Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co.
United Kingdom House of Lords
[2003] 1 CLC 183, [2002] UKHL 19 (2002)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Following its invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990, the government of Iraq (defendant) annexed and proclaimed that it had sovereignty over Kuwait. The Iraqi military took control over Kuwait’s airport, seized 10 commercial airplanes that belonged to Kuwait Airways Corporation (KAC) (plaintiff), and transported the planes to Iraq. The Iraqi government formally dissolved KAC and transferred ownership of all of KAC’s worldwide assets, including the confiscated planes, to the state-owned Iraqi Airways Company (IAC) (defendant). The United Nations Security Council adopted resolutions condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, calling upon all nations to refuse recognition of any regime established by Iraq in Kuwait, and deeming Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait legally invalid. The United Kingdom’s position with respect to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait was consistent with the United Nations resolutions. KAC later sued IAC and Iraq in a United Kingdom trial court, claiming, among other things, that Iraq had wrongfully taken KAC’s property. IAC argued that it was immune from suit under the act-of-state doctrine. The case was appealed to the House of Lords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hope, L.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.