Some quick thoughts about Teare J's judgment in the Central Bank of Venezuela case. Not a decision I found easy to read. 1/n https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2020/1721.html

Under the one voice principle, Teare J held that HMG's recognition of Mr Guaidó as president of Venezuela was decisive. It followed that Mr Maduro was not presudent of Venezuela. 2/n

Recognition of heads of State was distinguished from recognition of governments. But most of the cases cited concerning the former concerned the granting of immunity, not who represents the State. 3/n

This conclusion, however, got round the issue that HMG continues to have diplomatic relations with the Maduro government. 4/n

Having dealt with the recognition issue, Teare J addressed the justiciability issue, which dealt with the status of the National Assembly decree declaring Mr Guaidó president and purporting to empower him to appoint the board of the Central Bank. 5/n

Applying the Act of State doctrine, Teare J considered there could be no questioning of that act. But this was based on HMG's recognition of Mr Guaidó as president, which seems bootstrapping. 6/n

It is undoubtedly the case that the Maduro government is in effective control of Venezuela. Its authorities consider the National Assembly's decree of no effect. Maduro, they say, was elected president. 7/n

So to say, as is implied, that the National Assembly represents the sovereign (i.e. the State) or is a sovereign authority, perhaps rather begs the question. 8/n

Certainly, it is nonsensical to say, as Teare J does, that Act of State is being applied to avoid interference in Venezuela's internal affairs. The judgment does just that. /end