Search

In this paper, the Canadian case of Parent v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. is compared with the Singapore cases of Anthony Woo v. Singapore Airlines and the appeal therefrom in Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Singapore Airlines. The Canadian and Singapore cases, with almost identical facts, concerned the status of Taiwan as a foreign entity entitled to state immunity pursuant to national legislation. The judgments indicate a difference in the two jurisdictions regarding the relationship between the executive and the judiciary where questions of foreign affairs arise for consideration by national courts. It is argued here that the case for judicial caution in deference to the executive (in the name of the "one-voice" doctrine) is sometimes overstated; that in practice the "one-voice" doctrine cannot easily be invoked as a basis for decisions taken by the courts on entitlement to state immunity in the absence of "clear" guidance from the executive; and that, ultimately, the issue of entitlement to state immunity is a legal one for the courts to decide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]