Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:08:11.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of State Immunity. By Hazel Fox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pp. lxiv, 572. Index. $135, cloth; $55, paper.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Joseph W. Dellapenna
Joseph W. Dellapenna*
Affiliation:
Villanova University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 730 - 734
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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 See, e.g., Gamel, Moursi Badr, State Immunity: An Analytic and Prognostic; View (1984)Google Scholar; Jürgen, Bröhmer, State Immunity and the Violation of International Law (1997)Google Scholar; Dellapenna, Joseph W., Suing Foreign Governments and Their Corporations (2d ed. 2003)Google Scholar; Lewis, Charles, State and Diplomatic Immunity (2d ed. 1985)Google Scholar; Schreuer, Christoph, State Immunity: Some Recent Developments (1988)Google Scholar. See also Bekker, Peter, The Legal Position of International Organizations (1994)Google Scholar. One could also consider the increasingly lengthy discussions of the topic in books on international law generally, transnational litigation, or other specialized topics.

2 See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Fadden, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812); The Parlement Beige, 5 P.D. 197 (C.A. 1880).

3 See, e.g., The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 283 (1822).

4 See generally Dellapenna, supra note 1, at 3–14.

5 See, e.g., Judgment of Dec. 8, 1964 (Enterprise Perignon c. United States) (Cass. Civ. Ire), 45 I.L.R. 82 (1972), reprinted in 65 I.L.R. 39 (1984); Judgment of Jan. 17, 1973 (Spain c. S.A. de l’Hotel George V) (Cass. Civ. Ire), 113 Journal du Droit International 170 (1986). See generally Badr, supra note 1.

6 See, e.g., The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.§§ 1330, 1391(f), 1441, 1602-1611 (2000); The (British) State Immunity Act, ch. 33 (1978), reprinted in 10 Halsbury Stat. 641 (4th ed. 1985), and in 17 Int’l Legal Mat’ls 1123 (1979) [“BSIA”]; The (Canadian) State Immunities Act, ch. 94, 1980–1982 Can. Stat., reprinted in 21 Int’l Legal Mat’ls 798 (1982).

7 See generally Dellapenna, supra note 1

8 In a typical year, federal district courts in the United States will publish decisions in 50 or more cases arising under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and federal courts of appeals will publish decisions in approximately 20 such cases. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided seven cases arising under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the 29 years that the statute has been on the books. State courts have also contributed a few published decisions over the years. Altogether, there were more than 500 reported decisions involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from American courts by the year 2000. See Dellapenna, supra note 1, at xiv.

9 See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 125S.Ct. 1183, 1217–19 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., & Thomas, J.).

10 Verlinden BV v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493-98 (1983). See generally Dellapenna, supra note l, at 137–44.

11 Republic of Austria v. Altman, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) (applying the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act retroactively on the grounds that it was merely procedural); Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 478–80 (2003) (holding mat the status of an entity as a “foreign state” must be decided as of the time the suit is filed).

12 See, e.g., Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, 549 F. Supp. 1094, 1106 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (describing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as “a statutory labyrinth that, owing to the numerous interpretive questions engendered by its bizarre structure and its many deliberately vague provisions, has during its brief history been a financial boon to the private bar but a constant bane of the federal judiciary”). See Deliapenna, supra note 1, at 117–20, 323–25.

13 See Dellapenna, supra note 1, at 137–14, 469–557.

14 504 U.S. 607 (1992).

15 507 U.S. 349, 356–63 (1993).

16 For an extended analysis of these cases, see Dellapenna, supra note 1, at 360–69.

17 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603(d), (e), 1605(a)(2) (2000).

18 See generally Dellapenna, supra note 1, at 96–105; Joseph W. Dellapenna, Head-of-State Immunity—Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—Suggestion by the State Department: Lafontant v. Aristide, 88 AJIL 528 (1994).

19 See generally Dellapenna, supra note 1, at 559–638; Dellapenna, Joseph W., Deciphering the Act of State Doctrine, 35 Villanoval. Rev. 1 (1990)Google Scholar.