The State Immunity Act 1978
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1979.tb01511.x |
| Author | Robin C. A. White |
| Published date | 01 January 1979 |
| Date | 01 January 1979 |
72
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
[Vol.
42
decision not to grant the franchise even to United Kingdom
nationals living within the Member States of the Communities. The
Act also differs from similar provisions in all the other Member
States in its absence of any system of proportional representation.
The EEA and the various national provisions are, however, the first
step towards the establishment of a democratic Assembly, although
it
would seem, at least from a United Kingdom point of view, that
any further developments may take some time.
PATRICIA
M.
LBOPOLD.
THE
STATE
IMMUNITY
ACT 1978
Introduction
The State Immunity Act represents a major change
in
the law
on state immunity to be applied by the courts of the United King-
dom. The Act not only enables the United Kingdom to ratify the
Brussels Convention
of
1926 with its 1934 Protocol on immunity of
state-owned ships and the European Convention on State Immunity
1972,2 but also codifies the law on the immunities to be afforded to
any
state in proceedings before the courts of the United Kingdom.
Because the immunities granted by the Act are more restrictive than
the regime under the European Convention, the United Kingdom
will
be making a declaration to this effect under Article
24.
Such a
declaration will enable the law on state immunity in the United
Kingdom to develop beyond the limits laid down by the European
Convention. The Act follows the trend of recent developments
in
the
common law rules. Since Lord Denning’s famous lone dissent in
1958
in
Rahimtoola
v.
Nizam
of
Hyderabad?
the
judges have shown
themselves increasingly willing to reconsider the old authorities
under which foreign states were immune from virtually all proceed-
ings before the courts of the United Kingdom.’ The passing of the
Act is also in part due to the concern of the City (and the Govern-
ment) that valuable business would be lost to New York as
a
con-
sequence of the passing by the United States Congress of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act 1976.6 The Solicitor-General, Mr. Peter
Archer commented
in.
the debate of the Bill in the Second Reading
Commit tee,
1
International Convention
for
the
Unification
of
Certain Rules relating to the
Inimunlty
of
State-owned Vessels 1926 (Cmd. 5672) and
Protocol
(Cmd. 5673).
a
Cmnd. 5081.
3
[1958] A.C. 379.
4
Phillppine Admiral
[1976]
1
All E.R.
78,
noted
at
(1976) 92 L.Q.R. 166;
Thai-Europe Tapioca Service
Ltd.
V.
Government
of
Pakistan
[1975]
3
All E.R.
961;
Trendtex Trading corporation
v.
Central Bank
of
Nigeria
[1977] Q.B. 529;
(hereinafter cited as
Trendtex)
noted at (1977) 93 L.Q.R.
330
an! (1977) 22
I.C.L.Q. 614; and
C. Czarnikov
Ltd.
v.
Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego
[I9781
1
A11 E.R. 81, afllrmed by the
House
of
Lords,
[1978]
2
All E.R.
1043
(hereinafter cited as
Rolimpex).
See generally
HigglEs,
‘I
Recent Developments in the
Law
of
Sovereign Immunity in the United Kingdom
6
(1976) 15
I.L.M.
1388;
see
also
Dapt.
of
State policy statement at (1976) 15
I.L.M.
1437, and the text
of
the
Blll
and sectlon by
seotion
analysis at (1976)
15
Rolimpex
(1977)
71
A.J.I.L. 423.
I.L.M.
88.
To continue reading
Request your trial