg Court found national rules of State immunity to be disproportionate and in breach of art 6 where the rule was more restrictive than customary international law required.

64 A point made by Lord Sumption in Benkharbouche (n 2) at [53].

65 Benkharbouche (n 2) [29].

66 Al-Adsani (n 51) [66]. This approach is difficult to reconcile with that of the Supreme Court in Benkharbouche (n 2) at [52] where it was considered that the restricted doctrine has not proceeded by accumulating exceptions to the absolute doctrine.

67 Fogarty v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 12 [37]–[39]. In Benkharbouche (n 2) at [36] Lord Sumption found surprising the view expressed in Fogarty that there was no relevant and identifiable rule of international law.

68 McElhinney v Ireland (2001) 34 EHRR 13 [38].

69 Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27) at [63].

70 ibid [22].

71 R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147, 197–199.

72 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) IC 95-17/1-T, (10 December 1998) [153]–[157].

73 A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71; [2006] AC 221 at [33].

74 Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment) ICJ Rep 2002 [60]. See also R v Lama, [2014] EWCA Crim 1729; [2017] QB 1179 at [37].

75 See also Kalogeropoulou and Others v Greece and Germany, (2002) ECHR Rep 2002 X p 417; 129 ILR 537.

76 Al-Adsani (n 51) [54–56], [61], [66–67].

77 Dissenting Opinion of Judges Rozakis and Caflisch Joined by Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto and Vajic.

78 At O-III3.

79 At O-IV1.

80 At O-II9.

81 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment) ICJ Rep 2006 [64], [125].

82 Arrest Warrant (n 74) [58], [78].

83 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Federal Republic of Germany v Italy, Greece intervening) (Judgment) 3 February 2012, ICJ Rep 2012.

84 ibid [93].

85 ibid [95].

86 Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27). See, generally, Jurisdictional Immunities (n 83) at [85], [96].

87 Bucheron, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Paris, 9 September 2002, and Cour de Cassation, No. 02-45961, 16 December 2003, Bulletin civil de la Cour de Cassation (Bull. civ.), 2003, I, No. 258, at 206; X, Cour de Cassation, No. 03-41851, 2 June 2004, Bull. civ., 2004, I, No. 158, at 132; Grosz, Cour de Cassation, No. 04-47504, 3 January 2006.

88 Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran, Court of Appeal of Ontario, DLR, 4th Series, Vol 243, at 406; 128 ILR 586; Kazemi Estate v Islamic Republic of Iran [2014] 3 SCC 62.

89 Natoniewski, Supreme Court (2010) 30 Polish Yearbook of International Law 299.

90 Case No. Up-13/99, Constitutional Court of Slovenia.

91 Fang v Jiang, High Court, [2007] NZAR, at 420; 141 ILR 702.

92 Margellos, Special Supreme Court, (2002); 129 ILR 525. See also the judgment of the French Cour de Cassation of 9 March 2011 in La Réunion aérienne v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (case No. 09-14743, 9 March 2011, Bull. civ., March 2011, No. 49, at 49) considered by the ICJ in Jurisdictional Immunities (n 83) [96]. cf Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany (2004) decision 5044/04 which gave rise to the Jurisdictional Immunities case before the ICJ.

93 Judgment 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court (2014) 168 ILR 529. See Tanzi, A, ‘Un difficile dialogo tra Corte internazionale di Giustizia e Corte constituzionale’ (2015) 70 La Communita internazionale 13Google Scholar; Sender, O and Wood, M, ‘Jurisdictional Immunities of the State’ in Bjorge, E and Miles, C (eds), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (2017) 564, 575–7Google Scholar. See also Yousuf v Samantar (n 47) [14], [15].

94 Propend Finance Pty v Sing (n 20); Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 27) per Lord Bingham at [31], per Lord Hoffmann at [69]; Belhaj v Straw [2017] UKSC 3 per Lord Mance at [17]; Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 3; [2017] AC 964 per Lord Mance at [17].

95 Cia Naviera Vascongado v SS Cristina (The ‘Cristina’) [1938] AC 485, per Lord Atkin at 490; United States of America and Republic of France v Dollfus Mieg et Cie SA and Bank of England [1952] AC 582; Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379.

96 The whole concept of indirect impleader and its retention in the State Immunity Act 1978 was criticized by Dr FA Mann, ‘The State Immunity Act 1978’ (1979) 50 BYBIL 43, 55–7.

97 Belhaj (n 94); [2017] AC 964.

98 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, supra.

‘Article 6 Modalities for giving effect to state immunity

  1. 1.

    1. A State shall give effect to State immunity under article 5 by refraining from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding before its courts against another State and to that end shall ensure that its courts determine on their own initiative that the immunity of that other State under article 5 is respected.

    A proceeding before a court of a state shall be considered to have been instituted against another State if that other State:

    1. (a)

      (a) is named as a party to that proceeding; or

    2. (b)

      (b) is not named as a party to the proceeding but the proceeding in effect seeks to affect the property, rights, interests or activities of that other State.’

99 Belhaj (n 94) at [26].

100 Fox and Webb (n 1) 307; and O'Keefe, R, and Tams, CJ (eds), The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (Oxford University Press 2013) 110–11Google Scholar.

101 Per Lord Mance at [26], [31]. See also Lord Sumption at [195], [197].

102 Jurisdictional Immunities (n 83); The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD 197, per Brett L.J. at 214–215; Belhaj (n 94) per Lord Mance at [12].

103 Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino (1964) 376 US 398.

104 Belhaj (n 94) per Lord Sumption at [200].

105 Luther v Sagor [1921] 3 KB 532; Princess Paley Olga v Weisz [1929] 1 KB 718.

106 In Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co (No 2) [2012] EWCA Civ 855 the Court of Appeal listed the following at [68]ff. See also Belhaj (n 94) per Lord Mance at [73].

  1. (1)

    (1) The act of State must, generally speaking, take place within the territory of the foreign State itself.

  2. (2)

    (2) ‘[T]he doctrine will not apply to foreign acts of State which are in breach of clearly established rules of international law, or are contrary to English principles of public policy, as well as where there is a grave infringement of human rights’. Oppenheimer v Cattermole, per Lord Cross [1976] AC 249, 277–278; Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883; Yukos at [69].

  3. (3)

    (3) Judicial acts will not be regarded as acts of State for the purposes of the act of State doctrine. Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 WLR 1804.

  4. (4)

    (4) The doctrine does not apply where the conduct of the foreign State is of a commercial as opposed to a sovereign character. Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (The Playa Larga) [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171; Korea National Insurance Corpn v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2008] 2 CLC 837.

  5. (5)

    (5) The doctrine does not apply where the only issue is whether certain acts have occurred, as opposed to where the court is asked to inquire into them for the purpose of adjudicating on their legal effectiveness. WS Kirkpatrick & Co Inc. v Environmental Tectonics Corpn International (1990) 493 US 400. It only applies where the invalidity or unlawfulness of the State's sovereign acts is part of the very subject matter of the action in the sense that the issue cannot be resolved without determining it. Belhaj v Straw per Lord Sumption at [240].

  6. (6)

    (6) The act of State doctrine has been held not to extend to all sovereign acts of foreign States. In Lucasfilm Ltd. v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39; [2012] 1 AC 208 the Supreme Court concluded that the act of State doctrine should not be an impediment to an action for infringement of foreign intellectual property rights, even if validity of a grant is in issue, simply because the action calls into question the decision of a foreign official. Yukos at [63], [64].

To this list might be added a further exception to which Lord Mance drew attention in Belhaj:

  1. (7)

    (7) Courts in the United Kingdom are entitled to determine whether a foreign law is legal, for example under the local constitution. The foreign law will not be regarded as an act of State which cannot be challenged—Belhaj v Straw per Lord Mance at [73] (iii); Buck v Attorney General [1965] Ch 745, 779; Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 758, [2011] QB 773 at [74], [189]—at least where that is not the purpose of the proceedings. Belhaj v Straw per Lord Neuberger at [140].

107 Buttes Gas v Hammer [1982] AC 888.

108 See Yukos (n 106) per Rix L.J. at [65]. Belhaj (n 94) per Lord Neuberger at [149] where he referred to In re Westinghouse Electric Corpn Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No. 235 [1978] AC 547, 616–617 and 639–640, and Adams v Adams [1971] P 188, 198. Belhaj (n 94) per Lord Mance at [105]. A different view was expressed by the Court of Appeal in Belhaj v Straw, [2014] EWCA Civ 1394; [2015] 2 WLR 1105. See also Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham S.S. Co. Ltd. [1939] 2 KB 544, per Sir Wilfred Greene MR at 552: ‘I do not myself find the fear of the embarrassment of the Executive a very attractive basis upon which to build a rule of English law … .’ cf R (Khan) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] EWCA Civ 24; [2014] 1 WLR 872.

109 See, for example, Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573, at 1585–1586; R v Lama [2017] QB 1171.

110 R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147.