¹ For discussion of another aspect concerning the treatment of foreign governments by national courts, see Kindred, H. M., “Foreign Governments before the Courts,” (1982) 48 Can. Bar Rev. 602.Google Scholar

² In Triquet v. Bath (1764), 3 Burr. 1478; 97 E.R. 936, Lord Mansfield reported the opinion of Lord Talbot expressed in 1736 in Buvot v. Barbuit “that the law of nations, in its full extent, was part of the law of England.” And see Lauterpacht, H., “Is International Law Part of the Law of England?,” (1940) 25 Grotius Soc. Trans. 51 Google Scholar, and Macdonald, R. St. J., “The Relationship between International Law and Domestic Law in Canada,” in Macdonald, R. St. J., Morris, G. L., and Johnston, D. M. (eds.), Canadian Perspectives on International Law and Organization 88 (1974).Google Scholar

³ Article 38(1) (d).

⁴ On the practice of Canadian courts, see Kindred, H. M., “Acts of State and the Application of International Law in Canadian Courts,” (1979) 10 Rev. Droit U. Sherbrooke 271.Google Scholar For a different account of British practice, see Singer, M., “The Act of State Doctrine of the United Kingdom: An Analysis with Comparisons to United States Practice,” (1982) 75 A.J.I.L. 283.Google Scholar

⁵ See Lord Reid’s remarks in Nissan v. Attorney-General, [1970] A.C. 179, 211.

⁶ Wade, E. C. S., “Act of State in English Law: Its Relations with International Law,” (1934) 15 B.Y.B.I.L. 98, 103.Google Scholar And see Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law 646 (4th ed. 1977).Google Scholar

⁷ Per Lord Wilberforce in Nissan v. Attorney-General, [1970] A.C. 179, 231.

⁸ See 18 Halsbury’s Law of England 725 (4th ed.).

⁹ (1848) a H.L. Cas. 1; 9 E.R. 993.

¹⁰ Buron v. Denman (1848), a Exch. 167; 154 E.R. 450.

¹¹ Walker v. Baird, [189a] A.C. 491, and Johnstone v. Pedlar, [1921] 2 A.C. 262.

¹² Per Lord Reid in Nissan v. Attorney-General, [1970] A.C. 179, 313. And see Collier, J. G., “Act of State as a Defence against a British Subject,” [1968] Camb. L.J. 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Salaman v. Secretary of State for India, [1906] 1 K.B. 613, 639.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ [1970] A.C. 179 (H.L.).

¹⁶ Ibid., 207. Per Lord Morris at 216: “I pass to consider the validity of the plea of act of state.”

¹⁷ The situation may be seen as a particular instance of the fundamental principle that everyone, including the executive, is bound by the rule of law. See Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law 617–18 (4th ed. 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Partly, as Lord Wilberforce pointed out at [1970] A.C. 229, because the case came up on a preliminary issue, not its merits, so that the facts were not fully stated or admitted.

¹⁹ [1975] 1 Q-B.557

²⁰ Ibid., 574.

²¹ Ibid.

²² It is important to note Lord Denning was mindful that the case was a striking-out application in which the facts were only alleged not proven and might, as he said, not be true at all: ibid., 572.

²³ Ibid., 574.

²⁴ Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law 617–18, 833 (4th ed. 1977)Google Scholar; Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 St. Tr. 1030; Laker Airways Ltd. v. Department of Trade, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 234, 250 (CA.).

²⁵ It is possible this is a reflection of the care and quality of legal advice received by the government.

²⁶ The attitude reflects the days when it was admitted that, though the Monarch was not above the law, he could not be made a defendant in his own courts, but even this municipal procedural limitation has long been overcome, first by petitions of right and lately by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. See Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law 664–68 (4th ed. 1977).Google Scholar

²⁷ Supra, at note 13.

²⁸ Supra, at note 16.

²⁹ Contra the extreme dualism of Wade, E. C. S., “Act of State in English Law : Its Relations with International Law,” (1934) 15 B.Y.B.I.L. 98, 104–6.Google Scholar

³⁰ Buck v. Attorney-General, [1965] 1 Ch. 745, 770.

³¹ [1921] 1 K.B. 456.

³² See Fawcett, J. E. S., “Some Foreign Effects of Nationalization of Property,” (1950) 27 B.Y.B.I.L. 355, 357–58.Google Scholar

³³ And see Lauterpacht, E., (1956) 5 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 301, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ [1921] 1 K.B. 456,474.

³⁵ But see Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law 153–56 (1947).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Greig, D. W., International Law 143 (2d ed. 1976).Google Scholar

³⁷ British rules of private international law would have pointed to the lex situs, i.e., to the Russian Soviet decree.

³⁸ [1967] 1 A.C. 853.

³⁹ Ibid., 905, although Lord Wilberforce, at p. 954, would not.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 907.

⁴¹ [1921] 3 K.B. 532, 543, per Bankes, L.J. See also Scrutton, L.J., at 556.

⁴² Mann, F. A., “The Sancrosanctity of the Foreign Act of State,” (1943) 59 L.Q.R. 42 and 155.Google Scholar

⁴³ [1953] 1 W.L.R. 246.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 253.

⁴⁵ E.g., K. Lipstein, [1956] G.L.J. 138, 140; Greig, D. W., International Law 62–63 (2d ed. 1976)Google Scholar; and O’Connell, D. P., “A Critique of the Iranian Oil Litigation,” (1955) 41 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Compare the decisions in Anglo Iranian Oil Co. Ltd. v. Idemitsu Kosan Co. (Japan), [1953] I.L.R. 305, and Anglo Iranian Oil Co. Ltd. v. Società-Unione Petrolifera Orientale (Italy), [1955] I.L.R. 19.

⁴⁷ [1956] Ch. 333.

⁴⁸ Supra, at note 19.

⁴⁹ [1975] 1 Q-B. 557. 573.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 579.

⁵¹ [1976] A.C. 249.

⁵² [1973] 1 Gh. 264, 273.

⁵³ With whom Lords Hodson and Salmon agreed.

⁵⁴ [1976] A.C. 249, 277.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 277–78.

⁵⁶ [1921] 3 K.B. 532, 559.

⁵⁷ [1976] A.C. 249, 278.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 277.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 278.

⁶⁰ Supra note 26.

⁶¹ Per Lord Atkin in The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256, 264.

⁶² Taylor v. Barclay (1828), 2 Sim. 213, 57 E.R. 769; Foster v. Globe Venture Syndicate Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 811, 814; The Fagernes, [1927] P. 311, 324; Re Chateau Gai Wines Ltd. and Attorney General of Canada (1971), 14 D.L.R. (3d) 411 (Ex.C.) ; Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81, 94, & 125 (H.L.); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gulf Canada Ltd., Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd., Taylor and Shepkard, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 39, 58–59. For a commentary on the last case, see Rankin, M. T., “The Supreme Court of Canada and the International Uranium Cartel: Gulf Oil and Canadian Sovereignty,” (1982) 2 Supreme Court L.R. 411.Google Scholar

⁶³ Supra note 55.

⁶⁴ Per Lord Cross in Oppenheimer v. Cattermole, quoted supra, at note 57.