Differing Perceptions? Market Practice and the Evolution of Foreign Sovereign Immunity

Abstract

The 20th century witnessed a transformative, "tectonic" shift in international law, from "absolute" to "restrictive" theories of sovereign immunity. As conventionally understood, however, this dramatic transformation represented only a shift in the default rule. Under absolute immunity, national courts could not hear lawsuits and enforce judgments against a foreign sovereign without its consent. Under restrictive immunity, foreign sovereigns were presumptively not immune when they engaged in commercial acts. We demonstrate that market practices undermine this conventional understanding. Using an extensive, twocentury data set of contracts between foreign governments and private creditors, we show that contracting parties have long treated absolute immunity as akin to a mandatory rule, which they could not reliably change by contract. By contrast, we show that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the U.S. and the State Immunities Act 1978 in the U.K.-two statutes largely overlooked by international law scholarship-fundamentally reordered a global market for contracts. We explore why the conventional narrative, which relies on analysis of traditional legal materials, is at such odds with the "law on the ground." 2

Denouncing Odious Debts

“…96-100), even if the expression "odious debt" has seldom been used in the past, subjugation debts (debts hostile or contrary to the major interest of the population) are flagrantly breaching international law and should therefore not be enforceable. Their perception would have been strengthened by the fact that, at the time, sovereigns were still subject to the rule of absolute immunity and not the restrictive rule which has nowadays become more and more accepted (Weidemaier 2014;Verdier and Voeten 2015;Weidemaier and Gulati 2018).…”