當外國國家放棄了管轄豁免的特權時，內國法院就據此取得了針對外國國家 的管轄權。然而實踐中對於如何放棄以及在何種情形下構成放棄豁免尚難以把 握。美國法院的法官在該領域依照1976 年《外國主權豁免法》第1605 條的規定 以及1976 年國會報告中的相關規定，且運用自由裁量權並採取嚴格狹義解釋的方 法來判斷外國國家的行為是否明示或默示放棄了管轄豁免權，以此在主權國家利 益和私主體利益間取得較好的平衡。大陸地區在未來的國家豁免立法中，既要學 習借鑒美國的經驗，又要從自身的法制體系和國情出發，儘量採取列舉模式，以 便於操作且保持判決的一致性。

When Foreign states waiver the privilege of jurisdiction immunity, the domestic courts hereby obtain the jurisdiction over the foreign states. However, it is difficult for the courts to determine the modality of waiver, and the key components of express waiver and implied waiver. In this field, the judges of American Courts estimate whether foreign sovereignty’ behavior constitute express waiver or implied waiver through discretion and strictly narrow interpretation, on the basis of Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act 1976 and Congress Report of 1976, in order to balance interests of private parties against the sovereignty. To our own foreign sovereign immunity legislation in the future, not only do it learn from American advanced experience, but also do it in line with our fundamental realities, and adopt enumeration method, for making it easy to operate and maintain the consistency of the judgments.