Immunity of Foreign Central Banks: A Comparison of Laws between China and Argentina
Student’s Name
Course and Code
Instructor
Submission Date
Executive SummaryThis report compares the laws on immunity of foreign Central Banks between China and Argentina. Specifically, it intends to show how the two nations diverge or converge on different lines relating to laws on foreign central banks, and how this reflects back to the basis of said laws. The article looks at immunity of foreign Central Banks, immunity from Jurisdiction, exclusions from the authority of foreign Central Banks, issues associated with the performance of business actions, criteria of comparison between Chinese and Argentine legislations, and immunity from attachment and execution. From a theoretical standpoint, both laws are congruent with one another and will fulfil the objective of boosting bilateral financial interaction in general. In particular, the Argentine legislation attempted to achieve this conformance and was expressly crafted in accordance with the language of the Chinese legislation.
Key Words: Argentina, China, Central Banks, immunity, legislation, and Article 2
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc85579533 h 21. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc85579534 h 42. Immunity of Foreign Central Banks PAGEREF _Toc85579535 h 43. Immunity from Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc85579536 h 63.1 Exclusions from the Authority of Foreign Central Banks PAGEREF _Toc85579537 h 63.2 Issues Associated with the Performance of Business Actions PAGEREF _Toc85579538 h 73.3 Criteria of Comparison between Chinese and Argentine Legislations PAGEREF _Toc85579539 h 84. Immunity from Attachment and Execution PAGEREF _Toc85579540 h 94.1 Article 2 of the Chinese Law PAGEREF _Toc85579541 h 94.2 Article 2 of the Argentine Law PAGEREF _Toc85579542 h 104.3 Assumptions on Express Waivers on Central Banks PAGEREF _Toc85579543 h 114.4 Exceptions to the Generally Applicable Principle PAGEREF _Toc85579544 h 115. The Principle of Reciprocity PAGEREF _Toc85579545 h 125.1 Reciprocity in a Country’s Foreign Relations PAGEREF _Toc85579546 h 125.2 Article 3 of the Law on Reciprocity: Argentina versus China PAGEREF _Toc85579547 h 136. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc85579548 h 13References PAGEREF _Toc85579549 h 15
1. Introduction
In 1972, China and Argentina restored diplomatic ties when the Argentina acknowledged Beijing as China’s only lawful government. They signed almost 50 accords over the next 30 years, covering a broad variety of topics. The signing of accords, on the other hand, has accelerated significantly since 2004, with about 120 bilateral accords currently in existence. China and Argentina have started a fresh series talks in numerous spheres of mutual interest in the previous four years, particularly international commerce, repatriation, economic growth, and investing. Among the most intriguing items on the bilateral discussion was the idea to trade a portion of both Central Banks’ monetary reserves, assigning them to each foreign nation. In this manner, rather than transferring their reserves to established global financial centres such as the U.S, the U.K, or Switzerland, the two nations may have an alternate location for their reserves. Because China had initially approved a law on the subject, the Argentinian Executive Authority pushed for a similar policy. In view of the debate before the United States courts and the connections faced by the national Central Bank, the Latin American nation also wanted to express its viewpoint on the sovereignty of a financial jurisdiction and the immunity provided by its reserve. As a result, on June 25, 2014, a legislation was submitted, just weeks before the Chinese President travelled to Argentina to sign many bilateral deals. The Senate and House of Deputies immediately approved the bill, and it was signed into law as Law No. 26,961 in early August.
2. Immunity of Foreign Central BanksThe Executive Branch validated the bill that turned into Law No. 26.961 as component of a pact with China to boost bilateral commercial and economic relations while also providing a further source of foreign money. When looking at the timeframe of the legislative process, the hurry of the Argentine government can be seen, which contributed to the bill’s ambiguous terminology and deceptive stories (Lee, 2002). The Senate’s suggested changes produced some adjustments while also introducing new errors. The result is a legislation with a short, unclear text that is also contentious whenever contrasted to existing local legislation on foreign nation jurisdictional immunity. The 2005 Legal System of China had a very specific objective, one that was only slightly different from the Argentine law in terms of economic and political requirement. Till that time, China had no formal stipulation on sovereign immunity and was regarded a proponent of the ancient law, with the defendant State’s waiver being the only acknowledged exemption. “From the Chinese perspective, sovereign immunity was employed as a barrier to safeguard other nations’ sovereignty while at the same time it was utilized as a weapon to enforce colonialism on the relatively weaker nations,” writes WANG (1999, p. 168). As a result, China’s adherence to the notion of total State immunity was entirely natural.”
The current rule on this subject, the 1978 UK State Immunity Act, stopped to be in effect in Hong Kong once it unified with China in 1997. As ZHU (2007, p. 74) points out, the government of China recognized the need of maintaining Hong Kong as a safe haven for direct investors (inclusive of foreign Central Bank reserves), and also providing similar security in mainland China and Macao. As a result, the Law on Judicial Immunity from Compulsory Measures Concerning the Property of Foreign Central Banks was enacted to achieve these goals, encompassing a broader defense restricted only by the principle of reciprocity. Additional political and legal choice in this domain was made only a few days before this Law was accepted: China signed – although did not acknowledge – the United Nations convention in September 2005. This international treaty, which has not yet entered into force, regards exemption from jurisdiction to be a primary concept (Article 5), with a few exclusions (Articles 7 to 17). It is dangerously conservative when it comes to metrics of restraint, as they are just permitted with the explicit permission of the respondent Government (Article 18) or, in the case of post-judgment metrics, if the particular resources are being used or aimed to be used by the Nation for non-government non-commercial reasons (Article 19). Furthermore, Article 21, section 1, paragraph c), specifically states that a Central Bank’s assets may not be used for business reasons. The signing of the United Nations convention, according to (Qi, 2008, p. 330), “(…) although appearing incongruous with China’s former stance on Sovereign Immunity, signifies a sensible and opportune adjustment and anticipates an approaching shift in policy.” Nonetheless, subsequent case law demonstrated that the customary viewpoint had not changed. The Congo v. FG Hemisphere case, which arose from mechanisms of restriction to execute arbitral judgements, was determined by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in 2011. The majority of the Supreme court viewed immunity as an authoritarian power until the respondent Government waived it in the ruling. As a result, regardless of the fact that the minority in the aforementioned case took the contrary position on Hong Kong’s territory, there appears to be no break from the customary rule of exemption in China currently.
3. Immunity from JurisdictionFollowing these general considerations, and beginning with the Argentine regulatory oversight, Law No. 26,961 states in Article 1: “It is henceforth founded that oversea Central Banks or other foreign financial authorities are invulnerable from the regulatory authority of Argentine court system, other than in the following scenarios: a) Express written consent in an international treaty, an agreement between two parties, an arbitration clause, or by way of a written declaration after the onset of a court’s or arbitration proceedings ; b) Counterclaim originating out of similar legal connection or the same circumstances as the original claim and c) The argument is based on conduct outside the boundaries of the organization’s specialized tasks, and the Argentine courts have jurisdiction because of a claimed contractual or international agreement, as well as in other circumstances.
3.1 Exclusions from the Authority of Foreign Central BanksThe basic norm of immunity from the authority of foreign Central Banks or other financial institutions is established in this first Article, with three exclusions. To protect the jurisdictional exemption as an entitlement for the foreign nation, the clause is constructed in a logical fashion (Khan, 2018). You can absolutely opt out of this privilege. In addition, it should be emphasized that Article 1 only pertains to exemption from jurisdiction, not immunity from attachment or prosecution, which is covered by the second Article of this Law. On the surface, it appears that the legislation procedure is somewhat erroneous, at least in the initial stages. Argentine courts do not have authority over Central Banks, which is in conformity with Law No. 24,488, and the phrasing ought to have simply stated that such immunity is granted by this Legislation. Thus, another article might have been written just about the three exceptions, and it could have been written in a more logical order.
According to the perspective of a court action, recognizing the immunity as a standard norm indicates that the plaintiff needs establish the presence of a genuine exemption in order for the local jurisdiction to intervene (Cymrot, 2003). These three outliers should not be seen as an extensive list, but rather as a starting point. First, a conflict develops when the defendant expresses its agreement to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Argentine courts, either before or after the occurrence of the disagreement. The disclaimer may be incorporated into a treaty, a contract, or an arbitration agreement, among other forms of legal expression. Besides any existing obligations, if the international entity is sued in the legal or arbitral domain, it might express its willingness to participate in such a dispute settlement venue in writing. Second, where the respondent Bank submits a counter that is predicated on the same legal connection or a similar set of facts as the major claim, the counterclaim is dismissed. As in the prior instance, the waiver granted by the foreign Central Bank is the basis for this exemption, which is tacitly drawn from the new application, which must have particular points of relationship with the primary lawsuit.
The third exclusion is likely the most challenging since, unlike the previous two, it is not immediately tied to an explicit or implicit waiver by the foreign nation, which makes it particularly difficult to deal with. In accordance with this exception, the due process defense may not be triggered when the claim is linked with an action that falls outside of the particular framework of the Central Bank’s particular purposes and the authority of the Argentine courts emerges from the alleged agreement or international law. However, it is important to note that, contrary to the customary practice in provisions of national and international legislation providing state immunity, the Law’s formulation makes reference to the functionality provided by the body in concern, rather than to the commercial nature of these kind of actions.
3.2 Issues Associated with the Performance of Business ActionsIt ought to be essential, if a particular issue occurs, to establish the precise responsibilities of the respondent body and, from there, to establish if the action in concern goes far beyond normal course of business or is contradictory with those responsibilities. The particular authorities vested in each Central Bank are unquestionably derived from its institutional legislation and other relevant legislation. A portion of the above-mentioned responsibilities are detailed in Law No. 26,961, Article 2, first paragraph, and can be used as guidance by the court system in the interpretation of this exemption in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible that its application will result in some complications. When a foreign Central Bank employs local workers to satisfy the expectations of a bureau in the territories Argentina, for example, a labor lawsuit ought to be dropped because there is a connection between the contract of employment and the functions of the body in question, as explained above. If the same assertion were raised against a foreign nation, the very same claim would be accepted because a foreign nation cannot induce immunity if sued for labor concerns by Argentine citizens or inhabitants in the nation, under contracts signed in Argentina or abroad, and the effects of those contracts occur within the sovereign borders (Law No. 24,488, Article 2, section d).
Another issue associated with the performance of business actions can develop, for example, during the procurement of goods or the provision of services. As per the Article 2 of Section c) of Law No. 24,488, a foreign nation cannot claim sovereignty when sued for engaging in economic activities. According to the Argentina Supreme Court’s interpretation of this clause, a commerce activity shall be defined by taking into consideration the nature of the act in concern. If, on the other hand, the foreign Central Bank is sued for performing particular economic actions, it may be able to claim immunity by claiming that the actions were performed in the course of performing its specified tasks. Observe that Law No. 26,961 established a specific regime more favorable to this selected international defendant, which is distinct from – and in certain ways even contrary to- the general regime applicable to foreign entities as demonstrated in the two cases provided earlier.
3.3 Criteria of Comparison between Chinese and Argentine LegislationsThis exception is subject to the second criteria, which is that the authority of the Argentine courts is derived from a particular contract or international treaty. For first step, it ought to be noted that, in the event that an agreement contains a waiver, the presumption would be identical to that mentioned in the first exemption to this Article. The second scenario is one in which the authority of the Argentinian court system is derived from international treaties and conventions. “(…) overall international law only enforces as a concept the existence of a sensible association between the jurisdiction of a State and the court hearings or dispute, without clearly defining the nature of that association,” the Supreme Court declared in interpreting the comparable provision in Law No. 24,488, Article 2, section c). This is due to the concept of appropriateness of links, which is imposed by international law and allows either the traditional or metropolitan systems of private international law to establish the specific links.” For the reasons of this exemption, and in the lack of an agreement of the parties, the tribunals should indeed evaluate if international law authorizes the parties to resolve the merits of the dispute, while trying to seek a reasonable relationship between the problematic matter and the other stakeholders.
According to Chinese law, there is no counterpart to the first article of the Argentine Constitution. As will be discussed further below, the latter exclusively relates with protection from attachment or execution, and not with any other protection. As a result, the rule of jurisdictional immunity is susceptible to the precise interpretation provided by the Chinese courts in each individual issue. The following is quoted from QI (2008, p. 326): “(…) China’s stance on Sovereign immunity has been constant, distinguished by its overall compliance to the ultimate doctrine and its infrequent acknowledgement of exclusions to immunity conditional on its consensual assent to reciprocal or mutual responsibilities under various regimes of contract.” Specifically, the proof to substantiate this perspective is collected from “(…) distinct internal laws and regulations, treaty practice, and court judgments that involve China.” (Quality Institute 2008, p. 316).
When it comes to jurisdictional immunity, there are substantial variations between Argentina and China. Argentina clearly controlled the traditional rule of jurisdictional exemption in 1950, and its courts embraced the rigorous approach in 1994, with particular laws passed in 1995.
4. Immunity from Attachment and ExecutionThe following is the text of the second Article of the Argentine Law, which is divided into two independent paragraphs: Foreign monetary authorities will be acknowledged as foreign government entities that are obliged to design, analyse, enforce, and adopt the essential credit and exchange metrics for restricting currency circulation and cash flow in the foreign currency and financial markets, and also guaranteeing smooth operation of internal and external payment transactions of the economic system, while safeguarding the currency’s value’ (Article 1 of this Law).’ When it comes to any regulatory action which might impact the above-mentioned assets, assets of an international Central Bank or international monetary authority are immune from execution and/or attachment in the court system of Argentina. The very first section defines the typology of a “foreign monetary authority,” with a particular emphasis on the responsibilities that these bodies are typically tasked with doing. To establish whether or not a defendant body falls into this group in a particular litigation is the obligation of the judge in that case. When this is not possible, the basic approach outlined in Law No. 24,488 should be followed, given that the foreign body can be considered a component of the country’s organizational structure.
4.1 Article 2 of the Chinese LawIt is stated in Article 2, first section, of the Chinese Law that “a foreign central bank” refers to both the central bank of a foreign nation and the central bank of a regional economic integration corporation, as well as the financial administration institution that performs the role of the central bank, which is comparable though less explanatory (Wuerth, 2018). The following section entails a new definition that does not exist in the Argentine legislation: “For the reasons of this Legislation, the asset of foreign central banks encompasses cash, notes, deposits, securities, foreign exchange reserve, gem reserve, and other assets of the foreign central banks, as well as the financial institutions’ immovable assets and other assets. ” Because the particular tasks of the defendant agency are not specified, the intervening Chinese court is left with a wide variety of options for determining whether or not the defendant agency should be allowed the procedure defense within this Law. In the same way that it is in Argentina, the Executive Branch’s position on the issue at hand ought t be regarded when reaching a judicial judgement. A very interesting aspect of this Article is the provision of protection to the financial authority of a regional economic integration body. This is a notably interesting feature to note.
4.2 Article 2 of the Argentine LawFor the purposes of this review of Law No. 26,961, the second section of Article 2 is the focal point of the entire regime, although regrettably, the wording and placement of the section in the text do not assist in determining that fact. Proceeding with the evaluation of Law No. 26,961, the second section of Article 2 is the focal point of the entire regime. A definite law for the ownership of foreign Central Banks’ assets was a main consideration of Argentina’s government, in accordance with an explanation provided by the Executive Branch and presented to the National Congress along with the initial proposal. This rule would enable Argentina to be perceived as a secure investment destination. Consequently, it is provided that any type of enforcement action against the property of these bodies is prohibited, whether taken prior to the filing of a lawsuit or after a verdict has been entered against them.
Indeed, it is plausible to conclude that any foreign Central Bank in Argentina is afforded the same degree of security as the Central Bank of its own country, as a bare minimum. Although there is no clear local rule to allow for the safeguarding of a foreign state’s assets, the courts can construe customary law and, if a particular asset is not dedicated to a government non-commercial use, they may declare that it can be seized and sold. Contradictory to this, the clause in Article 2, second section, specifies that no court action can be brought against the particular assets in question. The exemption from execution granted to these foreign intelligence organizations is therefore expanded and nearly completely eliminated.
4.3 Assumptions on Express Waivers on Central BanksAs can be shown plainly from a literary interpretation, there are no exemptions to the previously established norm. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that, by an express waiver, the overseas Central Bank will be able to recognize both the local jurisdiction and the precise mechanisms of constraint in place within. This defense is available to government entities, and those entities have the option to take advantage of the defense or waive it in certain situations. It is as a result of the relationship between exemption against jurisdiction, as defined in Article 1, and the mechanism of prosecution previously outlined that a lawsuit against an overseas Central Bank can be launched and pursued till a verdict is delivered. Nevertheless, the ultimate verdict of a judgment does not always imply the filing of a regulatory action in order to seek monetary compensation. What has been said thus far does not indicate that a court of law ruling is simply a written document with no legal significance. Additionally, the mediating judicial body might very well charge a fee without conducting particular actions of policing, in addition to notifying the Argentine Republic’s Central Bank and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the judgment, and suggesting the utilization of political and diplomatic implies to impose the decision.
“The People’s Republic of China gives to abroad central banks’ assets the judicial protection from the mandatory metrics of asset conserving and execution, other than in the cases in which an abroad central bank, or a government whereby a central bank is inferior, expressly waives such immunity in written form, and in the cases in which the asset is assigned for utilization in asset conserving and execution.” In overall, as can be seen, protection from execution is given as a basic principle, and in accordance with ZHU (2007, p. 76): “(…) in the entire civil procedure, regardless of the gestures utilised, like attachment, injunction, detain, order, or execution, and regardless of the stages, if the pre-judgment stage or the post-judgment phase, the Chinese courts must refrain from taking any judicial initiatives of restriction.”
4.4 Exceptions to the Generally Applicable PrincipleOnly two exceptions can be made to this generally applicable principle. The first type of waiver is the traditional one, that should be communicated verbally or in writing. In other words, the Chinese courts can be awarded authority in an international agreement, a treaty, or even a particular written statement, provided the parties so concur. When a defendant foreign Central Bank designates particular assets to be impacted by future regulatory action, the second exception represents still another expression of the defendant foreign Central Bank’s cooperation.
5. The Principle of ReciprocityA new notion, reciprocity, is introduced in the third article of Law No. 26,961, which serves as a precise limitation to the exemption given: In accordance with the prior Article, “the immunity made reference to in the prior Article shall be applicable to the same degree as the resources of the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic in its ability as national financial authority relish protection under the laws of the nation of origin of the foreign Central Bank or foreign financial authority concerned.” It is the purpose of Article 3 to restrict the application of the concept set forth in Article 2 to certain scenarios in which strict reciprocity is given; in other words, to similar degree that the property of the Argentine Central Bank is safeguarded in a foreign nation. In light of the fact that the restrictions in Article 3 apply solely to the ‘preceding Article,’ this would reconfirm that the jurisdictional protection in Article 1 is acknowledged as a right for the oversea entities concerned, subject to the three exemptions already mentioned and without the need for concerns of reciprocity.
5.1 Reciprocity in a Country’s Foreign RelationsThe employment of reciprocity is a useful instrument in a country’s foreign relations, given that it is done so in a prudent and controlled manner. As said before, this idea was incorporated into Decree-Law No. 9,015/1963 as a means of adding additional constraint to the concept of sovereign immunity, which was before unconstrained (Sucharitkul, 2005). As a matter of fact, till the passage of Law No. 24,488, the use of reciprocity was the only exemption that did not entail the admission of the jurisdiction of Argentine courts by the abroad state in question. Due to the fact that the Executive Branch never used this tool, it is now merely a theoretical concept. As has been stated previously, an objective reading of Articles 2 and 3 leads to the conclusion that a foreign Central Bank is entitled to the same protection for its property as is accorded to the property of any foreign state as a bare basic threshold of protection. Upon that foundation, additional immunity from attachment and execution may be provided, subject to the requirement of reciprocity. Furthermore, if the properties of the national Central Bank are subjected to enforcement policies in a foreign nation, Argentina has the authority to apply the same type of enforcement actions against the properties of the foreign counterpart in the same nation.
5.2 Article 3 of the Law on Reciprocity: Argentina versus ChinaThe Chinese Law explicitly addresses the difficult issue of reciprocity in its Article 3: “Where a foreign nation gives no protection to the assets of the People’s Republic of China’s central bank or to the assets of the monetary administration organizations of the People’s Republic of China’s special administrative units, or where the protection awarded encompasses fewer items than those offered for in this Legislation, the People’s Republic of China shall subject the protection given by the foreign nation.” As a result of an earlier conduct by a foreign nation that negatively impacts the assets of the Chinese Central Bank or the other institutions listed, the concept under consideration becomes relevant in this situation. However, that earlier act ought not be construed as a violation of the law, but rather as a local application of the concept of exemption from attachment, which could be more restrictive in some jurisdictions in comparison to others. In the words of ZHU (2007, p. 80), this element in Chinese law “(…) would not pose a difficulty for the countries that provide the similar measure of protection, like the United Kingdom or possibly the United States.” Nevertheless, it may result in disagreements with the countries that provide security at a lower level than that provided by China, particularly with those countries that take a limited immunity posture.” On this issue, it is clear that the Argentine government has a vested interest in avoiding any conceivable difference with the Chinese Central Bank and in being included in the small jurisdictions numbers that provide particular security to foreign central banks.
6. ConclusionFrom a theoretical standpoint, both laws are congruent with one another and will fulfil the objective of boosting bilateral financial interaction in general. In particular, the Argentine legislation attempted to achieve this conformance and was expressly crafted in accordance with the language of the Chinese legislation. The two nations (or their respective Central Banks) will most likely execute a trade treaty in the coming years to further develop their diplomatic partnership in this sector, which will complement the existing Currency Swap Arrangement. As previously noted, a potential inconsistency between the basic rules on sovereign immunity and the specific rules for central banks may develop in certain processes in Argentina, depending on the facts of the case. As a result, a complaint against China on the basis of the suitability of the limited approach may be permitted in this case. On the flipside, most of the Central Bank of China’s activities will be safeguarded, except if the bank engages in activities that are outside the range of its specified functions, which will be rare.
ReferencesCymrot, M. A. (2003). Managing for Uncertainty in Central Bank Immunity. Current
Developments in Monetary and Financial Law, 2, 435.
Khan, A. (2018). Legal Protection: Liability and Immunity Arrangements of Central Banks
and Financial Supervisors. International Monetary Fund.
Lee, P. L. (2002). Central Banks and Sovereign Immunity. Colum. J. Transnat’l L., 41, 327.
Qi, D. (2008). State immunity, China and its shifting position. Chinese Journal of
International Law, 7(2), 307-337.
Sucharitkul, S. (2005). Jurisdictional immunities in contemporary international law from
Asian perspectives. Chinese Journal of International Law, 4(1), 1-43.
Wuerth, I. B. (2018). Immunity from Execution of Central Bank Assets. The Cambridge
Handbook of Immunities and International Law (Tom Ruys, Nicolas Angelet, Luca Ferro, eds.) (2018 Forthcoming), Vanderbilt Law Research Paper, 18-24.
Zhu, L. (2007). State Immunity from Measures of Constraints for the Property of Foreign
Central Banks: The Chinese Perspective. Chinese Journal of International Law, 6(1), 67-81.
