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

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

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.

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

477State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Restrictive doctrine of immunity — Immunity in respect of acta jure imperii — Whether available in respect of all acta jure imperii — War crimes and crimes against humanity — Whether State entitled to immunity in respect of international crimes — Fundamental human rights — Jus cogensWar and armed conflict — War crimes and crimes against humanity — Occupied territory — Civilians — Deportation — Forced labour — Peace treaties — Effects — Reparations — The law of Italy

471State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Acta jure imperii — Acts of armed forces in armed conflict — Whether attracting immunity — Whether crimes against humanity capable of constituting acta jure imperii — European Convention on State Immunity, 1972, Articles 11, 31 and 35War and armed conflict — Crimes against humanity — Whether State entitled to immunity in action for crimes committed by its armed forces — The law of Belgium

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

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