Exercises
1.Prepare answers to the following questions using paragraph form.
(1) As the subjects of private international law,states have certain characteristics,what are those characteristics?
(2) Can you summarize the historic development of the doctrine of immunities of states and their property?
(3) Summarize China’s position and practice on the immunities of states and their property.
2.Multiple Choice
(1) Which of the following statements is not true? ( )
A.The immunity of states is derived from the rules of public international law,and from the maxim “par in parem non habet imperium.”
B.The doctrine of immunities of states and their property is very important not only in private international law but also in public international law.
C.China has not signed United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property.
D.China still claims to uphold “the Absolute Doctrine.”
(2) International organizations ( )
A.in the context of this chapter refer to both IGOs and INGOs.
B.derive their personality from the instrument which established them.(https://www.daowen.com)
C.do not have privileges and immunities.
D.are established by national law.
(3) Which of the following statements is true? ( )
A.Hong Kong now follows the Absolute Doctrine of immunities of states and their property.
B.The immunities of states and their property evolves from the Restrictive Doctrine to the Absolute Doctrine.
C.China has not signed United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property.
D.China now switches to uphold the Restrictive Doctrine of the immunity of states and their property.
3.Case Analysis
(1) On August 7,2003,Yang Rong,former chairman of the board of directors of the Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Ltd.(the “Company”),filed suit in the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia against the Provincial Government of northeast China’s Liaoning Province,the Company’s largest shareholder.33 Yang Rong charged that the defendant,Liaoning Provincial Government,had expropriated Company shares and sought compensation in the amount of U.S.$690,000,000.Due to the prominent status of both plaintiff and defendant,this case has stirred worldwide concern.[6]On August 21,the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia authorized the summons directed to the Liaoning Provincial Government and declared that the defendant shall serve an answer to the complaint within sixty days after service of process.Failure to do so would result in a judgment by default against the defendant for the relief requested in the complaint.On the same day,counsel to Yang Rong submitted the summons to the Ministry of Justice of China via the United Parcel Service Inc.(“UPS”),requesting service of process on the Liaoning Provincial Government.
On October 23,the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice of China declared that the request was turned down on the ground that the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction over the Liaoning Provincial Government of China.The official went on to explain that in accordance with international law and universally recognized norms governing international relations,the judicial bodies of any one country are not entitled to exercise jurisdiction over any other sovereign state and its state institutions.Therefore,in line with Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention,which stipulates that the state addressed to may refuse to comply with a request if it deems that such compliance would infringe upon its sovereignty or security.The Ministry refused the request advanced by Yang’s lawyer and returned the documents.
How do you evaluate the statement of the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice? Do you believe it is wise and necessary to rely on the principle that states and state entities enjoy immunity from the judicial jurisdiction of foreign national courts to refuse the request?
(2) Amid devastating human and economic losses from COVID-19 in 2020,a number of American citizens,organizations and a few of federal states of the U.S.filed lawsuits in the U.S.courts against China for damages suffered as the result of the pandemic.Though those actions differ in the specific causes of action,they share one significant similarity,i.e.,all of them name China,its relevant government departments,entities and officials as the defendants.From a legal perspective,these lawsuits have to survive the very first jurisdictional hurdle before they can go any further insofar as a foreign sovereignty,in principle,cannot be sued in a national court.
Do you think that the U.S.Courts have jurisdiction over those lawsuits against China? Why?