Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:42:45.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should Sovereign Immunity be Governed by Reciprocity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alona E. Evans
Alona E. Evans*
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
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
Third Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 52 , 1958 , pp. 85 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1958

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 National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China, 348 U. S. 356 (1955); digested in 49 A.J.I.L. 405 (1955).

2 15 Stat. 243; see also 36 Stat. 1135, 62 Stat. 976.

3 Swiss Federal Railways v. U. S., 112 F. Supp. 357(1953); Marcos v. U. S., 102 F. Supp. 547 (1952); of. Johnson v. Turner, 19 Lawyers Journal 284 (1954); 1954 Int. Law Rep. 103.

4 43 Stat. 1113.

5 Lopez v. U. S., 102 F. Supp. 870 (1952); Maiorano v. U. S., 111 F. Supp. 817 (1952); of. U. S. v. The Australia Star, 172 F. 2d 472 (1949).

6 Lauterpacht, Hersch, “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States,” 28 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 220 (1951)Google Scholar; Garcia-Mora, M. R., “The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity of Foreign States and Its Recent Modifications,” 42 Va. Law Q. 335 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 3-4 Elizabeth II, ch. 21.

8 Lauro v. U. S., 162 F. 2d 32 (1947); Eustathiou and Co. v. U. S., 154 F. Supp. 515 (1957).

9 U. S. and France v. Dollfus Mieg et Cie., S.A., and Bank of England, [1952] A.C. 582; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 163; digested in 46 A.J.I.L. 576 (1952).

10 Investigation of World Arrangements with Relation to the Production, Transformation, Refining and Distribution of Petroleum, 13 F.R.D. 280; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 197; of. U. S. v. Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft, 31 F. 2d 199 (1929).

11 Floridi v. Sovexportfilm, 1 Foro Italiano 796 (1952); 49 A.J.I.L. 98 (1955); Tani v. Russian Trade Delegation in Italy, 1 Foro Italiano 71 (1958), I, 855; 1948 Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 141. of. Dralle v. Republic of Czechoslovakia, OJZ, 5 (1950), 341; 1950 Int. Law Rep. 155.

12 Lauterpacht, loc. cit. note 6 above. This view seems to be implicit in the original opinion in The Pesaro, 277 Fed. 473 (1921).

13 Bolivia v. Italian Association for Aeronautical Exports, Foro Italiano 72 (1949), I, 460; 1948 Annual Digest 133; Castigilioni v. Yugoslavia, 1 Foro Italiano 796 (1952); 1952 Int. Law Rep. 203; “Socobel” v. Greek State, Rev. Critique de Droit Int. Privé 111 (1952); 1951 Int. Law Rep. 3.