i m m u n i t i e s f r o m j u r i s d i c t i o n
711
different points.
69
It should also be noted, however, that this distinction
is less familiar to common law systems. In addition, the issues ascribed to
the governmental sphere as distinct from the private area rest upon the
particular political concept proclaimed by the state in question, so that
a clear and comprehensive international consensus regarding the line of
distinction is unlikely.
70
The characterisation of an act as
jure gestionis or
jure imperii will also depend upon the perception of the issue at hand by
the courts. Lord Wilberforce also noted that while the existence of a gov-
ernmental purpose or motive could not convert what would otherwise be
an act
jure gestionis or an act of private law into one done
jure imperii,
71
purpose may be relevant if throwing some light upon the nature of what
was done.
72
The importance of the contextual approach at least as the starting point
of the investigation was also emphasised by the Canadian Supreme Court
in
United States of America v.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada and
Others (
Re Canada Labour Code).
73
It was noted that the contextual ap-
proach was the only reasonable basis for applying the restrictive immunity
doctrine for the alternative was to attempt the impossible, ‘an antisep-
tic distillation of a “once-and-for-all” characterisation of the activity in
question, entirely divorced from its purpose’.
74
The issue was also consid-
ered by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, in
Reid v.
Republic of
Nauru,
75
which stated that in some situations the separation of act, motive
and purpose might not be possible. The motive or purpose underlying
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: