text: ttlo viaw that, if rocoynitioa of the awarJ wati indead intorprotsd under many demeakic civil law procodurss as the first step towarclr; it6 execution, it WOUld be bust not to inc:l~\~Ict it:. in subparayraj.‘)’ ((I). Noting tht. hiyhly technical noturo of t.he loqn.1 quc?r;t ion, tit) Glls~gest.f+d t.hi4k the I??at:tr*r be examined furthor by t:ho l)rilI t.ing ~:ommit.t.ea. ._q ‘j.-2Q. !iafiaR-of- zw* 214, The Special Rapporteur recalled that the article had emerged during the first roeding as a general reservation alause. According to some members, measure6 of nationalisation, as aavereign acts, were not subject to jurisdiction before the court of another State. A llumbak of members, however, had commented that the meaning and the proper scope of tho aiticle were uncloerj some membors had also suggested that it be plocod in Part I, The viaw of the Special R~pp~t-t~~r WAS that the territorial effects of nationalisation was not a subject on which the Commission was expectet¶ to express an opinion. Considering that and also tho fact that many members were In favour of deleting the article, the Special Rapporteur recommended its deletion. 215, All members who expressed their views on the article agreed that the article should bo doleted. It was suggested that the question of nationalisation was far too complex to be dealt with in an article. It was alsc stated that measures of nationalisation, AO sovereign acts, were not subject to the jurisdiction of another State and could not be considered as representing an exception to the principle of State immunity, 2. Part IV. State immuxiit.ies in respect of property from measures of constraint 216, As regards the title of Part IV of the draft articles, one member suggested that it might bo ultered to read “Jurisdictional immunities of States in respect of their property”, which would be clearor and much closer
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the drafting of international law, specifically related to the jurisdiction of states and their immunity from lawsuits. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a legal or diplomatic context. The topic of nationalization and state immunity implies a focus on economic or property-related issues.