Katana VentraIP

Sovereign immunity

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.

Not to be confused with the doctrine of state immunity whereby a state or sovereign may not be amenable before foreign courts.

History[edit]

Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another. In constitutional monarchies, the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects. This rule was commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong".[1]

immunity from suit (also known as immunity from jurisdiction or )

adjudication

immunity from enforcement.

There are two forms of sovereign immunity:


Immunity from suit means that neither a sovereign/head of state in person nor any in absentia or representative form (nor to a lesser extent the state) can be a defendant or subject of court proceedings, nor in most equivalent forums such as under arbitration awards and tribunal awards/damages.


Immunity from enforcement means that even if a person succeeds in any way against their sovereign or state, they and the judgment may find themselves without means of enforcement. Separation of powers or natural justice coupled with a political status other than a totalitarian state dictates there be broad exceptions to immunity such as statutes which expressly bind the state (a prime example being constitutional laws) and judicial review.

prior written agreement

instituting proceedings without claiming immunity

submitting to jurisdiction as a defendant in a suit

intervening in or taking any steps in any suit (other than for the purpose of claiming immunity).

Sovereign immunity of a state entity may be waived. A state entity may waive its immunity by:

By country[edit]

Australia[edit]

There is no automatic Crown immunity in Australia, and the Australian Constitution does not establish a state of unfettered immunity of the Crown in respect of the states and the Commonwealth. The Constitution of Australia establishes matters on which the states and the Commonwealth legislate independently of each other; in practice this means the states legislate on some things and the Commonwealth legislates on others. In some circumstances, this can create ambiguity as to the applicability of legislation where there is no clearly established Crown immunity. The Australian Constitution does however, in s. 109, declare that, "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid." Based on this, depending on the context of application and whether a particular statute infringes on the executive powers of the state or the Commonwealth the Crown may or may not be immune from any particular statute.


Many Acts passed in Australia, both at the state and at the federal level, contain a section declaring whether the Act binds the Crown, and, if so, in what respect:

Absolute immunity

Command responsibility

Diplomatic immunity

Immunity (disambiguation) § Law

Impeachment

Jurisdiction

Qualified immunity

State liability

Marcus, Jennifer K. (1989). . Washington Law Review Wa. 64 (2): 401. Retrieved July 6, 2020.

"Washington's Special Relationship Exception to the Public Duty Doctrine Doctrine"

(September 26, 2019). "The Last of His Kind, review of The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years". New York Review of Books. 66 (14). Retrieved July 6, 2020., describing Stephens as "a throwback to the postwar liberal Republican [U.S. Supreme Court] appointees", questioned the validity of "the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that you cannot sue any state or federal government agency, or any of its officers or employees, for any wrong they may have committed against you, unless the state or federal government consents to being sued" (p. 20); the propriety of "the increasing resistance of the U.S. Supreme Court to most meaningful forms of gun control" (p. 22); and "the constitutionality of the death penalty ... because of incontrovertible evidence that innocent people have been sentenced to death." (pp. 22, 24.)

Rakoff, Jed S.

Abott, Madigan, Mossoff, Osenga, Rosen. (PDF). Regulatory Transparency Project. Retrieved May 15, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Holding States Accountable for Copyright Piracy"