About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


41 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 343 (2003)
Bouzari v. Iran: Testing the Limits of State Immunity in Canadian Courts

handle is hein.journals/cybil41 and id is 353 raw text is: Bouzari v. Iran: Testing the Limits of State Immunity in Canadian Courts INTRODUCTION S tate immunity is a doctrine of international law aimed at regulat- ing the adjudicative and enforcementjurisdiction of municipal courts in proceedings involving foreign states or their representa- tives. Grounded in the principle of sovereign equality, the doctrine generally operates to limit the ability of national courts to sit in judgment of foreign government actions. Though once supposed to be absolute, state immunity is now widely accepted as being restrictive, or relative, and only applicable to sovereign or pub- lic acts of state. Legal scholars and judges have spent the last century delineating a workable scope for the restrictive doctrine of state immunity, attempting to reconcile its rationale and purposes with the imperatives of a changing international legal order. In particular, the growing salience of human rights, the notion of peremptory norms, and the development of international criminal law since the Second World War has intensified the debate regard- ing the proper extent of state immunity in a world where the indi- vidual occupies an increasingly important role. Over the last twenty years, the rise of transnational human rights litigation in the United States has resulted in the further re- evaluation of the doctrine of state immunity as individuals bring civil claims in domestic courts against foreign states and their offi- cials for human rights violations committed abroad.' Internation- ally, the last five years have been particularly eventful with important The author gratefully acknowledgesJames Crawford, Philip Allott, Christine Gray, Mark Power, Don McRae, and Yves LeBouthillier for their careful reading of, and incisive comments on, earlier drafts of this case comment. I Filirtigav. Pefia-Irala, 63o F.2d 876 (C.A. 2nd Cir. 198o).