The conduct of Anglo-Soviet trade occurs within a legal framework composed of various factors, including treaties, trade agreements, unilateral trade policies and measures employed by both countries, and the substantive law of each state. Official agreements between the two states have typically been bilateral accords operating principally to establish a legal structure for trade between the two countries.1 The modest function of such instruments is to authorize the conduct of trade, leaving to the market mechanism or, as in the case of the Soviet Union, central planning, the actual content of the trade. In addition, each government promulgates trade measures independent of transnational trade agreements and these measures have potential effects upon Anglo-Soviet commercial relations. For example, Britain enforces a prohibition of certain strategic goods to the U.S.S.R. and employs an export licensing system which may affect commerce between the two states.2 Another component of the framework is the substantive law of both states. It is generally the case in English law that corporations which are agencies of a state under their respective charters or constitutions are accorded state immunity. The view that an enterprise can be so constituted as to enjoy the privilege of state immunity was articulated in the case of Krajina v. Tass Agency,3 which will be explored below. The historical foundation of English practice toward state trading enterprises can be traced to cases involving the East India Company.4 In early cases in which the company was sued, courts typically dismissed the actions on the ground of the sovereign status of the company, despite the fact that it was primarily engaged in commercial activities. Sovereign action, occurring subsequent to and resulting from certain commercial arrangements was found, for example, in Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India Co.5 In that case, the defendant-company had been assigned certain