Suchergebnisse

11State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Sale of goods — Claim for payment — Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Distinction between activities performed jure imperii and jure gestionis — Requirement of sufficient connection with forum State for exercise of jurisdiction — The law of Italy

In Jam v. International Finance Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA) affords international organizations (IOs) the same immunity from suit in U.S. courts that foreign governments currently enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which codifies the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) had argued that the IOIA, which grants international organizations the "'same immunity' from suit … 'as is enjoyed by foreign governments'" (p. 15), should be understood to provide international organizations with absolute immunity, which it argued foreign governments enjoyed prior to the United States' explicit adoption of the restrictive theory in 1952. Under the restrictive theory, a foreign state is immune from suit for its sovereign acts (acta jure imperii), but not for its commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). By interpreting language in the IOIA as granting the "same immunity" to international organizations as foreign governments enjoy at the time the suit is filed, the Supreme Court aligned the regime for IO immunity with that of foreign state immunity, except in cases where the IO's founding charter provides a different rule or where the executive branch has explicitly limited immunity. It remains to be seen what IO activities are deemed "commercial" under this regime and what types of transactions are found to have a sufficient nexus to the United States to fall within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception.

An enzyme linked immunosorbent assay was developed to detect antibody to myxoma virus in serum of rabbits. In ten laboratory rabbits vaccinated with attenuated myxoma virus, antibody levels were seen to increase for four weeks, after which they declined. Antibody levels in a large number of wild rabbits collected at Cape Naturaliste area, Western Australia, in 1974 were high, following an outbreak of myxomatosis. When serum samples from the same population were tested in 1978, levels of antibody were low. Using gel filtration chromatography, the main anti-myxoma virus antibody activity seemed to be in the IgG fraction, although IgM and IgA were also present.

1. Introduction -- 2. From a State-Oriented to a Human-Oriented Approach -- 3. Human Rights Recognised as Jus Cogens -- 4. State Immunity or State Impunity in Cases of Jus Cogens Violations -- 5. A Critique of the Demise of Heads of State Immunity in the Age of Human Rights -- 6. Human Rights Versus Diplomatic Immunity -- 7. Conclusion.

676State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Tort — Alleged failure by foreign State to provide medical insurance for consular employee — Whether constituting a tortious omission — Whether foreign State entitled to sovereign immunity from jurisdiction — Distinction between acts performed jure imperii and jure gestionis — The law of the Netherlands

355State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Tort — Alleged failure by foreign State to provide medical insurance for consular employee — Whether constituting a tortious omission — Whether foreign State entitled to sovereign immunity from jurisdiction — Distinction between acts performed jure imperii and jure gestionis — The law of the Netherlands

This Note has outlined various constitutional arguments that the criminal defendant can invoke in support of an application for witness immunity.First, the Note relies on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon for its argument that courts should use a flexible separation of powers approach in the context of witness immunity grants. While the Nixon Court accepted the notion that separation of powers protects the decision making authority of the individual branches of government from infringement by the other branches, it observed that the doctrine does not enforce an absolute executive privilege. Thus, the separation of powers doctrine need not preclude judicial review of executive discretion in all circumstances. The Court also stressed that the defendant's need to obtain all relevant evidence should outweigh a general claim of executive privilege in a criminal trial. Thus, Nixon is persuasive authority for the position that courts should willingly review discretionary actions of the prosecutor. Second, this Note considers the feasibility of initiating a due process claim when the government denies a request for defense witness immunity. The holdings of Brady and Roviaro exemplify the great weight traditionally accorded the defendant's need for evidence. The doctrine of reciprocal discovery lends further credence to the proposition that the defense should have immunity grants available to it and that such immunity should not be dependent on the government's decision to immunize one of its own witnesses. The change in the scope of protection from transactional to use immunity has significantly reduced the weight accorded the government's interests in denying immunity to a defense witness.Although the prosecutor may occasionally encounter added inconvenience when he later attempts to prosecute an immunized defense witness, the added costs may be adequately minimized so that the burden on the government is substantially reduced. Finally, the change to use immunity also reduced the weight given to ...