Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 535-574

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Object and purpose — Action by domestic servant employed at residence of diplomatic agent — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 31(1) — Whether employment of domestic servant a commercial activity — Relationship between Articles 31(1)(c) and 42 — Domestic servant a victim of trafficking — Diplomatic agent leaving position before hearing — Residual immunity under Article 39 — Immunity limited to acts performed in the exercise of official functionsHuman rights — Prohibition of slavery — Trafficking in human beings — European Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 — United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, 2000 (“the Palermo Protocol”) — Whether a norm of jus cogens — Whether overriding diplomatic immunity — Whether provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 to be read in light of the Palermo ProtocolTreaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 31 to 33 — Application to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Text — Object and purpose — Travaux préparatoires — The law of the United Kingdom

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 722-727

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant alleging that she had been trafficked and forced to work by former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Whether diplomatic immunity continuing despite subsequent termination of diplomatic status — Whether commercial activity exception applicable to hiring of domestic servant — Whether subsequent attempts at service defective — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — The law of the United States


2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 239-294

239State responsibility — Attribution — United Nations peacekeeping troops — Dutch battalion contingent of United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Dutchbat”) — Responsibility for conduct of Dutchbat — Acts of Dutchbat taking place up until 23.00 on 11 July 1995 under UN flag — Whether attributable to Netherlands — Whether Netherlands having effective control over acts — UN International Law Commission Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Articles 4(1) and 8 — Dutchbat United Nations organ — Whether Dutchbat’s conduct taking place under direction or control of Netherlands — Effective control standard — Whether Netherlands responsible for Dutchbat’s conduct at relevant timeInternational organizations — Responsibility — United Nations — Peacekeeping troops — Dutchbat — Dutchbat United Nations organ — Responsibility for conduct of Dutchbat — Acts of Dutchbat taking place up until 23.00 on 11 July 1995 under UN flag — Ultra vires conduct — Attribution to UN — UN International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations 2011, Article 8Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Effect — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Article I — Obligation to prevent genocide — Interpretation of provision in accordance with Articles 31-3 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Text of Genocide Convention — Legislative history of Genocide Convention — Whether Contracting Parties intending obligation to have direct effect — Whether terms of provision sufficiently precise to be applied directly — Whether obligation having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Article I — Obligation to prevent genocide — Whether Article I of Genocide Convention having direct effect within meaning of Articles 93 and 94 of Constitution of the Netherlands — Interpretation of provision in accordance with Articles 31-3 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Text of Genocide Convention — Legislative history of Genocide Convention — Whether Contracting Parties intending obligation to have direct effect — Whether terms of provision sufficiently 240precise to be applied directly — Whether obligation having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsInternational criminal law — Genocide — Whether Netherlands failing to prevent genocide perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs — Obligation to prevent genocide in Article I of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Whether Netherlands violating Article I of Genocide Convention — Whether Article I having direct effect in proceedings between civilians and NetherlandsRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Protection of rights to life and physical integrity — Whether Dutchbat’s acts wrongful to be assessed under Dutch law — Applicable standard — Article 6:162 of Dutch Civil Code — Duty of care — Standards derived from Articles 2 and 3 of European Convention inherent in duty of care — Whether Court of Appeal applying correct standardHuman rights — Rights to life and physical integrity — Treaties — Standards — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — War situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Evacuation of refugees — Rights of male refugees — Violation of rights by Bosnian Serbs — Whether Dutchbat’s command knew, or reasonably ought to have known, at time of evacuation of real risk of violation of those rights — Whether Dutchbat acting wrongfully — Whether wrongful for Dutchbat to continue to cooperate in evacuation of refugees located in safe area outside compound — Whether wrongful for Dutchbat not to offer male refugees the choice of remaining in compound — Whether real chance that male refugees could have escaped Bosnian Serbs if remaining in compound — Estimation of chanceDamages — Claim for damages — Whether Netherlands to pay compensation — Whether order of Court of Appeal for compensation to be paid — Whether based on incorrect interpretation of law — Whether incomprehensible — Whether claim for damages could only be lodged by surviving relatives of male refugees evacuated from compound on 13 July 1995 — Whether Mothers of Srebrenica Association could claim damages — The law of the Netherlands


2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 659-674

659Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Family of diplomatic agent — Child protection — Children Act 1989 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31, 32 and 37 — Treaty interpretation — Relevance of human rights agreements — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Human Rights Act 1998Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31 and 37 — Diplomatic immunity — Exceptions to diplomatic immunity — Whether to read in exception to diplomatic immunity to protect children at riskRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether Vienna Convention could be read to include exception to diplomatic immunity to protect children at risk — Role of Parliament — Whether proposed exception violating plain and natural meaning of Vienna Convention — Reciprocity — Principle of diplomatic immunity — The law of England


Author(s):  
Geir Ulfstein

This chapter discusses how the European Court of Human Rights uses international instruments in its evolutive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that the Court, in its use of such instruments, goes beyond the bounds of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31(3)(b) (subsequent practice) and (c) (systemic interpretation) and uses the instruments as guidance in giving effect to the original intention of the parties based on Article 31(1) (evolutive intention). However, this is not made clear in the Court’s reasoning. Moreover, the Court prefers extensive discretion in how it should use such instruments in its evolutive interpretation. This makes the Court vulnerable to allegations of extrajudicial approaches and activism. Therefore, certain guidelines for the interpretational use of international instruments are proposed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 714-721

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant employed at residence of diplomatic agent — Certification of diplomatic status — Whether employment of domestic servant a commercial activity — Whether outside diplomat’s official function — Immunity limited to acts performed in exercise of official functions — Whether Court lacking jurisdictionTreaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Commercial activity exception — Scope — Whether Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and related case law relevant in determining scope of exceptionRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Diplomatic Relations Act — Whether Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and related case law relevant in interpreting Vienna Convention — Balancing rights of individual against benefits of diplomatic immunity — Policy decision — Whether appropriate for courts to intervene — Whether Court having jurisdiction over complaintsComity — Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity enhancing relations among nations — Balancing rights of individual against benefits of diplomatic immunity — Policy decision — Whether appropriate for courts to intervene — Whether Court having jurisdiction — The law of the United States


2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 678-688

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant against former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Exceptions to immunity — Whether employment of domestic servant a commercial activity — Weight to be given to Statement of Interest filed by United States — Whether pursuit of academic studies a professional activity under Vienna Convention — Whether fraud recognized as an exception in Vienna Convention — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — Whether defendants enjoying diplomatic immunityTreaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Intent of signatories — Ordinary meaning of terms in light of object and purpose — Liberal construction — Recourse to history, negotiations and practical construction adopted by parties if meaning unclear — Whether exceptions in Vienna Convention applicable — Whether defendants enjoying diplomatic immunityComity — Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity enhancing relations among nations — Balancing rights of individual against benefits of diplomatic immunity — Policy decision — Whether appropriate for courts to intervene — Whether Court having jurisdiction — The law of the United States


2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.


Author(s):  
John Vorhaus

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, degrading treatment and punishment is absolutely prohibited. This paper examines the nature of and wrong inherent in treatment and punishment of this kind. Cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) as amounting to degrading treatment and punishment under Article 3 include instances of interrogation, conditions of confinement, corporal punishment, strip searches, and a failure to provide adequate health care. The Court acknowledges the degradation inherent in imprisonment generally, and does not consider this to be in violation of Article 3, but it also identifies a threshold at which degradation is so severe as to render impermissible punishments that cross this threshold. I offer an account of the Court’s conception of impermissible degradation as a symbolic dignitary harm. The victims are treated as inferior, as if they do not possess the status owed to human beings, neither treated with dignity nor given the respect owed to dignity. Degradation is a relational concept: the victim is brought down in the eyes of others following treatment motivated by the intention to degrade, or treatment which has a degrading effect. This, so I will argue, is the best account of the concept of degradation as deployed by the Court when determining punishments as in violation of Article 3.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document