Abstract
AbstractEmbassy bank accounts are among the properties of states most widely present in foreign states. Accordingly, they constitute an ideal target for attachment by creditors. International instruments have largely upheld state immunity from execution regarding bank accounts, however. Likewise, state practice largely – and apparently increasingly – supports state immunity from measures of attachment, by applying a presumption that funds in embassy bank accounts are used for governmental non-commercial purposes. This approach is overly deferential to the state. Instead, it is argued that domestic courts should require that the state, at least partially, discharge the burden of proof regarding the nature (commercial/sovereign) of the funds in the bank account. A failure to discharge this burden should result in a rejection of immunity. Only such an approach adequately balances the interests of states and creditors, and does sufficient justice to the creditor's right of access to a court. In addition, it is argued that such a balance is also brought about by construing literally general waivers of immunity from attachment, as not requiring an additional specific waiver regarding embassy bank accounts.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference7 articles.
1. Immunity of State Property – the Central Bank of Nigeria in Foreign Courts
2. Enforcement of Bank Claims in Switzerland: Pledge, Set-Off and Immunity;Hess;Current Developments in Monetary and Financial Law,1999
3. Central Bank Immunity and the Inadequacy of the Restrictive Immunity Approach;Asiedu-Akrofi;Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1991
4. The Last Bastion of Sovereign Immunity: A Comparative Look at Immunity from Execution of Judgments;Ostrander;BerkeleyJIntlL,2004
5. European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献