国家豁免和对国内法院管辖权的第三方限制

IF 1.6 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

International & Comparative Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-06-07 DOI:10.1017/s0020589323000167

Daniel Franchini

{"title":"国家豁免和对国内法院管辖权的第三方限制","authors":"Daniel Franchini","doi":"10.1017/s0020589323000167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":"72 1","pages":"819 - 835"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"STATE IMMUNITY AND THIRD-PARTY LIMITS ON THE JURISDICTION OF DOMESTIC COURTS\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Franchini\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0020589323000167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"819 - 835\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000167\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000167","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要最近的判例法证明，在国家豁免是否排除了第三方国家权利和利益可能受到影响时国内法院的管辖权这一问题上，理论上存在歧义。本条认为，这种混淆是由于未能承认国家豁免是一项以被告主权地位为基础的规则。通过对国家实践的分析，该条认为，《联合国国家豁免公约》所纳入的间接实施概念并不挑战这一规则基于地位的性质。将国家豁免解释为一项主题规则错误地将其与不同的理论，如货币黄金理论和国家行为理论混为一谈。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

STATE IMMUNITY AND THIRD-PARTY LIMITS ON THE JURISDICTION OF DOMESTIC COURTS

Abstract Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

International & Comparative Law Quarterly LAW-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.