Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure pp 395–416Cite as

Sovereign Debt and Immunity: The Controversy of Subsequent Liability Limitation for State Bonds

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter engages with the limitations of jurisdictional immunity of states in cases of commercial transactions (acta jure gestionis) by looking at state bonds and immunity against claims for their repayment. There is no international consensus as to whether immunity can subsequently be restored by the issuing state through a public act of state (actus jure imperii) that unilaterally modifies or lifts the obligation of repayment. The chapter analyses the two opposing views that have been taken by highest courts of different countries and international courts. The reasoning behind the judicial views is elucidated in order to establish why, or why not, foreign states might subsequently assert their jurisdictional immunity when sued by private investors. Placing this controversy in the wider legal context, the chapter suggests that differing perceptions of the underlying public-private law divide can be seen as an explanation of the divergent views. The respective consequences of jurisdictional immunity against claims for repayment of state bonds are addressed subsequently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Oosterlinck (2013), p. 699; Roos (2019), pp. 95ff.

  2. 2.

    Roos (2019), pp. 173ff (on Argentina) and pp. 225ff (on Greece).

  3. 3.

    See, for instance, Bröhmer (2015); Delaume (1989); Kupelyants (2018); Mola (2012); Waibel (2011); Weidemaier (2014).

  4. 4.

    For a comprehensive analysis of sovereign defaults see Reinhart and Rogoff (2009); Schumacher et al. (2018).

  5. 5.

    Sovereign equality is commonly based on the principle par in parem non habet imperium or par in parem non habet iudicium, see for instance Bankas (2005), pp. 37ff; Damrosch (2019), p. 42; Fox and Webb (2015), pp. 26ff; Kokott (2011), para. 35; Tomuschat (1999), p. 176. However, as noted by Finke (2010), p. 866, the League of Nations referred merely to the independence of states as the basis for their immunity, without relying on their equality, see ‘Competence of the Courts in regard to Foreign States’ (1927) 9 Publications of the League of Nations V, Legal, No 11, reprinted in (1928) 22 American Journal of International Law Supplement 117, 118.

  6. 6.

    For an overview see Bankas (2005), pp. 329ff. For a historical overview see Fox (2019).

  7. 7.

    International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State judgment (Germany v Italy, Greece intervening) [2012] ICJ 99, paras. 60–61.

  8. 8.

    Orakhelashvili (2019); Stoll (2012), para. 25.

  9. 9.

    Sucharitkul (1982), pp. 207ff.

  10. 10.

    Articles 10ff UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities.

  11. 11.

    Art 30(1) of the of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (New York, 2 December 2004) requires 30 ratifications for the entry into force of the Convention. So far, there are 28 signatories, of which 22 have ratified and become parties. For instance, France has ratified; the UK and Russia have signed but not ratified; Germany has not even signed.

  12. 12.

    Banifatemi (2019); Fox and Webb (2015), pp. 399ff; Okeke (2018), pp. 107ff; Shan and Wang (2019), pp. 70–73; Shaw (2017), pp. 540ff; van Alebeek and Pavoni (2018), pp. 112ff; Yang (2012), pp. 75ff.

  13. 13.

    Fox and Webb (2015), pp. 439ff; Okeke (2018), pp. 130ff; Shaw (2017), pp. 546ff; van Alebeek and Pavoni (2018), pp. 116ff; Yang (2012), pp. 132ff.

  14. 14.

    Art 2(2)(c)(ii) UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities.

  15. 15.

    Fox and Webb (2015), pp. 417ff; Yang (2012), pp. 75ff.

  16. 16.

    Wittich (2013), p. 168.

  17. 17.

    Art 10(1) UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities.

  18. 18.

    Aust (2010), p. 153; Shaw (2017), pp. 542–543; Yang (2012), p. 77 with further references in footnote 23. Also see German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), Case 2 BvM 9/03, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2006:ms20061206.2bvm000903, para. 35.

  19. 19.

    Amirfar (2019); Okeke (2018), pp. 155ff; Shan and Wang (2019), pp. 76–77; Yang (2012), pp. 316ff.

  20. 20.

    Francioni (2009), pp. 745–746 also finds that there is no basis in international law for claiming that a commercial transaction may subsequently qualify as actus jure imperii, although he evaluates this finding differently.

  21. 21.

    European Court of Human Rights, Sabeh el Leil v France, Case 34869/05 (2012) 54 EHRR 14.

  22. 22.

    European Court of Human Rights, Sabeh el Leil v France, Case 34869/05 (2012) 54 EHRR 14, paras. 57–58.

  23. 23.

    European Court of Human Rights, Cudak v Lithuania, Case 15869/02 (2010) 51 EHRR 15, paras. 66–67.

  24. 24.

    European Convention on State Immunity (Basel, 16 May 1972) ETS No 74.

  25. 25.

    Art 7(1) European Convention on State Immunity.

  26. 26.

    It seems as if this exact expression was first used in UK House of Lords, I Congreso del Partido [1983] AC 244, 263, 269, 276. It is also used, for instance by Damian (1985), p. 105; Geimer (2017). See also Arnold and Garber (2019), p. 390; Mankowski (2019), p. 199.

  27. 27.

    US Supreme Court, Republic of Argentina v Weltover, Inc (1992) 504 US 607. For a comprehensive comment, see Lew (1994).

  28. 28.

    US Supreme Court, Republic of Argentina v Weltover, Inc (1992) 504 US 607, 609ff.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 610ff and 615ff.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., 617ff.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., 614.

  32. 32.

    US Supreme Court, Republic of Argentina v Weltover, Inc (1992) 504 US 607, 613–614.

  33. 33.

    US Supreme Court, Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc v Republic of Cuba (1976) 425 US 682.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., 696.

  35. 35.

    28 US Code § 1605(a)(2). For a commentary, see Dickinson et al. (2004), paras. 3.034ff.

  36. 36.

    28 US Code § 1603(d).

  37. 37.

    Bröhmer (2015), pp. 188–190; Herdegen (2018), § 37 para. 7; Kupelyants (2018), para. 8.33; Okeke (2018), pp. 113–114; Panizza et al. (2009), pp. 653–654; Shaw (2017), p. 544; Webb (2018), p. 330; Waibel (2011), p. 122.

  38. 38.

    State Immunity Act 1978, sec 3(1)(a).

  39. 39.

    State Immunity Act 1978, sec 3(3)(b).

  40. 40.

    I Congreso del Partido [1983] AC 244.

  41. 41.

    On 22 November 1978, SI 1978/1572 per State Immunity Act 1978, sec 23(5).

  42. 42.

    I Congreso del Partido [1983] AC 244, 278–279.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., 279.

  44. 44.

    Dickinson et al. (2004), para. 4.029; Lewis (1990), p. 43; Mann (1979), p. 52.

  45. 45.

    Similarly Kupelyants (2018), para. 8.24.

  46. 46.

    English translation by Borchard (1951), p. 11 of Mixed Tribunal of Cairo, NM Rothschild & Sons v Gouvernement Egyptien (1925) 350 Journal des Tribunaux Mixtes 4.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Italian Court of Cassation, Borri v Argentina, Case 11225 (2005) 88 Rivista Diritto Internazionale 856.

  49. 49.

    Quoted according to the translation by van Alebeek and Pavoni (2018), p. 116.

  50. 50.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Case 329, judgment of 2 July 1992.

  51. 51.

    Italian Court of Cassation, Brazil v Italplan Engineering, Environment & Transports SPA, Case 6603/2015 (IT 2015) Oxford Reports on International Law: International Law in Domestic Courts 2566, paras. 17–18.

  52. 52.

    Bonafè (2006); Pavoni (2009), pp. 78–80; van Alebeek and Pavoni (2018), p. 116. Also see Francioni (2009), p. 746.

  53. 53.

    Bröhmer (2015), pp. 191–192; Hess (2018b), pp. 222–223.

  54. 54.

    Not even in a case of torture in and by a foreign state, the forum state is obliged to refuse immunity to this foreign state on the basis of the tortured claimant’s fundamental right of access to justice under Art 6(1) European Convention of Human Rights, see European Court of Human Rights, Al-Adsani v the United Kingdom, Case 35763/97 (2002) 34 EHRR 11, paras. 52–67 (however, this decision was only made by nine votes to eight).

  55. 55.

    Greek Bondholder Act 4050/2012 (23 February 2012), Art 1.

  56. 56.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case VI ZR 516/14, ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:080316UVIZR516.14.0; Case XI ZR 217/16, ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:191217UXIZR217.16.0; Case XI ZR 247/16, ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:191217UXIZR247.16.0; Case XI ZR 796/16; ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:191217UXIZR796.16.0.

  57. 57.

    German Federal Labour Court, Case 3 AZB 5/12, Entscheidungen des Bundesarbeitsgerichts 144, 244, paras 25ff.

  58. 58.

    Damian (1985), pp. 106, 178; Geimer (2017); Hess (2018a), pp. 352–354; Mankowski (2018a), p. 188; Schack (2017), para. 182; Seidl-Hohenveldern (1979), p. 1091.

  59. 59.

    Lorz (2017), p. 85; Weller and Fischer (2016), p. 173.

  60. 60.

    Based on the idea of Politis (1984), p. 16. Also see, for instance, UK Court of Appeal, Twycross v Dreyfus (1877) 5 Ch D 605, 616.

  61. 61.

    Arnold and Garber (2015), pp. 185–188; Mankowski (2018a), p. 188; Müller (2016), p. 81.

  62. 62.

    Mankowski (2018a), p. 188; Müller (2018).

  63. 63.

    German Federal Labour Court, Case 5 AZR 962/13, ECLI:DE:BAG:2017:260417.U.5AZR962.13.0, Entscheidungen des Bundesarbeitsgerichts 159, 69–81. Also see the preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-135/15 Nikiforidis, ECLI:EU:C:2016:774. For an analysis see Lehmann and Ungerer (2017/2018).

  64. 64.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case 2 BvR 331/18, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200506.2bvr033118. For an English summary see, for instance, https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/2020/07/once-a-trader-always-a-state-the-federal-constitutional-court-classifies-greek-debt-restructuring-measures-as-acta-jure-imperii/.

  65. 65.

    Austrian Court of Justice, Case 4 Ob 227/13f, confirmed Case 8 Ob 67/15h, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2015:RS0130470, in Case 6 Ob 122/15g, and in Case 8 Ob 125/14p.

  66. 66.

    Austrian Court of Justice, Case 4 Ob 227/13f, para. 3.2.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para. 3.1.

  68. 68.

    Austrian Court of Justice, Case 10 Ob 103/18x, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2019:0100OB00103.18X.0122.000, para 1.1. For a case note, see Weller and Walter (2019), pp. 124–125.

  69. 69.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-308/17 Kuhn, ECLI:EU:C:2018:911.

  70. 70.

    It is undisputed that the Court of Justice cannot rule on sovereign immunity as an issue of national procedure. See particularly, Case C-292/05 Lechouritou, ECLI:EU:C:2006:700, Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, para 78; UK High Court, Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank [2005] EWHC 2944 (QB), [47]; Mankowski (2019), p. 194; Muir Watt and Pataut (2008), pp. 68–69; Weller and Walter (2019), p. 125.

  71. 71.

    See, for instance, Arnold and Garber (2015), pp. 192–193; Hauser (2019), pp. 337–338; Hess (2018b), p. 72; Mankowski (2015), para. 9; Mankowski (2019), pp. 195–196; Stürner (2008), p. 203; Wagner (2014), p. 264; Weller and Walter (2019), p. 125.

  72. 72.

    OJ L351/1.

  73. 73.

    Art 1(1) Brussels Ia Regulation.

  74. 74.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-308/17 Kuhn, ECLI:EU:C:2018, paras. 29ff.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., para. 42.

  76. 76.

    Arnold and Garber (2015), pp. 389–390; Kehrberger (2019), pp. 90–91; Hauser (2019), pp. 336ff; Kerber (2019), p. 1334; Mankowski (2018b), p. 478; Mankowski (2019), p. 195; Weller and Walter (2019), p. 124. Similarly critical from the Swiss perspective Vogl (2019).

  77. 77.

    Idot (2019); Kleiner (2019); Nourissat (2019), p. 14.

  78. 78.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-226/13 Fahnenbrock, ECLI:EU:C:2015:383:

  79. 79.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-292/05 Lechouritou, ECLI:EU:C:2007:102.

  80. 80.

    Kleiner (2019), paras. 18–21.

  81. 81.

    Lorz (2017), p. 156; Mankowski (2019), p. 200; Thole (2012), p. 1794.

  82. 82.

    Arguing the contrary, Weller and Walter (2019), p. 125, point towards a decision by the Austrian Court of Justice (Case 6 OB 164/18p, para 3.3) which was handed down just a few days after the Kuhn judgment and which still followed the initial view of rejecting the subsequent restoration of immunity. Most likely however, due to the short time in-between, the Austrian Court was not able anymore to adapt its view, which it did however in its later decision: Austrian Court of Justice, Case 10 Ob 103/18x, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2019:0100OB00103.18X.0122.000. In conclusion, Weller and Walter (2019), p. 126, agree that the Austrian Court will adhere to its changed view of accepting subsequently restorable immunity.

  83. 83.

    European Court of Human Rights, Mamatas v Grèce, Cases 63066/14, 64297/14 and 66106/14 [2016] ECHR 256, paras 99 and 105. For a very critical review, see Kerber (2019), pp. 1334–1336.

  84. 84.

    [First] Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Paris, 20 March 1952), Art 1.

  85. 85.

    [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950), Art 14.

  86. 86.

    Mamatas v Grèce, Cases 63066/14, 64297/14 and 66106/14 [2016] ECHR 256, para. 99.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., paras. 88–89 and 103, with reference to earlier case law of the European Court of Human Rights, Valkov v Bulgaria, Case 2033/04 (2016) 62 EHRR 24; Frimu v Romania, Cases 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 and 45588/11 [2012] ECHR 431; Panfile v Romania, Case 13902/11 [2012] ECHR 320; Koufaki and Adedy v Greece, Cases 57665/12 and 57657/12 [2013] ECHR 507; NKM v Hungary, Case 66529/11 (2016) 62 EHRR 33; da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v Portugal, Cases 62235/12 and 57725/12 [2013] ECHR 1008; Savickas v Lithuania, Case 66365/09 [2013] ECHR 328; da Silva Carvalho Rico v Portugal, Case 13341/14 [2015] ECHR 287.

  88. 88.

    Mamatas v Grèce, Cases 63066/14, 64297/14 and 66106/14 [2016] ECHR 256, para. 103.

  89. 89.

    Briggs (2019), pp. 173ff; Torremans (2017), p. 73; Lord Collins of Mapesbury (2018), paras. 7R–001ff.

  90. 90.

    Art 4ff Brussels Ia Regulation.

  91. 91.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-308/17 Kuhn, ECLI:EU:C:2018, paras. 42–43.

  92. 92.

    Briggs (2019), p. 39; Torremans (2017), p. 189.

  93. 93.

    Mehren (2006), pp. 153ff.

  94. 94.

    Similarly, Fox and Webb (2015), p. 402; Hess (2018b), pp. 89–95.

  95. 95.

    Dicey (2013), pp. 237–238.

  96. 96.

    Collini (1979), pp. 13ff; Horwitz (1982); van den Berge (2018), pp. 124ff. See also Allison (2000); Allison (2007); Cane (1986), p. 4; Cane (2003); Finke (2010), pp. 859–860.

  97. 97.

    Questioned, for instance, by Freedland (2006), p. 96 with reference to Loughlin (1992), pp. 153–162.

  98. 98.

    Lord Bingham of Cornhill (2002).

  99. 99.

    Dicey (2013), ch. 12. Also van den Berge (2018), pp. 129ff.

  100. 100.

    Dicey (2013), pp. 100ff.

  101. 101.

    Craig (1990), pp. 27–29.

  102. 102.

    Dyson (1980), p. 52.

  103. 103.

    See, for instance, Roos (2019).

  104. 104.

    Bolton and Skeel (2004); Buckley (2009); Hagan (2005); Ryan (2014); Schwarcz (2015). For a critical view see Gelpern (2013). Forthcoming: Sander et al. (2021).

  105. 105.

    Bröhmer (2015), p. 183; Krueger (2012), pp. 165ff.

References

  • Allison JWF (2000) A continental distinction in the common law: a historical and comparative perspective in English public law. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allison JWF (2007) Variations of view on English legal distinctions between public and private. Camb Law J 66:698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amirfar C (2019) Waivers of jurisdictional immunity. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 167–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold S, Garber T (2015) Zur Trennung privater und hoheitlicher Tätigkeit im Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrecht – Gerichtsbarkeit, internationale Zuständigkeit und die Umstrukturierung griechischer Staatsanleihen 2012. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 20:171

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold S, Garber T (2019) Ein vermeintlicher Pyrrhussieg für Griechenland: Die Grenzen staatlicher Souveränität im Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrecht. Praxis des Internationalen Privat und Verfahrensrechts 385

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2010) Handbook of international law, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Banifatemi Y (2019) Jurisdictional immunity of states – commercial transactions. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 125–141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bankas EK (2005) The state immunity controversy in international law: private suits against sovereign states in domestic courts. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton P, Skeel DA Jr (2004) Inside the Black Box: how should a sovereign bankruptcy framework be structured? Emory Law J 53:763

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonafè BI (2006) State immunity and the protection of private investors: the Argentine bonds case before Italian courts. Ital Yearb Int Law 16:165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borchard E (1951) State insolvency and foreign bondholders. Yale University Press, Yale

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2019) The conflict of laws, 4th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bröhmer J (2015) State immunity and sovereign bonds. In: Peters A et al (eds) Immunities in the age of global constitutionalism. Brill, Leiden, pp 182–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley RP (2009) The bankruptcy of nations: an idea whose time has come. Int Lawyer 43:1189

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P (1986) An introduction to administrative law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P (2003) Accountability and the public/private distinction. In: Bamforth N, Leyland P (eds) Public law in a multi-layered constitution. Hart, Oxford, pp 247–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini S (1979) Liberalism and sociology. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (1990) Public law and democracy. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Damian H (1985) Staatenimmunität und Gerichtszwang. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Damrosch LF (2019) The sources of immunity law - between international and domestic law. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 40–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delaume GR (1989) Sovereign immunity and public debt. Int Lawyer 23:811

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV (2013) In: Allison J (ed) Introductory to the study of the law of the constitution. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A, Lindsay R, Loonam JP (2004) State immunity. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson KHF (1980) The state tradition in Western Europe. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke J (2010) Sovereign immunity: rule, comity or something else? Eur J Int Law 21:853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox H (2019) The restrictive rule of state immunity – the 1970s enactment and its contemporary status. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 21–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox H, Webb P (2015) The law of state immunity, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F (2009) Access to justice, denial of justice and international investment law. Eur J Int Law 20:742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedland M (2006) The evolving approach to the public/private distinction in English law. In: Freedland M, Auby JB (eds) The public law/private law divide: Une entente assez cordiale? Hart, Oxford, pp 93–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Geimer R (2017) Vertragsbruch durch Hoheitsakt: ‘Once a trader, not always a trader?’ – Immunitätsrechtlicher Manövrierspielraum für Schuldnerstaaten? Praxis des Internationalen Privat– und Verfahrensrechts 344

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelpern A (2013) A skeptic’s case for sovereign bankruptcy. Houst Law Rev 50:1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan S (2005) Designing a legal framework to restructure sovereign debt. Georgetown J Int Law 36:299

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser P (2019) Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf? Anlegerklagen gegen Griechenland keine Zivil– und Handelssache? Zeitschrift für Bank– und Kapitalmarktrecht 333

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M (2018) Völkerrecht, 17th edn. Beck, Munich

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2018a) Abgrenzung der acta jure gestionis und acta jure imperii: Der BGH verfehlt die völkerrechtliche Dimension der Staatenimmunität. Praxis des Internationalen Privat– und Verfahrensrechts 351

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2018b) The private–public divide in international dispute resolution. Recueil des cours 388:49

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz MJ (1982) History of the public/private distinction. Univ Pa Law Rev 130:1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idot L (2019) Matière civile et commerciale. Europe 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehrberger RF (2019) Zivilprozessrecht: Anwendungsbereich der EuGVVO bei staatlich angeordnetem Schuldenschnitt – Anmerkung. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 88

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerber MC (2019) Sargnägel auf dem Anlegerschutz? – Anmerkungen zur Legalisierung der Zwangsumschuldung der Gläubiger griechischer Staatsanleihen durch die Urteile des EGMR vom 21.7.2016 und des EuGH vom 15.11.2018. Wertpapier–Mitteilungen 1333

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner C (2019) Compétence judiciaire. Journal du droit international 854

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J (2011) States, sovereign equality. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger AO (2012) Struggling with success: challenges facing the international economy. World Scientific, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kupelyants H (2018) Sovereign defaults before domestic courts. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann M, Ungerer J (2017/2018) Applying or taking account of foreign overriding mandatory provisions – Sophism under the Rome I Regulation. Yearb Priv Int Law 19:53

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew A (1994) Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc.: interpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act’s commercial activity exception to jurisdictional immunity. Fordham Int Law J 17:726

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis CJ (1990) State and diplomatic immunity, 3rd edn. Lloyd’s, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Bingham of Cornhill (2002) Dicey revisited. Public Law 39

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Collins of Mapesbury et al (2018) Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorz S (2017) Ausländische Staaten vor deutschen Zivilgerichten. Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loughlin M (1992) Public law and political theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2015) Art 1 Brüssel Ia–VO. In: Rauscher T (ed) Europäisches Zivilprozess– und Kollisionsrecht, 4th edn. Otto Schmidt, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2018a) Grundsatz der Staatenimmunität, wenn die Klage auf Rückzahlungsansprüche aus Staatsanleihen gestützt ist – Anmerkung. Wertpapier–Mitteilungen – Entscheidungsanmerkungen zum Wirtschafts– und Bankrecht 185

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2018b) Zur internationalen Zuständigkeit für Klage einer natürlichen Person gegen Griechenland auf Erfüllung griechischer Staatsanleihen bzw. Schadensersatz (‘Kuhn’). Entscheidung zum Wirschaftsrecht 477

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2019) Griechische Staatsanleihen und der griechische Schuldenschnitt vor dem EuGH (Folge Zwei). Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 193

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1979) The State Immunity Act 1978. Br Yearb Int Law 50:43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehren AT (2006) Adjudicatory authority in private international law. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mola L (2012) Sovereign immunity, insolvent states and private bondholders: recent national and international case law. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 11:525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H, Pataut E (2008) Les actes jure imperii et le Règlement Bruxelles 1 – A propos de l’affaire Lechouritou. Revue critique de droit international privé 97:61

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller MJ (2016) Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht – RIW–Kommentar. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 80

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller MJ (2018) Unvereinbarkeit einer Klage wegen Vertragsansprüchen mit Staatenimmunität – Anmerkung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 857

    Google Scholar 

  • Nourissat C (2019) Inapplicabilité du règlement ‘Bruxelles I bis’ à un recours exercé par un particulier contre un État ayant émis des obligations. Procédures 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Okeke EC (2018) Jurisdictional immunities of states and international organizations. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlinck K (2013) Sovereign debt defaults: insights from history. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 29:697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2019) Jurisdictional immunity of states and general international law – explaining the Jus Gestionis v. Jus Imperii Divide. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 105–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panizza U, Sturzenegger F, Zettelmeyer J (2009) Sovereign debt and default. J Econ Lit 47:651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2009) A decade of Italian case law on the immunity of foreign states: lights and shadows. Ital Yearb Int Law 19:73

    Google Scholar 

  • Politis NE (1984) Les Emprunts d’Etat en Droit International. Durand and Pedone–Lauriel, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart CM, Rogoff KS (2009) This times is different: eight centuries of financial Folly. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roos JE (2019) Why not default? The political economy of sovereign debt. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M (2014) Sovereign bankruptcy: why now and why not in the IMF. Fordham Law Rev 82:2473

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander GG, Garašić J, Bodiroga-Vukobrat N (eds) (2021) Sovereign insolvency – possible legal solutions. Springer (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2017) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 7th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher J, Trebesch C, Enderlein H (2018) Sovereign defaults in court. ECB Working Paper No 2135

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarcz SL (2015) Sovereign debt restructuring: a model–law approach. J Glob Dev 6:343

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl-Hohenveldern I (1979) Neue Entwicklungen im Recht der Staatenimmunität. In: Sandrock O (ed) Festschrift für Günther Beitzke. De Gruyter, Berlin, p 1081

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan W, Wang P (2019) Divergent views on state immunity in the international community. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, p 61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2017) International law, 8th edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll PT (2012) State immunity. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner M (2008) Staatenimmunität und Brüssel I–Verordnung. Praxis des Internationalen Privat– und Verfahrensrechts 197

    Google Scholar 

  • Sucharitkul S (1982) Fourth report on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. Yearb Int Law Commission (2):199

    Google Scholar 

  • Thole C (2012) Klagen geschädigter Privatanleger gegen Griechenland vor deutschen Gerichten?. Wertpapier–Mitteilungen 1793

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (1999) International law: ensuring the survival of mankind on the eve of a new century, general course on public international law. Recueil des cours 281:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans P et al (2017) Cheshire, North & Fawcett: private international law, 15th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Alebeek R, Pavoni R (2018) Immunities of states and their officials. In: Nollkaemper A et al (eds) International law in domestic courts: a casebook. OUP, Oxford, pp 100–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berge L (2018) Rethinking the public-private law divide in the age of governmentality and network governance. Eur J Comp Law Gov 5:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogl T (2019) Zur internationalen Zuständigkeit für Klage einer natürlichen Person gegen Griechenland auf Erfüllung griechischer Staatsanleihen bzw. Schadensersatz (‘Kuhn’). Entscheidung zum Wirschaftsrecht 95

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner R (2014) Staatenimmunität und internationale Zuständigkeit nach der EuGVVO. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 260

    Google Scholar 

  • Waibel M (2011) Sovereign defaults before International Courts and Tribunals. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webb P (2018) International law and restraints on the exercise of jurisdiction by national courts of states. In: Evans M (ed) International law, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 316–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidemaier WMC (2014) Sovereign immunity and sovereign debt. Univ Ill Law Rev 67

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M, Fischer A (2016) Staatenimmunität bei Umschuldung griechischer Staatsanleihen – Anmerkung. Zeitschrift für Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht 172

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M, Walter S (2019) Kurzer Prozess – Neues zur Zulässigkeit von Anlegerklagen gegen den griechischen Schuldenschnitt. Zeitschrift für Bank– und Kapitalmarktrecht 123

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittich S (2013) Proceedings in which state immunity cannot be invoked, Article 10. In: O’Keefe R, Tams CJ (eds) The United Nations Convention on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property: a commentary. OUP, Oxford, pp 167–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang X (2012) State immunity in international law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Johannes Ungerer

Authors
  1. Johannes Ungerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Ungerer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Sciences Po, Paris, France

    Régis Bismuth

  2. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vera Rusinova

  3. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vladislav Starzhenetskiy

  4. Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Geir Ulfstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ungerer, J. (2022). Sovereign Debt and Immunity: The Controversy of Subsequent Liability Limitation for State Bonds. In: Bismuth, R., Rusinova, V., Starzhenetskiy, V., Ulfstein, G. (eds) Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87705-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87706-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation