Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:41:33.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United Kingdom Case Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

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.'

Keywords

Act of state doctrinewhether the defense of “act of state” is available against British subjects who seek compensation for seizure by the Crown of their property located abroadthe law of the United Kingdom
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1968 , pp. 511 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968

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.)

References

1 1967] 2 All E.E. 200

2 [1967] 2 All E.E. 1238 at 1242.

3 Ibid. at 1243. Following Walker v. Baird, [1892] A.C. 491; and Johnstone v. Pedlar, [1921] 2 A.C. 262.

4 British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, [1893] A.C. 602.

5 E.g., A.-G. v. De Keyser's Boyal Hotel, Ltd., [1920] A.C. 508; Burmah Oil Company v. Lord Advocate, [1965] A.C. 75.

6 [1967] 2 AH E.B. 1238 at 1244.

7 Ibid. This was also the view of Stephenson below.

8 Edited by Philip J. Fetner, LL.B.