No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
This Article uses a combination of doctrinal and comparative analyses to elucidate the most widely-used criteria according to which courts characterize an act as having a private-law nature. Further, this Article identifies the extent to which the Turkish State practice has embraced those criteria. To that end, this Article extracts two such widely-used criteria from patterns in customary State practice. In the end, the Article points out the extent to which those criteria are prevalent throughout the Turkish court rulings and concludes that Turkish caselaw is generally in alignment with the customary State practice in terms of the criteria used to determine a State act's private-law nature.
1 Fox, Hazel & Webb, Philippa, The Law of State Immunity 213 (3d ed. 2013).Google Scholar
2 Id. Google Scholar
3 See, e.g., State Immunity Act 1978, c. 33 (UK); Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602–11; Gaikoku-tω ni taisuru wagakuni no minji saiban-ken ni kansuru hωritsu [Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with Respect to a Foreign State, etc.], Law No. 24 of 2009, art.8, translated in (Japanese Law Translation [JLT DS]), http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp (Japan); Foreign States Immunity Act 87 of 1981 § 4 (S. Afr.); State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18 (Can.); Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 s 11 (Austl.); O yurisdiktsionnykh immunitetakh inostrannogo gosudarstva i sobstvennosti inostrannogo gosudarstva v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The Federal Law on Jurisdictional Immunity of a Foreign State and a Foreign State's Property in the Russian Federation], art.7.Google Scholar
4 Bankas, Ernest K., The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts 75 (2005).Google Scholar
5 Yang, Xiaodong, State Immunity in International Law 98 (2012).Google Scholar
6 Id. at 393.Google Scholar
7 Id. at 93.Google Scholar
8 Bankas, supra note 4, at 74.Google Scholar
9 Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614 (1992).Google Scholar
10 Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 2 WLR 356 at 370 (Eng.).Google Scholar
11 International Law Reports 272 (E. Lauterpacht & C.J. Greenwood eds., 1994).Google Scholar
12 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 360 (1993) (citing Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614).Google Scholar
13 Controller and Auditor-General v. Sir Ronald Davison [1996] 2 NZLR 278 (CA) at 288 (N.Z.).Google Scholar
14 Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.Google Scholar
15 Id. at 609.Google Scholar
16 Id. at 615.Google Scholar
17 Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia, 615 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1985).Google Scholar
18 Id. at 93, 95.Google Scholar
19 Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia, 811 F.2d 1543, 1548 (D.C. Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
20 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993).Google Scholar
21 Id. at 362.Google Scholar
22 Ministry, Jin v. of State Security, 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 141 (D.D.C. 2008).Google Scholar
23 Doe I v. State of Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86, 106 (D.D.C. 2005).Google Scholar
24 Yang, supra note 5, at 82.Google Scholar
25 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 278.Google Scholar
26 Yang, supra note 5, at 84.Google Scholar
27 Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 172 F. Supp. 2d 52, 63 (D.D.C. 2001).Google Scholar
28 International Law Reports, supra note 11, at 344.Google Scholar
29 Id. Google Scholar
30 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 151.Google Scholar
31 Id. at 152.Google Scholar
32 Bankas, supra note 4, at 70–71.Google Scholar
33 Hof van Cassatie [Cass.] [Court of Cassation], Pas. 24 Dec. 1903, 1903-II-294 (Belg.).Google Scholar
34 Fourth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/357 (1982), reprinted in [1982] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 199, 277, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.1 (Part 1); Malcom N. Shaw, International Law 629 (7th ed. 2014).Google Scholar
35 Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Feb. 10, 1961, Holubek v. The Government of the United States (Austria).Google Scholar
36 Id. Google Scholar
37 Yang, supra note 5, at 102.Google Scholar
38 International Law Reports, supra note 11, at 9.Google Scholar
39 Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Voeten, Erik, How Does Customary International Law Change? The Case of State Immunity, 59 Int'l Stud. Q. 214 (2015).Google Scholar
40 The Un Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: A Commentary 191 (Roger O'Keefe & Christian J. Tams eds., 2013).Google Scholar
41 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property art. 2(2), Dec. 2, 2004, U.N. Doc. A/59/508.Google Scholar
42 State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18 (Can.) (“[C]ommercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a commercial character.”).Google Scholar
43 Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50 (Can.).Google Scholar
44 Id. Google Scholar
45 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 261.Google Scholar
46 Yang, supra note 5, at 103.Google Scholar
47 Littrell v. USA (NO.2) [1994] 4 AII ER 203 at 209.Google Scholar
48 Joseph v. Office of the Consulate Gen. of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
49 Holy Doe v. See, 434 F. Supp. 2d 925, 941 (D. Or. 2006).Google Scholar
50 Id. at 941.Google Scholar
51 Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, 300 F.3d 230, 241 (2d Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
52 United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645 (S.C., May 22, 1985) (Phil.).Google Scholar
53 Fourth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/357 (1982), reprinted in [1982] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 199, 228, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.1 (Part 1).Google Scholar
54 Eigth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/396 (1986), reprinted in [1986] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 21 at 24, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1986/Add.1 (Part 1). Please note that Article 2(2) of the UN Convention on State Immunity retains the proposal listed in the 1991 draft.Google Scholar
55 Id. at 51. Yugoslavia supported the proposal without reservation, while Canada and Brazil supported the proposal with some reservations.Google Scholar
56 United Nations, General Assembly Sixth Committee, Fifty-Fourth Session, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Rep. of the Chairman of the Working Group ¶20, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/54/L.12 (Nov. 12, 1999).Google Scholar
57 Üçok, Coşkun et al., Türk HUKUK TARIHI [History of Turkish Law] 203 (1996).Google Scholar
58 Akyılmaz, Gül, Osmanlı Hukukundaki Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Yabancı Ülke Vatandaşlığına Geçen Ermenilerin Gayrimenkullerinin Hukuki Statüsü [The Legal Status of the Real Estates of the Armenians who Became Foreign Citizenship in the Framework of the Regulations in the Ottoman Law] 60/2014 Yeni Türkiye 1, 19 (2014).Google Scholar
59 Id. Google Scholar
60 This law's Ottoman Turkish name is “Memaliki Osmaniyede Bulunan Ecnebilerin Hukuk ve Vezayifi Hakkında Kanun-ı Muvakkat.” This law regulates the law applicable to foreign residents, but lacks any provision governing immunity from jurisdiction applied to a foreign State.Google Scholar
61 Docket No: 1950/5402, Decree No: 1950/506481 (Turk.).Google Scholar
62 Docket No: 1968/630, Decree No: 1968/9285 (Turk.).Google Scholar
63 Docket No: 1955/5402, Decree No: 1955/415183 (Turk.).Google Scholar
64 Docket No: 1964/3816, Decree No: 1964/375184 (Turk.).Google Scholar
65 Docket No: 1979/6137, Decree No: 1979/1787 (Turk.).Google Scholar
66 Docket No: 1964/7501, Decree No: 1964/8902 (Turk.).Google Scholar
67 For a more elaborate explanation on the liberal orientation of Turkey during the 1980s, see İzak Atiyas, Economic Institutions and Institutional Change in Turkey During the Neoliberal Era, 47 New Persp. on Turk. 57 (2012).Google Scholar
68 Heper, Metin, The State and Debureaucratization: The Case of Turkey, 42 Int'l Soc. Sci. J. 605, 609 (1990).Google Scholar
69 Letter numbered 3737 of the Directorate General For Laws And Decrees of the Prime Ministry (Başbakanlık Kanunlar ve Kararlar Genel Müdürlüğü) entitled “General Reasoning /Genel Gerekçe”Google Scholar
70 Meclisi, Danışma, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı Adalet Komisyonu Raporu [Report of the Draft Law on International Private Law and Procedural Law and Justice Commission], 100 S. Sayisi 10 madde 33 (1981).Google Scholar
71 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 514.Google Scholar
72 Yang, supra note 5, at 63.Google Scholar
73 Gökçe, Yasir, Uluslararasi Metinler, AB Düzenlemeleri ve ABAD Kararlari Işiğinda Avrupa Birliği’ nde Aile Birleşimi [Family Reunification in the European Union in the Light of International Texts, EU Regulations and ECJ Resolutions] 112 (2013).Google Scholar
74 State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-18, art. 2 (“[C]ommercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a commercial character.”) (Can.).Google Scholar
75 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d) (“[A] commercial activity means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act.”).Google Scholar
76 Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 s 11(3) (“[C]ommercial transaction means a commercial, trading, business, professional or industrial or like transaction into which the foreign State has entered or a like activity in which the State has engaged.”) (Austl.).Google Scholar
77 Aybay, Rona, Yargıtay İçtihatlarına Göre Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığı [Judicial Immunity of the Foreign State by the Court of Appeals of the Court of Cassation], 72 TBBD Dergisi 110 (2007); Yasir Gökçe, Mutlak Yargı Bağışıklığından Sınırlı Yargı Bağışıklığına Geçiş Trendi, İş Hukukundan Doğan Uyuşmazlıklarda Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Ülkemizdeki Durum [Transition Trend from Absolute Sovereign Immunity to Restrictive Sovereign Immunity, Sovereign Immunity in Disputes Stemming from Labor Law and the Situation in Turkey], 1 Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 91, 93 (2014); Füsun Arsava, Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının İcrası ve Devletlerin Yargı Bağışıklığı [Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions and Judicial Immunity of States], 8 TAAD 1, 5 (2012).Google Scholar
78 Docket No: 1984/8401, Decree No: 1984/11313 (Turk.).Google Scholar
79 Docket No: 1985/9190, Decree No: 1986/2436 (Turk.).Google Scholar
80 Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar
81 Esas Bakımından Karşı Oy Yazısı (II), Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar
82 Esas Bakımından Karşı Oy Yazısı (III), Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (Turk.).Google Scholar
83 Docket No: 1989/3896, Decree No: 1989/6648 (Turk.).Google Scholar
84 Docket No: 1991/6-299, Decree No: 1991/406 (Turk.).Google Scholar
85 Docket No: 1993/5620, Decree No: 1993/10875 (Turk.).Google Scholar
86 Docket No: 2001/8947, Decree No: 2001/11405 (Turk.).Google Scholar
87 Docket No: 2002/2431, Decree No: 2002/11163 (Turk.).Google Scholar
88 Docket No: 2009/913, Decree No: 2010/41802 (Turk.).Google Scholar
89 Docket No: 2010/6451, Decree No: 2010/7394 (Turk.).Google Scholar
90 Gökçe, Yasir, Trend Toward the Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity: An Evaluation of This Trend in Respect of Employment Contracts, 6(11) L. & J. Rev. 181, 194 (2015).Google Scholar
91 Id. at 195; Erdin Erdoğan, Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığının Sınırları Hakkında Güncel Sorunlar ve Terör Suçları Açısından Yargı Bağışıklığı [Current Problems about the Limits of Judicial Immunity in the Foreign State and Judicial Immunity in Terms of Terrorism], 65(4) Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fak. Dergisi 3375, 3379 (2016).Google Scholar
92 Docket No: 2004/6469, Decree No: 2004/13007 (Turk.).Google Scholar
93 Docket No: 1984/3729, Decree No: 1984/5731 (Turk.).Google Scholar
94 Docket No: 1987/7309, Decree No: 1987/7373 (internal citations omitted) (Turk.).Google Scholar
95 Docket No: 2009/10643, Decree No: 2009/10361 (Turk.).Google Scholar
96 Docket No: 2013/10023, Decree No: 2013/13933 (Turk.).Google Scholar
97 Fox & Webb, supra note 1, at 13.Google Scholar
98 Id. at 413.Google Scholar
99 See sources cited supra note 3.Google Scholar
100 Bankas, supra note 4, at 74.Google Scholar
101 Yang, supra note 5, at 102.Google Scholar
102 United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645 (S.C., May 22, 1985) (Phil.).Google Scholar
103 Meclisi, supra note 70.Google Scholar
104 See supra note 83 and accompanying text.Google Scholar
You have
Access