¹ Other situations may occur: (a) Where the judgment rendered in state A against state B is sought to be enforced in state B, such an enforcement is generally forbidden by direct legislation in state B; or (b) where the judgment having been rendered in state A against state B, it is sought to be enforced in state C.

² The Cristina, (1938] A.C. 485, per Lord Atkin at pp. 490–491; The Parlement Belge, 5 P.D. 197 (C.A.) (1880); Vavasseur v. Krupp, 9 Ch. Div. 351 (1878); Dexter & Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen et al., 43 F. (2d) 705 (CCA. 2d, 1930), certiorari denied, 282 U. S. 896, Manton, J., in delivering the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals saying at p. 708: “… but consenting to be sued does not give consent to a seizure or attachment of the property of a sovereign government. The clear weight of authority in this country as well as that of England and continental Europe is against all seizures, even though a valid judgment has been entered. To so hold is not depriving our own courts of any attribute of jurisdiction. It is but recognizing the general understanding recognized by civilized nations, that a sovereign’s person and property ought to be held free from seizure and molestation at all peaceful times and under all circumstances.”

³ Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government, [1923] 1 Ch. Div. 385, 421, affd., [1924] A.C. 797.

⁴ Money belonging to a foreign state cannot be seized even if it is in the hands of a third party. Civ. May 5, 1885, Sirey, 86.1.353; Rouen, Dec. 7, 1937, Sirey, 38.2.17; Poitiers, Dec. 20, 1937, Gazette du Palais, 1938.1.167; Bordeaux March 28, 1938, ibid., 1938.1.714; Aix, Nov. 23 and Dec. 9, 1938, Dalloz périodique, 39.2.65. See also Revue Critique de Droit International, Vol. 33 (1938), p. 369. It is to be mentioned that interim measures are also excluded. Paris, June 26, 1908, Gazette des Tribunaux, Aug. 19, 1908, Vol. 2, Pt. II, p. 246; Paris, April 30, 1912, Gazette du Palais, 1912.2.84; Paris, March 16, 1921, Clunet, Vol. 48 (1921), p. 179; Req., Jan. 23, 1933, Sirey, 33.1.249; Cass., Jan. 22, 1849, ibid., 49.1.81.

⁵ Req., Feb. 19, 1929, Dalloz périodique, 1929.1.73, Sirey, 30.1.49; Paris, April 14, 1936, Revue Critique de Droit International, Vol. 33 (1938), p. 497; Bordeaux, Dee. 8, 1937, ibid., p. 297; Marseilles, May 11, 1938, ibid., Vol. 34 (1939), p. 133; Req., Dec. 15, 1936, Sirey, 37.1.104, Revue Critique de Droit International, Vol. 32 (1937), p. 710; M. de Lapradelle, “La Saisie des Fonds Busses à Berlin,” Revue de Droit International Privé, Vol. 6 (1910), pp. 75, 779. In the admiralty field the old doctrine seems to be still followed: Tribunal de Commerce de La Rochelle, Oct. 31, 1947, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, Vol. 37 (1948), p. 118.

⁶ See Arts. 11 and 23 of Draft Convention on Competence of Courts in regard to Foreign States, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 597. M. Mérignhac disagreed with this approach, Droit International Public, Vol. 1 (1905), p. 259.

⁷ The Jupiter, [1924] P. 236; The Porto Alexandre, [1920] P. 30; The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485; Twycross v. Dreyfus, 36 T.L.R. 752 (1877); Vavasseur v. Krupp, 9 Ch. 351 (1878); Krajina v. Tass Agency, [1949] 2 A.E.R. 274 (now before the House of Lords); Compañia Mercantil Argentina v. U. S. Shipping Board, 93 L.J., [1924] K.B., 816 (C.A.); Oliver Trading Co. v. Mexico, 5 F. (2d) 659, 264 U. S. 440 (1924) ; Bradford v. Director General of Eailways of Mexico, 278 S.W. 251 (1925); French Republic v. Board of Supervisors, 200 Ky. 18 (1923); Berizzi Bros. Co. v. SS Pesaro, 271 U. S. 562 (1926); The Maipo, 259 F. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1919); Republic of France v. Pittsburgh Steel Export Co., 112 Misc. 688, 184 N. Y. Supp. 280 (1920). See Hyde, International Law (1945), Vol. II, p. 844; Fenwick, International Law (1948), p. 308.

⁸ Niboyet and Pillet, Droit International Privé (1928), p. 908, n. 800, approving the doctrine of non-immunity when the foreign state acts in a private capacity and is engaged in commercial acts; see also J.-P. Niboyet, “Les Immunités de Juridiction en Droit Français des États Étrangers Engagés dans des Transactions Priveés,” Revue Générale de Droit International Public (3d ser., Tome X), Vol. 43, p. 525 (1936); De Lapradelle, “La Saisie des Fonds Russes à, Berlin,” Revue de Droit International Privé (1910), Vol. 6, p. 784; M. C. Freyria, “Les Limites de l’Immunité de Juridiction et d’Exécution des États Étrangers,” Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, Vol. 40 (1951), pp. 139 and 449.

⁹ Req., Feb. 5, 1946, Sirey, 47.1.137; Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, 1946, Case No. 32.

¹⁰ When a case involving such immunity is brought before an inferior court, the court has the duty to declare itself incompetent. If it does not do so, then two remedies may be used: The defendent may use the normal remedy of an appeal to the Court of Cassation (recours en cassation) or the “Procureur Général” may, upon order of the Minister of Justice (Garde des Sceaux), bring an action before the Court of Cassation to annul the decision of the inferior court on the ground that it rendered the decision beyond the powers it may exercise (recours pour excés de pouvoir) because of public policy considerations, international as well as domestic. This latter remedy is called an “extraordinary remedy.” The decision of the lower court may be annulled without sending the case back for a second hearing and decision (Glasson, Tissier and Morel: Traité de Procédure Civile (3d ed.), Vol. 1, p. 700); see present case, and Paris, Feb. 23, 1936, Revue Critique de Droit International, Vol. 32 (1937), p. 484; Civil, Jan. 19, 1891, Sirey, 94.1.297; Req., Jan. 23, 1933, Sirey, 33.1.249.

¹¹ The Procureur Général tried to prove (a) that the act of the Government of Norway was an act of sovereignty (un acte de puissance publique) and consequently, if the immunity of states were to be regarded as absolute, the courts had no power to inquire into the nature of the control of the Norwegian state over the funds in question; (b) that the Government of Norway had never renounced its immunity.

¹² The Court of Cassation adopted in its opinion the argument of M. le Conseiller Castets, one of its members.

¹³ It would have been different if, instead of money, the parties plaintiff had attached a chattel belonging to Eobertson which had been entrusted to the Norwegian Government. In that case there would have been no commingling of Robertson’s money with the general funds of Norway because at any time a tracing of the chattel would have been possible.

¹⁴ See footnote 10 supra.

¹⁵ United States waivers of immunity include: Treaty of Friendship Commerce, and Navigation with Italy, Feb. 2, 1948, Art. 24, par. 6, Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 1965; with Ireland, Jan. 21, 1950, Art. 15, ibid., No. 2155; with Uruguay, Nov. 23, 1949, Senate Exec. D, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; with Israel, Oct. 18, 1951, Exec. R, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess. See Art. XVIII, sec. 3, of the last treaty which reads: “No enterprise of either Party, including corporations, associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled, shall, if it engages in commercial, manufacturing, processing, shipping or other business activities within the territories of the other Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment [emphasis ours] or other liability to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.”

United Kingdom: Temporary Commercial Agreement between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., signed Feb. 16, 1934 (149 League of Nations Treaty Series 445); The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485, where three of the five judges in the House of Lords expressed the view that English law was not settled in favor of the immunity of government-owned trading vessels.

France: Agreement with the Soviet Union of Jan. 11, 1934, Arts. 6 and 7 (Clunet, 1934, p. 22); new agreement with the Soviet Union of Dec. 20, 1945 (Journal Officiel, June 20, 1946; Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, Vol. 38 (1947), p. 468), Art. 10, par. 4 (but denying interim measures).