Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Case No. [2006] UKHL 26. At <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm>.

House of Lords, June 14, 2006.

The House of Lords handed down judgment in Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on June 14, 2006. The case concerns an action in damages brought by Jones and three other applicants, all UK citizens, falsely accused of involvement in bombings in Riyadh in 2001 and 2002. The four allege that they were repeatedly tortured while in prison in Saudi Arabia and that they suffered severe psychological and physical harm as a result. Seeking aggravated and exemplary damages from Saudi Arabia's Ministry of the Interior and the Saudi officials allegedly responsible, the applicants filed claims of, inter alia, torture, assault and battery, trespass to the person, and unlawful imprisonment. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Saudi Arabia claimed immunity on its own behalf and on that of its officials. The Court of Appeal agreed with the former but denied the latter; all the involved parties appealed the decision. The House of Lords agreed with Saudi Arabia by upholding state immunity in civil proceedings brought against a state and its officials in a different country for alleged torture.

Case No. 1231 [2003]. 1416 Saibansho JIHŌ 6. At <http://www.courts.go.jp>.

Saikō Saibansho (Supreme Court of Japan), July 21, 2006.

In a decision issued on July 21, 2006, a five-justice panel of the Supreme Court of Japan effectively overturned seventy-eight years of Japanese jurisprudence on foreign sovereign immunity. The holding in Case No. 1231 [2003] serves to limit the ability of foreign governmenrs to claim immunity from the civil jurisdiction of Japanese courts in cases involving commercial and other activities not of a sovereign character.

The case came before the Supreme Court as an appeal from a decision of the Tokyo High Court. The two companies bringing the appeal had sued Pakistan for the nonpayment of amounts owing under a contract entered into between appellants and another company for the purchase of computer equipment.3 Appellants argued that the company purchasing the computers was connected to the Pakistani defense ministry and was therefore an agent of the Pakstani government. Pakistan claimed that it was immune from suit under the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. It also denied that the contracting company was its agent.

Germany v. N. Decision No. 2 WD 12.04. At <http://www.bverwg.de>.

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (German Federal Administrative Court), June 21, 2005.

On June 21, 2005, in Germany v. N, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) acquitted a soldier charged with disobeying an order in violation of his military duty of obedience and loyal service. The soldier, a major in the Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr), had refused to participate in a military software project that he feared could support Operation Iraqi Freedom. The major based his refusal on his belief that the Iraqi war was illegal and that, as a result, he was permitted to refuse the order under his constitutional right of freedom of conscience.2 The court held that in view of the serious reservations that exist about the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom and also about Germany's position in that conflict, the soldier's right to freedom of conscience required that he be offered alternative tasks unrelated to a war that he reasonably believed to be illegal.