Sovereign immunity
|
|
Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or government cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. In many cases, the government has waived this immunity to allow for suits; in some cases, an individual, such as an attorney general, may technically appear as defendant on the government's behalf.
| Contents |
Sovereign immunity in constitutional monarchies
In a constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, Canada or Sweden, the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts and thus the courts have no power to compel the sovereign, their agents and/or servants to be bound by the courts as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.
Critique of sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity may be questioned in relation to the sovereign personally (i.e. prosecuting the crown for a crime); no one should be above the law in a society that recognizes the rule of law. Even the accusation of criminal fault on a monarch personally would most certainly precipitate a constitutional crisis calling into question the legitimacy of the legislative system as in British parliamentary systems since the Crown is considered a part of the Parliament, causing it to function properly.
Other aspects of this type of immunity have also been called into question, as governments may use it to prevent a finding of liability for acts that might otherwise be actionable if performed by private citizens. When the monarch personally, or through an agent, enters into a contract for goods or services, should not the person or company who provides such services receive due compensation or be able to sue for breach of contract? Should not the monarch be bound by principles of contract law like all others? However, it seems reasonable that governments may seek to be immune for prosecution or liability from government acts that are part and parcel of function of government which are created to benefit society as a whole and are thus outside the realm of private law.
Sovereign immunity in republican democracies
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is also used in republican democracies such as the United States and India. Because the legal systems in these countries devolved from English Common Law, the concept of sovereign immunity is retained. In these systems, governments, agents, or officials of the government may enjoy immunity for various acts, usually limited to acts that emanate from the function of government, and not those acts that would normally come within the ambit of the activities of private citizens such as contractual relations or liability for negligence.
In the United States, most U.S. states have waived their sovereign immunity by statute. These statutes, called tort claims acts, allow individuals to sue the U.S. state government and officials of the state government for constitutional violations or negligent acts. In many cases, these statutes protect the employee, or "agent", of the state against suit unless the agent acted with malice or was grossly negligent. Because it is hard to prove that a government official acted with malicious intent, most lawsuits against individual police officers, for example, are dismissed. The individual may, in many states, sue the state itself for the injury caused by the government official. However, most states limit the amount of damages an individual can recover from the state (i.e. awards are capped at $100,000 or $200,000).
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has enunciated an abrogation doctrine, which permits the U.S. Congress to remove the sovereign immunity of the states pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers.