Executive certificates There is an established practice adopted by the British courts of applying
to the executive branch of government for the conclusive ascertainment
compulsory acquisition and any change of title to property which came under the control
of the foreign state as a result and would accept and enforce the consequences of that
compulsory acquisition without considering its merits.
346
First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba 406 US 759 (1972); 66 ILR, p. 102.
347
96 S. Ct. 1854 (1976); 66 ILR, p. 212. See also M. Halberstam, ‘Sabbatino Resurrected’, 79
AJIL, 1985, p. 68.
348
See Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. v. Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia 729 F.2d 422 (1984). See also AIG v. Iran 493 F.Supp. 522 (1980) and Justice Harlan in
the Sabbatino case, 376 US 398, 428 (1964); 35 ILR, pp. 25, 37.
349
110 S. Ct. 701 (1990); 88 ILR, p. 93.
350
110 S.Ct. 701, 705 (1990).
351
See also Third US Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, pp. 366–89; Bandes v. Harlow & Jones 82 AJIL, 1988, p. 820, where the Court of Appeals held that the act of state doctrine
was inapplicable to takings by a foreign state of property located outside its territory, and
First American Corp. v. Al-Nahyan 948 F.Supp. 1107 (1996). Note that the party claiming
the application of the doctrine bears the burden of proving its applicability: see Daventree Ltd v. Republic of Azerbaijan 349 F.Supp.2d 736, 754 (SDNY 2004).
i n t e r nat i o na l l aw a n d m u n i c i pa l l aw
193
of certain facts. Examples include the status of a foreign state or govern-
ment, questions as to whether a state of war is in operation as regards a