The doctrine of sovereign immunity states that a sovereign administration cannot be sued if that sovereign authority has not given its consent to be sued (Lectric Law Library). In effect, the doctrine bans the filing of a case against it (Minnesota Department of Administration). In the legal doctrines of the United States, it states that a suit cannot be files against the Federal or local governments (John Lobato & Jeffrey Theodore, 2006).This application carries the ambit that not only the government as a separate entity cannot be sued, but also its departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities are open to suit without its consent (American Law and Legal Information, 2008). The doctrine finds it origins in the old English legal maxim that the reigning monarch is incapable of committing a wrong act (Murali Krishnan, 2008). In the United Kingdom, the monarch is still considered as the creator of the courts and laws, thus the sovereign cannot be forced or will not fall under the ambit of the procedures of that court (Krishnan, 2008).
Although it is the common and traditional notion that the doctrine is rooted in law, the basis of the practice of this doctrine is anchored on power, those that hold that power and their privilege from being sued in the exercise of that power (Minnesota). Until recently, the exercise of this doctrine was almost without question or challenge (Davis, Graham, & Stubbs LLP). However, several European states and the United States have taken a stand of a restrictive application of the doctrine (Davis).This approach states that foreign governments were protected from legal action for their “public acts” (acta jure imperii) but are not protected fro suit for their private, or commercial, acts (acta jure gestionis) (Davis).
This approach stems from the reality that many nations, through their respective entities, engage in commerce across their borders (Davis). The realization of government leaders with global expansion of companies and business organizations, these governments have begun to rethink their advocacy for the doctrine of an absolute sovereign immunity (Daniel Bryer, 2008).However, the courts especially in the United States, have continuously struggled as to the correct interpretation on the provisions of the statute and address questions on its application (Working Group of the American Bar Association). But recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the instances government entity can claim availment of the right (Minnesota). In the case of Steinke v City of Andover (1994), the Court ruled on the differentiation of “planning level”, which is protected by the doctrine, and the “operational level”, which is not covered by the doctrine (Minnesota).http://law.jrank.org/pages/10388/Sovereign-Immunity.html
