Fun v. Pulgar and Albergrin

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 722-727
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
The Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

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

Gonzalez Paredes v. Vila and Nielsen

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 678-688
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
Ordinary Meaning ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

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

Montuya v. Chedid and Another

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 714-721
Keyword(s):  
Policy Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

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

Sabbithi and Others v. Al Saleh and Another

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 703-713
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Trafficking Victims Protection Act ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Trafficking Victims ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Jus Cogens

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servants against former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Exceptions to immunity — Whether employment of domestic servants a commercial activity — Weight to be given to Statement of Interest filed by United States — Whether plaintiffs’ constitutional slavery claim giving way to diplomatic immunity — Whether defendants’ conduct constituting human trafficking — Whether jus cogens exception to diplomatic immunity — Whether Vienna Convention being overridden by statute — Diplomatic agent leaving post — Residual immunity under Article 39 — Immunity limited to acts performed in exercise of official functions — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — Whether defendants enjoying diplomatic immunityHuman rights — Prohibition of slavery in United States Constitution — Whether conduct constituting trafficking in human beings — Whether constitutional claim giving way to diplomatic immunity — Whether jus cogens exception to diplomatic immunity — Whether Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000 overriding Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Whether defendants enjoying diplomatic immunityRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — United States Constitution — Whether constitutional claim giving way to diplomatic immunity — Whether jus cogens exception to diplomatic immunity — Whether Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000 overriding Vienna Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — The law of the United States

Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 535-574
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Palermo Protocol

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

The New Federal Arbitration Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 203-206
Author(s):  
Julius Henry Cohen ◽  
Kenneth Dayton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Business World ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
And Control ◽  
At Will

This article focuses on the federal arbitration law. On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the United States Arbitration Law, which became effective on January 1, 1926. This act reversed the hoary doctrine that agreements for arbitration are revocable at will and are unenforceable, and in the language of the statute itself, they are made “valid, enforceable and irrevocable” within the limits of federal jurisdiction. There are three evils which arbitration is intended to correct: (1) the long delay usually incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars; (2) the expense of litigation; and (3) the failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world. The article then argues that the proposed law rests upon the constitutional provision by which Congress is authorized to establish and control inferior federal courts. It also contends that sound public policy demands specific enforcement of arbitration agreements by the law.

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A New Regime is Soon to be Adopted by The United States

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo J. Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
The Future

As soon as the House of Representatives considers and passes the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1967, and the President signs the new Act into law, the United States will proceed to deposit its ratification of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. These two documents will make rather extensive changes in United States law and practice with respect to diplomatic privileges and immunities. It will be the purpose of this article to give a capsule summary of the manner in which the Diplomatic Relations Act may be anticipated to operate in the future, and to indicate the pertinent areas in which the previous United States law and practice will be affected thereby.

Regina (Charles and Dunn) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 662-702
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Technical Staff ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

662Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic correspondence — Exchange of Notes between United States Embassy and United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office — Express waiver of United States Embassy Administrative and Technical staff’s diplomatic immunity from criminal jurisdiction of United Kingdom, in relation to acts performed outside course of duties — Whether express waiver of criminal immunity applying to family members of United States Embassy Administrative and Technical staff — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Whether entitling family members of diplomatic staff to derivative set of privileges and immunities or conferring separate entitlements to inviolability and immunity — The law of England

El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates and Embassy

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 689-702
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
The United States ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Law

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Restrictive immunity — Proceedings with respect to employment contract — Whether United Arab Emirates immune from suit — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Section 1605(a)(2) — Commercial activity exception — Whether applicable — Whether plaintiff civil servant under Act — Whether plaintiff’s work involving exercise of distinctly governmental powers — Nature of work — Irrelevance of purpose — Whether Act shielding United Arab Emirates from suit — The law of the United States

Suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty prior to its withdrawal: the content of custom

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Kazuki Hagiwara
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Intermediate Range ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law

The United States suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) ‘in accordance with customary international law’. However, State practice prior to the International Law Commission's codification of the law of treaties did not contribute to clarifying the extent of a right to suspend and the proper conditions for its exercise under customary international law. The few instances regarding suspension due to a serious breach did not demonstrate how the treaties in question were suspended but were a mere reference to a right of suspension in diplomatic or political documents. Against that backdrop, this article seeks to delineate what customary rules the United States believed it was observing and to clarify to what extent those rules are identical to or different from the codified rules on suspension in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Convention). Because the codified procedural safeguards or the mechanism of acquiescence under Article 65 of the Convention were considered as the progressive development of international law, it appears possible to suspend the INF Treaty unilaterally outside the Convention and under the customary rules by which the United States is bound. The INF Treaty was suspended by the United States and by Russia in sequence. That Russian suspension appears to have been an exceptio non adimpleti contractus to prevent the asymmetric execution of the INF Treaty that had been previously suspended by the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document