Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T16:22:19.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Disputed Applications of the Principle of State Immunity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Charles Fairman
Charles Fairman*
Affiliation:
of Political Science,Pomona College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When in 1895 the French jurist Féraud-Giraud launched his comprehensive study Etats et Souverains devant les Tribunaux Etrangers, he began with this declaration:

Je n'hésite pas, dès le début de ce travail, & poser en principe et commerègle générale, que les tribunaux ne peuventconnaîre d'une demande portae devant eux contre un governement stranger.

J'ajoute immediatement que cette regie, si elle doit etre acceptee comme principe dominant de la mature, comporte bien des tempéraments et meme de véritables exceptions.

Je n'ose dire que certains ont voulu la voir appliquer d'une manière completement absolue; mais alors que des auteurs et des cours de justice se montraient très disposes à etendre plus ou moins ces exceptions, d'autres se sont efforcés de les renfermer dans les plus étroites limites.(Tome I, 28.)

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 1928 , pp. 566 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1928

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 Ministre public c. Masset, Aug. 23, 1870. Dalloz, 1871, 2.9; Sirey, 1871, 2.6.

2 Prof. Visscher, Charles de , Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparie , 1922, 49:300, 319 Google Scholar.

3 Among those who may be quoted to this effect are: Bluntschli, , Le Droit International Codifié , 2nd edGoogle Scholar. (Lardy, trans.), sec.140; von Bar, Theory and Practice of Private International Law, 2nd ed. (Gillespie, trans.), sec. 532; also in Jour, du Dr. Int. Privé, 1885, 645 et seq.; Carré, Les Lois de la Procedure civile, 3rd ed. by Chauveau, Question 1923 bis; Fiore, International Law Codified (Borchard, trans.), sec. 339; Féraud-Giraud, op. tit., 1,99, and other authorities there cited; Foote, Concise Treatise on Private International Jurisprudence, 5th ed. by Bellot, 198-9; Gabba, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1890,17:27, 39; Audinet, Revue Ginirale de Droit International Public, 1895, 2:385, 396; Hyde, , International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, I, 352 Google Scholar; Loening, “ Die Gerichtsbarkeit vber fremde Staaten,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, Vol. 15, No. 3, 161, 162; Octavio, Le Droit International Public dans la Legislation brisilienne, 114; de Paepe, Journ. du Droit Int. Privé, 1895, 22:31, 37; Visscher, Charles de , Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Ligis. Comp., 1922, 49:300, 317 Google Scholar; Westlake, Treatise on Private International Law, 7th ed. by Bentwich, 267. To the same effect is the resolution of the Institut de Droit International of 1891, Tableau gènèral, p. 117.

4 Solon c. Gouvemement ggyptien, April 16,1847, Dalloz, 1849,1.7 note. This amenability to the local courts was conceded in the argument before the Court of Cassation in Gouvemement espagnol c. Lambgge et Pujol, Jan. 22,1849, Dalloz, 1849,1.5; Sirey, 1849, 1.81.

5 Sirey, 1912, 4.1; this Journal , 5:490 et seq.

6 The Reichsgericht stated this with emphasis in Bardof c. Etat beige, Dec. 12,1905, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1907, 166. Other dicta are those of the Superior Hanseatic Court in The Ice King, Feb. 28, 1921, (Hanseatische Gerichtszeitung, hauptblait, 1921, No. 42, p. 85; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 33:868); the Mixed Court of Appeal of Alexandria, Nov. 24,1920, in Hall c. Bengoa (Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1921, 270; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 33:167); the Civil Tribunal of Rome, Feb. 13,1924, in Storelli c. French Government (Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1925, 1113).

7 Jan. 3, 1878; Joum. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1883, 67.

8 Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1883, 68.

9 Tome I, 99.

10 Héitiers de Plessis-Bellière c. Léon X III, pape, Trib. civ. de Montdidier, Feb. 4, 1892. journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1892, 19:447.

11 Audinet, Rev. Gén. de Dr. Int. Public, 1895, 2:385, 397. Audinet points out that these cases are not conclusive, since in each it was real, not personal, property which was in question.

12 Elmilick, c. Bey of Tunis, Court of Lucca, April 2, 1886, journ. du Dr. Int. Privé , 1887, 501 Google Scholar; noted in Gabba's article in the journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1889,16:543.

13 Rev. Gén. de Dr. Int. Public, 1895, 2:385 et seq.

14 Op. cit., 1,101.

15 Op. cit., sec. 339.

16 Précis, sec. 173.

17 Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Gillespie trans.), sec. 532.

18 Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Légis. Comp., 1922, 49:300, 317-8.

19 Tableau général, 117.

20 (1812) 7 Cranch, 116.

21 Féraud-Giraud, op. cit., I, 207 et seq.; Isabelle de Bourbon c. Mellerio, Trib. civ. de la Seine, March 19, 1872, Dalloz, 1872, 2.124, and note; L’Empereur d’Autriche c. Lemaitre, Trib. de la Seine, Nov. 24, 1871 (Sirey, 1871, 2.225), Cour de Paris, l re ch., March 15,1872 (Dalloz, 1873,2.24; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1874, 32); Wiercinski c. Seyyid Ali Ben Hamond, Trib. civ. de la Seine, 1re ch., July 25, 1916 (Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1917, 1465); Nobili c. Charles 1 er, d’Autriche, Court of Cassation of Rome, March 11,1921 (Jour, du Dr. Int. Privé, 1921, 626; commented on in Fauchille, Traité, I, sec. 643); Khedival Mail Steamship . . . Co. c. Daira Khassa de S. A. le Khédive . . ., Civil Trib. of Cairo, Feb. 10, 1903, Court of Appeal of Alexandria, May 13, 1903, Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1904-05, 20:277.

22 Apparently it is not recognized in Great Britain. Scrutton, L. J., in The Porto Alexandre (1919), 36 T. L. R. 66, said, obiter, “ I think it has been well settled first of all as to the sovereign that there are no limits on the immunity which he enjoys.”

23 Flier, Van der , Grotius Annuaire International, 1923 Google Scholar, 87 et seq.; van Slooten, Rev. de Dr. Mar. Comp. 1924, 6:49, 54.

24 Ministère des finances autrichien c. Dreyfus, Trib. fédéral Suisse, Section de droit public, March 13, 1918, Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1919, 15:172, citing Arrits du Trib. jidiral Suisse, tome 44,1, 49.

25 Jordan, Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18:764.

26 Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Légis. Comp., 1922, 49:300, 304-5. He relied particularly upon Lakhowsky c. Gouvernement fédéral suisse et Régnier, Trib. de Commerce de la Seine, Dee. 26, 1919 (Gazette du Palais, 1920, Vol. 2, p. 382), where the court accepted the distinction between acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis and declared itself competent in an action on a contract entered into at Berne between a private person and the Swiss Government's Office of Foreign Transports. This decision was overruled by the Com d'Appel de Paris, 1 re ch., March 16,1921. journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1921,179; Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18: 745; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 33: 763. The French Dr. Renard took a view similar to that of de Visscher in a note in the Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 33:874.

27 Note in the Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18:761 et seq.

28 Theory and Practice, secs. 531 et seq.; journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1885, 645 et seq.

29 Op. cit., secs. 337 et seq.

30 Traiti de Dr. Int. Public, I, 2 partie, pp. 1119-20.

31 In his 4th edition of Foelix, Traité du Droit International Privé, I, 418 et seq.

32 Droit Civil International, III, No. 38 et seq.

33 Rev. Gen. de Dr. Int. Public, 1895, 2: 385 et seq.

34 journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1895, 22:31 et seq.

35 “ Compitence ou Incompitence des Tribunaux” . . . , Académie de Droit international, Recueil des Cours, 1923, Vol. 1, 525 et seq.

36 “ Die Gerichtsbarkeit üher frernde Staaten,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 1910, Vol. 15, No. 3, 161-6.

37 Traité, 4th ed. by Demangeat, I, Art. 212.

38 journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1888, 15:180 et seq.

39 Le Droit International, II, 340 et seq.

40 Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18: 761 et seq.

41 Tableau général, 116.

42 Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Légis. Comp., 1922, 49:149 et seq., 300 et seq.

43 Lecture at the Instiiut des Hautes Etudes Internationales of the University of Paris, May 7, 1926.

44 Sirey, 1912, 4.1.

45 (1824) 9 Wheaton, 904.

46 (1905) 199 U. S. 437.

47 102 Mass., 489, 499.

48 Bulletin No. 57, Comité Maritime International, p. 102. The same objection has been pointed out by Professor Fedozzi, who remarks that a recent decision of the Court of Cassation of Home declares that the activities of the Soviet Government of Russia as operator of a monopoly of foreign commerce are subject to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts. Bulletin No. 74, Comité Maritime International, p. 188 et seq. Professor Weston points out that under existing canons the local courts would be unable to inquire into the propriety of a declaration of a foreign government that a given activity was strictly public in nature. 32 Harvard Law Review, 266, 273. Numerous examples might be cited to show that the courts are not agreed upon the definition of a public function.

49 Le Droit International, new ed., II, 340 et seq.

50 Cour d'appd de Bruxelles, Jf ch., Feb. 7, 1902, Pasicrisie beige, 1903, 1.294; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1902, 874); Cour de Cassation, l re ch., June 11, 1903 (Pasicrisie beige, 1903, 1.294; Sirey, 1904, 4.16; Dalloz, 1903, 2.401; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1004, 417.)

51 M. de Visscher points out that here, as in many other cases on state immunity, considerations drawn from constitutional law are allowed to enter. Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Légis. Comp., 1922, 49: 300, 314-5.

52 Bardof c. Belgian State, Dec. 12, 1905. Journ. du Dr. Int., Privé, 1907,161; Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1906, 780.

53 (1908) 197 Mass. 349.

54 (1924) 5 Fed. (2d), 659.

55 (1873) L. R. 4 A. & E. 59.

56 (1880) L. R. 5 P. D. 197.

57 See The Exchange (1812), 7 Cranch, 116.

58 In the light of more recent decisions it appears that The Parlement Beige overruled the dictum of Sir Robert Phillimore in The Charkieh to the effect that when a sovereign engages in business his immunity to that extent ceases. So declared by Scrutton, L. J., in The Porto Alexandre (1919), 36 T. L. R. 66, and by Sir Maurice, Hill , J., in Bulletin No. 57, Comitt Maritime International, p. 9 Google Scholar.

59 L. R. (1906) P. D. 270.

60 (1916) 32 T. L. R. 519.

61 (1918) 35 T. L. R. 81.

62 The Eolo (1918) 2 .1. R. 78.

63 (1919) 36 T. L. R. 28.

64 (1924) 40 T. L. R. 601.

65 (1921) 1922, 1 Scots Law Times 65.

66 (1922) 21 Can. Ex. 406; Chitty's Digest, 1920-25, 18; Rev. de Dr. Mar. Comp., 1923, 1:182.

67 (1812) 7 Cranch, 116.

68 (1916) 230 Fed. 493.

69 (1916) 238 Fed. 209.

70 (1921) 271 Fed. 97.

71 (1918) 248 Fed. 1012.

72 (1921) 277 Fed. 473.

73 13 Fed. (2d), 469.

74 11 Allen, 157.

75 Berizzi Brothers Company v. Steamship Pesaro (1926), 271 U. S. 562. Reprinted in this Journal, 20:811.

76 Trib. de commerce de Nantes, June 29,1918 (Jurisp. comm, et maritime de Nantes, Sept-Oct. 1918,1.275; journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1919, 240; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1920-21, 32:345).Reversed by the Corn d'appel de Rennes, March 19, 1919 (Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1920-21,32:345; Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18: 743).

77 Trib. de commerce du Havre, May 9,1919. Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1919, 747; Rev. Int.du Dr. Mar., 1920-21, 32:600.

78 Sept. 17, 1919. Recueil de la Gazette des Tribunaux, 1920, 2.93.

79 July 17, 1920. Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1920-21, 32: 599.

80 L'Englewood, Trib. civ. de Bordeaux (Référé), April 27, 1920 (Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1920, 621; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1920-21, 32:602). Also Humann c. United States Shipping Board, Trib. de commerce de Rouen, Jan. 20,1922 (Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922,34:1074).

81 Superior Hanseatic Court, Feb. 28, 1921, Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 33 : 868; Hanseatische Gerichtszeitung, Hauptblatt, 1921, No. 42, p. 85.

82 Bulletin No. 57, Comité Maritime International, pp. 254-5.

83 Bulletin No. 57, Comité Maritime International, p. 100 et seq.

84 Bulletin No. 57, Comité Maritime International, p. 122 et seq.; 194-5; Bulletin No. 50, pp. 16-7.

85 United States Shipping Board c. Molinari, , Court of Cassation, May 11, 1925. Rev. de Dr. Mar. Comp ., 1926, 14:480 Google Scholar.

86 The Tervaete (1922), 38 T. L. R. 460; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 34: 762.

87 38 T. L. R. 825.

88 At p. 218.

89 The Stevens, John G. (1897), 170 U. S. 113; Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry and Machine Company Google Scholar (1914), 237 U. S. 303; Weston, 32 Harvard Law Review, 266, 267.

90 The F. J. Luckenbach (1920), 267 Fed. 931, The Carolinian (1921), 270 Fed. 1011; The Gloria (1919), 267 Fed. 929; The Newark (1921), 278 Fed. 215; The Pocahontas (1921), 278 Fed. 214.

91 (1921) 257 U. S. 419; Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1922, 34:807.

92 The doctrine of The Western Maid was applied in The Imperator (1924), 8 Fed. (2d) 287, holding The Imperator, renamed The Berengaria, was not subject to a maritime lien for damages while in the service of the British Government, after sale to the Cunard Steamship Co.

93 (1879) Fed. Cas. No. 4758, affirming (1878) 9 Benedict 333. A similar view is expressed in Rowley v. Conklin (1903), 89 Minn. 172.

94 The Stevens, John G. , supra; The Siren (1868), 7 Wallace, 152 Google Scholar; Workman v. New York City (1900), 179 U. S. 552; The Davis (1869), 10 Wallace, 15.

95 Rau c. Duruty, Cour d'appel de Gand, March 14, 1879. Pasicrisie beige, 1879, 2.175; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1881, 82.

96 Banque roumaine de commerce et de crédit de Prague e. Etat Polonais, Oct. 18, 1920. Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1924, 19:581.

97 June 8, 1906. Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1910, 527.

98 Hyde, International Law, I, 446; The Carlo Poma (1919), 259 Fed. 369; The Beaverton (1919), 273 Fed. 539.

99 (1883) 16 Fed. 491.

100 The Johnson Lighterage Co. No. 24 (1916), 231 Fed. 365.

101 Trib, civ. d'Anvers, Nov. 11, 1876. Jowrn. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1876, 340.

102 L. R. (1878) 9 Ch. 351.

103 Briggs v. A Light Boat (1863), 89 Mass. 287; United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.,. (1910), 218 U. S. 452; Libaudière Frères et Maufra c. Liquidateur Oriolle, Cour d'appel de Rennes, ge ch., Jan. 19, 1899, Rev. Int. du Dr. Mar., 1898-99, 14:620.

104 Briggs v. Light Boat (1865), 93 Mass. 157; Young v. S. S. Scotia, L. R. (1903) A. C. 501.

105 (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 198; journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1876, 125. In the same sense are Twycross v. Dreyfus (1877), 36 L. T. R. 752, and Hewitt v. Speyer (1918), 250 Fed. 367.

106 Hassard v. United States of Mexico et al. (1899), 61 N. Y. Supp. 939, affirmed without opinion by 173 N. Y. 645.

107 Zeimer c. Gouvemement roumain, Gerichtshofroyal of Berlin, Jan. 14, 1882, journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1885, 654.

108 Dictum in Dreyfus Frères et Cie. c. Godderis Frères, Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, Aug. 4,1877. Pasicrisie beige, 1877, 2.307; journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1878, 515.

109 Balguerie c. Gouvernement espagnol, Cour de Paris, Jan. 7, 1825, Dalloz, 1849, 1.5 note; Trib. de la Seine, May 2,1828, Gazette des Tribunaux, May 3, 1828, 677.

110 De Villaines c. Comptoir d'Escompte, Trib. cw. de la Seine, Aug. 12, 1895, Cour de Paris, lre ch., June 26, 1908, Gazette des Tribunaux, numero du 16-19 aotit, 1908; journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1909, 144.

111 De Croonenbergh c. 1’Etat IndSpendant du Congo, Trih. de Bruxelles, Jan. 4, 1896, Pasicrisie beige, 1896, 3.252. Etat de Bahia c. Feldmann, Cour de Bruxelles, Be ch., Nov. 22, 1907, Pasicrisie beige, 1908, 2.55; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1908, 210; Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1909, 956.

112 Trib.fidiral suisse, Section de droit public, March 13, 1918, Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1919,15:172, citing the Arrêts du tribunal fédéral suisse, tome 44, I, 49.

113 Féraud-Giraud, op. cit., I, 89. He cites in this sense the high authority of Renault, von Bar, Politis, and many others. Rolin-Jaequemyns expressed himself in favor of the incompetence of the courts at the time when the reimbursement of the Dom Miguel loan was being discussed. Rev. de Dr. Int. et de Ltgis. Comp., 1875, 7: 714.

114 Balguerie c. Governement espagnol, Jan. 7, 1825, Dalloz, 1849,1.5 note. The Trib. de Paris pronounced in the same sense in a decision of July 11, 1840. Le Droit, July 12, 1840, p. 614.

115 Temaux-Gandolphe c. République de Haïti, May 2, 1828, Dalloz, 1849, 1.6 note (Gazette des Tribunaux, May 3,1828, p. 677; reported under De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, L. J. (1851) Q. B. 503); Balguerie c. Gouvemement espagnol, May 2, 1828, Gazette des Tribunaux, May 3, 1828, p. 677; Roumieux c. Leschianine et al., March 16, 1864, Gazette des Tribunaux, April 11-12, 1864; Sée fils et Cie. c. le Gouvemement de Haiti, Le Droit, Dec. 3, 1875 (Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1876, 126); Battarel c. Ephrussi, Jan. 5, 1889, affirmed by the Cour d’appel de Paris, l re ch., March 22, 1889, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1889, 461; Gouvemement ottoman c. Doucet, Dec. 12, 1911, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1912, 212.

116 Carretier c. Chemin de fer d’Alsace-Lorraine, May 5, 1885, Dalloz, 1885, 1.341; Sirey, 1886, 1.353; Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1886, 83. The funds here attached constituted a balance due from a French railroad to the German state railroad administration.

117 L. Beauchet, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1885, 653.

118 Gouvermement espagnol c. Lambége et Pujol, Cour de Cassation, ch. civ., Jan. 22,1849, Dalloz, 1849, 1.5; Sirey, 1849, 1.81; reported under De Haber v. Queen of Portugal in 20 L. J. (1851) Q. B. 501.

119 This is the view expressed by the Court of Lucca, March 22,1887, in the case Hamspohn John c. Bey of Tunis, Journ. du Dr. Int. Privé, 1889,16: 335.

120 Miniature des finances autrichien c. Dreyfus, supra.

121 Jordan, Rev. de Dr. Int. Privé, 1922-23, 18: 764.

122 See Special Supplement to this Journal, SO: 260 et seq.