Issue 2
![handle is hein.journals/ajil73 and id is 191 raw text is: THE STATE IMMUNITY ACT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
By Georges R. Delaume *
The State Immunity Act 1978 (the Act)1 came into force in the United
Kingdom on November 22, 1978. Preceded by much-noted and bold
decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,: and of the Court
of Appeal, the Act puts an end to the old British doctrine of absolute im-
munity and endorses the restrictive doctrine.
In many respects, the Act incorporates into domestic law the rules set
forth in the European Convention on State Immunity of May 1972, which
the United Kingdom now intends to ratify and which came into force on
June 11, 1976.1 The Act, however, gives a new dimension to these rules.
The convention, of course, applies only as among contracting states; but
the Act gives effect in the law of the United Kingdom to rules based on the
convention in respect of proceedings against all states and therefore has
worldwide implications. In this respect, the Act has the same geographical
significance as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, in effect in
the United States as of January 19, 1977.?
Although closely related in regard to matters of substance to the Euro-
pean Convention and to the American act, the Act differs from both in-
struments in several respects.
It will be recalled that the American act, in addition to regulating strict
issues of sovereign immunity, contains detailed procedural provisions in-
tended to facilitate service of process on foreign sovereigns and also supplies
rules of adjudicatory jurisdiction, which, in effect, give it the character of
* Legal Policy Adviser, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University. The views expressed
in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the IBRD.
1 The text of the Act is reproduced in 17 ILM 1123 (1978).
The Owners of the Ship Philippine Admiral v. Wallen Shipping (Hong Kong) Ltd.,
[1976] 1 All E.R. 78; 15 ILM 133 (1976).
;Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 W.L.R.
'356, [1977] 1 All E.R. 881; 16 ILM 471 (1977).
The text of the convention is reproduced in 11 ILM 470 (1972) and in G. DELAUME,
ThISNSNATIONAL CONTRACTS, App. 1, pt. IV (rev. ed. 1978).
It was the original and main purpose of the Act to enable the United Kingdom to
ratify the European Convention. However, in several respects the final version of the
Act takes into iccount the most recent judicial developments in the United Kingdom
(see id. at paras. 11.02 and 11.05, and 1 Congreso del Partido, [1978] 1 All E.R. 1169).
As a result, the Act leads to certain solutions, which are more liberal than those of the
convention. This is particularly the case in regard to section 3 of the Act which, as
to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the courts in the United Kingdom, does not contain
the same territorial connection requirements that are found in the convention and in the
U.S, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. See infra, text and notes 37, 38.
28 U.S.C. §1. The text of the act is reproduced in 15 ILM 1388 (1976) and in
G. DELAUmE, note 4 s-upra, App. I, pt. IV.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ajil73&div=18&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Issue 2
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Issue 2
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most