How has the concept of state immunity evolved from absolute to restrictive?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Evolution of State Immunity from Absolute to Restrictive

The concept of state immunity has undergone a significant transformation, shifting from an absolute doctrine to a more restrictive approach. This evolution was driven by changes in international trade and the increasing involvement of states in commercial activities, necessitating a legal framework that distinguished between sovereign and commercial actions. The United Kingdom, for instance, enacted the State Immunity Act in 1978 to align its domestic law with this evolving international reality, a move paralleled by the United States' Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976.
The Doctrine of Absolute Immunity

Historically, English common law operated under the principle that foreign sovereigns possessed near absolute immunity from personal actions (in personam) and absolute immunity in Admiralty actions concerning property (in rem). Under this absolute immunity doctrine, no distinction was made between the governmental or sovereign activities of a state and its non-sovereign, commercial undertakings. This meant that states could not be sued in foreign courts, regardless of the nature of the activity that gave rise to the dispute.
The Emergence of Restrictive Immunity

Following the Second World War, a discernible trend emerged across various jurisdictions and within legal scholarship favouring a more restrictive theory of state immunity. This shift was largely prompted by the substantial increase in the involvement of state trading enterprises in international commerce. The restrictive theory posits that immunity should only apply to a state's sovereign or governmental activities, while commercial or trading activities should fall outside the scope of immunity.
Judicial Adaptation and Legislative Reform

In the United Kingdom during the 1970s, judges began to show a willingness to adapt the law to these changing conditions. Notably, Lord Denning, in a 1977 case, suggested that there was no established international consensus on the extent of state immunity, implying that national courts could play a role in defining the rules. Lord Wilberforce further elaborated on this by stating that courts must examine the context of a claim against a state, differentiating between trading or commercial activities and governmental or sovereign functions. This judicial movement towards a restrictive approach highlighted the inadequacy of the existing absolute immunity doctrine and underscored the necessity for legislative action to provide clarity and certainty.
International Trends and Legislative Responses

The need for legislative reform to reflect the new international reality of restrictive immunity became apparent by 1978. The United States had already implemented a clear stance on restrictive immunity with its Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976. The UK's State Immunity Act 1978 was enacted to establish certainty, particularly in commercial law, and to prevent London from losing its prominence in adjudicating commercial disputes. The legislation aimed to define the proper limits of immunity from adjudicative jurisdiction, encompassing not only commercial disputes but also areas such as employment, tort, and intellectual property, and addressing issues like waiver of immunity and the immunity of state property.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How has the concept of state immunity evolved from absolute to restrictive?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends