No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Personality of the Foreign State in English Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The Daily Cause Lists at the Royal Courts of Justice disclose that from time to time foreign sovereign States appear as parties to civil litigation in the courts of England and Wales, mostly as plaintiffs but also, in cases often better known because of the issues of immunity to which they give rise, as defendants. In his judgment in the House of Lords in Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No. 3), Lord Templeman, eferring to the case concerning the financial collapse of the International Tin Council decided the previous year by the same tribunal,1 observed:2 “The Tin Council case reaffirmed that the English courts can only identify and allow actions by individuals, sovereign states and corporate bodies.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1997
References
1. Rayner, J.H. (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. Department of Trade & Industry et al. [1990] 2 A.C. 418.Google Scholar
2. [1991] 2 A.C. 114, 165.
3. E.g., Spanish Ambassador v. Burnish and Points (1615) 2 Bulstrode 322; sub. nom. Pountes, Spanish Ambassador v. (1615) 1 Rolle 133. But in 1 Rolle's Abridgement (London 1668) p. 531,Google Scholar the case was stated to have been brought by “Le Roy de Espaigne”.
4. E.g., Don Alonso v. Comero (1611) Hob. 212.
5. E.g., Don Diego Serviento de Acuna v. Jolliff, Tucker and Bingley (1615) Hob. 78.
6. De Colonia v. De Sconwell; Marsden, R.G. (ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, vol. II (London 1897), p. lxxxvi.Google Scholar
7. Adair, E.R., The Extraterritoriality of Ambassadors in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London 1929), p. 80.Google Scholar
8. Ibid., at p. 83.
9. Ibid, at pp. 83–84.
10. Ibid., at pp. 87–88 for an account of the background to this enactment.
11. Eg, Triquet v. Bath (1764) 1 Bl.W. 471, 474, per Lord Mansfield C.J. and Novello v. Toogood (1823) 1 B. & C. 554, 562, per Abbott C.J.
12. Don Diego Servienli de Acuna v. Sir Richard Bingley (1616) Hob. 113.
13. In Hulletl and Widder v. King of Spain (1828) 2 Bli. (N.S.) 31, 54.
14. SirPollock, F. (ed.), Table Talk of John Selden (London 1927), pp. 68–69.Google Scholar
15. Nabob of the Carnatic [or Arcot] v. East India Company (1791) 1 Ves. Jun. 371, 393.
16. (1851) 17Q.B. 171,211. Note also Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844) 6 Beav. 1,38, per Lord Langdale M.R.
17. Dutch West-India Company v. Henriques van Moses (1738) 1 Str. 612.
18. House of Lords Record Office: Appeal Cases and Writs of Error, vol. 6.
19. (1730) 2 Ld. Raym. 1532; Journals of the House of Lords: vol. XXIII, p. 549 (25 April 1730).
20. Newby v. Colt's Patent Firearms Co. (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 283, 295. For the modern scope of the rule, see Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 12th ed. by Collins, L. (London 1993), vol. 2, pp. 1107–1111.Google Scholar In the light of Bumper Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1362, it would now be more appropriate to call it the “foreign juristic entities” rule.
21. (1785) 1 Bro. C.C. 469.
22. Ibid, at p. 471.
23. (1791) 1 Ves. Jun. 371.
24. Ibid., at p. 378.
25. Ibid., at p. 390.
26. (1793)2 Ves. Jun. 56, 60.
27. (1797) 3 Ves. Jun. 424.
28. By Article 1 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace of 3 September 1783 (48 Consolidated Treaty Series 487), the Crown had aknowledged the thirteen former colonies as “Free, Sovereign, and Independent States”.
29. R.G. Marsden mentioned Jusliniano ( Venetian Ambassador) v. Brooke in the Court of Admiralty around 1607 (Select Pleas, op. cit., vol. II, p. lxxxv and Law and Custom of the Sea (London 1915) vol. I, p. 372 footnote). For the activity of the Venetian Ambassador in litigation at this time, see Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs (Venetian), vol. XI, abstracts 128, 130, 135, 141, 142, 456.
30. E.g. Vattel, E. de, Le droit des gens (London 1758) vol. I,Google Scholar chapter 4.
31. Public Record Office, London (PRO) reference C 13/593/36; see also C 13/600/29. The Court's registers indexed these bills under the name of Frendenreich.
32. (1804) 9 Ves. Jun. 347, 348.
33. C 13/600/21; see also C 13/621/38.
34. C 13/604/12.
35. C 13/600/21.
36. (1805) 10 Ves. Jun. 352.
37. The Times, 17 January 1805.
38. Ibid.
39. ibid.
40. (1805) 11 Ves. Jun. 283. Note also Morning Herald, 21 November 1805.
41. (1805) 11 Ves. Jun. 283, 290.
42. Ibid., at p. 292.
43. Ibid., at p. 295.
44. The Times, 28 March 1806.
45. Eg. Aksionairnoye Obscheslvo A.M. Luther v. James Sagor & Co. [1921] 1 K.B. 456, 474, per Roche J., and Gur Corporation v. Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. [1987] 1 Q.B. 599, 605, per Steyn J. See also P.L. Bushe-Fox, “The Court of Chancery and Recognition 1804–31” (1931) 12 British Year Book of International Law 62, 65–66.
46. Morning Chronicle, The Times and The British Press, 9 February 1826. The law reports (11 Moo. C.P. 308, 4 L.J. (O.S.) C.P. 128 and 3 Bing. 432) do not refer to this argument.
47. Ibid., 10 February 1826.
48. Ibid., 13 February 1826.
49. C 13/690/46.
50. C 13/1657/23. The Canton of Zurich, under the name of “the Burgomaster Petty and Grand Council of the Canton or State or Republic of Zurich” filed a similar bill (C 13/1664/35). The press later reported that the dividends were so transferred (The New Times, 23 March 1819).
51. C 13/1686/5.
52. C 13/1693/43.
53. The New Times, 23 March 1819.
54. Ibid.
55. See generally Dawson, F.G., The First Latin American Debt Crisis: the City of London and the 1822–25 Loan Bubble (New Haven 1990).Google Scholar
56. The common law judges did not insist that executive recognition was necessary to give effect to the acts of foreign bodies politic; e.g., the Court of Common Pleas in Yrisarri v. Clement (1825) 2 Car. & P. 223, 225, and (1826) 3 Bing. 432, 437–438, 11 Moore C.P. 308, 314–315 (Chile) (the fullest accounts are in the Morning Chronicle of 20 December 1825 and 9 February 1826, whose proprietor was the defendant). See generally Bushe-Fox, P.L., “Unrecognized States: Cases in the Admiralty and Common Law Courts, 1805–26” (1932) 13 British Year Book of International Law 5.Google Scholar
57. (1823) Turn. & R. 297, 299.
58. The New Times, 31 May 1824. The Times of that day reported it in different words. The “different opinion” was presumably that of the United States of America. For the bill of complaint, see C 13/1765/1.
59. The correspondence is filed in PRO reference FO 15/8, ff. 105–106 (Vice-Chancellor to Foreign Office, 14 November 1828) and ff. 107–108 (Foreign Office to Vice-Chancellor, 15 November 1828).
60. (1828) 2 Sim. 213, 221.
61. (1831) 9 L.J. (O.S.) 215,221.
62. The New Times, 15 September 1824, printed the text of the affidavits. For an account of this jurisdiction, see Brandon, Woodthorpe, The Lord Mayor's Court of the City of London and the Customary Law of Foreign Attachment, 2nd ed. (London 1876).Google Scholar The records of the Court were destroyed by fire in the Royal Exchange in the 1830s.
63. The New Times, 15 September 1824.
64. The British Press, 16 July 1824. Note also The Courier, 16 July 1824.
65. The New Times, 15 September 1824.
66. The Times, 15 September 1824; The British Press, 15 September 1824.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. The New Times, 15 September 1824.
70. The Times, 15 September 1824.
71. Ibid. Two months later, the Recorder vacated for a similar reason an attachment of funds in respect of an action against named persons sued “as the Government of Peru” (Hodson v. José de San Martin et al. (The Times, 23 November 1824).
72. 75 Consolidated Treaty Series 195.
73. C 13/1777/18.
74. Colombian Government v. Rothschild (1826) 1 Sim. 94; 5 L.J. (O.S.) Ch. 43; The Times of 23 November 1826 reported that the defendants' counsel stated: “…there was no instance on record in which a sovereign State had been allowed to sue in a Court of Equity.”
75. (1826) 1 Sim. 94, 101. The case was King of Spain v. Machado and Mendizabal, The Times, 23 June 1826.
76. (1826) 1 Sim. 94, 104. The reports do not indicate whether the Berne and Zurich cases, decided by the same judge in 1819, were mentioned. According to The Times of 23 November 1826, the judge stated that a new bill might be filed.
77. (1819) 2 Dods. 353.
78. The Times, 22 April 1818. Dodson did not report this hearing.
79. C 13/2512/12.
80. 1 Ves. Jun. Supp. 149.
81. Morning Herald, 18 March 1819.
82. The British Press, 19 March 1819.
83. Morning Herald, 18 March 1819.
84. Ibid. See also Brown's note on the Carnatic case (4 Bro. C.C. 180, 198).
85. E.g. The Times, 19 March 1819, The New Times, 19 March 1819, The Courier, 18 March 1819.
86. The British Press, 19 March 1819.
87. 1 Ves. Jun. Supp. 149.
88. King of Spain v. Machado and Mendizabal, The Times, 6 March and 23 June 1826. For the bill, seeC 13/848/77.
89. For the bill of complaint, see C 13/866/81.
90. (1827)4 Russ. 225, 228.
91. Ibid., at pp. 236–241.
92. The Courier, 24 March 1828. For the bill, see C 13/881/28.
93. The Courier, 24 March 1828.
94. Hullett and Widder v. King of Spain (1828) 2 Bli.(N.S.) 31.
95. House of Lords Record Office, Appeal Cases, vol. 55, p. 431.
96. (1828) 2 Bli. (N.S.) 31,45.
97. Ibid., at p. 47. He also pointed out that Lord Kenyon C.J. had assumed in Ogden v. Folliot ((1790) 3 T.R. 726, 731) that “the executive power” of the post-revolution province of New York was capable of suing in the English courts.
98. Ibid., at p. 60.
99. The Times, 18 April 1832.
100. (1833) 7 Bli. (N.S.) 359, 384.
101. Ibid., at p. 386.
102. (1833) 7 Bli. (N.S.) 359, 393.
103. (1826) 1 Sim. 94.
104. Eg., Otho. King of Greece v. Wright (1837) 6 Dowl. 12, Emperor of Brazil v. Robinson (1837) 5 Dowl. 522 and (1838) 6 A. & E. 801, Rothschild v. Queen of Portugal (1839) 3 Y. & C.Ex. 594, Queen of Portugal and Soares v. Glyn et ai, Journals of the House of Lords, vol. LXXII, p. 451 (2 07 1840), King of Portugal. Russell (1861) 3 Giff. 287.Google Scholar
105. (1850) 1 Sim. (N.S.)301,333.
106. (1848) 2H.L.C. 1,22.
107. Ibid., at p. 27.
108. (1861) 2GifT. 628.
109. Ibid., at p. 678.
110. (1861)3De G.F. & J. 217.
111. Ibid., at p. 238.
112. Ibid., at pp. 252–253.
113. (1848)9Beav. 461.
114. (1844) 6Beav. 1.
115. (1851) 17 Q.B. 196,206–207.
116. (1820) 2 Dods. 451, where the issue was whether a foreign warship lying in an English port was liable to the civil process of the Court of Admiralty in a salvage action.
117. (1851) 17Q.B. 215, 216.
118. (1865) 35 L.T. Ch. 7.
119. (1866) L.R. 2Eq. 659, 661.
120. Ibid., at p. 662.
121. Ibid., at p. 669.
122. (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 724.
123. Ibid., at p. 729.
124. I.e., the Points case (see note 3 above).
125. Hullett and Widder v. King of Spain (1828) 2 Bli. (N.S.) 31.
126. (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 724, 731.
127. (1867) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 582, 584. This proposition, for which no cited authority was given in the report, seems inconsistent with contemporary comparative practice. See Fèraud-Giraud, L.-J.D., Elals et souverains devant les tribunaux ètrangers, vol. I, (Paris 1895), pp. 108–111.Google Scholar
128. Ibid., at p. 587.
129. Ibid., at p. 591.
130. Ibid., at p. 592.
131. Ibid., at pp. 593–594.
132. Ibid., at p. 595.
133. The common law courts were less strict; e.g., Yrissari v. Clement (1825) 2 Car. & P. 223 and (1826) 3 Bing. 432 (see note 56 above).
134. E.g. the Soviet Government before its recognition (Aksionuirnow Ohxchexim A.M. Luther v. James Sugar & Co. [1921] I K.B. 456).
135. [1987] Q.B. 599. 602.
136. Ibid., at p. 624.
137. E.g. Patents Act 1949. s. 24(1); Re Al-Fin Corporation x Patent [1970] Ch. 160 (North Korea).
138. Thames Ironworks Company v. Sultan of Turkey and his Ambassador, The Times, 29 July 1870; Sultun of Turkey v. Union Bank of London. The Times. 26 March 1877.
139. (1873) 29 L.T. (N.S.) 452.
140. (1848) 9 Beav. 461.
141. Wheaion's Elements of International Law. 9th ed.. by Lawrence, W.B. (London 1864), p. 35.Google Scholar
142. [1902] AC. 524.
143. (1901) 4 F. 319.
144. Ibid., at p. 324.
145. Ibid., at p. 330.
146. [1902] AC. 524, 531.
147. Ibid., at p. 532.
148. E.g. Kingdom of Spain v. Christie Manson & Woods Ltd. [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1120. Each of the twenty-two foreign defendants in the Tin case, comprising both republics and monarchies, was sued in the name of the State ([1990] 2 A.C. 418).
149. UK Treaty Series 1984, No. 25. Note also State of Qatar v. Al-Thani. Daily Cause List (Royal Courts of Justice) 31 July 1996; The Guardian, 1 August 1996.
150. (1804)9 Ves. Jun. 347, 348.
151. (1848)9Beav. 461.
152. (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 179, 180.
153. [1987] Q.B. 599, 624.
154. A noteworthy example was Lynch v. Provisional Government of Paraguay (1871) L.R. 2 P.D. 268. For more recent examples, see Government of the Federal Republic of Germany v. Sotiriadis [1975] AC. 1; Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait, Supreme Court Library: Court of Appeal transcript 96/1075 (12 March 1996).
155. Government of Kelantan v. Duff Development Company Ltd. [1923] A.C. 395 and Duff Development Company Ltd. v. Government of Kelantan [1924] A.C. 797. Lord Sumner, however, considered (p. 828) that the Sultan ought to have been made the formal respondent.
156. In Sloman v. Governor and Government of New Zealand (1876) 1 C.P.D. 563, 566, James L.J. stated of colonial New Zealand that “there is no such corporation as a governor and government of New Zealand”.
157. H.C. Deb. (5th series) vol. 983 cols. 277–279 W (25 April 1980); see also H.C. Deb. (5th series) vol. 985 col. 385 W (23 May 1980).
158. International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972, S.I. 1972/120.
159. In re International Tin Council [1967] Ch. 419, 443. In Westland Helicopters Ltd. v. Arab Organisation for Industrialisation, Colman J. stated that “the body thus clothed is no ordinary domestic entity but an international body created by treaty” ([1995] Q.B. 282, 303).
160. See generally, Oppenheim's International Law, vol. I, 9th ed., by Jennings, R.Y. and Watts, A.D. (London 1992), pp. 122–123Google Scholar and 1033 (“The position which a Head of State has according tointernational law is derived from international rights and duties belonging to the state, and not from international rights of his own.”).
161. S. 14(5) of the State Immunity Act 1978 envisages the possibility of constituent parts of a federal State as defendants but, like s. 14(1) in respect of Heads of State, governments and Departments of State, does not itself create their personality.
162. In Mellenger v. New Brunswick Corporation [1971] 1 W.L.R. 605, 608, Lord Denning M.R. held that the Canadian Province of New Brunswick was “a sovereign state in its own right”.
163. In Swiss Israel Trade Bank v. Government of Salta [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49, McKenna J. held that the defendant was a part or department of Argentina, which on the evidence supplied he held to be a unitary State.
164. The Times, 17 April 1832.
165. (1833) 7 Bli. (N.S.) 359, 388.
166. The Times, 15 September 1824.
167. (1851) 1 Sim. (N.S.) 301, 327–328.
168. (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 659, 663.
169. See the quotation in the text at note 126 above.
170. (1867) L.R. 2Ch. App. 582.
171. (1875) L.R. 20 Eq. 140, 141–142.
172. (1867) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 582, 588–90.
173. See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 18 (1977)Google Scholar, para. 1431.
174. See note 157 above.
175. [1993] Q.B. 54.
176. [1902] A.C. 524.
177. President of the United States of America v. Drummond (1864) 33 Beav. 449 and the eases of Haile Selassie v. Cable and Wireless Ltd. [1938] Ch. 839 and [1939] Ch. 182 fall into this category.
178. [1957] 1 Q.B. 43.
179. Supreme Court Library: Court of Appeal transcript 90/862 (25 July 1990).
180. It is unclear whether it was as ruler of Abu Dhabi or as President of the United Arab Emirates that the Sheikh was recognised.
181. [1993] A.C. 410. No issue was raised on the point. In the Department of Private Affairs case, the plaintiffs brought a separate action against the ruler of Abu Dhabi.
182. (1844)6Beav. 1,51.
183. (1851) 17Q.B. 171,206–207.
184. (1876) L.R. 9Ch. D. 351.
185. Ibid., at p. 360.
186. (1881)44L.T. (N.S.) 199.
187. Ibid., at p. 201.
188. Ibid., at p. 202.
189. For the criteria presently applied by the executive, see, e.g., H.L. Deb. (6th series) vol. 261 cols. 478–479 W (13 June 1995).
190. Prioleau v. United States of America, and Andrew Jackson (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 659, 665.
191. Some academic classifications of legal persons did not mention foreign States, e.g. Blackstone, W..Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1 (London 1765)Google Scholar, chapter 18 (“Of Corporations”), Salmondon Jurisprudence, 12th ed. by Fitzgerald, P.J. (London 1966), pp. 305–325.Google Scholar
192. E.g. United Arab Emirates v. Abdelghafar [1995] I.C.R. 65.
193. SirPollock, F. and Maitland, F.W., The History of English Law, 2nd ed. vol. I (Cambridge 1898), p. 486.Google Scholar
194. Maitland, F.W., “Moral Personality and Legal Personality” in Fisher, H.A.L. (ed.), The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, vol. Ill (Cambridge 1911), p. 318.Google Scholar
195. Hart, H.L.A., “Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence” (1954) 70 L.Q.R. 37, 51–52.Google Scholar