Sovereign Immunity as Liminal Space

Abstract

Abstract Questions of foreign state immunity frequently involve the ‘liminal space’ between substance and procedure, between domestic and international law and between the domestic law of the forum states and domestic laws of other states. US courts typically (and rightly) rest their analysis not only upon relevant foreign law and international practice but also upon procedural norms that are not formally part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Immunity frequently implicates both the reach and power of domestic courts and the authority, organization and expectations of foreign states. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the domestic procedures of the forum court and the internal laws of both the forum state and the foreign state play significant roles in immunity determinations, although the relative paucity of concrete evidence of state practice can make it very difficult to discern the content of customary international law. ‘Restatements of domestic law’ can play an important role in developing principles of immunity, perhaps especially in the liminal spaces between domestic and foreign, substance and procedure. Hopefully, institutes in other countries will produce works like the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States.