This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
) in developing countries of the world. The analysis was based on a sample of 15 developing countries with 5 each from upper middle, lower middle and lower income countries. Social Impact of Recession This study examines the impact of global recession on the economy of Pakistan. For a fragile economy like Pakistan, coping with even a single economic crisis is difficult; let alone the two that followed in quick succession— the unprecedented surge in commodity prices and then the global recession. The volatility of Exchange rate: The Adoption of flexible exchange rate system by many countries during 1973 produced a significant volatility and uncertainty in exchange rates. This started a debate among policy makers and researchers about the impact of exchange rate volatility on international trade. Black Market Ex.Rate Little attention has been paid to analyze the impact of black market exchange rate on the demand for money in developing countries that have black market activities for their currencies. The main purpose of this study is to examine empirically the impact of black market exchange rate on the demand for money in Pakistan where official and black market exchange rates operate side by side due to exchange controls. STOCK RETURNS AND INFLATION The inflation rate in Pakistan has moved from 9.25 to 12.9 percent from 1991 to 1995. The towering rates of monetary enlargement, low rate of economic growth in three out of the five years and adjustment in administered prices contributed to the relatively high rates of inflation. NONLINEARITY IN INFLATION We usually develop models for forecasting purposes which we use in setting monetary and fiscal policies. Unfortunately, if we look into the history, the forecasting record of economic variables is poor. To some extent this could be owing to random human behaviour or availability of virgin data however rigid structural assumptions of the model may also be responsible for the weak forecasting performance (Moshiri, 1997). Essay PU: The role of international trade in promoting economic growth has gained much importance over time. However, the role of exports and imports instability has not been much highlighted in the literature. This study is focused to investigate the role of trade instability in economic growth.
The intention of this essay is to clarify whether the commercial activities carried out by states which do not have difference compared with commercial activities executed on behalf of individuals or companies, have immunity such as the immunity of sovereign action or not particularly in the context of „State Immunity Act 1978‟. This paper considers two main aspects: Immunity from jurisdiction. Immunity from Execution.
Immunity from execution comprises measures of constraint directed against property of the foreign state either for the purpose of enforcing judgments or for the purpose of pre-judgment attachment. And finally: in the situations where there is absence of international agreement. At the same time dealing also with the enforcement of jurisdiction. The first is used in many civil law countries while the 1 2 3 d . especially with regard to activities of the state toward private litigants1.The functions of state immunity. The difference between adjudicative and enforcement Jurisdiction. Secondly: its other function is to determine whether the subject matter belongs to the private law claims or public administration of the state. Given the fact that there is a difference in standards between the implementation phase and sentencing phase. head of state. The most frequent basis for the exclusion of immunity for a transaction is its private law character or its commercial nature. At the same time it is also applied not only to the United Kingdom. The parties resort to it as way to determine the relevant state. it leads to resolve the conflicting claims in jurisdiction. On the other hand it also applies whether the party is government of state. State immunity Act 1978 as well as the European Convention. Weather the immunity from adjudication or from enforcement. As this paper discussed above that Immunity from jurisdiction is distinct from immunity from execution. However. the major difference between these Acts is the fact that United Kingdom‟s State Immunity Act of 1978 is more restrictive in nature for immunities compared with European Convention. Firstly: Immunity from Jurisdiction. it should be considered that the State immunity Act 1978 regulates the immunities of the United Kingdom. in order to be a system applied in the courts. but it is generally more narrowly applied with regard to execution2. Secondly: this division may lead to difficulty in the application of the Act‟s provisions. firstly: the proceeding which is non-immune cannot be implemented directly from the moment of judgement. as in section 13 (2) to (6) and section 14(3) and (4). whereas sections 12 to 14 deal with procedure. There are three key functions of state immunity: Firstly: the private parties resort to it when there is conflict between them and one state in order determine their claims. First of all. Both types of immunities are subject to a commercial exception. in United Kingdom Act there is a clear difference between the adjudicative jurisdiction and the enforcement jurisdiction. This Act actually is derived from the European Convention on state immunity of 1972. department of the government or others3. It is noticed that the adjudicative procedures starting from section 2 to 11. This division basically leads to two results. there is a separate treatment on the subject of state immunity. but it can be applied according to section 14(1) to the foreign state and commonwealth countries as well. and claim always be in other state.
The beginning of this Act contains a general provision that all states are immune from the jurisdiction of the courts in United Kingdom. The structure of this section is partially complex. the case and the subject parties of the case are considered as non-immune.second is used in most of the national legislation adopted in common law countries. Furthermore. This section also responded to the European Convention in same structure in article 4 and 7. Thus. In the case of Kuwait Airway Corp against Iraq Airway Corp. The Bill contains a collection of sections that reduced of immunity in respect of activities and transactions that were similarly performable by the private party/individual. professional and other similar character are excluded when the state are not regarded as the sovereign authority. but received a set of exceptions that are explained in the legal nature of the state in case of entry into the business relationship as a commercial party as follows: Commercial transactions and Contracts. As well as the obligations of the contracts by the state. because the IAC has a separate state entity as it mentioned in section 14(1) and it is also fall within the definition of „commercial transaction‟ in section 3(3). and whether to be performed wholly or partly in United Kingdom. This then became part of the IAC. Iraq brought 10 aircraft belonging to Kuwait airlines KAC by order of the Minster of transport and communications of Iraq. whether such contracts are commercial or noncommercial. Whereas adopting a different approach to state immunity would be a fair balance in the rights of creditors by reference to the difference between the law of sovereign authority and the private law nature. Subsection 3 of section 3 of this Act defined the term „commercial transaction‟. For convenience. after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. And this referred to the legislative history. this general principle is not absolute. But both tend to approach the same result. and thus is not immune according to section 3 (3)(a). 4 5 . which include commercial transactions such as which state be as party of business. financial. However. The most important exception of State immunity Act 1978 is section 3 5. For example the contract to supply boots to the Army considered as a commercial transaction regardless of the governmental nature of the activity. Subsection 1 of section 3 explained the procedures that the state cannot invoke the immunity. So this term include all contracts for the supply of goods and services as well as all transactions and financial obligations in addition to loans and other financial transactions for the purpose of providing finance and guarantee or any other compensation. all the activities that is commercial in its nature such as industrial. Court of Appeal decided that the transfer Kuwait Aircraft to Iraq is commercial process. this note refers generally to the commercial exception to encompass both the commercial and private law exception4.
For example. at the same time few countries list the activities that cannot be covered/protected under the immunity. Hence. Finally. and according to section 14(2) the court of United Kingdom is supposed to eliminate that it does not have jurisdiction. especially as most of the activities that the state is a party. Therefore. Admiralty proceedings and others). commercial. the descriptive words in this section such as industrial. courts in some countries make the nature of the activity as the main principle to determine the type of immunity to be exercised in the subject case. defendant „state‟ will deny the capacity of the commercial activity and clarify that the activity is one of sovereign authority in order to shelter immunity. it is immune from any jurisdiction. especially in some in some transactions that have two natures. Therefore. the term „commercial transactions‟ has a negative and positive meaning by contrast with activities of sovereign authority. the transaction between Argentina and MNL Ltd Capital which is related to purchase of bonds by the government of Argentina. However. Therefore. the claimant must prove and explains that the transaction between him and the state is „commercial‟ and it is listed under section 3. the nature or the purpose of the activity on one hand. Even if the IAC is separate entity but that does not mean that the state has no power to exercise its authority upon it. These provisions have further eliminated that the court of United Kingdom has jurisdiction in this matter. In United Kingdom it seems to combine both. such as (Patents and trade markets. So. Depending on the purpose or nature of the transactions.„The house of lords also has held that immunity conferred by reason of the government nature of the initial seizure of another state's property can lose that character where transferred into the ownership of a trading state agency by legislative decree‟. But at the same time the act is practiced as a sovereign purpose. the purpose of it is to discriminate the activities whether they belongs to jure imperii or jure gestionis. based on section 3 and 14(1). But on the other hand. commercial. Sometimes there is difficulty in determining whether the transactions are immune or nonimmune in the activities in which state is the party. This section is intended to separate commercial activities on the activities of sovereign authority. it should be noted in this section that the definition of „commercial transaction‟ does not include contracts of employment between the state and individuals6. are for sovereign purpose. If the claimant demonstrates that the transaction or activity is industrial. the dependence on the nature of activity may lead to difficulties in such cases of immunity. However. the term „contractual obligations‟ that is included in section 3 is not limited to activities and contracts that the state is part of. 6 . financial. financial. the burden of proof in the case is subject to change. The defendant has entered in the relationship as a state. Thirdly. Employment contracts. professional and other similar character. The intention of transaction. The courts may see that the transaction is not immune because it is of commercial nature. But this also includes tort claims due to these obligations. There is a general structure of this section that can be clarified in the following manner: firstly. and listed some of transactions on the other hand. professional or any activities belongs to the business. Secondly.
According to section 14(2) the court in the UK in general does not have jurisdiction in respect of separate entities. which is used for sovereign purposes. as experienced by the involved countries.. if so then Central Bank or other monetary authority is covered by section 14(2)‟. would seem questionable. Which means that the state cannot invoke immunity when it enters in a contractual relationship. executed in the UK. and therefore have immunity and that only: „if the proceedings relating to anything done by it in the exercise of sovereign authority and the circumstances are such that a state . Grauforg J (year) stated that „the definition of separate entities would cover a Central Bank or other monetary authority which is distinct from executive organs of suing and being sued. This leads to reduce the chance of its application and execution. Under section 3(1)(b) immunity does not have any interest when the state be as party of contract. The original contract with regard to promissory notes between two states. it is conditional that the implementation of the contract in wholly or in parts. Adding to that issuance of promissory notes has no relationship with the exercise of sovereign authority. The purpose is to try to address the crisis of debt. But the exception does not apply if claim is filed as separate contract relating to the other parties. in this case. This section is also mentioned in the European convention in article 4. if there is a credit agreement between two states related to promissory note issued to meet liability. In this case. But sometimes the relationship between the parties are containing a number of states. Accordingly.the transaction on the face is commercial but on the other hand has a sovereign purpose. This item does not include contracts that are executed outside the UK. section 3(1) does not apply. no immunity where the parties where to the note were not the states. But the court held that the CBY cannot be regarded as “state” within the meaning and application of section 3(2). even if issued by separate entity (CBY).. If the dispute is between two states. Exclusion where the state are parties to the dispute. would have been so immune‟. And upon . The CBY argued that the court has no jurisdiction based on the sections 3(2) and 14 of State Immunity Act. Moreover. Such as the case between the Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) and Cardinal Financial Investment (CFI) country name. Separate entities from jurisdiction. the assignment to CFI was not a commercial transaction and therefore CBY is immune in such case. Contractual obligations carried out in UK by the state. Under section 3(2) there is another exception of the section 3(1) where „the parties to dispute are states‟. regardless of whether the relationship is of commercial in nature or not. In addition to that there is other limitation contained in the section 3(2) which reported that „subsection (1)(b) above does not apply if the contract (not being a commercial transaction) was made in the territory of the State concerned and the obligation in question is governed by its administrative law‟. However.
which are immune and are not subject to execution. Evidence of the use of the property. First: where there is a prior written consent of the state. and therefore the burden of proof moves to the applicant. Given the fact that the state-owned assets existing in abroad are usually under the name of the diplomatic mission or under the Central Bank. in an action n rem or others. and no difference whether the enforcement is judgments or arbitral awards. section 13(4) give a great validity to the private parties to meet their claims with all the property that is used for „commercial purpose‟. Execution against the foreign states is considered as the most difficult stage compared with determining jurisdiction. But if the private party presents evidence contrary to other evidence that are mentioned by the representative of the state. section 13 include two cases the state cannot invoke by immunity. They must submit a proof that the property is use or intended to use for commercial purpose in order to be attached. the court must accept such evidences. Secondly: immunity from execution. 7 . it does not allow issuing injunction against its property. The commercial property exception. The burden of proof is mentioned in section 13(5). As a general principle in respect of property of the state according to section 13(2) shall not be subject to the implementation process. However. Whereas the section 14 deals with the separate entities and whether it is immune or not. Whether there was a court judgment or arbitral award. If approved that a person has the authority to give information on behalf of the state in the UK. and according to this section The certificate is acceptable and considered as sufficient evidence that the property is not use or intended to use by the state for commercial purpose. and the second: if the property is used or intended for use in commercial purpose. such as the representative of the diplomatic mission or the person for the time being performing his function. this declaration is an admission. and thus it can be contrary to the rule of comment law. The meaning of „commercial purpose‟ defined in section 17 is as „purposes of such transaction or activities as are mentioned in section 3(3)7. But there is an exception under section 13(4) „the property is use or intend for use for commercial purpose‟ these property are not immune. and therefore it can be subject to attachment. Section 13 and 14 of this Act related to enforcement against State and State entities. which is valid unless the contrary is proved.that the Central Bank or other monetary authority are not immune from jurisdiction of the UK unless to be part of section 14(2).
Section 14(4) explained that the property of state include Central Bank or other monetary authority does not apply to the provision of section 13(4) which is related to enforcement on the property. will be recognised and enforcement in the UK. Chad has a set of accounts in London. and therefore. the arbitration award was issued to the AIG Company. But other separate entities can be subject of enforcement according to section 14(3) when these separate entities submitted to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the UK courts. Foreign judgment to be enforced by UK courts. The company has frozen one of these accounts. . But Chad has argued that. Thus. hence. which has failed to pay sums of money. it is falls under the definition of „commercial transactions‟ section 3(3) as well as section 14(4) where the property is used or intended to use for commercial purpose. Firstly: the enforcement cannot be against the state.An Egyptian company (Orascom Telecom Holding) acquired on the arbitration award by the International Chamber of Commerce against Chad (country). the Central Bank of Kazakhstan acknowledged that these assets were property of Central Bank. But however this enforcement has two conditions to oblige. also high court in this case confirmed what was stated in section 14(4) the functions of Central Bank and other Monetary authority is likely to be for sovereign authority purposes and not for commercial purposes. and therefore. But the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 explain that in section 31 any judgment of foreign state against other state except the UK and the state to which the court belongs. This then sought to enforce the award of arbitration in the United Kingdom against the assets that held by AAMGS. non immune under section 14(4). High court stated that the assets by AAMGS have full immunity under section 14(4). and therefore it was not regarded as immune. AIG Capital Partner filed arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Kazakhstan for breach of the contract between them. which eventually turns out to be an incorrect document. And it lacked evidence. But after verification of the certificate. it is fall within section 14(2) by certificate provided by ambassador. it cannot be subject to enforcement whether there is a judgement or arbitral award. Separate entities from enforcement. and stated that the account is only used for sovereign purpose. And secondly: the rules of the foreign state shall have a same rules applicable to such matters as in UK in accordance to sections 2 to 11 of the State Immunity Act 1978. some of these accounts are used for paying their debts to the World Bank and others are used for commercial purpose. Whether the use or intended for use for commercial purpose. and reported that the account is used for commercial purpose. State immunity Act 1978 had not been subject to foreign states judgment and whether it can be enforced in the United Kingdom or not. by then it is not possible to enforce upon it on the basis of section 14(4) of state immunity. However. And therefore. and it was found that the account is used to save the money of oil imports.
but it cannot be because there is no treaty between United Kingdom and United State to enforce the judgments between the two states. This is exactly what is stated in the State Immunity Act 1978 of Country. the matter is related to the purchase of bonds.Further. Argentina. Conclusion According to the idea that was prevailed for the immunity of foreign states. It must prove that Argentina is not immune in accordance with sections 2 to 118. but as a result of participation of states in commercial activities as commercial party no different on the activities of individuals and companies. NML Capital Ltd . This doctrine prevent national courts to consider any procedure when one of parties in a case is a foreign state. the first section of this Act include a general idea that all states are immune from jurisdiction of the court in United Kingdom. the state is not subject to the rules and laws that are applicable to other states. Whereas the situation is different in the United Kingdom because the enforcement of judgement is not „commercial‟ and section 3 of state immunity cannot be applied even if the judgment is „commercial‟. Furthermore. in addition 8 . but that is not enough. NML submitted a request that the transaction between the subject parties is „commercial‟. there are many exceptions of it. to enforce the judgement. States have absolute immunity against the claims of people and other states. but the exception of being „commercial‟ include two types of immunities (immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from execution).v. The doctrine of immunity of foreign states have changed to which known as „restrictive immunity‟ under this idea the court have no jurisdiction over the sovereign acts of foreign states whereas it has jurisdiction in commercial activities. The Court of Appeal decided that Argentina had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts in the transaction documents. The case initially presented in front the court of New York. NML sought to enforce that judgement in United Kingdom. Argentina has waived the immunity in the court of New York. It is important to state here that the term „commercial transaction‟ include all contracts for the supply of goods and services as well as all transactions and financial obligations. the New York court had jurisdiction because the case was „commercial‟ and Argentina has waived the immunity. and the judgement issued for NML Company. those who are party to the Brussels or Lugano Convention. which left NML relying on section 31 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. But the Court of Appeal stated that even if the judgement is in conformity with the requirements of section 31. the enforcement of a judgment given by the court of foreign states does not apply except to limited group of countries. the immunity disables. So. But this principle is not absolute. The first type falls below „commercial transactions‟ and thus the state cannot invoke immunity in any commercial transaction.
to loans and other transactions for the purpose of providing finance and guarantee or any other compensations. all the activities that is commercial in its nature such as industrial. In addition. professional and other similar character. which falls below „commercial property‟. Also. the separate entities which include the Central Bank or other monetary authority is immune from execution if they are also used commercially or when these separate entities submitted to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the UK courts. In such case the state cannot invoke immunity when the property is used or intended for use for commercial purpose. . Furthermore. The second type is immunity from execution. financial. immunity from jurisdiction includes „separate entities‟ when the proceedings relating to any work done in the exercise of sovereign authority.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.