Suchergebnisse

623State immunity — Jurisdiction — Functional nature of immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Immunity confined to acta jure imperii — Failure of lower courts to take this limitation into account — The law of the Czech Republic

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — National bank — Monetary policy — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Monetary policy as acta jure imperii — Whether measures in close internal and external relationship to sovereign activity also covered by State immunity — Information policy relating to monetary policy — The law of Austria

203Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Acta Jure Imperii and Acta Jure Gestionis — Contract of Employment between National of Country of Forum and Cultural Academy of Foreign State — Whether Disputes Arising Out of Contract Subject to Jurisdiction of Local Courts — The Law of Italy.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Claim against foreign State for damage caused by negligent driving of motor car owned by State — Car used for carriage of mail for foreign State — The law of Austria.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Claim against foreign State for return of blocked assets — Assets blocked by legislative decree of foreign State — Whether courts of forum competent to adjudicate on claim — The law of Italy.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Acta Jure Imperii and Acta Jure Gestionis — Claim against Foreign State for Return of Blocked Assets — Assets Blocked by Legislative Decree of Foreign State — Whether Courts of Forum Competent to Adjudicate on Claim — The Law of Italy.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Acta Jure Imperii and Acta Jure Gestionis of Foreign States — Recreation Centre for United States Naval Personnel in Italy — Action against United States Navy by Italian Employee of Recreation Centre — Whether Italian Courts Competent to Exercise Jurisdiction — The Law of Italy.

Holy See — Lateran Treaty of 1929 between Holy See and Italy — Immunity of Certain Church Property in Italy — Status of Basilica of St. Paul — Whether under Sovereignty of Holy See or Italy.214Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign States — The Holy See — Acta Jure Imperii and Acta Jure Gestionis — The Law of Italy.

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Greek sovereign debt crisis — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Greek debt restructuring law as acta jure imperii — Issuing of government bonds as acta jure gestionis — Plaintiffs' claims based on performance of terms of issue of government bonds or compensation for their non-performance following debt restructuring — Whether State immunity applicableJurisdiction — gBrussels I Regulation — Lawsuits demanding performance of terms of issue of government bonds or compensation for their non-performance — Whether "civil matter" under the Brussels I Regulation — Whether Brussels I Regulation applicable — The law of Austria

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment — State B employing driver at its embassy in Oslo — Claim for unfair dismissal — Civil Procedure Act — Whether State B enjoying State immunity in cases between embassy and private individual concerning working conditions — Absolute immunity — Doctrine of restrictive immunity — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Whether activities of diplomatic mission in exercise of governmental authority — Rules of general international law on State immunity — Whether Norwegian courts having jurisdictionDiplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Employment contract — Dispute between embassy and private individual — Whether dispute could come before courts of State where embassy located — Foreign Service Act — Principles of general international law on State immunity — Embassy staff members — Whether position held relevant — Whether activities of embassy governmental acts — Whether Norwegian courts having jurisdictionRelationship of international law and municipal law — State immunity — International rules — Regulation of contracts of employment between embassy and locally employed staff — Absolute immunity — Doctrine of restrictive immunity — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Civil Procedure Act — Foreign Service Act — Whether activities of diplomatic mission in exercise of governmental authority — Whether Norwegian courts having jurisdiction — The law of Norway

Abstract
The distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis, while playing a pivotal role in the law of state immunity, appears alien to the law of state responsibility. However, recent practice has shown conceptual overlaps between these different areas of international law. The sovereign/commercial dichotomy has informed the attribution of parastatal entities' conduct to a state under Article 5 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). More precisely, acta jure gestionis have been excluded from the scope of attributable conduct. Against this backdrop, this study investigates whether, and to what extent, the distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis dictates the interpretation and application of Article 5 of ARSIWA. We conclude that the distinction does have relevance in this context, although Article 5 was not designed to preclude the attributability of commercial acts. However, its obscure wording has allowed subsequent practice to overly narrow the scope of attributable conduct. This study, critically analysing a restrictive doctrine of state responsibility, aims to provide a more accurate and desirable conception of the rule and a clear and detailed guideline on when the commercial act of parastatal entities can be attributable to the state.

588State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Customary law obligation to accord immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Civil action against State in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity — Acts having status of acta jure imperii — Territorial tort exception to immunity — Whether applicable to acts of armed forces in conduct of armed conflict — Whether immunity set aside in case of grave illegalities — Jus cogens — Whether immunity available where State accused of violation of jus cogensHuman rights — Access to court — Limitations — Access to court restricted by doctrine of State immunity — Whether constitutionally legitimateWar and armed conflict — War crimes — Crimes against humanity — Occupied territory — Civilian population — Deportation — Concentration camp — The law of Slovenia

346State immunity — Jurisdiction — Property — Functional nature of immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Immunity confined to acta jure imperii — Failure of lower courts to take this limitation into account — Premises of a diplomatic mission — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courtsDiplomatic relations — Immunity — Property — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courts — Whether Korean Embassy unjustly enriched — Whether immovable property used for purposes of State's diplomatic mission — Inviolability of premises of diplomatic mission and performance of mission's functions — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 22 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004, Article 13 — Whether first instance decision correct — The law of the Czech Republic

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Exemptions from and retrictions upon jurisdiction — Foreign States — Claim for repairs to Embassy — Whether claim can be brought in German Federal Court — Absolute State immunity — Restricted State immunity — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Whether based on purpose of activity or on link between activity and sovereign functions of State or on whether activity gainful or not — Whether decisive factor nature of activity and legal relationship resulting therefrom — Whether characterization of activities as sovereign or non-sovereign determined by international law or municipal law — The law of the Federal Republic of Germany.