Conclusions

Abstract

The conclusions to be derived from the preceding developments, conclusions of which the validity does not appear to be open to serious challenge, can be summarized as follows:

• (a) Claims commonly said to be made against the state are in reality made against the executive branch of government or an agency or instrumentality of the said branch of government.¹²³

• (b) In the internal legal order of all countries the state, in the sense given under a) above, can be impleaded before the local courts in all those same types of disputes which are likely to arise from transnational intercourse involving foreign states.¹²⁴

• (c) There are valid grounds for maintaining that states which intrude into the legal spheres of other states through transnational intercourse should accept before competent courts of the latter the same position they have chosen for themselves before their courts in similar disputes.¹²⁵

• (d) The public acts of the state (the acta jure imperii of the traditionalists) are beyond the reach of the courts of other states because of a primary lack of jurisdiction; there is no need for a defence of immunity in order to protect such acts against foreign judicial interference.¹²⁶