Showing papers in "Netherlands Yearbook of International Law in 1979"
TL;DR: The concept of state immunity has a twofold nature: immunity ratione personae, in so far as a foreign state is involved, and immunity ration e materiae where foreign state property is at stake.
Abstract: The concept of state immunity connotes that a state does not fall under the jurisdiction of foreign courts (immunity from jurisdiction) and that its property located in foreign territory is not subject to attachment and execution (immunity from execution). Thus, state immunity has a twofold nature: immunity ratione personae, in so far as a foreign state is involved, and immunity ratione materiae where foreign state property is at stake.
12 citations
TL;DR: The Soviet doctrine of foreign state immunity as discussed by the authors starts out from the principle that state sovereignty, the sovereign equality of states, underlies this rule of international law and is an indefeasible attribute of every state.
Abstract: The Soviet doctrine of foreign state immunity starts out from the principle that state sovereignty, the sovereign equality of states, underlies this rule of international law. Sovereignty is an indefeasible attribute of every state. It follows from the legal equality of states, and their mutual independence, that no state may wield power with regard to another state, its organs and its property.
12 citations
TL;DR: In Switzerland, there is no rule of law governing the question of immunity from jurisdiction and from execution in Switzerland as mentioned in this paper, and no legislation has been proposed to do so since 1949.
Abstract: At the present time there is no rule of law governing the question of immunity from jurisdiction and from execution in Switzerland. When the Federal Law on actions for debts and bankruptcy was being amended in 1949, the legislator had declined to legislate on this point.
11 citations
11 citations
6 citations
6 citations
5 citations
5 citations
TL;DR: The position of foreign states in national courts is the one to which Belgian practice has made the most specific contribution as mentioned in this paper, and this is the case for all the issues of public international law.
Abstract: Of all the issues of public international law, the position of foreign states in national courts is the one to which Belgian practice has made the most specific contribution.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the attitude and practice of Japan with regard to the immunity of the property of foreign states is summarized, and the position of the Japanese Government through analogies drawn from these cases, and from foreign cases in which Japan has been the defendant.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to summarize the attitude and practice of Japan with regard to the immunity of the property of foreign states. However, the number of cases of this kind in Japan is rather limited. Generally, the attitude or practice of a state can be determined by examining the practice of its legislature, judiciary and executive. In the case of Japan, however, there are no special laws or regulations concerning the question of execution against property owned by a foreign state. Furthermore, no official views have been stated by the executive on the immunity of a foreign state from Japanese jurisdiction. Therefore, the principal source of Japanese practice concerning state immunity is constituted by court decisions. It is possible to learn much about the position of the Japanese Government through analogies drawn from these cases, and from foreign cases in which Japan has been the defendant. Some treaty provisions concluded by Japan concerning the jurisdictional immunity of state property will also be mentioned.
4 citations
TL;DR: The situation in Thailand with regard to the subject under review is a matter of particular interest in many respects, and as such deserves close attention as mentioned in this paper, which requires an examination of the relevant law and practice prevailing in that country on two basic questions, namely, sovereign immunity or exemption of foreign states from territorial jurisdiction and from execution in respect of their property.
Abstract: The situation in Thailand with regard to the subject under review is a matter of particular interest in many respects, and as such deserves close attention. To determine the extent to which a foreign state may claim that its property is immune from attachment or execution pursuant to a judicial order or ruling made by a court of law in Thailand, requires an examination of the relevant law and practice prevailing in that country on two basic questions, namely, sovereign immunity or exemption of foreign states from territorial jurisdiction and from execution in respect of their property, and the capacity of foreign states to sue and be sued before a Thai court.
TL;DR: Nigeria as a comparatively newly independent state has not developed extensive practice and case law in the area of immunity of foreign state owned property within the country as discussed by the authors, however, it is possible to glean from the existing laws and the attitude of the Nigerian government in disputes on this subject what may be generally regarded as the Nigerian practice in this field.
Abstract: Nigeria as a comparatively newly independent state has not developed extensive practice and case law in the area of immunity of foreign state owned property within the country. However, it is possible to glean from the existing laws and the attitude of the Nigerian government in disputes on this subject what may be generally regarded as the Nigerian practice in this field.
TL;DR: There are very few cases in which India has been a party to litigation before foreign courts on the question of sovereign immunity as mentioned in this paper, and none of them is related to our case.
Abstract: There are very few cases in which India has been a party to litigation before foreign courts on the question of sovereign immunity.