Download Free Sovereign Immunity Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Sovereign Immunity and write the review.

"Sovereign Immunity or the Rule of Law suggests a fresh look at the doctrine of sovereign immunity through the lens of political philosophers whose writings were well known to the people who framed and ratified the United States Constitution. Some of those philosophers espoused theories of sovereignty that logically compelled sovereign immunity. John Locke, the philosopher upon whom the former colonists predominantly relied, espoused a theory of sovereignty that, by contrast, cannot tolerate the idea of sovereign immunity - a government not answerable to its own laws or to the instrument that gave it life. Donald L. Doernberg argues that the United States Constitution exists for no purpose other than to restrain government power, and that to declare the government immune from accountability under it is a profanation of our political and philosophical history."--BOOK JACKET.
Xiaodong Yang examines the issue of jurisdictional immunities of States and their property in foreign domestic courts.
With the rise of globalization, the contracts between private parties and foreign governments have inevitably increased cross-border legal disputes, making the FSIA a significant component of U.S. international dispute resolution practice. Foreign sovereign immunity issues are important to today's topical issues including the world-wide oil and natural gas industry, and the financial services industry.
The author shows through a careful analysis of the law that restrictive immunity does not have vox populi in developing countries, and that it lacks usus. He also argues that forum law, i.e. the lex fori is a creature of sovereignty and between equals before the law, only what is understood and acknowledged as law among states must be applied in as much as the international legal system is horizontal.
The doctrine of state immunity bars a national court from adjudicating or enforcing claims against foreign states. This doctrine, the foundation for high-profile national and international decisions such as those in the Pinochet case and the Arrest Warrant cases, has always been controversial. The reasons for the controversy are many and varied. Some argue that state immunity paves the way for state violations of human rights. Others argue that the customary basis for the doctrine is not a sufficient basis for regulation and that codification is the way forward. Furthermore, it can be argued that even when judgments are made in national courts against other states, the doctrine makes enforcement of these decisions impossible. This fully restructured new edition provides a detailed analysis of these issues in a more clear and accessible manner. It provides a nuanced assessment of the development of the doctrine of state immunity, including a general comprehensive overview of the plea of immunity of a foreign state, its characteristics, and its operation as a bar to proceedings in national courts of another state. It includes a coherent history and justification of the plea of state immunity, demonstrating its development from the absolute to the restrictive phase, arguing that state immunity can now be seen to be developing into a third phase which uses immunity allocate adjudicative and enforcement jurisdictions between the foreign and the territorial states. The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of states and their Property is thoroughly assessed. Through a detailed examination of the sources of law and of English and US case law, and a comparative analysis of other types of immunity, the authors explore both the law as it stands, and what it could and should be in years to come.
This book offers a critical analysis of current challenges and developments of the State immunity regime through three dimensions: it looks at State immunity from a comparative perspective; it discusses the major trends relating to the interplay between State immunity and the protection of human rights as well as counter-terrorism; and it examines the relationship between State immunity and the financial obligations of States. Part I, Sovereign Immunity from a Comparative Perspective: Weak v. Strong Immunity Regimes, deals with the diversity of existing regimes of State immunity at the national level. This part aims to explore different approaches of particular states to sovereign immunity and their general attitude to international law, and attempts to understand why some States favour a weaker State immunity regime by multiplying exceptions or interpreting them broadly, while others continuously support a stronger one and sometimes rely on the doctrine of absolute immunity. Part II, International Customary Law of Sovereign Immunity, Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, highlights how human rights and counter-terrorism have shaped the law and practice of sovereign immunity. This part specifically discusses the role of national legislators and judges in the development of international law, emerging conflicts between national constitutional norms and the rules of international law concerning State immunity and human rights, and possible ways of their reconciliation. Part III, Sovereign Immunity of States and their Financial Obligations, contributes to on-going debates related to the mixed and complex nature of States’ financial obligations. In this part, authors elaborate on perceptions of the underlying public-private law divide, cross influences in public and private international law and their consequences for State immunity, as well as recent trends relating to immunity from execution.
The Supreme Court's recent spate of state sovereign immunity rulings have protected states from lawsuits based on federal legislation as diverse as disabilities law, age discrimination, patent and trademark law, and labor standards. But does the doctrine of state sovereign immunity increase state authority? Does it undermine federal antidiscrimination statutes? Is it an effective means to revive a more robust version of federalism, shifting the balance of power toward states and away from the federal government, and if so, what are the costs and implications of such an approach? This book explores these questions through engaging historical case studies and traces the impact of state sovereign immunity on both plaintiffs and states. Demonstrating that the doctrine's primary effect is felt most keenly by the weakest and most politically unpopular individuals, Christopher Shortell's findings challenge arguments from both proponents and opponents of state sovereign immunity.
As part of a new series of Greenwood's comprehensive reference guides to the United States Constitution, Professor Durchslag's edition on the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of state sovereign immunity is the most thorough and up-to-date treatment of that amendment. The Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment over the past two centuries has been an attempt to balance the sovereign interests of the states against the primacy of federal law, and is currently its primary means of articulating its federalist doctrine. Beginning with an extensive history of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification debates surrounding it, Durchslag proceeds to a chronological discussion of the development of the first generation of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence from 1793 - 1890. The book then proceeds topically, tracing the developments of the various doctrinal components of the Amendment, and includes suggestions as to how they may evolve. The work concludes with an erudite bibliographic essay to guide the reader to relevant primary and secondary works, and is fully indexed. For constitutional students, scholars, and legal practitioners, as well as for political scientists and historians studying the constitution or federalism.
The field of international human rights has been one of the most prominent and dynamic areas of public international law in recent decades. At the same time the law of state immunity, albeit less prominent, has also been subjected to a process of dynamic change. The principle of absolute immunity of states from the adjudicatory jurisdiction of foreign states has been replaced by a restrictive concept under which foreign states can be sued under certain circumstances. The violation of fundamental human rights by foreign states is, however, still widely regarded as immunity- protected conduct, be it because such violations must be considered as governmental acts (acta jure imperii) or because the violations were committed outside the territory of the foreign state. Consequently, it is often impossible for the victim of such violations to bring damage proceedings against the foreign state based on municipal (tort) law in a municipal court. The present study attempts to demonstrate that international law does not per se demand that foreign states be granted immunity in such cases. The current state of international immunity law as evidenced by state practice and the work of several international learned bodies is surveyed extensively. It is shown that the granting of immunity may contradict the procedural guarantees of the European Convention of Human Rights. The impact of human rights law on the traditional concept of diplomatic protection is described. The study concludes that a further restriction of the immunity privilege is necessary, and criteria are offered to distinguish between violations of human rights which should remain immunity-protected and violations where the interest of the perpetrating state to remain immune from foreign jurisdiction must yield to the interest of the injured individual to obtain adequate redress.