Abstract The doctrine of the Act of State and State Immunity has its foundation in common law frameworks. It is settled law that there is no cause of action that will make a foreign state liable in the domestic court of another country. In the United States there has been acceptance that certain cases involve “political questions” that are non-justiciable, as they are not a “case or controversy” as required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The courts have only intervened either where the federal statutes have applied extraterritorially, such as under the Civil Rights Act 1964 where a U.S. citizen is employed abroad by a company registered in the United States, or under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) 1789, which protects foreign parties who are designated sufficiently “alien” for the sole purpose of invoking jurisdiction after a civil wrong has been committed against them. There needs to be an evaluation of the U.S. Supreme Court precedents that have asserted judicial oversight in respect of wrongs committed extra-territorially, and their present rationale for retaining the doctrine. This paper also discusses the scope of the Federal State Immunity Act (FSIA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) that narrow the concept of state immunity when dealing with terrorism by another state or its agents. A comparative analysis with the state immunity doctrine in Canada and the framework for litigation under the merits-based approach by the courts is provided. The common law courts have developed the doctrine of the Act of State and it has become a principle of customary international law. The argument of this paper is that there needs to be a greater focus on the civil injuries that are caused in other jurisdictions that should allow the claimants to litigate in the forum court and for judicial review to be available.

中文翻译：

---

美国的州法，州豁免权和司法审查

摘要国家和国家豁免法的学说在普通法框架内有其基础。根据现行法律，没有任何诉讼因由可导致外国在另一国的国内法院承担责任。在美国，已经接受某些案例涉及无法辩解的“政治问题”，因为它们不是美国宪法第三条所要求的“案例或争议”。法院仅在联邦法规在域外适用的情况下进行干预，例如根据1964年《民权法》（美国公民在美国注册的公司在国外雇用）或1789年《外国人侵权索偿法》（ATCA），它保护被指定为充分“外国人”的外国当事方，仅在对他们犯了民事错误后才可以援引管辖权。需要对美国最高法院的先例进行评估，这些先例主张对域外犯下的错误进行司法监督，并保留了目前保留该学说的理由。本文还讨论了《联邦国家豁免法》（FSIA）和《反恐怖主义赞助者司法法》（JASTA）的适用范围，这些法律缩小了另一国或其代理人处理恐怖主义时的国家豁免概念。提供了对加拿大国家豁免原则和法院基于案情的诉讼框架的比较分析。普通法法院发展了《国家法》的学说，它已成为习惯国际法的一项原则。本文的论点是，需要更加关注其他司法管辖区造成的民事伤害，这应允许索赔人在法院提起诉讼并进行司法审查。