Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:38:35.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereign immunity—immunity from execution—customary international law—Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations—embassy bank accounts—aircraft belonging to state-owned airline

Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Rossbeton S.R.L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Peter D. Trooboff  and
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo
Affiliation:
University of Turin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 573 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Andrew I. Schoenholtz of the District of Columbia Bar assisted with the editing of this case note.

References

1 The Court had touched upon the issue incidentally in a number of earlier cases, notably in Mininni v. Istituto di Bari del Centro internazionale di alti studi agronomici mediterranei, No. 2316 (Corte cass., plen. sess., Apr. 4, 1986), 69 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale [RDI] 576 (1986). There the interpretation of the rule on immunity applicable to states was relevant to the application of an agreement with an international organization that expressly referred to the rule.

2 Cf. Mininni; Lo Franco v. NATO General Headquarters in Verona, No. 1920 (Corte cass. Mar. 22, 1984), 67 RDI 672 (1984).

3 See 18 RDI 407 (1926).

4 The Court quoted verbatim, without giving the source, B. Conforti, Diritto Internazionale 228 (3d ed. 1987). See generally Condorelli & Sbolci, Measures of Execution against the Property of Foreign States: the Law and Practice in Italy, 10 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 197 (1979).

5 Governo Britannico v. Guerrato, No. 135 (Corte cost. July 13, 1963),RDI 451 (1963).

6 Guerrato, 46 RDI at 456, where the Constitutional Court held that there was no unanimity in the laws and jurisprudence of states with respect to immunity from attachment and execution of foreign state property not devoted to functions connected with the exercise of sovereignty.

7 This argument was upheld on the strength of Libyan law applied pursuant to Italian conflicts-of-law principles, in CO.FA. S.R.L. v. Giamahiriya araba libica popolare socialista (Corte di Milano Dec. 3, 1987), 24 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale 755(1988).

8 See Condorelli & Sbolci, supra note 4.

9 Decree dated Mar. 29, 1989, 25 Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale 477 (1989).

10 See the bill introduced in the Italian Senate on Dec. 13, 1988, 72 RDI 500 (1989), with a comment by Starace, id, at 320. For an earlier version of the bill, see 68 RDI 491 (1985), with a comment by Gaja, id. at 345.