Content uploaded by Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak on Apr 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Czech Yearbook
of International Law®
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 12021_CYIL_v3.indd 1 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 22021_CYIL_v3.indd 2 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
Czech Yearbook
of International Law®
Volume XII
2021
Immunities and Privileges
Editors
Naděžda Rozehnalová
Professor
at the Masaryk University
in Brno
Czech Republic
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
Professor
at the VŠB TU
in Ostrava
Czech Republic
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 32021_CYIL_v3.indd 3 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
Questions About is Publication
www.czechyearbook.org; www.lexlata.pro; editor@lexlata.pro
COPYRIGHT © 2021
By Lex Lata B.V.
__________________
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical
means including information storage and retrieval systems
without permission in writing from the publisher.
__________________
Printed in the EU.
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-829824-4-2
ISSN: 2157-2976
Lex Lata B.V.
Mauritskade 45-B
2514 HG – THE HAGUE
e Netherlands
__________________
e title Czech Yearbook of International Law® as well as the
logo appearing on the cover are protected by EU trademark law.
Typeset by Lex Lata B.V.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 42021_CYIL_v3.indd 4 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| v
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Advisory Board
Helena Barancová
Trnava, Slovakia
Jaroslav Fenyk
Brno, Czech Republic
Karel Klíma
Prague, Czech Republic
Ján Klučka
Košice, Slovakia
Hon. Rajko Knez
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Peter Mankowski
Hamburg, Germany
Andrzej Mączyński
Krakow, Poland
Maksymilian Pazdan
Katowice, Poland
August Reinisch
Vienna, Austria
Michal Tomášek
Prague, Czech Republic
Vladimír Týč
Brno, Czech Republic
Editorial Board
Filip Černý
Prague, Czech Republic
Paweł Czarnecki
Warsaw, Poland
Marcin Czepelak
Krakow, Poland
Hon. Ludvík David
Brno, Czech Republic
Jan Kněžínek
Prague, Czech Republic
Oskar Krejčí
Prague, Czech Republic
Olexander Merezhko
Kiev, Ukraine
Petr Mlsna
Prague, Czech Republic
Robert Neruda
Brno, Czech Republic
Monika Pauknerová
Prague, Czech Republic
František Poredoš
Bratislava, Slovakia
Matthias Scherer
Geneva, Switzerland
Vít Alexander Schorm
Prague, Czech Republic
Miroslav Slašťan
Bratislava, Slovakia
Václav Stehlík
Olomouc, Czech Republic
Jiří Valdhans
Brno, Czech Republic
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 52021_CYIL_v3.indd 5 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
vi |
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Address for communication & manuscripts
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Jana Zajíce 32, Praha 7, 170 00, Czech Republic
editor@lexlata.pro
Editorial support:
Jan Šamlot, DrTF. Lenka Němečková, Dipl. Ing. Karel Nohava,
Anna Dušková, Adam Zeman
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 62021_CYIL_v3.indd 6 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| vii
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Impressum
Institutions Participating in the CYIL Project
Academic Institutions within Czech Republic
Masaryk University (Brno)
Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Law
[Masarykova univerzita vBrně, Právnická fakulta,
Katedra mezinárodního aevropského práva]
University of West Bohemia in Pilsen
Faculty of Law, Department of Constitutional Law & Department
of International Law
[Západočeská univerzita vPlzni, Právnická fakulta,
Katedra ústavního práva & Katedra mezinárodního práva]
VŠB – TU Ostrava
Faculty of Economics, Department of Law
[VŠB – TU Ostrava, Ekonomická fakulta, Katedra práva]
Charles University in Prague
Faculty of Law, Department of Commercial Law, Department
ofEuropean Law & Centre for Comparative Law
[Univerzita Karlova vPraze, Právnická fakulta,
Katedra obchodního práva, katedra evropského práva & Centrum
právní komparatistiky, PrF UK]
University College of International and Public Relations Prague
[Vysoká škola mezinárodních a veřejných vztahů Praha]
Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, v.v.i.
[Ústav státu a práva Akademie věd ČR, v.v.i.]
University of Finance and Administration, Czech Republic
[Vysoká škola nanční a správní, a.s., Praha, Česká republika]
Non-academic Institutions in the Czech Republic
Oce of the Government of the Czech Republic
Department of Legislation, Prague
[Úřad vlády ČR, Legislativní odbor, Praha]
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 72021_CYIL_v3.indd 7 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
viii |
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech
Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic, Prague
[Rozhodčí soud při Hospodářské komoře České republiky
aAgrární komoře České republiky]
International Arbitration Court of the Czech Commodity Exchange, Prague
[Mezinárodní rozhodčí soud při Českomoravské komoditní burze, Praha]
ICC National Committee Czech Republic, Prague
[ICC Národní výbor Česká republika, Praha]
Institutions outside the Czech Republic Participating
in the CYIL Project
Austria
University of Vienna [Universität Wien]
Department of European, International and Comparative Law,
Section for International Law and International Relations
Poland
Jagiellonian University in Krakow [Uniwersytet Jagielloński vKrakowie]
Faculty of Law and Administration,
Department of Private International Law
Slovakia
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law
[Slovenská akadémia vied, Ústav štátu apráva], Bratislava
University of Matej Bel in Banská Bystrica
[Univerzita Mateja Bela vBanskej Bystrici],
Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations,
Department of International Aairs and Diplomacy
Trnava University in Trnava [Trnavská Univerzita vTrnave],
Faculty of Law, Department of Labour Law and Social Security Law
│ │ │
Proofreading and translation support provided by:
SPĚVÁČEK překladatelská agentura, s.r.o., Prague, Czech
Republic and Pamela Lewis, USA.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 82021_CYIL_v3.indd 8 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| ix
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Contents
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................xiii
ARTICLES
Petr Čechák
│
Pavel Mates
│
Jan Šmíd
Immunities from the Past to the Present. Trajectory of Immunities ..3
Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed Gomaa
e Eects of the Pandemic on the Execution of the International
Administrative Contract .........................................................................41
Anna Hurova
Liability for a Cyber Attacks on a Space Objects ................................57
Gabriela Khinová
Parliamentary Immunity in the European Union Focusing on
the Catalan Independence Movement ..................................................75
Nataliya Maroz
Functional Immunity of State Ocials from Foreign Criminal
Jurisdiction .............................................................................................101
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State
Immunity ................................................................................................131
Dawid Michalski
e Police Control Procedure of Diplomatic Representatives .........153
Giovanni Passamonti
Norway’s 2006 Declaration at eir Ratication of the 2004
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities and
eir Property ........................................................................................171
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 92021_CYIL_v3.indd 9 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
x |
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Elijah Putilin | Harald Sippel
Immunities and Privileges in Practice or a Tale of How to (Not)
Apply em in Practice .........................................................................189
Marieta Safta
e Parliamentary Immunity Regime with Emphasis on the
Development of the Normative Framework .......................................205
Natalia N. Viktorova
Tatneft v. Ukraine: Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement
ofInternational Investment Awards ...................................................229
BOOK REVIEWS
Květoslav Růžička
Jan Brodec, Insolvenční řízení v kontextu mezinárodního práva
soukromého (Insolvency Proceedings in the Context of Private
International Law) ............................................................................... 245
David Řezníček
Alexander J. Bělohlávek, EU and International Insolvency
Proceedings: Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on Insolvency
Proceedings. Commentary Evropské a mezinárodní insolvenční
řízení: Komentář k Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a rady
(EU) č. 2015/848 o insolvenčním řízení .............................................249
NEWS & REPORTS
Ian Iosifovich Funk │Inna Vladimirovna Pererva
e Removal of Jurisdictional Immunities and the Settlement of
Disputes under Investment Agreements Involving the Republic
of Belarus ................................................................................................255
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 102021_CYIL_v3.indd 10 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| xi
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
BIBLIOGRAPHY, CURRENT EVENTS, IMPORTANT WEB SITES
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
Selected Bibliography for 2020 ...................................................... 277
Current Events .................................................................................285
Important Web Sites .......................................................................287
Index ..................................................................................................291
All contributions in this book are subject to academic review.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 112021_CYIL_v3.indd 11 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 122021_CYIL_v3.indd 12 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| xiii
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
List of Abbreviations
AALCO Asian-African Legal
Consultative Organization
ADNDRC Asian Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Centre
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AEDPA Antiterrorism and Eective Death
Penalty Act
AG Attorney General
AGC Attorney General’s Chamber
AIAC Asian International Arbitration Centre
BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty
Board Spanish Central Electoral Board
CC Consular corps
CD Diplomatic corps
CEO Chief executive ocer
CISG Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
CNSSI Committee on National Security
Systems Instruction
EAW European arrest warrant
EGBGB Introductory Statute to the German
Civil Code
ECHR European Convention
on Human Rights
ESA European Space Agency
EU European Union
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 132021_CYIL_v3.indd 13 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
xiv |
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
FD on EAW Framework Decision No 2002/584/
JHA of 13 June 2002 on the
European arrest warrant and the
surrender procedures between
Member States [2002] OJ L190
FSIA Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
GRECO Group of States against Corruption
ICAC Independent Commission
Against Corruption
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
ICDR International Centre
for Dispute Resolution
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICSID International Centre for Settlement
of Investment Disputes
ICSID Convention Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes Between States
and Nationals of Other States
ICT Information and
Communication Technologies
ILC International Law Commission
JASTA Justice Against Sponsors
ofTerrorism Act
KPPs Key performance parameters
LCIA London Court of International
Arbitration
MACC Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission
MFA Ministry of Foreign Aairs
MYR Malaysian ringgit
NDAA 2008 National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 142021_CYIL_v3.indd 14 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| xv
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
NIST National Institute of Standards
and Technology
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration
PJMC Pre-judgment measures of constraint
Protocol Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and
Immunities of the European Union
RCKAL Regional Centre for Arbitration in
Kuala Lumpur
RF Russian Federation
SCAI Swiss Chambers‘ Arbitration Institution
SCC Arbitration Institute of the
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
TRIA Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act 1999
UN United Nations
UNIDROIT International Institute for the
Unication of Private Law
UNSC United Nations Security Council
UPDF Uganda People‘s Defence Force
US United States
WHO World Health Organization
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 152021_CYIL_v3.indd 15 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 162021_CYIL_v3.indd 16 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| 1
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Articles
Petr Čechák
│
Pavel Mates
│
Jan Šmíd
Immunities from the Past to the Present. Trajectory of Immunities ..3
Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed Gomaa
e Eects of the Pandemic on the Execution of the International
Administrative Contract .........................................................................41
Anna Hurova
Liability for a Cyber Attacks on a Space Objects ................................57
Gabriela Khinová
Parliamentary Immunity in the European Union Focusing on
the Catalan Independence Movement ..................................................75
Nataliya Maroz
Functional Immunity of State Ocials from Foreign Criminal
Jurisdiction .............................................................................................101
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State
Immunity ................................................................................................131
Dawid Michalski
e Police Control Procedure of Diplomatic Representatives .........153
Giovanni Passamonti
Norway’s 2006 Declaration at eir Ratication of the 2004
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities and
eir Property ........................................................................................171
Elijah Putilin | Harald Sippel
Immunities and Privileges in Practice or a Tale of How to (Not)
Apply em in Practice .........................................................................189
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 12021_CYIL_v3.indd 1 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
2 |
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Marieta Safta
e Parliamentary Immunity Regime with Emphasis on the
Development of the Normative Framework .......................................205
Natalia N. Viktorova
Tatneft v. Ukraine: Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of
International Investment Awards .......................................................229
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 22021_CYIL_v3.indd 2 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| 131
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
e Place of the Terrorism
Exception within the Issue
ofState Immunity
Abstract | State immunity is an important area
of customary international law as it has its source
in sovereign equality of States and the principle
par in parem non habet imperium. Nevertheless,
immunity is not absolute and international
custom approves certain limitations of the general
rule. e USA restricted State immunity even
further as it introduced a terrorism exception to
State immunity, permitting private law-suits for
compensation and punitive damages against State
sponsors of terrorism. e article analyses the
place of the terrorism exception within customary
international law by deliberating whether it is or
can become one of accepted exceptions to State
immunity. e research is essential because
currently Iran has led an application to the ICJ
asserting a violation of International law. Any
possible decision of the ICJ seems to be aected by
some drawbacks enumerated in the article.
│ │ │
Key words:
state immunity | terrorism
| terrorism nancing |
terrorism exception
Magdalena Matusiak-
Frącczak Ph.D. is an
assistant professor at the
Department ofEuropean
Constitutional Law,
Faculty of Law and
Administration, University
of Lodz (Poland). She is
an Adwokat (attorney)
and a member of the Lodz
Region Bar Council. She
holds a Master degree in
International Economic
Relations (at the Faculty
ofEconomy and Sociology,
University of Lodz,
Poland), and a Master
1 in French law (at the
University of Lodz,
Poland and Université
de Tours, France).
E-mail: mfracczak@
wpia.uni.lodz.pl
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1312021_CYIL_v3.indd 131 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
132 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
I. Iran v. US Dispute
6.01. On 14 June 2016, the Islamic Republic of Iran led at the
International Court of Justice an application in the case Certain
Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States ofAmerica).
e dispute concentrates on the terrorism exception to State
immunity. is exception permits private plaintis to eectively
sue States supporting terrorism before national courts. In this rst
part of this paper it will be presented what the terrorism exception
means in US law and then the paper will focus briey on the
current state of the proceedings before the ICJ.
I.1. e Terrorism Exception to State Immunity
6.02. State immunity in civil matters covers two areas: jurisdictional
immunity of a State and immunity from execution. Both of these
are not absolute and customary international law approves
certain exceptions to State immunity. Here it is enough to
underline that immunity from enforcement is broader than
immunity from adjudication. In this part of the paper is will be
presented, how the terrorism exception to State immunity in
the US law limits both jurisdictional immunity of a State and
executional immunity of a State.
I.1.1. State Immunity from Adjudication
6.03. e issue of State immunity has a long history in the US law,
as it was rstly applied on the basis of international law and
afterwards it was regulated in 1976 by the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act (FSIA). At the very beginning the FSIA gave
very little rights to individuals to act before US courts and there
was no terrorism exception. Major changes to the FSIA were
made in 1996 by Antiterrorism and Eective Death Penalty
Act (AEDPA) and the Flatow Amendment.1 Since the entry
into force of the terrorism exception, American citizens have
been able to le suits against individual ocials, employees and
agents of a foreign State. However, terrorism victims and their
families were not able to sue a foreign State itself. A milestone
change of law came in 2008, when Article 1605A U.S. Code was
written de novo, as it created a private right of action against
foreign States, including requests for punitive damages.2 It is
worth emphasizing that not every State could be sued on the
basis of these laws, but only those States that were placed by the
1 Civil Liability for Acts of State Sponsored Terrorism, a part of Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 28 U.S.C. Article 1605 (1996).
2 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 28 U.S.C. Article 1605A (2008).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1322021_CYIL_v3.indd 132 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| 133
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
US Secretary of State on the list of State sponsors of terrorism.
Iran has been on the list ever since 19 January 1984.3
6.04. Nevertheless, it was the last amendment to the law on the
terrorism exception made by the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016, that caused a large debate both
in the United States and among the international community.
is act created a new Article 1605B U.S. Code and it provides
that any foreign State, designated or not by the executive
branch, might be sued before US courts for physical injury to
person or property or death occurring in the United States and
caused by an act of international terrorism in the United States
and a tortious act or acts of the foreign State, or of any ocial,
employee, or agent of that foreign State while acting within the
scope of their oce, employment or agency, regardless where
the tortious act or acts of the foreign State occurred. It means
that a decision whether a foreign State supports terrorism or
not is moved from the US executive branch to US citizens
and judiciary. However, only the executive, having access to
information gathered by intelligence, has a proper knowledge
on facts permitting it to decide in this matter.
6.05. Despite this fact, the JASTA was nally adopted, after four
unsuccessful attempts to do it in the US Congress in 2009, 2011,
2013 and 2015.4 Moreover, the Congress overruled the veto of
the President Barack Obama.5
6.06. is legislation has been approved by the US judiciary. Before
the FSIA was enacted, the US courts had applied international
customary law and accepted absolute State immunity for acta
de jure imperii on one hand and restricted State immunity for
acta de jure gestionis on the other. Once the FSIA was adopted,
US courts treat this act as the sole and exclusive standard to
be used in resolving questions of sovereign immunity raised by
foreign States before US courts6 because it was the intention of
the US Congress to completely shape foreign State immunity
3 U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Counterterrorism, State Sponsors of Terrorism, available at: https://
www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ (accessed on 11 November 2020).
4 Eric T. Kohan, A natural progression of restr ictive immunity: Why the JASTA amendment does not violate
international law, 92(3) WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1516 (2017).
5 Barack Obama, Veto to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrori sm Act ( JASTA), Congressional Record from
114th Congress, Vol. 162, 26 September 2016.
6 Letelier v. the Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980). Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349,
113 S. Ct. 1571 (1993). In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigation, 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009).
McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F. 2d 582 (9th Cir. 1983). Lois Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, 761 F.2d 370. Liu v. the Republic of China, 892 F. 2d 1419. Rubin and others v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 583 U.S. (2018). MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press (6th ed., 2008), et. 715. Eric T. Kohan, A natural progression of restrictive immunity: Why the JASTA
amendment does not violate international law, 92(3) WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1536 (2017).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1332021_CYIL_v3.indd 133 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
134 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
and exceptions thereto in a manner unrelated to customary
international law.7
6.07. at is why US courts rendered many judgments against Iran
regardless of the rules of international law on State immunity.
is gives the impression that the USA is acting in an isolated
manner, in a legal vacuum that it can be completely arbitrarily
in a way depending solely on its will and needs.
I.1.2. State Immunity from Execution
6.08. At rst glance State immunity from enforcement in the United
States resembles rules accepted by customary international law
as it means that a foreign State shall be immune from attachment,
arrest and execution (28 U.S. Code Article 1609). Moreover, the
property of a foreign State shall be immune from attachment
and from execution, if the property is that of a foreign central
bank or monetary authority held for its own account, unless
such bank or authority, or its parent foreign government,
has explicitly waived its immunity from attachment in aid of
execution, or from execution, notwithstanding any withdrawal
of the waiver which the bank, authority or government may
purport to eect except in accordance with the terms of the
waiver or the property is, or is intended to be, used in connection
with a military activity and is of a military character, or is under
the control of a military authority or defense agency (28 U.S.
Code Article 1611(b)).
6.09. However, the terrorism exception harshly limits this general rule.
In 2002, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
1999 (TRIA) was permitted to attach the property of Iran and
the property of the Iranian State-owned companies that were
placed on the list of blocked assets. en National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 2008) further
expanded the scope of enforcement against foreign State
companies. On the basis of 28 U.S. Code Article 1610(g)(1)
the property, especially of a commercial character, of a foreign
State, against which a judgment is entered under the terrorism
exception, is subject to attachment in aid of execution, an
execution, regardless of the level of connection of this State or
its ocials to this property, even if the property is established as
a separate legal entity.8
7 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 U.S. 428 (1989). Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank
ofIran v. Peterson et. al, 578 U.S. (2016).
8 Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Resolving outstanding Judgments under the terrorism exception to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, 77(2) NEW YORK UNIVERSIT LAW REVIEW 499-500, 517 (2002).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1342021_CYIL_v3.indd 134 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
| 135
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.10. In 2012, the US President Barack Obama signed the Executive
Order 135999 that blocked all property and interests in
property of the Government of Iran, including the Central
Bank of Iran, or of any Iranian nancial institution under the
condition that it is situated in the United States. In the same
year further exceptions to executional immunity of a State
were adopted by the US Congress and they covered property
held in the United States by foreign securities intermediaries
connected to that State.10
6.11. Actually, Iran has very little property in the United States,
therefore terrorism victims have problems with execution of
the judgments rendered against it. is ineciency is perfectly
illustrated by the Rubin saga which ended after many years in
2018 leaving the plaintis without any real compensation.11
Nevertheless it needs to be added in this place, that all exceptions
to executional immunity of a State made by the terrorism
exception are accepted by the US judiciary, even in the case of
the property of the Iranian Central Bank. Moreover, they can be
applied in a retroactive manner.12
6.12. In summary, State immunity is harshly restricted in the USA
due to the terrorism exception adopted in national law.
e legislation on the terrorism exception is fully approved
by national courts and deliberations of the US judiciary is
completely detached from international law on State immunity.
I.2. Iran v. USA Dispute Currently
6.13. In its application of 14 June 2016,13 Iran alleged that the USA
violated both customary international law and the 1955 Treaty
of Amity.14 Hostilities between Iran and the USA have lasted
since 1979 when the US embassy in Teheran was overrun and its
nationals taken hostage. Despite this fact, the ICJ ruled that the
1955 Treaty was still considered to be in force.15 In is judgment
9 Executive Order 13599 Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions,
Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 26.
10 Iran reat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, 22 U.S.C. Articles 8701-8782 (2012).
11 Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.D.C. 2003). Rubin v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. III. 2004). Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 408 F. Supp. 2d 549 (N.D. Ill.
2005). Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 810 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Mass. 2011). Rubin v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 709 F. 3d 49 (1st Cir. 2013). Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 33 F. Supp. 3d 1003 (2014). Rubin and
others v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 830 F. 3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016). Rubin and others v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
583 U.S. (2018).
12 Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et. al, 578 U.S. (2016).
13 Islamic Republic of Iran: Application Instituting Proceedings of 14 June 2020, available at: https://www.
icj-cij.org/public/les/case-related/164/164-20160614-APP-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2020).
14 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (adopted 15 August 1955, entered into force
16 June 1957) 284 UNTS 9.
15 Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Sta in Teheran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1980, page 3, at 54.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1352021_CYIL_v3.indd 135 24.03.2021 8:5424.03.2021 8:54
136 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
of 13 February 2019, in the Case Concerning Certain Iranian
Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)16 the
ICJ rejected the preliminary objections raised by the USA and
once again concluded that the 1955 Treaty was in force at the
time when Iran instituted the proceedings.
6.14. According to Iran, the USA breached the following rights granted
to Iran by the 1955 Treaty: the most favourable treatment clause,
recognition of separate judicial status of Iranian companies
and freedom of access to courts of nationals of the other Party,
fair and equitable treatment to nationals and companies of
the other Party, protection of property right of nationals and
companies of the other Party, freedom from restrictions on the
making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the
territory of the United States, freedom of commerce between
the territories of Iran and the United States. Iran emphasized
that its companies could be eventually subjected to execution in
respect of their commercial acts but not for alleged acts of Iran
being acta de jure imperii, as they are separate legal entities.
is refers especially to Bank Markazi being Iran’s Central Bank,
though in international law immunity of central banks is even
broader than State immunity itself.17 Most of all Iran underlined
that current customary international law excludes a terrorism
exception, as there is no exception to State immunity in cases
concerning alleged serious violations of human rights or jus
cogens norms.18
6.15. At the moment the written part of the proceedings is taking
place. On the 14 November 2019 the USA led its Counter-
Memorial, by 17 August 2020 Iran should have presented to the
ICJ its Reply. None of these documents have been published on
the ICJ’s website.19 e time-limit for the Rejoinder of the USA
is 17 May 2021.20 us, at the time of preparing this paper there
is no possibility to get acquainted with the arguments of the
USA on the merits.
16 Case Concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)
Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019, page 7, at 114.
17 Islamic Republic of Iran: Application Instituting Proceedings of 14 June 2020, available at: https://
www.icj-cij.org/public/les/case-related/164/164-20160614-APP-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November
2020). Islamic Republic of Iran: Memorial of 01 February 2017, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/
les/case-related/164/164-20170201-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2020).
18 Islamic Republic of Iran: Memorial of 01 February 2017, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/
les/case-related/164/164-20170201-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2020).
19 International Court of Justice: Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America),
Latest Developments, available at: https://ww w.icj-cij.org/en/case/164 (accessed on 11 November 2020).
20 Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Order of 15 November
2019, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/les/case-related/164/164-20191115-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf
(accessed on 11 November 2020).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1362021_CYIL_v3.indd 136 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 137
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.16. Nevertheless, the aim of this paper is to deliberate on the
possible outcome of the Iran v. USA Dispute. It will be done on
the basis of customary international law and latest developments
in international law and national laws on State immunity and
on terrorism combatting. ese considerations will be the
substance of the next parts of this article.
II. e Terrorism Exception and Customary
International Law
6.17. e starting point of the research for possible results of the
dispute between Iran and the USA will be the analysis of
customary international law in the area of State immunities to
verify if the terrorism exception falls within any existing rules of
international custom and next whether it could be eventually an
emerging rule of customary international law.
II.1. e Terrorism Exception as a Part of
Current Customary International Law on
State Immunity
6.18. e aim of this part of the paper is to decide whether the terrorism
exception falls within any of the already existing and accepted
exceptions to State immunity in customary international law.
To achieve this goal the rules of international custom that
eventually could be related to the terrorism exception will be
depicted. Next it will be deliberated whether the terrorism
exception could be classied as any of them.
II.1.1. Customary Law Eventually Relevant to the
Terrorism Exception
6.19. International custom means ‘evidence of a general practice
accepted by law’21 and it contains two elements: a settled practice
and opinio juris.22 Both of these elements have to be identied as
the existence of only one of them is not sucient to identify the
21 Article 38(1)(b) ICJ Statute.
22 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985,
page 13, at 27. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2012, page 99, at 55. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark,
Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, page 44, at 74, 77. Areios Pagos
(Court of Cassation, Greece), case no. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany (Distomo
Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), case No. I V
CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), Order of 29 October 2010. Kazemi Estate v. Iran [2014] 3S.C.R. 176. International
Law Commission, Draft conclusions on identication of customary international law with commentaries
(2018), A/73/10, Conclusion 2, page 124. WŁADYSŁAW CZAPLIŃSKI, ANNA WYROZUMSKA, PRAWO
MIĘDZYNARODOWE PUBLICZNE, Warsaw: C.H. Beck (3rd ed., 2014), et. 98-99. MALCOLM N. SHAW,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2008), et. 74.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1372021_CYIL_v3.indd 137 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
138 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
rule of customary international law. erefore, regard must be
taken to the overall context, the nature of the rule and particular
circumstances in which evidence in question is to be found.23
e settled practice should be constant and uniform (although
a complete consistency is not required), repetitive and general
(widespread and representative).24
6.20. One of the principles of customary international law is State
immunity. at means that the acts (or omissions) of one
sovereign State cannot be the object of the jurisdiction of
a national court of another State. It is based on sovereign
equality of States and it is an exception to territorial jurisdiction
of a State based on reciprocity. Currently only China considers
State immunity to be absolute, whereas other States apply the
restrictive theory of State immunity which means that immunity
covers acta de jure imperii but not acta de jure gestionis.25
6.21. Attempts to codify State immunity are scarce. erefore only
several States adopted national laws on State immunity,26
whereas a vast majority of States apply international custom.
23 International Law Commission, Draft conclusions on identication of customary international law with
commentaries (2018) A/73/10, Conclusion 2, Conclusion 3, page 126.
24 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 55. Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece), case No. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia
v. Federal Republic of Germany (Distomo Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513.
Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, Federal Republic of Germany), case No. 2 BvM
1/60, Judgment of 30 October 1962; case No. 2 BvM 1/62, Judgment of 30 April 1963. Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Slovenia, case No. Up-13/99, Judgment of 08 March 2001, paragraph 12. Jones v. Saudi
Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski),
Order of 29 October 2010. International Law Commission, Draft conclusions on identication of customary
international law with commentaries, 2018, A/73/10, Conclusion 4, Conclusion 5, Conclusion 8, pages 130,
132, 135-137. Daniel Scherr, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening):
A case note, 10 NEW ZEALAND YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 147 (2012). MALCOLM N.
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (6th ed., 2008), et. 76-84.
25 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 54, 56-57. Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 35763/97, 21 November
2001. Kalogeropoulou and others v. Greece and Germany (dec.) No. 59021/00, 12 December 2002. Areios
Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece), case No. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany
(Distomo Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513. Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme
Court, Germany), case No. III ZR 245/98, Judgment of 26 June 2003. Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal
Constitutional Court, Federal Republic of Germany), case No. 2 BvM 1/62, Judgment of 30 April 1963.
X v. the Attorney General of New Zealand, Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) [2017] NZHC 768. Sąd
Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), case No. R 133/26, judgment of 02 March 1926; case No. C 365/48,
judgment of 14 December 1948; case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), Order of 29 October 2010. Jones
v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. Organization of American States, Inter-American Juridical Committee,
Annual Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee to the General Assembly 2015, 08 September 2015,
OEA/Ser.Q, CJI/doc.495/15, pages 20, 24, 26. Organization of American States, report of Carlos Mata Prates,
Inmunidades de Juridicción de los Estados: Alcance y Vigencia (Esquema Preliminar), 3.7.2015, OEA/Ser.Q,
CJI/doc.480/15 rev. 1, page 1. Jasper Finke, Sovereign Immunity: Comity or Something Else?, 4 EUROPEAN
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 853-854, 858 (2011).
26 28 U.S. Code Article 1605, Article 1605A; State Immunity Act (Canada), R.S.C., 1985, c. S-18; Foreign
States Immunities Act 1985 (Australia), 196, 16 December 1985, State Immunity Act 1978 (United Kingdom);
20 July 1978, State Immunity Act (Singapore), 26 October 1979; Ley No. 24.488 Inmunidad jurisdiccional de
los estados extranjeros antes los tribunales argentinos (Argentina), 31 May 1995; Foreign States Immunity
Law 5769-2008 (Israel); Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State (Japan), etc., act
No. 24, 24 April 2009; State Immunity Ordinance (Pakistan), 11 March 1981; Foreign States Immunities Act
1981 (Republic of South Africa), 06 October 1981, Act No. 87, 1981.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1382021_CYIL_v3.indd 138 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 139
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
ere were only three attempts to codify customary law by
means of international conventions,27 but only one of them was
successful.28 However, the low number of ratications is not
a justication for the denial of the existence of international
customary law on State immunity.29
6.22. As it has been already mentioned, State immunity in civil
matters encompasses two separate types of immunity, namely
jurisdictional immunity and immunity from enforcement.
e second one is broader than the rst one, near absolute,
as enforcement proceedings severely inuence inter-State
relations and constitute a more ‘serious afront to foreign State’s
sovereignty’ than exercising jurisdiction over that foreign
State.30 e only exceptions to State immunity from execution
are an express waiver of immunity by the State and eventually
enforcement proceedings relating to industrial or commercial
activity (acta de jure gestionis) under the condition that they
concern property that has a connection with the entity against
which the proceedings were directed.31 For the purposes of this
paper it has to be pointed out that there are some categories
of property that are excluded from execution: property used
in the performance of the functions of the diplomatic mission,
property of a military character, property of the central bank or
other monetary authority of the State, property forming part of
the cultural heritage of the State or part of its archives and not
placed or intended to be placed on sale and property forming
part of an exhibition of objects of scientic, cultural or historical
interest and not placed or intended to be placed on sale.32
27 European Convention on State Immunity (adopted 16 May 1972, entered into force 11 June 1976),
1495 UNTS 181 (ECSI). Inter-American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States (adopted
21 January 1983) (1983) 22(2) ILM 292 (IADCJIS). UNGA United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional
Immunities of States and eir Property (adopted 02 December 2004, opened for signature 17 January 2005)
44 ILM 803 (2005) (UNCJIS).
28 ECSI required only the deposit of three instruments of ratication or acceptance, and it was ratied
by eight States. IADCJIS needed only two ratications for its entry into force and has not reach even that.
UNCJIS will enter into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratication,
nevertheless only 28 States have signed the UNCJIS and it was ratied by only 22 of them.
29 Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece), case No. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic
ofGermany (Distomo Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513.
30 Rubin and others v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 830 F. 3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016). MALCOLM N. SHAW,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (6th ed., 2008), et. 744.
31 Article 18 UNCJIS, Article 19 UNCJIS, Article 23 ECSI, Article 26 ECSI, Article 15 IADCJIS, Section
12 State Immunity Act (Canada), R.S.C., 1985, c. S-18, section 30, section 31, section 32 Foreign States
Immunities Act 1985 (Australia), 196, 16.12.1985, section 13 State Immunity Act 1978 (United Kingdom), 20
July 1978, section 15 State Immunity Act (Singapore), 26 October 1979, section 15(a), section 16(10), section
17 Foreign States Immunity Law 5769-2008 (Israel), Article 17, Article 18(1) Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of
Japan with respect to a Foreign State (Japan), Act No. 24, 24 April 2009, section 14(2)(b), (3) State Immunity
Ordinance (Pakistan), 11 March 1981, section 14(1)(b)(2) Foreign States Immunities Act 1981 (RSA),
28U.S. Code Article 1609, Article 1610(a)(1)(2). Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the European
Convention on State Immunity, 1972, page 19. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK
465/09 (Natoniewski), Order of 29 October 2010.
32 Article 21 UNCJIS, section 12(4)(5) State Immunity Act (Canada), R.S.C., 1985, c. S-18, section 31(4)
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1392021_CYIL_v3.indd 139 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
140 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.23. e question of restrictions of State immunity from adjudication
is more complex and a detailed scrutiny thereof would greatly
exceed the aims of the article, therefore the deliberations in this
area will be limited only to aspects eventually connected to the
terrorism exception.
6.24. If any of the restrictions to jurisdictional immunity was to be
ultimately applied in case of nancial support of terrorism
by aforeign State, it would be the territorial tort exception. It
means that the disputes on redress for injury to the person or
damage to the tangible property are subjected to the jurisdiction
of the forum Sate, if the facts which occasioned the injury or
damage occurred in the territory of that State and if the author
of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time
when those facts occurred.33 It is established that this exception
applies not only to acta de jure gestionis but also to acta de
jure imperii.34 However, one has to make a note here that acts
of armed forces of a foreign State on a territory of the State of
aforum are excluded from the territorial tort exception.35
Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Australia), 196, 16 December 1985, section 17(d), 18 Foreign States
Immunity Law 5769-2008 (Israel), Article 18(2), Article 19 Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect
to a Foreign State (Japan). International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities
ofStates and eir Property, with commentaries (1991), pages 58-59.
33 Article 12 UNCJIS, Article 11 ECSI, Article 1605(a)(5) U.S. Code, section 6 State Immunity Act
(Canada), R.S.C., 1985, c. S -18, section 13 Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Australia), 196, 16 December
1985, section 5 State Immunity Act 1978 (United Kingdom), 20 July 1978, section 7 and 15 State Immunity
Act (Singapore), 26 October 1979, Article 2(e) Ley No. 24.488 Inmunidad jurisdiccional de los estados
extranjeros antes los tribunales argentinos (Argentina), 31 May 1995, section 5 Foreign States Immunity
Law 5769-2008 (Israel), Article 10 Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State
(Japan), section 6 Foreign States Immunities Act 1981 (Republic of South Africa). Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme
Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), Order of 29 October 2010. Council of Europe,
Explanatory Report to the European Convention on State Immunity, 1972, pages 11-12. JACEK BARCIK,
TOMASZ SROGOSZ, PRAWO MIĘDZYNARODOWE PUBLICZNE, Warsaw: C.H. Beck (3rd ed., 2017),
et. 559. Daniel Scherr, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening): A case
note, 10 NEW ZEALAND YEARBOOK OF IN TERNATIONAL LAW 143 (2012).
34 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 64. Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece), case No. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia
v. Federal Republic of Germany (Distomo Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513.
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court, Germany), case No. III ZR 245/98, Judgment of 26 June
2003. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, case No. Up-13/99, Judgment of 08 March 2001,
paragraph 13. Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269. International Law Commission,
Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and eir Property, with commentaries, 1991, page
45. HAZEL FOX CMG QC AND PHILADELPHIA WEBB, THE LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY, Oxford:
Oxford University Press (3rd ed., 2013), et. 477-478. Jaume Ferrer Lloret, La inmunidad de juridicción
del estado ante violaciones graves de los derechos humanos, LIX(1) REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO
INTERNACIONAL 31 (2007).
35 Article 31 ECSI, section 16(2) State Immunity Act 1978 (United Kingdom), 20 July 1978, section
19(2)(a) State Immunity Act (Singapore), 26 October 1979. Lichtenstein, Sweden and Switzerland in their
written reservations to UNCJIS also indicated that activities of armed forces fall outside the scope of the
application of the Convention: United Nations: Treaty Collection, available at: https://treaties.un.org/
Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III-13&chapter=3&lang=en (accessed 11 November 2020).
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012,
page 99, at 65-79. Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court, Germany), case No. III ZR 245/98, Judgment
of 26 June 2003. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), Order
of29 October 2010.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1402021_CYIL_v3.indd 140 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 141
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.25. In its report the ILC indicated that the will of States in accepting
territorial tort exception was to cover by the territorial tort
exception mostly insurable risks, mostly connected to trac
accidents. Yet it was also pointed out that the territorial tort
exception is wide enough to cover also intentional physical
harm, including homicide, although some ILC members made
reservations to this interpretation.36
6.26. After these short remarks on customary international law the next
subsection will be devoted to deliberations whether the terrorism
exception falls within the frame of any of the present rules.
II.1.2. e Terrorism Exception - an Existing Limit
to State Immunity?
6.27. Denitely, terrorism attacks committed outside territories
of armed conicts are not military acts. Nevertheless, having
analysed relevant customary international law it has to be
concluded that the terrorism exception cannot be considered
to be an existing limitation to jurisdictional immunity of a State
for several reasons.
6.28. To fall within the territorial tort exception, an individual being
the author of the injury or damage has to be directly present
on the territory of the State of the forum. is means that
a State sponsor of terrorism or its agents should be present
on the territory of the State of the forum and moreover their
presence there should be directly connected to the terrorist
attack itself. ese conditions cannot be interpreted broadly. It
is extremely hard to justify that terrorists are agents of aState
as the direct link between them and the State is lacking. State
agents should be persons being representatives of the State
acting in their capacity although they do not have to act in
accordance with their instructions or authority. Yet terrorist
do not have any competence to exercise elements of the
governmental authority.37
36 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and eir Property,
with commentaries (1991), pages 45-46. See also: Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court, Germany),
case No. III ZR 245/98, Judgment of 26 June 2003. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, case
No. Up-13/99, Judgment of 08 March 2001. McElhinney v. Ireland (judgment), No. 31253/96), 21 November
2001. Letelier v. the Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980). McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
722 F. 2d 582 (9th Cir. 1983). Lois Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370. Liu v. the
Republic of China, 892 F. 2d 1419.Olsen and Sanchez v. the Republic of Mexico, 729 F. 2d 641.
37 Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. Kazemi Estate v. Iran [2014] 3 S.C.R. 176. In this place it
is indispensable to refer also to works of the ILC: International Law Commission, Draft Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), annex to General Assembly Resolution
56/83 of 12 December 2001 and corrected by document A/56/49 (Vol. 1)/Corr.4. Soe G. Syed, Sovereign
Immunity and Jus Cogens: Is ere A Terrorism E xception for Conduct-Based Immunity?, 49(2) COLUMBIA
JOURNAL LAW SOCIETY PROBLEM 253 (2016). Opposite view: Eric T. Kohan, A natural progression of
restrictive immunity: Why the JASTA amendment does not violate international law, 92(3) WASHINGTON
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1412021_CYIL_v3.indd 141 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
142 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.29. Next, the terrorism exception in the US legislation permits
private suits for acts of terrorism committed outside the US
territory given that a victim is a US citizen. It is not a case of the
territorial tort exception, as it requires presence of the author of
a wrongful act on the territory of the State of the forum.38
6.30. Lastly, even the US legislation treats the terrorism exception as
a separate limit to immunity and not as a part of the territorial
tort exception. e terrorism exception is regulated by 28 U.S.
Code Article 1605A and Article 1605B, whether the territorial
tort exception falls within 28 U.S. Code Article 1605(a)(5).
6.31. Moving to State immunity from enforcement it has to be
remembered that it is broader than jurisdictional immunity of
a State. erefore, if currently customary international law on
State immunity from adjudication does not contain the terrorism
exception, then a maiori and minus there is no such exception
within State immunity from execution. Moreover, there are
denitely no doubts that international custom, contrary to the
US law, does not permit in any way enforcement proceedings
directed against property of a foreign central bank.
6.32. erefore, currently there exist no rule of customary
international law that could include the terrorism exception.
But maybe this limitation to immunity is an emerging rule of
customary international law, what will be the subject of the
analysis in the next subsection of this article.
II.2. e Terrorism Exception as an Emerging
Rule of Customary International Law
6.33. It needs to be remembered that the existence of a new rule of
customary international law requires two elements: a settled
practice and opinio juris. erefore this part of the paper will
contain a detailed examination of practice and reactions of the
international community to the terrorism exception, especially
after the enactment of the JASTA.
6.34. From previous parts of this paper it is already obvious that the
terrorism exception is fully approved by the US law and judiciary.
Also the US legal doctrine accepts the terrorism exception
to State immunity indicating that no US court has denied its
jurisdiction in a terrorism exception suit39 and pointing out
that even if the terrorist exception does violate international
LAW REVIEW 1563-1564 (2017).
38 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and eir Property,
with commentaries (1991), page 45.
39 Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Resolving outstanding Judgments under the terrorism exception to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, 77(2) NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 498-499 (2002).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1422021_CYIL_v3.indd 142 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 143
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
customary law, it would have no eect on the way it is treated
by US judiciary, as it probably would enforce the exception
regardless of the international implications thereof.40
6.35. It has to be noted that there are some States that adopted or
considered to adopt similar legislation to the US law on the
terrorism exception. Canada enacted its legislation in 201241 and
in general it provides that a foreign State is not immune from
jurisdiction of a court in proceedings against it for its support
of terrorism on or after 01 January 1985. However, contrary to
the USA, Canada did not decide to permit law-suits without the
prior designation of a foreign State as a State sponsor of terrorism
by the Canadian executive branch. According to Canadian case-
law, it is the Parliament that shapes State immunity in Canadian
law and therefore immunity or exceptions thereto are applied in
a manner provided for by the Canadian legislation, and not by
customary international law, as the Parliament has the power
to ignore the latter.42 Moreover, Canadian courts decided that
it is possible to execute in Canada the US judgments rendered
against Iran.43
6.36. Of course the States included on the US and Canadian lists of
State sponsors of terrorism do not accept the judgements issued
against them and deny their enforcement. ey even very rarely
appear before the US and Canadian courts.44 Furthermore,
other States, especially those targeted by the USA as terrorism
sponsors, might adopt a mirror-legislation permitting law-
suits against the USA on the basis of the terrorism exception.
In fact, this has been already done by Cuba45 and the Russian
Federation signalized this possibility after the enactment of the
JA STA .46 In Iraq, a group called the ‘Arab Project’ requested the
Iraqi Parliament to sue the USA for its military action in Iraq
in 2003.47 Yet these approvals of the terrorism exception are
40 Eric T. Kohan, A natural progression of restrictive immunity: Why the JASTA amendment does not
violate international law, 92(3) WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1563-1564 (2017).
41 Section 6.1 State Immunity Act (Canada), R.S.C., 1985, c. S -18. Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
(Canada), S.C. 2012, column 1, section 2.
42 Kazemi Estate v. Iran [2014] 3 S.C.R. 176. Tracy v. Iran 2017 ONCA 549.
43 Tracy v. Iran 2017 ONCA 549.
44 Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et. al, 578 U.S. (2016). Daveed Gartenstein-Ross,
Resolving outstanding Judgments under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
77(2) NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 498-499 (2002).
45 Jaume Ferrer Lloret, La inmunidad de juridicción del estado ante violaciones graves de los derechos
humanos, LIX(1) REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL 48 (2007).
46 Ministry of Foreign Aairs of the Russian Federation, Comment by the Information and Press
Department on the US passing the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act wih extraterritorial
jurisdiction, available at: http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/
content/id/2479122 (accessed 11 November 2020).
47 Rachael E. Hancock, “Mob-Legislating”: JASTA’s Addition to the Terrorism Exception to Foreign Sovereign
Immunity, 103(5) CORNELL LAW REVIEW 1312-1313 (2018).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1432021_CYIL_v3.indd 143 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
144 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
only apparent as they are actually a form of a protest against the
terrorism exception to State immunity.
6.37. Ocial representatives of many States, like Saudi Arabia, France,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Morocco as well as
the European Parliament and the Gulf Cooperation Council
objected to the terrorism exception.48 e EU Delegation to
the USA in its letter of 09 September 2016 underlined that
the JASTA would be in conict with fundamental principles
of international law.49 e Dutch Parliament pointed out that
the JASTA is a ‘gross unwarranted breach of Dutch sovereignty’
which could result in ‘astronomical damages’.50
6.38. at is why currently, the terrorism exception is considered to
be an isolated practice of the USA and Canada.51 In its judgment
of 2019, the Luxembourg District Court denied to assent and
to execute the US judgments issued against Iran given that it
considered the terrorism exception to be contrary to customary
international law and emphasized that State immunity is not
adisproportional limitation of the right to a fair trial, even in
the case relating to a State sponsor of terrorism.52
6.39. Even the ICJ noticed in Jurisdictional Immunities of State
(Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) that except the United
States (currently also Canada) there are no other States that would
enact similar legislation based on the gravity of terrorist crimes.
is isolation of the USA is, according to the ICJ, an indication
that customary international law in that area protects immunity.53
In the opinion of the ECHR, the terrorism exception even in the
United States was very limited and restricted at that time to
recognize it as an evidence of international customary law.54
6.40. All the above mentioned arguments speak against a recognition
of the terrorism exception to State immunity as a part of
customary international law. At the moment, this exception
lacks a settled practice and opinion juris. Nevertheless, it is
possible that in the future this limit to immunity might become
a new international custom. However the reactions of the
48 European Parliament Research Service: Justice Against sponsors of terrorism. JASTA and its
international impact, Brieng October 2016, available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/
BRIE/2016/593499/EPRS_BRI(2016)593499_EN.pdf (accessed 11 November 2020).
49 European Union Delegation to the United States of America: Letter of 09 September 2016, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fpowerpost%2f wp-content%2fu
ploads%2fsites%2f47%2f2016%2f09%2fEU-on-JASTA.pdf%3f (accessed 11 November 2019).
50 Rachael E. Hancock, “Mob-Legislating”: JASTA’s Addition to the Terrorism Exception to Foreign Sovereign
Immunity, 103(5) CORNELL LAW REVIEW 1295 (2018).
51 Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26.
52 Luxembourg Tribunal d’Arrondissement, civil judgment of 27 March 2019 No. 2019TALCH/00116,
No. 177266 du role.
53 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 88.
54 Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1442021_CYIL_v3.indd 144 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 145
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
international community to this exception justify a conclusion
that this is highly unlikely.
III. A Dicult Task for the ICJ
6.41. In its arguments Iran wants that the ICJ to obligate the USA
to cease the violation and not repeat the violation in the
future. Moreover it requires reparations to Iran consisting
of the following components: restitution, compensation and
satisfaction.55 e ICJ in Jurisdictional Immunities of State
(Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) concluded, that a failure
to respect one State’s immunity by another State constitutes
aviolation of customary international law. At the same time, the
ICJ ruled that in a case of such a breach of law, the forum State
must ensure that the decisions of its courts or of other judicial
authorities infringing State immunity cease to have eect. It
shall be done either by enacting appropriate legislation or by
resorting to other methods of its choosing.56
6.42. erefore at rst glance the decision to be taken by the ICJ
seems uncomplicated. ere exists a high probability that the
ICJ will grant protection to Iran. As it was already mentioned,
previously the ICJ itself had expressed a view that the terrorism
exception does not form part of customary international law.
Moreover, many other judicial bodies as well as States and
international organisations were of the same opinion.
6.43. It has to be remembered that the aim of State immunity is to
promote comity and good relations between States through
respect of another State’s sovereignty.57 If States decide to
unilaterally set aside a foreign State’s immunity, this might
lead in a foreseeable future to international legal chaos or, as
indicated in legal doctrine, to legal anarchy.58 erefore the
55 Islamic Republic of Iran: Memorial of 01 February 2017, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/
les/case-related/164/164-20170201-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2020).
56 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, 03 February
2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, page 99, at 107, 139. European Parliament Research Service: Justice Against
sponsors of terrorism. JASTA and its international impact, Brieng October 2016, available at https://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593499/EPRS_BRI(2016)593499_EN.pdf (accessed
11November 2020). Jasper Finke, Sovereign Immunity: Comity or Something Else?, 4 EUROPEAN JOURNAL
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 874 (2011). Daniel Scherr, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany
v.Italy: Greece Intervening): A case note, 10 NEW ZEALAND YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
139-140 (2012).
57 Fogarty v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 37112/97 21 November 2001, paragraph 34. McElhinney
v. Ireland (judgment) No. 31253/96, 21 November 2001. Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment)
No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001. Grosz v. France (dec.) No. 14717/06, 16 June 2009. Kuwait Airways
Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Company and Others [2002] UKHL 19. Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL
26. McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F. 2d 582 (9th Cir. 1983). Rubin and others v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, 830 F. 3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016). Rubin and others v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. (2018). THOMAS
WHEATHERHALL, JUS COGENS. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SOCIAL CONTRACT, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (2015), et. 402.
58 Jaume Ferrer Lloret, La inmunidad de juridicción del estado ante violaciones graves de los derechos
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1452021_CYIL_v3.indd 145 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
146 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
acceptance of this exception defeats the goal of State immunity.
Moreover, currently the terrorism exception causes the relations
between the USA and Iran to become more hostile and chances
for a compromise between those States are unlikely. As a result
of judgments issued against Iran on the basis of the terrorism
exception, Iran owes to terrorism victims over 60 billion USD.
is denitely inclines Iran not to enter into peace negotiations
with the USA.59
6.44. e logic of the ICJ’s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities
of State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) supports the
rejection of the terrorism exception as a limit to State immunity.
ere are no doubts that terrorism is a gross violation of human
rights law, even amounting to a violation of jus cogens or acrime
against humanity. According to the ICJ, State immunity is
procedural in nature, it prohibits a court to enter into merits of
the case, whereas deciding whether a State committed a serious
violation of human rights law requires a court to conduct an
analysis of the facts of the case and its merits. erefore, there
is no conict neither between State immunity and human rights
law nor between State immunity and jus cogens. at is why the
ICJ concluded in its judgment of 2012 that State immunity does
not depend on the gravity of the alleged wrongful act on one
hand and that granting immunity does not mean accepting the
legality of a wrongful act on the other.60
6.45. Another referral to the ICJ’s judgment in Jurisdictional
Immunities of State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) is
also in favour of Iran. International law does not accept denying
State immunity because otherwise victims of a wrongful act
would not be granted any compensation from a State responsible
for injuries and damages suered by them. It is already a settled
case-law that State immunity is a proportional limitation of the
right to a fair trial.61 As the House of Lords rightly pointed out,
humanos, LIX(1) REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL 59 (2007).
59 In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigation, 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009). Joseph Keller, e
Flatow Amendment and State-Sponsored Terrorism, 28 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1051 (2005).
60 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 82-91. See also: Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 35763/97, 21 November
2001. Kalogeropoulou and others v. Greece and Germany (dec.) No. 59021/00. 12 December 2002.
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court, Germany), case No. III ZR 245/98, Judgment of 26 June 2003
Fang and Ors. v. Jiang and Ors. [2007] NZAR 420. Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. X v. the Attorney
General of New Zealand, Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) [2017] NZHC 768. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme
Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), Order of 29 October 2010. HAZEL FOX CMG QC
AND PHILADELPHIA WEBB, THE LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY, Oxford: Oxford University Press (3rd
ed., 2013), et. 368-369.
Contrary opinion: Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece), case No. 11/2000 Prefecture of Voiotia
v. Federal Republic of Germany (Distomo Massacre Case), Judgment of 04 May 2000, 129 ILR 513.
Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 623 F. Supp. 246 (D.D.C. 1985).
61 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2012, page 99, at 98-101.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1462021_CYIL_v3.indd 146 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 147
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
international law cannot be established solely on the basis of
the sympathy that one must feel for the victims.62 e right to
a fair trial is not absolute, States might provide for limitations
of this right, but they cannot reach a point at which they would
violate the very essence of the right to a fair trial. ose limits
should aim at achieving a legitimate aim and there should exist
a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means
employed and the aim sought to be achieved.63 It has to be
remembered that State immunity aims at promoting comity and
good relations between States and the right to a fair trial cannot
be interpreted in a legal vacuum. A proper application of the
rules governing the right to a fair trial requires a referral to those
of international law, including the ones concerning relations
between the parties. e right to a fair trial encompasses the
right of access to a court itself and its limitations, as they are
inherently a part of this right. erefore, State immunity is one
of the elements of the right to a fair trial.64 It was conrmed
by the Luxembourg District Court in the case relating directly
to the terrorism exception and the judgments rendered by US
courts that were to be executed in Luxembourg, in which the
Court gave primacy to State immunity.65
6.46. e terrorism exception applied unilaterally makes it possible
that in fact any State might be unilaterally deprived of its
immunity by any other State. ere are no commonly accepted
guidelines to acknowledge that a foreign State is supporting
terrorism. e ambiguity and vagueness of criteria applied
for this purpose may cause that any State at any time might
be denied the immunity objection. In the long run, there is
aprobability that State immunity will be of no practical meaning
and as aresult good relations between States will be threatened.
62 Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26.
63 Waite and Kennedy v. Germany (judgment) No. 26083/94, 18 February 1999. Beer and Reagan
v. Germany (judgment) No. 28934/95, 18 February 1999. Fogarty v. the United Kingdom (judgment)
No. 37112/97, 21 November 2001. McElhinney v. Ireland (judgment) No. 31253/96, 21 November 2001.
Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001. Kalogeropoulou and
others v. Greece and Germany (decision) No. 59021/00, 12 December 2002. Grosz v. France (decision)
No. 14717/06, 16 June 2009.
64 Waite and Kennedy v. Germany (judgment) No. 26083/94, 18 February 1999. Beer and Reagan
v. Germany (judgment) No. 28934/95, 18 February 1999. Fogarty v. the United Kingdom (judgment)
No. 37112/97, 21 November 2001. McElhinney v. Ireland (judgment) No. 31253/96), 21 November 2001.
Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (judgment) No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001. Kalogeropoulou and others
v. Greece and Germany (dec.) No. 59021/00, 12 December 2002. Grosz v. France (dec.) 14717/06, 16 June
2009. Cour de cassation (France), case No. 09-14743, Judgment 09 March 2011. Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme
Court, Poland), case No. IV CSK 465/09 (Natoniewski), order of 29 October 2010. Jaume Ferrer Lloret,
La inmunidad de juridicción del estado ante violaciones graves de los derechos humanos, LIX(1) REVISTA
ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL 55-56 (2007).
65 Luxembourg Tribunal d’Arrondissement, civil judgment of 27 March 2019, No. 2019TALCH/00116,
No. 177266 du rôle.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1472021_CYIL_v3.indd 147 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
148 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.47. Nevertheless, there might be some arguments that support the
position of the USA. However, they would not concentrate on
human rights law but they will concern international peace
and security.
6.48. Combatting terrorism is one of the major problems that the
international community is currently facing. It is a matter of
great concern for the UNSC, especially the issue of terrorism
nancing.66 In its resolutions the UNSC calls States to cut
o terrorists from all sources that provide funds for terrorist
activities. e UNSC resolutions on combatting nancial
support to terrorism are commonly accepted and implemented.67
Iran, by providing nancial support to terrorists, violates the
obligations stemming from these resolutions. at is why it
can be concluded that Iran is indirectly responsible for acts of
terrorism, which are a serious violation of human rights norms
and even of peremptory norms.
66 UN Security Council resolutions: 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1363 (2000), 1373 (2002), 1390 (2002), 1452
(2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1624 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), nr 1904 (2009), 1988
(2011), 1989 (2011), 2082 (2012), 2083 (2012), 2129 (2013), 2133 (2014), 2160 (2014), 2161 (2014), 2170
(2014), 2178 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2249 (2015), 2253 (2015), 2255 (2015), 2309 (2016), 2322 (2016), 2341
(2017), 2354 (2017), 2368 (2017), 2370 (2017), 2395 (2017), 396 (2017).
67 8 U.S. Code Article 1189. 50 US Code Article 1622. 31 C.F.R. Article 594.406. Council Common Position
2001/154/CFSP of 26 February 2001 concerning additional restrictive measures against the Taliban and
amending Common Position 96/746/CFSP [2001] OJ L57/1. Council Common Position 2001/930/CFSP
of 27 December 2001 on combating terrorism [2001] OJ L344/90. Council Common Position 2001/931/
CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specic measures to combat terrorism [2001] OJ L344/93.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specic restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism [2001] OJ L377/70. Council
Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 06 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to
Afghanistan, strengthening the ight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other nancial resources in
respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 [2001] OJ L67/1. Council
Common Position 2002/402/CFSP of 27 May 2002 concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin
Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings
and entities associated with them and repealing Common Positions 96/746/CFSP, 1999/727/CFSP,
2001/154/CFSP and 2001/771/CFSP [2002] OJ L139/4. Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May
2002 imposing certain specic restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated
with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No
467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the ight ban
and extending the freeze of funds and other nancial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan
[2002] OJ L129/9. Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1963 of 20 September 2016 concerning restrictive
measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated
with them and repealing Common Position 2002/402/CFSP [2016] OJ L255/25. Council Regulation (EU)
2016/1686 of 20 September 2016 imposing additional restrictive measures directed against ISIL (Da’esh)
and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them [2016] OJ L255/1. Al-
Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 (SI 111/2002), United Kingdom,23 January 2002.
Al-Qa’ida (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2952/2006), United Kingdom, 14 November 2006.
Al-Qaida and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) Regul ations 2010 (SI 1197/2010), United Kingdom, 07 April 2010. Al-
Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 (SI 2742/2011), United Kingdom, 15 November 2011. Terrorism
(United Nations Measures) Order (SI 3365/2001), United Kingdom, 09 October 2001. Terrorism (United
Nations Measures) Order 2001 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 1297/2003), United Kingdom, 14 May
2003. Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2657/2006), United Kingdom, 10 October 2006.
Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2009 (SI 1747/2009), United Kingdom, 08 July 2009. Terrorist
Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010, United Kingdom, 10 February 2010. Terrorist Asset
Freezing etc. Act 2010, United Kingdom, 16 December 2010.
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1482021_CYIL_v3.indd 148 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 149
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
6.49. at is an essential dierence between cases Certain Iranian
Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)
and Jurisdictional Immunities of State (Germany v. Italy: Greece
Intervening). e second case concerned occurrences that
had taken place about seventy years before the judgment was
delivered by the ICJ. e violations of jus cogens committed
by Germany ceased long ago and in 2012 Germany did not
continue its wrongdoing. e case was decided on the basis
of the law existing when the second world war ended. at is
not the case of Iran and the threat that it poses currently to
human rights law and peremptory norms of international law.
It is an open question, whether a State that is still carrying on
its wrongful acts can claim responsibility from a State that
undertakes certain steps to protect its citizens from these acts,
as nemo potest commodum capere de injuria sua propria. e
goal of the terrorism exception is not to grant compensations to
victims or their families, but also to force Iran to stop providing
nancial support to terrorism.
6.50. Summarizing the above, the ICJ is in a dicult situation and
any of the possible outcome of the dispute between Iran and
the USA might be questionable for the reasons mentioned in
this paper. e ICJ must balance good relations based on comity
and reciprocity between States, which are protected by State
immunity with the needs to combat one of the most serious
threats to international peace, security and human rights, that
the USA is trying to safeguard by the terrorism exception.
6.51. State immunity aims at maintaining peace between States by
a reduction of conicts and tensions that might result from
exercising jurisdiction of one sovereign State over another and
it is commonly accepted by international community as one
of the most important rules of inter-State relations. erefore,
the USA oering some sort of justice for its citizens, violates
international law. In other words, it constitutes combatting
one wrongful act by committing another and that conclusion
strongly supports the application of Iran.
6.52. On the other hand, the judgment in favour of Iran might cause
Iran to continue to support terrorism because of factual impunity
for its actions. Currently there exist no eective measures or
incentives that would incline Iran to change its policy and the
victory of Iran in the dispute before the ICJ might assure Iran
that regardless its conduct Iran will remain unpunished. It
cannot be overlooked that the primary source of the Iran v. USA
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1492021_CYIL_v3.indd 149 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
150 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
conict is the conduct of Iran. e terrorism exception in the
US legislation is only an answer to Iran’s wrongdoing.
│ │ │
Summaries
DEU [Terrorismus als Ausnahme von der Staatenimmunität]
Die Staatenimmunität ist ein wichtiges Gebiet des
internationalen Gewohnheitsrechts, hat sie doch ihren Ursprung
in der hoheitlichen Staatengleichstellung und dem Grundsatz
par in parem non habet imperium. Diese Immunität ist freilich
nicht absolut; die internationalen Gepogenheiten sehen gewisse
Beschränkungen dieser generellen Regel vor. Die Vereinigten
Staaten sind bei dieser Einschränkung der Staatenimmunität
noch weiter gegangen, insofern als sie das Konzept des Terrorismus
als Ausnahme von der Staatenimmunität eingeführt haben und
privatrechtliche Schadenrsatz- und Strafschadensersatzklagen
gegen Staaten zulassen, die den Terrorismus nanzieren. Der
Beitrag analysiert die Rolle, die diese Ausnahme im Rahmen
des Völkergewohnheitsrechts spielt, im Wege der Beurteilung der
Frage, ob diese Ausnahme von der Staatenimmunität Akzeptanz
gefunden hat bzw. nden kann. Die Erforschung dieses
Umstands ist von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung, denn vor dem
Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) ist derzeitig ein Verfahren
anhängig, welches vom Iran unter Einwendung eines Verstoßes
gegen das Völkerrecht angeregt wurde. Wie auch immer die
etwaige Entscheidung des IGH ausfallen wird: sie dürfte wohl
mit gewissen problematischen Aspekten behaftet sein, deren
Aufzählung in diesem Beitrag enthalten ist.
CZE [Postavení výjimky terorismu v rámci institutu imunity státu]
Imunita státu je významnou oblastí obyčejového mezinárodního
práva, neboť má svůj původ ve svrchované rovnosti států
azásadě par in parem non habet imperium. Imunita však není
absolutní a mezinárodní obyčej připouští určitá omezení tohoto
obecného pravidla. Spojené státy omezily imunitu státu ještě
více, neboť zavedly koncepci terorismu jako výjimky z imunity
státu, když připustily soukromoprávní žaloby na náhradu škody
a sankční náhradu škody proti státům nancujícím terorismus.
Příspěvek rozebírá postavení této výjimky v rámci obyčejového
mezinárodního práva posouzením otázky, zda tato výjimka je,
nebo zda se může stát, jednou z přijímaných výjimek z imunity
státu. Tento výzkum má zásadní význam, neboť v současnosti
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1502021_CYIL_v3.indd 150 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
| 151
e Place of the Terrorism Exception within the Issue of State Immunity
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
probíhá u Mezinárodního soudního dvora (ICJ) řízení zahájené
na návrh Íránu, který namítá porušení mezinárodního práva.
Jakékoli případné rozhodnutí ICJ bude patrně dotčeno určitými
problematickými aspekty, jejichž výčet článek obsahuje.
│ │ │
POL [Miejsce wyjątku terrorystycznego w ramach
immunitetu państwa]
Celem artykułu jest analiza międzynarodowego prawa
zwyczajowego regulującego immunitet państwa pod kątem
ustalenia miejsca wyjątku terrorystycznego w ramach
międzynarodowego zwyczaju. Problem pojawił się w związku
ze sporem pomiędzy Iranem i Stanami Zjednoczonymi, który
aktualnie jest przedmiotem badania MTS. Na końcu zostaną
przedstawione wady każdego z rozwiązań, jakie może wybrać
Trybunał w swoim wyroku.
FRA [Le statut de l’«exception de terrorisme» dans le cadre de
l’immunité de l’État]
Le présent article se propose d’analyser le droit coutumier
international régissant l’immunité de l’État et d’évaluer si ce cadre
légal permet d’introduire une exception relative au terrorisme. Ce
problème s’est posé dans le litige opposant l’Iran et les États-Unis,
actuellement en cours devant la Cour internationale de justice.
En conclusion, l’auteur rééchit sur les problèmes potentiels
auxquels pourrait donner lieu la décision rendue par la CIJ.
RUS [Роль исключения терроризма в рамках института
иммунитета государства]
В данной статье анализируется обычное международное
право, регулирующее иммунитет государства, и дается
оценка возможности применения исключения, касающегося
терроризма, в рамках системы этого права. Данный вопрос
возник в результате спора между Ираном и Соединенными
Штатами, который в настоящее время рассматривает
Международный суд. В конце статьи автор предлагает
перечень потенциальных проблемных аспектов возможного
результата разбирательства вМеждународном суде.
ESP [Excepción relativa al terrorismo en la inmunidad del Estado]
El objetivo de este artículo es el análisis del derecho
consuetudinario internacional que rige la inmunidad del Estado,
y la indagación sobre la posibilidad de establecer en este sistema
de derecho la excepción relativa al terrorismo. Esta cuestión
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1512021_CYIL_v3.indd 151 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55
152 |
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak
Czech Yearbook of International Law®
emanó de la disputa entre EE. UU. e Irán, sometida actualmente
al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia. En las conclusiones, la
autora presenta varios aspectos potencialmente problemáticos
de un futuro fallo del TIJ.
│ │ │
Bibliography
JACEK BARCIK, TOMA SZ SROG OSZ, PR AWO MIĘDZYNARODOWE
PUBLICZNE, Warsaw: C.H. Beck (3rd ed., 2017).
WŁADYSŁAW CZAPLIŃSKI, ANNA WYROZUMSKA, PRAWO
MIĘDZYNARODOWE PUBLICZNE, Warsaw: C.H. Beck (3rd ed., 2014).
Jasper Finke, Sovereign Immunity: Comity or Something Else?,
4EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2011).
HAZEL FOX CMG QC AND PHILADELPHIA WEBB, THE LAW OF
STATE IMMUNITY, Oxford: Oxford University Press (3rd ed., 2013).
Rachael E. Hancock, “Mob-Legislating”: JASTA’s Addition to the
Terrorism Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunity, 103(5) CORNELL
LAW REVIEW (2018).
Joseph Keller, e Flatow Amendment and State-Sponsored Terrorism,
28 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (2005).
Eric T. Kohan, A natural progression of restrictive immunity: Why
the JASTA amendment does not violate international law, 92(3)
WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW (2017).
Jaume Ferrer Lloret, La inmunidad de juridicción del estado ante
violaciones graves de los derechos humanos, LIX(1) REVISTA
ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL (2007).
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Resolving outstanding Judgments under the
terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 77(2) NEW
YORK UNIVERSIT LAW REVIEW (2002).
MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (6th ed., 2008).
Soe G. Syed, Sovereign Immunity and Jus Cogens: Is ere A Terrorism
Exception for Conduct-Based Immunity?, 49(2) COLUMBIA JOURNAL
LAW SOCIETY PROBLEM (2016).
THOMAS WHEATHERHALL, JUS COGENS. INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND SOCIAL CONTRACT, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press (2015).
2021_CYIL_v3.indd 1522021_CYIL_v3.indd 152 24.03.2021 8:5524.03.2021 8:55