978-0132718974 Chapter 3 Solution Manual Part 2

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Immunities of States from the Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts

Sovereign states are immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts (1) when they engage in

activities anywhere in the world that are unique to sovereigns and (2) when they act officially

within their own territory.

Sovereign or State Immunity – The doctrine of sovereign or state immunity says that domestic

courts must decline to hear cases against foreign sovereigns out of deference to their role as

sovereigns.

The rule of absolute sovereign immunity, in effect until the 1950s, held that a state is absolutely

immune and cannot be brought before a foreign court no matter what it does or what injuries it

may cause. This made sense in the days when states were involved in little more than tax

collection, law enforcement, and national defense, but it does not make sense now that so many

states are engaged in extensive commercial activities. Absolute sovereign immunity would mean

that individuals and businesses that contracted to buy from or sell goods or services to a foreign

state would be unable to sue that state if a state-owned entity in that state breached its contract.

Besides being unfair, this is bad business.

The theory of restrictive sovereign immunity says that a state is immune from suit in cases

involving injuries that are the result of its governmental actions (jure imperii) but is not immune

when the injuries result from a purely commercial or nongovernmental activity (jure gestionis).

Many states have enacted statutes adopting the restrictive sovereign immunity doctrine. Two

widely emulated examples are the 1976 U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the 1978

U.K. State Immunity Act.

The principal exception described by both acts is, of course, governmental participation in

commercial activity, and both acts undertake to define such activity. In addition to commercial

activities, both acts deny states immunity from claims for death or personal injury, for damage to

or loss of tangible property, for claims relating to real property, and for actions based on

intellectual property rights. However, the exceptions to immunity granted by both acts apply only

if some connection exists between the activity and the forum state.

In addition to the several exceptions already mentioned, immunity is not available when it is

waived by the state. It can be waived expressly at the time the suit is brought or in advance in a

contract clause or implicitly by bringing or participating in a suit. But waivers can be contentious,

and agreements to arbitrate do not necessarily create the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity

in the view of all states.

If there is a judgment against a foreign sovereign, problems of “executing on the judgment” (or

collecting monies due) frequently arise.

Case 3-5: Abbott v. Republic of South Africa

Facts: The plaintiff, Abbott, a foreign national who had been fired from her job at the South

Dispute Settlement

Issue: Can a court enforce a judgment against property belonging to a foreign state?

Holding: Yes, if it is property held for commercial purposes and not in a local bank account.

Law: The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular

Explanation: As a practical matter, a court may not order an embassy to disclose which of the

Holding: Case to be reopened so that plaintiff can enforce the judgment as to any property that is

not immune.

Act of State Doctrine – The act of state doctrine is a rule that restrains municipal courts in some

countries from exercising jurisdiction over foreign states. This rule is most developed in the

United States, where it is based on the U.S. constitutional requirement of separation of powers.

Not all actions of public officials amount to “sovereign acts” that require respect from U.S.

judiciary.

Case 3-6: W.S. Kirkpatrick Co., Inc. v. Environmental Tectonics Co.

Facts: The promised commission paid by Kirkpatrick to the appointed Panamanian entities was

Issue: While applying the act of state doctrine, are public acts and acts of public officials treated

similarly?

Holding: No.

Law: Not all acts of foreign public officials will be recognized as “public acts” for purposes of

Explanation: For the act of state doctrine to apply, the act of a public official must somehow be

Order: The judgment of the Court for the Third Circuit is affirmed.

Choosing the Governing Law

It would be simplest if courts applied the law of the forum state in all cases. To later have a court

in another state apply different laws would discourage international exchanges of all kinds. The

idea that municipal courts should apply foreign laws in these kinds of cases was originally based

on the idea of comity (i.e., respect for the interests of a foreign sovereign) because each state has

an interest in protecting the rights of its subjects, and only by respecting the interests of foreign

subjects can a state expect similar treatment for its subjects in other states.

Courts use what are called choice of law rules to determine if they should apply their own law or

the law of another state in settling civil disputes. This involves a two-step procedure. First, if the

parties to a dispute have agreed to the application of the laws of a particular country, the court

Dispute Settlement

should apply those laws. Second, if the parties have not agreed as to which laws should apply

(either expressly or impliedly), then the court should determine for itself which laws it should

apply by:

a) Following statutory dictates.

b) Determining which state has the most significant relationship with the dispute.

c) In a few jurisdictions: Determining which state has the greatest interest in the outcome of the

case.

Agreement of the Parties – By the use of a choice of law clause, the parties agree in advance as

to what law should apply. So long as the parties made the agreement freely, even if they have no

factual connection with the country whose legal system they have adopted, their choice will

generally be enforced.

The agreement of the parties can also be made in statements to a court. In theory, in contract or

other cases where the parties have not agreed to the applicable law, their intention that the law of

a particular country should apply can sometimes be inferred. In practice, courts seldom infer the

parties’ intention. Instead, they go on to their second set of choice of law rules and apply the law

specified in a statutory directive, the law with the most significant relationship, or the law of the

state with most interest in the outcome.

Statutory Choice of Law Provisions – In civil law countries, the law that courts will apply in a

dispute when the parties themselves have not made a choice is found in statutory codes or,

sometimes, in international treaties. Traditionally, these provisions are based on a concept known

as the vesting of rights, and this approach to choosing the applicable law is, therefore, often called

the vested rights doctrine. According to this doctrine, a court is to apply the law of the state where

the rights of the parties to a suit vested (i.e., where they legally became effective).

To determine where particular rights vest, the codes provide fairly simple and straightforward

guidelines. Usually a provision can be found that covers the general case. Beyond this, the courts

look to the subject matter of the suit—such as delicts (legal offenses), contracts, or real property

—and then choose the appropriate choice of law rule for that subject matter.

The codes also always contain a general limitation on the application of foreign law. That is,

foreign law will not be followed if doing so would violate the public policy of the forum state.

In recent years, many civil law countries have modified their choice of law rules (most significant

relationship doctrine, governmental interests doctrine) in response to objections that the vested

rights doctrine is too rigid and fails to reflect the true interests of the states whose law may or

may not be applied.

Most Significant Relationship – The most significant relationship doctrine has a court apply the

law of the state that has the most contacts with the parties and their transaction. The courts will

consider the following general factors in all cases: (1) Which state’s law best promotes the needs

of the international system? (2) Which state’s law will be furthered the most by applying it to the

case at hand? and (3) Which state’s law will best promote the underlying policies of the legal

subject-matter area involved?

In addition, a court will consider specific factors depending on the kind of case that is before it.

For tort cases, the specific factors are (1) the place of injury, (2) the place of the act, (3) the

Dispute Settlement

nationality, domicile, residence, or place of incorporation of the parties, and (4) the place where

the relationship between the parties was centered.

For personal property cases, they are (1) the location of the property and (2) the nationality,

domicile, residence, or place of incorporation of the parties.

For real property cases, the specific factor is the location of the property. And the specific factors

in contract cases are (1) the place of contracting, (2) the place of negotiation, (3) the place of

performance, (4) the location of the subject matter, and (5) the nationality, domicile, residence, or

place of incorporation of the parties.

Case 3-7: Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others

Facts: Mr. & Mrs. Gobindram Sadhwani (G), residents of Hong Kong, had acted as guarantors of

Issue: What law governs the guarantee contract?

Holding: Japanese law.

Law: To determine the governing law, courts will consider: (1) the law the parties expressly

Explanation: (1) The parties had not expressly designated the governing law. (2) There is nothing

Order: Because Japanese law applies, the case is dismissed.

Governmental Interest – Courts that apply the governmental interest doctrine will make no

choice of law unless asked to do so by the parties. If they are not asked, they will apply the law of

their own state. If asked, they will then look to see which state has a legitimate interest in

determining the outcome of the dispute.

If only the forum state has an interest (a false conflicts case), they will, of course, apply the forum

state’s law. If both the forum state and another state or states have some legitimate interest (a true

conflicts case), then the forum state’s laws should be applied because the court obviously

understands those interests better.

If two states other than the forum state have legitimate interests (also a true conflicts case), then

the court should dismiss the case if the state in which the court is located follows the doctrine of

Dispute Settlement

forum non conveniens. Otherwise, the court has the choice of applying whichever law it feels is

the most appropriate or the law that is most like that of the forum state.

Refusal to Exercise Jurisdiction

The doctrine used by common law courts to refuse jurisdiction is called forum non conveniens.

The court would apply forum non conveniens to nonadmiralty cases (cases in law or equity) and

reaffirm the notion that plaintiffs could not resist forum non conveniens on the basis of

unfavorable substantive law in alternative forums.

The basic four–part test for the application of forum non conveniens is that the defendant will

prevail if there is an alternative forum that is (1) available and (2) adequate, and if (3) private

interest factors and (4) public interest factors point toward the alternative forum and away from

the U.S. courts.

Case 3-8: Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al.

Facts: Mr. Gonzalez bought a Chrysler LHS in Mexico, after seeing the car at Houston, Texas car

Issues: (1) Does Mexican law’s cap on tort damages make Mexico an inadequate forum for

adjudicating a tort suit by a Mexican citizen against a U.S. car company and a U.S. air bag

designer? (2) Did the district court commit reversible error in deciding that Mexico, not Texas,

was the proper forum for this case?

Holdings: (1) No. (2) No.

Law: An alternative forum must be available and adequate. An adequate forum will provide the

Explanation: Even though Mexican law does not provide for strict liability in tort and caps

Order: The district court’s dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is affirmed.

Opposition to the Exercise of Jurisdiction

When a litigant brings suit in a foreign court, it sometimes happens that the litigant’s home

country is opposed to his doing so. The foreign court may dismiss the case using the doctrine of

forum non coveniens; but if it does not, a court in the litigant’s home country may intervene to

prevent the litigant from proceeding with the case. The device the home country court uses is

known as an anti-suit injunction. The anti-suit injunction is directed at the litigant, ordering him

or her not to proceed with the case. Two different standards are used by courts to determine

whether to issue an anti-suit injunction. The first requires a court to consider comity and to grant

the injunction to protect its own jurisdiction or to prevent evasion of its public policies. The

second allows a court to grant the injunction if the foreign proceedings are vexatious or

oppressive or if they will otherwise cause inequitable hardship.

Proving Foreign Law

Dispute Settlement

Courts are held to know their own state’s law, and the same assumption is made for international

law—the court is assumed to know the rules of international law. Courts, however, are assumed

not to know the law of foreign states.

Recognition of Foreign Judgments

When asked to convert a foreign judgment into an enforceable local judgment, a court will hold a

hearing and, if it believes the request is justified, issue an appropriate order. What it will consider

in making this determination varies from state to state. The only universal consideration is that

the foreign court must have had jurisdiction before handing down its judgment.

Arbitral awards are treated quite differently. In states that are signatories to the United Nations

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, a foreign arbitral

award is recognized and enforced in the same way as a domestic award. In other states, foreign

arbitral awards can be enforced only if they are first converted into a judicial judgment in the

state where the arbitration was heard.

II. Chapter Questions

Self-judging Clause

1. Students’ answers may vary. Some may argue that the provision contained in the declaration is

International Court of Justice: Compliance

2. Students’ answers may vary. There is no way to force a state to comply with a judgment. The

ICSID Arbitration

3. Students’ answers may vary. Some may argue that the tribunal has jurisdiction to proceed since

Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Dispute Settlement

4. Students’ answers may vary. Some may argue that State D is not immune from the jurisdiction

of the court. The preamble to the 1976 U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states: “The

Jurisdiction over Criminal Acts

5. Students’ answers may vary. Some may argue that the court has jurisdiction to try President N.

Forum Selection Clause

6. Students’ answers may vary. Some may argue that the court may have jurisdiction as a juridical

person’s consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign court may be given expressly or it may be

Consent will be implied if there are enough contacts between the juridical person and the foreign

state. In determining if there are enough contacts, courts have to consider (1) whether the

Restrictive Sovereign Immunity

7. Students’ answers may vary. The theory of restrictive sovereign immunity states that a state is

Act of State Doctrine

8. Students’ answers may vary. The act of state doctrine is a rule that restrains municipal courts in

some countries from exercising jurisdiction over foreign states. Not all actions of public officials

Dispute Settlement

Forum Non Conveniens

9. Students’ answers may vary. Some students may argue that the Texas court may use the

III. Key Terms

Absolute sovereign immunity—Rule that a foreign state is immune from all types of suits.

Act of state doctrine—Doctrine that the act of a government within the boundaries of its own

territory is not subject to judicial scrutiny in a foreign municipal court. A municipal court will

decline to hear a dispute based on such acts if to do so would interfere with the conduct of the

forum state’s foreign policy.

Advisory jurisdiction—The power of the ICJ to give opinions about issues of international

law at the request of the United Nations or one of its specialized agencies.

Anti-suit injunction—Court order directing a person not to proceed with litigation in a foreign

court.

Arbitration—(From Latin arbitrari: “to give a decision.”) The process by which parties to a

dispute submit their differences to the binding judgment of an impartial third person or group

selected by mutual consent.

Choice of law—Rules used by municipal courts to determine which state’s law they should

apply in hearing a civil dispute.

Choice of law clause—A provision in a contract designating the state whose law will govern

disputes relating to the contract.

Collusive action—(From Latin cullosio: “a secret understanding.”) A suit in which the parties

are not at odds but instead cooperate to obtain a judgment.

Conciliation—(From Latin conciliare: “to call or bring together.”) The process by which an

impartial third party makes an independent investigation and suggests a solution to a dispute.

Contentious jurisdiction—The power of a court to hear a matter that involves a dispute

between two or more parties.

Delict—(From Latin delictum: “a fault.”) In civil law countries, any private wrong or injury,

or a minor public wrong or injury.

Diplomacy—A form of international dispute settlement that attempts to reconcile parties to a

disagreement by use of negotiation, mediation, or inquiry.



Forum non conveniens—(From Latin: “inconvenient forum.”) Doctrine that a municipal court

will decline to hear a dispute when it can be better or more conveniently heard in a foreign

court.

Forum selection clause—A provision in a contract designating a particular court or tribunal to

resolve any dispute that may arise concerning the contract.

Forum state—(Forum, from Latin: “an open square” or “market-place”; in Roman times,

citizens met here to conduct business.) Forum-state: the nation-state in which the court, or

forum, conducts its business.

Good offices—A third party who provides the means by which two disputing parties may

communicate with each other.

Governmental interest doctrine—Doctrine that holds that courts should apply the law of the

state that has the most interest in determining the outcome of the dispute.

Dispute Settlement

Immunity—(From Latin immunitas: “freedom from public service.”) Freedom or exemption

from a burden or duty, such as from the obligation to appear before a court.

In personam jurisdiction—The power of a court or tribunal to determine the rights of a party

who appears before it.

In rem jurisdiction—The power of a court to determine the ownership rights of persons as to

property located within the forum state.

Inquiry—(From Latin inquirere: “to seek after” or “to search for.”) The process by which an

impartial third party makes an investigation to determine the facts underlying a dispute

without resolving the dispute itself.

Investment—A commitment of money or capital in order to earn a financial return.

Juridical person—A legal entity created by national or international law.

Jurisdiction—(From Latin jurisdictio: “administration of the law.”) The authority or power of

a court or tribunal to hear a particular case or dispute.

Legal dispute—A disagreement as to the existence of a legal right or obligation, or as to the

nature and extent of the compensation due for the breach of such a right or obligation.

Mediation—(From Latin mediates: “to be in the middle.”) Bringing about a peaceful

settlement or compromise between parties to a dispute through the benevolent intervention of

an impartial third party.

Most significant relationship doctrine—Doctrine that courts should apply the law of the state

that has the closest and most real connection with the dispute.

Nationality nexus—Criteria that allow a court to assume criminal jurisdiction when the

defendant is a national of the forum state.

Natural person—A human being.

Negotiation—(From Latin negotiari: “to carry on business.”) The process of reaching an

agreement by conferring or discussing.

Optional Clause jurisdiction—A unilateral grant of jurisdiction by a state to the ICJ that

allows the Court to resolve disputes involving that state.

Personal jurisdiction—The requirement that a tribunal must have power over the parties

before it may hear a dispute.

Protective nexus—Criteria that allow a court to assume criminal jurisdiction in cases in which

a national interest of the forum state was injured.

Restrictive sovereign immunity—Theory that a foreign state is not immune when the cause of

action for a suit is based on conduct unrelated to the state’s governmental activities.

Rule of reciprocity—A state has to respond to a suit brought against it before the ICJ only to

the extent to which the state bringing the suit has also accepted the jurisdiction of this court.

Self-judging reservation—A reservation that allows a state to exclude from the jurisdiction of

the ICJ any dispute that it determines is a domestic matter.

Sovereign or state immunity—Doctrine that municipal courts must decline to hear suits

against foreign sovereigns.

Territoriality nexus—Criteria that allow a court to assume criminal jurisdiction over an

offense that was committed within the forum state.

Universality nexus—Criteria that allow a court to assume criminal jurisdiction if the offense

is one recognized by the international community as being of universal concern.

Vested rights doctrine—Doctrine that courts should apply the law of the state where the rights

of the parties legally became effective.

World Trade Organization (WTO)—International intergovernmental organization responsible

for implementing and enforcing international rules regulating trade between nations.

Dispute Settlement