Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T08:38:46.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

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
Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1953 , pp. 153 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

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 5 P. D. 197 (1880).

2 [1938] A. C. 485; this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 824.

3 Citing Larivière v. Morgan, L. R. 7 Ch. 550 (1872), and pointing out that its reversal on appeal did not affect this point, L. R. 7 H. L. 423 (1875).

4 See also Kahan v. Pakistan Federation, [1951] 2 K. B. 1003 (Ct. App., July 24, 1951), in which the court held that Pakistan was an “independent sovereign state” and entitled to immunity from suit in the English courts even though the suit involved a commercial transaction in which the contract for the purchase of tanks provided that “The Government agrees to submit for the purposes of this agreement to the jurisdiction of the English courts.” As for any waiver of immunity by reason of this contract provision, Jenkins, L. J., said: “a mere agreement by a foreign sovereign to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of this country is wholly ineffective if the foreign sovereign chooses to resile from it. Nothing short of an actual submission to the jurisdiction—a submission, it has been termed, in the face of the court—will suffice.”

See also Sayce v. Bahawalpur State (Ameer), [1952] 2 All Eng. 64 (Ct. App., May 20, 1952), affirming [1952] 1 All Eng. 326, which held the ruler of the Indian native State of Bahawalpur immune from suit in England, even though Bahawalpur had acceded to Pakistan and the sovereignty of the Ameer was limited by the grant of certain powers to Pakistan. The court felt bound to accept the conclusions of the executive branch of the British Government on the sovereign status of Bahawalpur and its Ameer, even though the latter may have become a citizen of Pakistan.

In Republic of China v. Pang-Tsu Mow, 105 F. Supp. 411 (Dist. Col., April 19, 1952), a counterclaim for libel brought against the plaintiff state which had sued for an accounting for moneys received by Chinese Government officials (see this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), p. 557), was dismissed on the ground that it was not “a claim arising out of the same transaction” as the suit by the sovereign plaintiff. Morris, D. J., said: “A sovereign state entering the courts of a friendly foreign nation subjects itself to counter-claim with respect to matters arising out of the same transaction as that upon which the original suit brought by it is based, to the extent that it affords recoupment against said sovereign state. …”