CYIL 2014

448 / 532

432
KLARA POLACKOVA VAN DER PLOEG CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
equal).44 Viewing independence and equality of sovereign States as the legal basis
for State immunity conforms to the internationally dominant view on this point,45
even though Yang has challenged its explanatory power,46 and the latest edition of
Hazel Fox’s treatise suggests that this rationale may have been put in question by the
development of the restrictive immunity doctrine.47
In this view, States enjoy immunity in foreign courts simply by virtue of their
status: States are immune because they are States. As States, they are equal to the
forum State, and the courts of the forum State therefore cannot (and should not)
exercise jurisdiction over them.48
While States are no longer completely exempted from jurisdiction and enforcement
in other States, and exceptions to immunity do represent a departure from the principle
of sovereign equality,49 this status-based rationale for State immunity has been
maintained throughout the period in which State immunity has been becoming more
limited.50 This is clearly the view that the Czech Republic’s highest civil court shares.
3.3.2 The Concept of Restrictive Immunity
According to the Czech Supreme Court, the restrictiveness of State immunity
means that immunity extends only to so-called acta jure imperii. According to the
reasoning developed, the determination of acta jure imperii depends on the position
of the foreign State in the particular legal relationship. If that legal relationship
44 This view is also taken in the Czech scholarly literature. See , for example, Bříza P. et al., Zákon
o mezinárodním právu soukromém: Komentář, 56; Pauknerová M. and Rozehnalová N., Zákon
o mezinárodním právu soukromém: Komentář, 69.
45 See, for example, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), International Court of
Justice, Judgment of 2 February 2012, para. 57; Mahamdia v Algeria, Court of Justice of the European
Union (Grand Chamber), case No. C-154/11, Judgment of 19 July 2012, paras. 54-55; Institut de
droit international, Resolution on the Immunity from Jurisdiction of State and of Persons Who Act
on Behalf of the State in Case of International Crimes (2009, Napoli Session), Article II(1); Case
of Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 35763/97,
Judgment of 21 November 2001, para. 54; Hafner G, ‘United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional
Immunities of States and Their Property (2004)’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
(on-line version, 2010) > accessed 20 May
2014, para. 4; Sucharitkul S, ‘Jurisdictional Immunities in Contemporary International Law from
Asian Perspectives’ (2005) 4 Chinese Journal of International Law 1, 42; Cosnard M., La soumission des
Etats aux tribunaux internes: Face à la théorie des immunités des Etats (A. Pedone 1996).
46 Yang X., State Immunity in International Law, 44 ff. This view has been suggested already by Hersch
Lauterpacht in Lauterpacht H., ‘The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States’ (1950) 28
British Year Book of International Law 220, 228-229.
47 Fox H. and Webb P., The Law of State Immunity, 51.
48 See, for example, Stoll P.-T., State Immunity’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (on-
line version, 2011, accessed 19 May 2014), para. 13.
49 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), International Court of Justice, Judgment of
2 February 2012, para. 57.
50 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), International Court of Justice, Judgment of
2 February 2012, para. 57; Fox H. and Webb P., The Law of State Immunity, 4, 19-20, 83; Caban P.,
Jurisdikční imunity států, 11-12.