No description available.

controversial since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. In 1793, the Supreme Court ruled that the states had no sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment reversed this ruling about the Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment itself has also been very controversial. We study the history and development of sovereign immunity jurisprudence from the founding of the United States until the present time.

The People’s Republic of China (“China”) claims absolute immunity for itself but embraces a concept of state for immunity purposes that excludes state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”). This position has led to confusion and frustration in international litigation against China and Chinese SOEs, particularly when massive Chinese foreign investments are led by SOEs, including those made under China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Yet, the immunity status of Chinese SOEs is unclear. Against this backdrop, this thesis examines Chinese SOEs’ ability to claim sovereign immunity under the customary international law of restrictive immunity as expressed and built on in the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (“UNCSI”), the 1976 United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“US FSIA”) and the 1978 United Kingdom State Immunity Act (“UK SIA”). In investigating the immunity status of the 97 SOEs in which the Chinese central government has direct and full/majority ownership, this thesis answers two questions: (1) under what circumstances would these 97 Chinese SOEs be treated as part of the state for immunity purposes under the UNCSI, the US FSIA and the UK SIA; and (2) under what circumstances would these 97 Chinese SOEs attract jurisdictional and execution immunities thereunder. A critical part of this analysis involves developing an understanding of Chinese SOEs’ dual identity as defined by the Chinese political economy. Chinese SOEs’ dual identity has two levels of meaning. First, it reflects the fact that some Chinese SOEs are categorized as commercial SOEs and others are categorized as public welfare SOEs in the current SOE reform. Secondly, commercial Chinese SOEs have a dual identity, i.e., a commercial and a sovereign aspect in their operations. While commercial SOEs’ primary goal is to pursue commercial interests, they also implement the state’s social, political, and economic policy goals. This sovereign aspect—primarily reflected as the sovereign purpose in their commercial transactions—adds complexity, but is necessary, to our assessment of Chinese SOEs’ “state” status and immunity under the customary international law of sovereign immunity. The three regimes studied in this thesis—the UNCSI, the US FSIA, and the UK SIA—not only take distinctive approaches toward the definition of the state, but also to the commercial exceptions to jurisdictional immunity and execution immunity. Their different analytical frameworks take us to different conclusions about Chinese SOEs’ “state” status and immunity in some cases. Under the UNCSI and the UK SIA, in principle, Chinese SOEs are unlikely to acquire “state” status to claim immunity in their commercial capacity, and consequently, unable to attract jurisdictional immunity and execution immunity for their assets as separate entities. But public welfare SOEs and some commercial SOEs can potentially attract jurisdictional immunity and execution immunity for their assets because to the extent that the purposes of their conduct—which are often related to inherently sovereign functions like the military or the public welfare—are considered in the overall context, the nature of the commercial transaction could be converted into a sovereign one. Under the US FSIA, Chinese SOEs—either commercial or public welfare ones—are state agencies/instrumentalities for immunity purposes, thus, have “state” status. But, in contrast with the UNCSI and the UK SIA, Chinese SOEs are less likely to attract jurisdictional immunity for their commercial activities or execution immunity for their assets under the US FSIA because the US statute applies a broad commercial exception that only considers the nature of the conduct in characterizing whether a transaction is a commercial one. This thesis’s investigations and conclusions have commercial, sovereign, and policy implications for Chinese SOEs’ international business transactions, China’s sovereign immunity position, and litigation involving China and Chinese SOEs in jurisdictions where restrictive immunity is upheld. First, in commercial terms, the analysis in this thesis will better enable commercial parties and states that have commercial relations with Chinese SOEs to understand the dual identity of Chinese SOEs defined by the Chinese political economy and understand under what circumstances Chinese SOEs can potentially attract jurisdictional and execution immunities. Second, in sovereign terms, my research enables states to assess their diplomatic and economic relationships with China from a foreign relations law perspective as China asserts absolute immunity in foreign domestic courts. As this thesis suggests, litigation against China and its emanations and execution against their assets in states where restrictive immunity is applied could give rise to sensitive political clashes in light of China’s absolute immunity position. The ongoing pandemic litigation between the State of Missouri and China in the US court is an example. In line with its practice, China refused to appear in this and other similar cases. My thesis work could provide legal researchers and practitioners with a better informed legal perspective on these highly political disputes. Third, in policy terms, my Chapter on China’s sovereign immunity and my findings that some commercial and public welfare SOEs can potentially attract jurisdictional and execution immunities under the UNCSI and the UK SIA provide China some reasons to not only embrace restrictive immunity but to clarify the definition of the state for immunity purposes thereunder. Ratifying the UNCSI, in my view, would allow China’s position to conform to international law on the one hand; and allow China to contribute to the development of the law of sovereign immunity on the other hand.

O presente trabalho examinará a temática da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro em relação às violações aos Direitos Humanos. Na primeira parte, será abordada a configuração do instituto da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, analisando seus fundamentos (soberania, independência, igualdade e dignidade), operando a distinção entre jurisdição, competência e imunidade do Estado estrangeiro, abordando a questão da transição do paradigma absoluto ao relativo e examinando como se deu esta transição na jurisprudência do Brasil. Na segunda parte do trabalho, tratar-se-á da oposição entre os Direitos Humanos em relação à imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, examinando-se as novas abordagens teóricas a respeito (teoria da renúncia implícita, teoria da hierarquia normativa, teoria da jurisdição universal, teoria da opção e da calculabilidade do risco, teoria e teoria do benefício coletivo), bem como suas repercussões jurisprudenciais, além de se propor uma síntese entre as teorias, para, finalmente, analisar o panorama jurisprudencial brasileiro na questão da imunidade de jurisdição em relação a violações de Direitos Humanos por Estado estrangeiro. / This paper will examine the issue of sovereign immunity regarding Human Rights violations. The first part will look at the configuration of the State’s jurisdictional immunity, analyzing its foundations (sovereignty, independence, equality and dignity), operating the distinction between jurisdiction, competence and sovereign immunity, addressing the transition from the absolutist paradigm to a relative one and examining how this transition occurred in Brazilian case-law. In the second part, the opposition between Human Rights and State’s jurisdictional immunity will be addressed by examining new theoretical approaches about the issue ( the implied waiver theory, the normative hierarchy theory, the universal jurisdiction theory, the option-risk calculability theory and the theory of collective benefit) as well as its repercussions in case law, in addition to proposing a synthesis between the theories, to finally analyze the Brazilian case-law on the question of sovereign immunity and Human Rights violations.

O presente trabalho examinará a temática da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro em relação às violações aos Direitos Humanos. Na primeira parte, será abordada a configuração do instituto da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, analisando seus fundamentos (soberania, independência, igualdade e dignidade), operando a distinção entre jurisdição, competência e imunidade do Estado estrangeiro, abordando a questão da transição do paradigma absoluto ao relativo e examinando como se deu esta transição na jurisprudência do Brasil. Na segunda parte do trabalho, tratar-se-á da oposição entre os Direitos Humanos em relação à imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, examinando-se as novas abordagens teóricas a respeito (teoria da renúncia implícita, teoria da hierarquia normativa, teoria da jurisdição universal, teoria da opção e da calculabilidade do risco, teoria e teoria do benefício coletivo), bem como suas repercussões jurisprudenciais, além de se propor uma síntese entre as teorias, para, finalmente, analisar o panorama jurisprudencial brasileiro na questão da imunidade de jurisdição em relação a violações de Direitos Humanos por Estado estrangeiro. / This paper will examine the issue of sovereign immunity regarding Human Rights violations. The first part will look at the configuration of the State’s jurisdictional immunity, analyzing its foundations (sovereignty, independence, equality and dignity), operating the distinction between jurisdiction, competence and sovereign immunity, addressing the transition from the absolutist paradigm to a relative one and examining how this transition occurred in Brazilian case-law. In the second part, the opposition between Human Rights and State’s jurisdictional immunity will be addressed by examining new theoretical approaches about the issue ( the implied waiver theory, the normative hierarchy theory, the universal jurisdiction theory, the option-risk calculability theory and the theory of collective benefit) as well as its repercussions in case law, in addition to proposing a synthesis between the theories, to finally analyze the Brazilian case-law on the question of sovereign immunity and Human Rights violations.

O presente trabalho examinará a temática da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro em relação às violações aos Direitos Humanos. Na primeira parte, será abordada a configuração do instituto da imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, analisando seus fundamentos (soberania, independência, igualdade e dignidade), operando a distinção entre jurisdição, competência e imunidade do Estado estrangeiro, abordando a questão da transição do paradigma absoluto ao relativo e examinando como se deu esta transição na jurisprudência do Brasil. Na segunda parte do trabalho, tratar-se-á da oposição entre os Direitos Humanos em relação à imunidade de jurisdição do Estado estrangeiro, examinando-se as novas abordagens teóricas a respeito (teoria da renúncia implícita, teoria da hierarquia normativa, teoria da jurisdição universal, teoria da opção e da calculabilidade do risco, teoria e teoria do benefício coletivo), bem como suas repercussões jurisprudenciais, além de se propor uma síntese entre as teorias, para, finalmente, analisar o panorama jurisprudencial brasileiro na questão da imunidade de jurisdição em relação a violações de Direitos Humanos por Estado estrangeiro. / This paper will examine the issue of sovereign immunity regarding Human Rights violations. The first part will look at the configuration of the State’s jurisdictional immunity, analyzing its foundations (sovereignty, independence, equality and dignity), operating the distinction between jurisdiction, competence and sovereign immunity, addressing the transition from the absolutist paradigm to a relative one and examining how this transition occurred in Brazilian case-law. In the second part, the opposition between Human Rights and State’s jurisdictional immunity will be addressed by examining new theoretical approaches about the issue ( the implied waiver theory, the normative hierarchy theory, the universal jurisdiction theory, the option-risk calculability theory and the theory of collective benefit) as well as its repercussions in case law, in addition to proposing a synthesis between the theories, to finally analyze the Brazilian case-law on the question of sovereign immunity and Human Rights violations.

The enforcement mechanism of international investment arbitral awards is an es- sential safeguard for resolving investment disputes. Under the existing machinery, the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention provide an effective legal framework for the enforcement of international arbitral awards. Many countries have provided a favorable domestic statutory regime for investor-state arbitral awards enforcement.  With China's accession to the ICSID Convention and the signing of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties with many countries, China has become more open and active in international investment in recent years. At the same time, some legal risks in settling investment disputes have emerged. For instance, one of the most significant issues is whether investor-state arbitral awards can be ef- fectively enforced in the PRC.  Though the New York Convention was primarily designed to enforce commercial arbitral awards, it is widely accepted that it also permits the enforcement of awards against sovereign states. However, it is risky for overseas investors resort- ing enforcement in the PRC based on the New York Convention since China left the commercial reservation clause when acceding to the New York Convention.  Thus, the ICSID Convention is more beneficial for foreign investors when entering into contracts with the PRC. However, the execution of ICSID awards is subject to the domestic law of the enforcement forum, but China does not provide specific domestic legislation that complies with the ICSID Convention. Therefore, some legal obstacles should be carefully considered during the enforcement phase, such as sovereign immunity and public policy.  This thesis focuses on the enforcement regime of investor-state arbitral awards under the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention. It also predicts the legal risks of enforcing investor-state arbitral awards in the PRC, thus putting 2 forward suggestions for overseas investors and for improving the Chinese arbitra- tion legal system.

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2]  [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). / <p>My thesis opposition was done through virtual presentation in Zoom. </p>

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2] [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] Bishop (n 1).

Pagrindinė kliūtis taikyti valstybei civilinę atsakomybę ilgą laiką buvo valstybės imuniteto (arba suvereno imuniteto, arba įstatymų leidėjo imuniteto) doktrina, kuri neleidžia taikyti valstybei deliktinės atsakomybės už viešojoje srityje atliktus veiksmus. Šis principas kildinamas iš anglų karalių teisės. Šiandien imuniteto egzistavimą bandoma teisinti valstybės turto apsaugos svarba, siekiu užtikrinti valdžių padalijimo principo veikimą, institucijos, turinčios kompetenciją nagrinėti bylas prieš valstybę (ar įstatymų leidėją), nebuvimu, adekvačių teisių gynimo būdų egzistavimu, išrinktų valdžios atstovų pozicijos stiprinimu bei tradicija. Viduramžiška imuniteto doktrina yra nesuderinama demokratinių valstybių principais, tad turi būti visiškai pašalinta. Lietuvos Teismų praktika šios doktrinos egzistavimo Lietuvoje nepripažįsta. Įstatymų leidėju paprastai laikomas subjektas, kuriam suteikta galia pareikšti galutinę ir neginčijamą valią dėl įstatymo priėmimo. Lietuvoje įstatymų leidėju laikomas Parlamentas bei Tauta. Įstatymų leidėjo kompetenciją ir diskreciją riboja Konstitucijoje nustatyti bei prisiimti tarptautiniai įsipareigojimai. Tarptautinių sutarčių pagrindu, pavyzdžiui, EŽTK, Lietuva yra įsipareigojusi užtikrinti pagrindines teises asmenims, esantiems jos jurisdikcijoje. Įstatymas, pažeidžiantis tokią tarptautinę sutartį, laikytinas neteisėtu, tačiau nacionalinė teisė jokiai institucijai nėra suteikusi kompetencijos tikrinti įstatymų atitikimą tarptautinėms... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / A main let to apply tort liability to the state is the principle of sovereign immunity (or state immunity; or legislator immunity), derived from Medieval English law, which says that government is immune from tort liability. Today remains of sovereign immunity doctrine usually is justified by: the importance of protecting government treasuries; separation of powers; the absence of authority for suits against the government; the existence of adequate alternative remedies; strengthening the position of elected politicians; and tradition. The doctrine of immunity is inconsistent with the main principles, recognized by democratic countries, so has no place in democracy and should be repealed entirely. The legislator is a subject, who has a right to make a final and unchallenged decision in the law making process. In Lithuania there are two legislators: the Parliament (Seimas) and the Nation. Competence and discretionary powers of legislature are limited by the Constitution and obligations of the state under the international and European Community law. By international contracts, such as European Convention of Human rights, Lithuania is obliged to confer the main rights to individuals in its jurisdiction. The national law that violates such provisions must be held unlawful, but there are no national institutions that have a competence to state that violation. Individuals may get remedy only if the European Court of Human Rights states the violation; in the same judgment the Court... [to full text]