Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State Immunity Regimes in Latin America: A First Approximation to a Global Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure

  • 764 Accesses

Abstract

Latin American states have a long and rich tradition concerning jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. This chapter analyses how Latin American countries approach state immunity in their regional treaty law, legislation, practice and case-law. The analysis pays special attention to the attitude of these states to the provisions of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, the exceptions to state immunity that may exist, the evolution of relevant case-law, the different approaches concerning immunity from execution and also the role of the reciprocity principle. The article analyses how these traditions may have an impact on the emergence of new international customary law rules in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On this issue, see González Napolitano and Lozza (2015), pp. 725–760.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, the information and comments received in 1981, included in the document A/CN.4/343 of 14 April 1981 (including Brazil replies to the questionnaire sent by the ILC). https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_343.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021. See also document A/CN.4/343/Add.2 of 16 April 1981 (including materials submitted by Argentina, Chile and Colombia). https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_343_add2.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021. The comments and observations on the draft articles received in 1988 were reproduced in YILC, 1988–II–1 (including those of Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela from Latin America). https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_410.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021. From these comments of Latin American countries, it can be seen a strict position concerning absolute immunity from jurisdiction.

  3. 3.

    The Rio Group included Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

  4. 4.

    See Summary record of the 13th meeting: 6th Committee, held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 25 October 2004, General Assembly, 59th session, document A/C.6/59/SR.13, p 7. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/544568. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  5. 5.

    See United Nations Treaty Collection, Privileges and Immunities, Diplomatic and Consular Relations, etc. Chapter III (2004). https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III–13&chapter=3&clang=_en. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  6. 6.

    Bustamante Code: Convention on Private International Law (Habana, 20 February 1928) 86 LNTS 111 (English text on p. 246). The Convention entered into force on 25 November 1928. Information on the treaty and ratifications: http://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/tratados_multilaterales_interamericanos_A–31_Codigo_Bustamente_firmas.asp. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  7. 7.

    Article 333 of the Bustamante Code provides: ‘The judges and courts of each contracting State shall be incompetent to take cognizance of civil or commercial cases to which the other contracting States or their heads are defendant parties, if the action is a personal one, except in case of express submission or of counterclaims’. Article 334 provides: ‘In the same case and with the same exception, they shall be incompetent when real actions are exercised, if the contracting State or its head has acted on the case as such and in its public character, when the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 318 shall be applied’. Article 318, last paragraph, provides, ‘[t]he submission in real or mixed actions involving real property shall not be possible if the law where the property is situated forbids it’. (The Bustamante Code, 1928).

  8. 8.

    Article 335 of the Bustamante Code provides: ‘If the foreign contracting State or its head has acted as an individual or private person, the judges or courts shall be competent to take cognizance of the cases where real or mixed actions are brought, if such competence belongs to them in respect to foreign individuals in conformity with this Code’.

  9. 9.

    Article 336 of the Bustamante Code provides: ‘[t]he rule of the preceding article shall be applicable to universal causes (juicios universales, e.g., distribution of a bankrupt’s or decedent’s effects), whatever the character in which the contracting foreign State or its head intervenes in them’.

  10. 10.

    Bustamante Code, Article 339.

  11. 11.

    Yang (2012), p. 445.

  12. 12.

    Romero (2010), p. 240.

  13. 13.

    Treaty on International Commercial Navigation Law, signed at Montevideo, 19 March 1940, 37 AJIL (1943), Supp., p. 109 (emphasis added). This treaty was ratified only by Argentina and Paraguay. Information on the treaty: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/f–13.html. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  14. 14.

    Inter–American Convention on Personality and Capacity of Juridical Persons in Private International Law, adopted at La Paz, Bolivia on 25 May 1984 and entered into for on 9 August 1992 (emphasis added). The convention was ratified by Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico and Nicaragua. See http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b–49.html. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  15. 15.

    OAS Draft (1983) The Inter–American Judicial Committee of the Organization of American States, Inter–American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States, approved on 21 January 1983, 22 ILM 292.

  16. 16.

    The rapporteur submitted the following three documents: CJI/doc.480/15, CJI/480/15 rev.1, CJI/doc.530/17.

  17. 17.

    See ‘Immunity of Jurisdiction of States. Scope and Validity (presented by Dr. Carlos Mata Prates)’ CJI/doc.530/17. The document is included in the Annual Report of the Inter–American Juridical Committee to the General Assembly 2017 OEA/Ser. Q, CJI/doc. 551/17, pp. 124–132.

  18. 18.

    These states are Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, United States, and Uruguay. The responses by these states are not publicly available.

  19. 19.

    For the case of Mexico compare with Reyes Moncayo (2017), pp. 77–97.

  20. 20.

    See discussion on ‘Immunity of States’ in Annual Report of the Inter–American Juridical Committee to the General Assembly 2017 OEA/Ser. Q, CJI/doc. 551/17, pp. 119–124.

  21. 21.

    See Organization of American States, Immunities of International Organizations (2003–2020). http://www.oas.org/en/sla/iajc/themes_recently_concluded_Immunities_International_Organizations.asp. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  22. 22.

    On the issue of state immunity in Argentina, see González Napolitano and Lozza (2015), pp. 725–760.

  23. 23.

    Decree–Law 1285/58, dated 4 February 1958 (B.O. 7 February 1958), ratified by Law 14,467 (B.O. 29 September 1958), Article 24, para. 1.

  24. 24.

    Decree–Law 1285/58, dated 4 February 1958 (B.O. 7 February 1958), ratified by Law 14,467 (B.O. 29 September 1958), Article 24, para. 1.

  25. 25.

    Goldschmidt (1974), pp. 403, 500.

  26. 26.

    Law No. 24,488, enacted on 31 May 1995 and partially promulgated on 22 June 1995 (B.O. 28 June 1995). This law was invoked by Italy and discussed in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012. The ICJ noted that nine of the ten States referred to by the Parties which have legislated specifically for the subject of State immunity had adopted provisions to the effect that a State is not entitled to immunity in respect of torts occasioning death, personal injury or damage to property occurring on the territory of the forum State (among them, Argentina Law No. 24,488 (Statute on the Immunity of Foreign States before Argentine Tribunals) 1995, Art. 2 (e)). See Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment. ICJ Reports 2012, 99, p. 130, para. 70.

  27. 27.

    Article 3 of Law No. 24,488 provides that if claims are brought before the Argentine courts against a foreign State involving alleged violations of the International Law of Human Rights, the intervening court will limit itself to indicate the plantiff to the international protection organ where the claim can be submitted if it corresponds. However, this article was vetoed by the Executive Power of the Nation. Article 1 of Regulatory Decree No. 849/95 B.O. 28 June 1995.

  28. 28.

    Yang (2012), p. 651.

  29. 29.

    Zuppi, La inmunidad jurisdiccional de los Estados extranjeros ante los tribunales argentinos conforme a la ley 24.488, El Derecho, t 166, pp. 866–877.

  30. 30.

    Law No. 26,961, enacted on 6 August 2014 and promulgated on 7 August 2014 (B.O. 8 August 2014).

  31. 31.

    Chile, Decree Law No. 2,349 of 13 October 1978, Article 9. Diario Oficial (28 Oct 1978).

  32. 32.

    Costa Rica, Executive Decree No. 15877–RE (29 Nov 1984).

  33. 33.

    Dominican Republic, Law No. 544–14 on Private International Law G. O. 10787 (18 Dec 2014).

  34. 34.

    Mexico (15 Dec 2005) Gaceta del Senado, LIX/3PPO–145/7564. https://www.senado.gob.mx/64/gaceta_del_senado/documento/7564. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  35. 35.

    Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Circular Note No. 560/DJ/DPI/CJ (14 Feb 1991), reproduced, for example, in the judgment RE 222368 AgR of the SFT of Brazil (30 Apr 2002).

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    See Reyes Moncayo (2017), pp. 77–97; Secretariat of Foreign Relations of Mexico (19 Jun 2006) General Directorate of Protocol Circular PRO07130. https://sre.gob.mx/images/stories/docnormateca/dgp/circulares/pro07130.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  38. 38.

    Circular notes No 371 (16 Oct 1997), No. 172 (17 May 1999) and No 108 (10 Apr 2000), enacted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See SCJ of Chile, judgment 1,224–2013 (30 Jan 2013).

  39. 39.

    Circular No 0009–08 UAL dated 22 April 2008, by the Legal Department of Labour Inspection. See Briones (2012), pp. 57–59.

  40. 40.

    SFT of Brazil, Civil Appeal No 9.696–3/SP, Genny de Oliveira v Embassy of the German Democratic Republic, judgment of 31 May 1989.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    STJ of Brazil, judgment of 21 October 1990, Ag 757/DF.

  43. 43.

    STJ of Brazil, judgment of 20 May 2010, RO 26/RJ.

  44. 44.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 5 November 2017, ARE 954858 RG.

  45. 45.

    SCJ of Argentina, Judgment of 14 November 1921, Romay, Antonio v Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies. Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN) Fallos, vol 135, p. 259.

  46. 46.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgments of 22 December 1994, Manauta, Juan José and others v Embassy of the Russian Federation. CSJN, Fallos, vol 317, p. 1880.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 20 February 1892, Plenipotentiary Minister of the Republic of Chile v Porta, Carlos, CSJN, Fallos vol 47, p. 248; judgment of 26 February 1916, Baima and Bessolino v Government of Paraguay, CSJN, Fallos, vol 123, p. 58; judgment of 28 December 1916, National Treasury v Mones Cazón, Rodolfo, CSJN, Fallos, vol 125, p 40; judgment of 16 July 1937, Ibarra and Cía. v Capitán vapor ¨Ibaí¨, CSJN Fallos, vol 178, p 173; judgment of 21 November 1949, Townshend de Briochetto, Muriel Olga v Canada Commercial Department Office, CSJN, Fallos, vol 215, p 252; Judgment of 12 November 1951, Oppenlander de Soska, Nelly E. v Embassy of Ecuador or Arturo Borrero or Borrero Bustamante, CSJN, Fallos, vol 221, p. 171; judgment of 24 June 1976, Gómez, Samuel v British Embassy, CSJN, Fallos, vol 295, p 176; judgment of 24 June 1976, Lopez Elsa and other v France Embassy, CSJN Fallos, vol 295, p. 187; judgment of 1 September 1992, Compañía Arenera del Río Luján SA. v De Castro, Francisco and others regarding compensation, CSJN, Fallos vol 315, p. 1779; judgment of 16 December 1993, Amarfil Albornoz, Mirta Susana and other v Consulate of Chile and others regarding payment in pesos – Labor Court, CSJN Fallos, vol 316, p. 3111.

  51. 51.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 1 September 1998, Saravia, Gregorio v Japan International Cooperation Agency, CSJN Fallos, vol 321, p. 2434; judgment of 4 May 2000, Vallarino, Edelmiro Osvaldo v Japan Embassy regarding Dismissal, CSJN Fallos, vol 323, p 959; judgment of 28 June 2005 CSJN, Silguero Agüero, Felicita v Embassy of Portugal regarding Dismissal, CSJN Fallos, vol 328, p. 2522; judgment of 4 November 2008, CSJN, Mealla, Ester Yolanda v Embassy of France regarding Dismissal M. 787. XLIII; judgment of 4 August 2011, Clementi, Edgar Omar and other v Embassy of the Russian Federation and others regarding Compliance of Contract, CSJN Fallos, vol 334, p. 885.

  52. 52.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 29 September 1998, Cereales Asunción S.R.L. v National Administration of Navigation and Ports of the Republic of Paraguay regarding damages (breach of contract), CSJN Fallos, vol 321, p. 2594.

  53. 53.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 9 November 2000, Coronel, Oscar A. and others v National State – Department of Defence regarding accident in the military sphere and security forces, CSJN Fallos, vol 323 p. 3386; judgment of 18 December 2007, Davidoff, Constantino v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding damages, CSJN Fallos, vol 330, p. 5237.

  54. 54.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 25 September 2001, Ceresole, Norberto v Republic of Venezuela, CSJN Fallos, vol 324, p. 2885.

  55. 55.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 5 November 2013, Sociedad Italiana de Tiro al Blanco v Italian Republic regarding knowledge process, CSJN Fallos, vol 336, p. 2144.

  56. 56.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 10 June 2014, Louge, A. Beltrán and other v His British Majesty's Government, CSJN Fallos, vol 337, p. 731.

  57. 57.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 15 March 2016, Vergara, Walter Ricardo and other v Kingdom of Spain regarding civil and commercial matters, CSJN Fallos, vol 339, p. 316.

  58. 58.

    SCJ of Venezuela, Judgment of 5 May 1994, Case No. 305, Political and Administrative Chamber, Yrama Rodriguez de Leon v. Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA). See Bentata, Victor (1996) Estudio de la Sentencia SELA, in RFCIP UCV, No. 98, pp. 223 s. http://www.ulpiano.org.ve/revistas/bases/artic/texto/RDUCV/98/rucv_1996_98_223–256.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021. The article includes the full text of the decision as an annex. For a complete and updated analisis of inmunities of states and international organizations in Venezuela, see Olivares Hernández and Briceño Laborí (2020).

  59. 59.

    SCJ of Venezuela, Judgment of 5 May 1994, Case No. 305, Political and Administrative Chamber, Yrama Rodriguez de Leon v. Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA). See Bentata, Victor (1996) Estudio de la Sentencia SELA, in RFCIP UCV, No. 98, pp. 223. http://www.ulpiano.org.ve/revistas/bases/artic/texto/RDUCV/98/rucv_1996_98_223–256.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021. The article includes the full text of the decision as an annex. For a complete and updated analisis of inmunities of states and international organizations in Venezuela, see Olivares Hernández and Briceño Laborí (2020).

  60. 60.

    SCJ of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 17 October 1996, Case No. 677, María Elena Albornoz de Vidal v Ambassador of Spain; Civil Cassation Chamber, Judgment of 18 February 1998, Stephen Louis Olushola v Ambassador of Nigerian Republic in Venezuela; Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 30 July 1998, Case No 505, Lilia Ramírez v United States of America.

  61. 61.

    For early examples, see STJ of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 29 June 2000, Case No 01529, Chaker ELKathib v Embassy of the Republic of Iraq; and Judgment of 6 July 2000, Case No 01972, Bruno García Santos Fernando v Embassy of Republic of Peru. http://www.tsj.gob.ve. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  62. 62.

    STJ of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 18 September 2001, Case No 1972, Aurora María Chacón v Republic of Peru.

  63. 63.

    SCJ of Venezuela, Civil Cassation Chamber, Judgment of 18 February 1998, Stephen Louis Olushola v Ambassador of Nigerian Republic in Venezuela.

  64. 64.

    SCJ of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 30 July 1998, Case No 505, Lilia Ramírez v United States of America.

  65. 65.

    SJT of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 22 November 2005, Case No 6296, Edwin García Figuera v Unites States of America. http://www.tsj.gob.ve. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  66. 66.

    SJT of Venezuela, Political and Administrative Chamber, Judgment of 28 February 2018, Case No 00224, José Luis Rodríguez v Kingdom of Spain. Available at http://www.tsj.gob.ve. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  67. 67.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 18 April 1997, Diplomatic Case No. 747/95, Martínez García, Susana v Embassy of México.

  68. 68.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 9 December 2005, Diplomatic Case No 1.126/2005, Morresi Castro, Ernesto v Argentine Republic – Embassy of the Argentine Republic in Montevideo.

  69. 69.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 9 December 2005, Diplomatic Case No 1.126/2005, Morresi Castro, Ernesto v Argentine Republic – Embassy of the Argentine Republic in Montevideo.

  70. 70.

    Quintana Aranguren and Guzmán Carrasco (2006).

  71. 71.

    Council of State of Colombia, Judgment of 25 August 1998, rad. IJ0001.

  72. 72.

    SCJ of Colombia, Labour Chamber, Judgment of 13 December 2007, rad. 32096.

  73. 73.

    SCJ of Colombia, Labour Cassation Chamber, Judgment of 21 March 2012, Case No 37,637.

  74. 74.

    CC of Colombia, Plenary, Judgment of 9 April 1996, Case C–137.

  75. 75.

    CC of Colombia, Plenary, Judgment of 13 September 2000, Case C–1189.

  76. 76.

    CC of Colombia, Fifth Revision Chamber, Judgment of 15 September 2009, Case T–633.

  77. 77.

    CC of Colombia, Ninth Revision Chamber, Judgment of 23 November 2010, Case T–932.

  78. 78.

    SCJ of Chile, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of 13 August 2013, Case No 1.224–2013.

  79. 79.

    SCJ of Chile, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of 19 June 2018, Case No 8,750–2018.

  80. 80.

    Labour Chamber of Appeals of Paraguay, First Chamber, Judgment of 21 October 2015, Case No 93, Pedro Antonio Martínez Acosta v Embassy of the U.S.A. regarding Return to work regarding payment of guaranies, Judicial Gazete, 2016 – No 4, pp. 103–113.

  81. 81.

    SCJ of El Salvador, Constitutional Chamber, Judgment of 20 August 2002, Case 25–S–95.

  82. 82.

    SCJ of Mexico, (Nov 2003) Inmunidad jurisdiccional internacional no es prerrogativa ilimitada, thesis 2a./J. 101/2003, registry No. 182824, Gazette of the Judicial Weekly Paper of the Federation, 9 ep., t XVIII, p. 149.

  83. 83.

    See Briones (2012), pp. 57–59.

  84. 84.

    SCJ of Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber, Judgment of 26 June 2006, Case No 08815–2006.

  85. 85.

    SCJ of Costa Rica, First Chamber, Judgment of 30 August 2006, Case No 00599–2006.

  86. 86.

    SCJ of Costa Rica, Second Chamber, Judgment of 24 February 2016, Case No 00201–2016.

  87. 87.

    SCJ of Peru, Fourth Permanent Labour Chamber, Judgment of 2 October 2017, Edgar Cristian Tello Rivera against the Korean Cooperation Agency in Peru, file 20204–2014–0–1801–JR–LA–15.

  88. 88.

    SCJ of Peru, Fourth Permanent Labour Chamber, Judgment of 2 October 2017, Edgar Cristian Tello Rivera against the Korean Cooperation Agency in Peru, file 20204–2014–0–1801–JR–LA–15.

  89. 89.

    SCJ of Peru, Fourth Permanent Labour Chamber, Judgment of 2 October 2017, Edgar Cristian Tello Rivera against the Korean Cooperation Agency in Peru, file 20204–2014–0–1801–JR–LA–15.

  90. 90.

    SCJ of Peru, Fourth Permanent Labour Chamber, Judgment of 2 October 2017, Edgar Cristian Tello Rivera against the Korean Cooperation Agency in Peru, file 20204–2014–0–1801–JR–LA–15.

  91. 91.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 26 February 1958, Peru, Government of the Republic of v SIFAR, Sociedad Industrial Financiera Argentina SA regarding breach of contract, CSJN Fallos, vol 240, p. 93.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    Ibid.

  94. 94.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgment of 6 October 1999, in re Blasson, Beatriz Lucrecia Graciela v Embassy of the Slovak Republic, CSJN Fallos, vol 322, p. 399.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 9 September 1987, Case ACi 9705.

  98. 98.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 16 September 1998, Case ACO 522 AgR.

  99. 99.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 30 April 2002, Case RE 222368 AgR.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 30 August 2006, Case ACO 543 AgR.

  102. 102.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 11 May 2017, Case ARE 954858 RG.

  103. 103.

    CC of Colombia, Fifth Chamber of Revision, judgment of 22 July 2015, Case T–462.

  104. 104.

    Ibid.

  105. 105.

    CC of Colombia, Plenary, judgment of 18 August 2016, Case SU443/16.

  106. 106.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (2012) Germany v Italy: Greece intervening, Judgment. ICJ Reports, p. 99, para. 118.

  107. 107.

    SCJ of Mexico, Second Chamber, Judgment of 15 January 2014, Case 197/2013.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    Ibid.

  110. 110.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 30 June 2000, Case No 286/2000, Torrens González, Mario Enrique v Embassy of Republic of Chile, Eviction.

  111. 111.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 8 May 2017, Case No 440/2017, Embassy of the Republic of Chile in Uruguay and other, incident of immunity of execution.

  112. 112.

    SCJ of Peru, Transitory Civil Chamber, Cassation 004935–2015, Judgment of 8 May 2017, Expresso Aéreo Sociedad Anónima v Russian Federation.

  113. 113.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgments of 22 December 1994, Manauta, Juan José and others v Embassy of the Russian Federation. CSJN, Fallos, vol 317, p 1880. The reference to Manauta was reproduced in judgment by the SCJ of Costa Rica, Judgment of 18 April 1997, Case No 247/1997.

  114. 114.

    SCJ of Uruguay, judgment of 30 June 1997, Case No 285/2000.

  115. 115.

    SFT of Brazil, Plenary, judgment of 5 November 2017, Case ARE 954858 RG.

  116. 116.

    SCJ of Uruguay, Judgment of 23 July 2012, Case No. 1.626/2012.

  117. 117.

    CC of Colombia, First Revision Chamber, Judgment of 3 December 2013, Case T–901.

  118. 118.

    SCJ of Colombia, Labour Chamber, Judgment of 20 April 2016, Case No 72569.

  119. 119.

    SCJ of Costa Rica, Second Chamber, judgment of 21 May 2014, Case No 00457–2014.

  120. 120.

    SCJ of Chile, Fourth Chamber, judgment of 13 August 2013, Case 1.224–2013.

  121. 121.

    SCJ of Chile, Fourth Chamber, judgment of 14 December 2017, Case 18.264–2017.

  122. 122.

    SCJ of Peru, Fourth Permanent Labour Chamber, judgment of 2 October 2017, Edgar Cristian Tello Rivera v Korean Cooperation Agency in Peru, file 20204–2014–0–1801–JR–LA–15.

  123. 123.

    Already in 1974, in a labour claim against the ambassador of South Vietnam, the National Chamber of Labour of Argentina considered that adopting a theory of absolute immunity would imply a negative to the Argentine citizen to the protection of the laws of his own country. The Chamber added that the foreign country could not feel impaired because its embassy is subject to labour jurisdiction, when with this measure ‘it is only pursued full compliance with human rights, which the said country recognizes to its nationals under analogous circumstances’. National Chamber of Labour, Chamber IV, judgment of 24 October 1974, Roldán, Segundo Blas v Ambassador of the Republic of South Vietnam, collection of payment, La Ley, t. 1975–B, p. 528.

  124. 124.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgments of 22 December 1994, Manauta, Juan José and others v Embassy of the Russian Federation. CSJN, Fallos, vol 317, p. 1880.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., p. 1880.

  126. 126.

    CC of Colombia, First Revision Chamber, Judgment of 3 December 2013, Case T–901.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    STJ of Brazil, Judgment of 21 May 2009, Case No 74 – RJ (2008/0076862–4).

  129. 129.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 5 November 2017, Case ARE 954858 RG.

  130. 130.

    See, Moraes adia julgamento sobre atos de guerra cometidos no Brasil, Migalhas, 3 March 2021. https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/341089/moraes–adia–julgamento–sobre–atos–de–guerra–cometidos–no–brasil with hiperlinks to the relevant opinions. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  131. 131.

    On the issue of reciprocity see Yang (2012), p. 46.

  132. 132.

    SCJ of Argentina, judgments of 22 December 1994, Manauta, Juan José and others v Embassy of the Russian Federation. CSJN, Fallos, vol 317, p. 1880.

  133. 133.

    SCJ of Chile, Fourth Chamber, judgment of 14 November 2007, Case 235–06; judgment of 13 May 2010, Case No 891–2010; judgment of 14 September 2010, Case No 3.493–2010; and judgment of 13 August 2013, Case No 1.224–2013.

  134. 134.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 30 August 2006, Case ACO 543 AgR,. See also SFT of Brazil, Plenary, judgments of 11 April 2007, Cases 633 Agr and ACO 645 Agr.

  135. 135.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 30 August 2006, Case ACO 543 AgR,. See also SFT of Brazil, Plenary, judgments of 11 April 2007, Cases 633 Agr and ACO 645 Agr.

  136. 136.

    SFT of Brazil, judgment of 30 August 2006, Case ACO 543 AgR,. See also SFT of Brazil, Plenary, judgments of 11 April 2007, Cases 633 Agr and ACO 645 Agr.

  137. 137.

    CC of Colombia, Plenary, judgment of 9 April 1996, Case C–137.

  138. 138.

    CC of Colombia, First Revision Chamber, judgment of 3 December 2013, Case T–901.

  139. 139.

    SCJ of Colombia, Labour Cassation Chamber, judgment of 20 April 2016, Case No 72569.

  140. 140.

    Badr (1984), p. 35.

  141. 141.

    Fox (2008), p. 15.

  142. 142.

    Cabrera Mirassou (2014).

  143. 143.

    See ICJ, Press release No. 2014/25, 7 August 2014. https://www.icj–cij.org/public/files/press–releases/4/18354.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021.

References

  • Badr GM (1984) State immunity: an analytical and prognostic view. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Briones EB (2012) La Inmunidad de la Jurisdicción Internacional Dentro del Derecho Laboral Interno. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas No 128:47–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera Mirassou M (2014) The ARA libertad. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encycl Public Int Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox H (2008) The law of state immunity, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt W (1974) Derecho Internacional Privado, 2nd edn. Depalma, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • González Napolitano SS, Lozza M (2015) Las Inmunidades de los Estados Extranjeros. In: González Napolitano SS (ed) Lecciones de Derecho Internacional. Erreius, Buenos Aires, pp 725–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivares Hernández A, Briceño Laborí JA (2020) La inmunidad de jurisdicción y su tratamiento por la jurisprudencia venezolana. In: AMDIPC 2020 No 2, pp 299–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana Aranguren JJ, Guzmán Carrasco G (2006) De Espaldas al Derecho Internacional: Colombia y la Inmunidad de Jurisdicción de los Estados. Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 8:53–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes Moncayo MA (2017) La inmunidad jurisdiccional de los Estados: diferencias normativas. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 109:77–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero F (2010) Inmunidad de Jurisdicción. In: Maekelt T et al (eds) Derecho Procesal Civil Internacional. Academia de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Caracas, pp 229–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang X (2012) State immunity in international law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Dispute Settlement, Geneva, Switzerland

    Facundo Pérez-Aznar

  2. University of Buenos Aires Law School, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Facundo Pérez-Aznar

Authors
  1. Facundo Pérez-Aznar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Facundo Pérez-Aznar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Sciences Po, Paris, France

    Régis Bismuth

  2. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vera Rusinova

  3. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vladislav Starzhenetskiy

  4. Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Geir Ulfstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pérez-Aznar, F. (2022). State Immunity Regimes in Latin America: A First Approximation to a Global Analysis. In: Bismuth, R., Rusinova, V., Starzhenetskiy, V., Ulfstein, G. (eds) Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87705-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87706-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation