Extension of Country R

From the above question we know that there are two type of sovereignty, one is absolute sovereign immunity and another one is restrictive sovereign immunity, and both of the acts has denied states immunity from claims for death or personal injury, for damage to or loss of tangible property, for claims relating to real property, and for actions based on intellectual property rights. The acts also deny immunity for suits that are based on claims for aberrant tariffs and taxes. If there are some connection exists between the activity and the forum state, the exceptions to immunity will be granted. In other words, the property must be located in the forum state or the act or omission must take place or produce some direct effect there. Although these acts grant immunities to foreign states subject to exclusions, the burden of proof does not rest on the party suing the state to show that an exception exists. On the other hand, the remedies available to a claimant in a suit against a state are limited essentially to damages--injunctions and order of specific performance are not available.

To know that the extension of country R which may be absolve from their liability towards the Harvester Company, first of all we must know that what is the act of state doctrine. The act of state doctrine is a rule that restrains municipal courts in some countries from exercising jurisdiction over foreign states. In other words, it also can be defined as the act of a regime within the boundaries of its own territory is not subject to judicial inspection in a foreign municipal court. A civic court will decline to hear a dispute based on such acts, if to do so would get in the way with perform of the environment state' overseas policy. There are three types act of doctrine, vested rights doctrine, most significant relationship doctrine and governmental interest doctrine. The first doctrine which is vested rights doctrine is defined as the doctrine that courts should apply the law of the state where the rights of the parties legally became effective. The codes provide fairly simple and straightforward guidelines for us to determine where particular rights vest. In other words, this doctrine can be explained as when we use the law of the state, it will show us the rights of both parties by using some guiding principles which are quite simple and very straightforward and so that we are able to determine and find out where are the rights vest and figure out which party is right and in the end settle the dispute.

The second type doctrine is the most significant doctrine and we could explain it as the doctrine that the courts must apply the law of state that has the closest and the most real connection with the dispute. It has a court apply the law of the state that has most contacts with the parties and their transaction. In essence, the courts will consider the following general factors such as: 1) which state's law best promotes the needs of the international system? , 2) which state's law will be furthered the most by applying it to the case at hand? and so on. Which means for the particular dispute, we must find the article of faith that are highly related with that particular dispute so that we could be able to do something that will protect our party and in the end we are able to resolve