ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW – particularly as they concern relations between states and the principles that govern them – rarely become relevant in commercial transactions. One situation in which these issues become relevant, however, is when a company or investor in one state enters into a commercial transaction with a state, or an arm or instrumentality of state, and subsequently seeks to sue the other state in a foreign court. In such a situation, the foreign court will need to determine whether the other state can be sued in its courts. This article considers the doctrine of state immunity and how it is interpreted and applied in various jurisdictions, including the UK, mainland China and Hong Kong.
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE?
Under the doctrine of state immunity, a jurisdiction grants immunity to a foreign state from being sued in its courts or being subject to enforcement action in respect of its assets in that jurisdiction. The doctrine is based on the concept that a state should not be subject to the jurisdiction of another state without its consent, reflecting the need for comity or friendly relations between states (for another example of comity between states, see China Business Law Journal volume 8 issue 8: Cross-border insolvency).
The doctrine also reflects the reality that states in many jurisdictions around the world enjoy immunity in their own courts. The immunity that a state enjoys in its own jurisdiction is often referred to as ‘sovereign immunity’ or ‘crown immunity’ and extends not just to the state but also to the head of state personally. The nature and extent of sovereign immunity varies between jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, the doctrine applies very narrowly and there is no automatic immunity enjoyed by the state. In other jurisdictions, such as the US, the doctrine is widely recognised and applies in respect of different levels of government (e.g. state and federal governments).
Although a distinction between ‘state immunity’ and ‘sovereign immunity’ is sometimes drawn on the basis that the former refers to the immunity enjoyed by states in foreign courts and the latter refers to the immunity enjoyed by a state in its own courts, the terms are often used interchangeably.
To date, issues relating to state immunity have been determined by the domestic law of each state and have not been influenced by international treaties. There is, however, an international treaty on state immunity that has not yet come into force. The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property provides that it will come into force after 30 states have ratified or acceded to the convention. As of the date of writing, 28 states had signed the convention (including China) and 21 states had ratified the convention.
ABSOLUTE OR RESTRICTIVE?
In recognising and applying the doctrine of state immunity, jurisdictions around the world can be divided into those that recognise absolute immunity and those that recognised restrictive immunity. Under the doctrine of absolute immunity, a jurisdiction recognises that a foreign state enjoys immunity in all circumstances and in respect of all acts undertaken by the state, including commercial acts. Under the doctrine of restrictive immunity, a jurisdiction recognises that a foreign state only enjoys immunity in respect of the public acts of state, as distinct from commercial acts that would arise in the context of commercial transactions.
The doctrine of restrictive immunity reflects the view that states commonly enter into commercial activities and that it would be unfair to treat them differently in that context. As noted by Lord Denning in the Trendtex case that was decided in 1977: “In the last 50 years there has been a complete transformation in the functions of a sovereign state. Nearly every country now engages in commercial activities. It has its department of state – or creates its own legal entities – which go into the market places of the world. They charter ships. They buy commodities. They issue letters of credit. This transformation has changed the rules of international law relating to sovereign immunity. Many countries have now departed from the rule of absolute immunity. So many have departed from it that it can no longer be considered a rule of international law. It has been replaced by a doctrine of restrictive immunity.”
The majority of states now recognise restrictive immunity. Other states, including China, recognise absolute immunity.
The specific way in which the doctrine of restrictive immunity is recognised and applied depends on the domestic law of the relevant jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, the issues are governed by a piece of legislation called the State Immunity Act 1978. This provides that a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the UK except as otherwise provided. (See Citation 1: Section 3 of the State Immunity Act)
引文一 Citation 1
UK State Immunity Act
3 Commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in United Kingdom.
1. A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to—
(a) a commercial transaction entered into by the State; or
(b) an obligation of the State which by virtue of a contract (whether a commercial transaction or not) falls to be performed wholly or partly in the United Kingdom.
2. This section does not apply if the parties to the dispute are States or have otherwise agreed in writing; and subsection (1)(b) above does not apply if the contract (not being a commercial transaction) was made in the territory of the State concerned and the obligation in question is governed by its administrative law.
3. In this section “commercial transaction” means—
(a) any contract for the supply of goods or services;
(b) any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; and
(c) any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in
which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority;
but neither paragraph of subsection (1) above applies to a contract of employment between a State and an individual.
You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
A former partner of Linklaters Shanghai, Andrew Godwin teaches law at Melbourne Law School in Australia, where he is an associate director of its Asian Law Centre. Andrew’s new book is a compilation of China Business Law Journal’s popular Lexicon series, entitled China Lexicon: Defining and translating legal terms. The book is published by Vantage Asia and available at law.asia.