{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019668737060041408, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.654970760233918, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems in Applying the Restrictive Theory of Sovereign Immunity

LEGISLATION on sovereign immunity was regarded as necessary in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. to clarify the law and make changes that would bring the law in those States into line with development that had taken place in Europe.' A major aim of the legislation in both countries was to entrench the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity so that a plea of sovereign immunity would not be allowed if the foreign sovereign was shown to have engaged in commercial transactions. Governmental acts of the foreign sovereign, however, continued to enjoy immunity. The legislation, strictly speaking, did not effect any changes in this regard. The courts in the United Kingdom were already relinquishing the absolute theory of immunity in favour of the restrictive theory. The State Immunity Act of the U.K. amounted to a legislative approval of this trend. In the U.S.A. the restrictive theory was in