Belhaj v Straw

The case of Belhaj and another (Respondents) v Straw and others (Appellants) was an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom against decisions made by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, concerning the alleged complicity of UK authorities and officials in unlawful detention and rendition, torture or cruel and inhuman treatment and assault committed by various other states in various overseas jurisdictions. The defences included state immunity and the doctrine of foreign act of state. The appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court held that the appellants’ pleas of state immunity failed because the various foreign states were not impleaded, and their legal position was not affected, either directly or indirectly by the claims in tort advanced by the respondents solely against the appellants. The court also held that the concept of foreign act of state needed to be disaggregated, or broken down, and approached at a more particular level of enquiry. Three types of foreign act of state could be identified under current English authority: the rule of private international law, whereby a foreign state’s legislation would normally be recognised and treated as valid, so far as it affected movable or immovable property within the foreign state’s jurisdiction; that a domestic court would not normally question the validity of any sovereign act in respect of property within the foreign state’s jurisdiction, at least in times of civil disorder; and that a domestic court would treat as non-justiciable certain categories of sovereign act by a foreign state abroad, even if they occurred outside the foreign state’s jurisdiction. The court held that the appellants’ case, to the effect that the second and/or third types should be expanded or combined so as to cover all sovereign (jure imperii) acts by a foreign state anywhere abroad outside the jurisdiction of the domestic court whose jurisdiction was in issue, should be rejected. The court held that the issues now before the Supreme Court did not lead to a conclusion that the issues were non-justiciable in a domestic court. The appeals were dismissed and the cases proceeded to trial.