State immunity and human rights violations

2012 ◽  
pp. 423-440
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Yang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Immunity

Diplomatic Immunity, Head of State Immunity, State Immunity: Misconceptions of a Notorious Human Rights Violator

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bröhmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

This decision of the House of Lords is significant because it is the first decision of a major court of an important country refusing to grant a former head of state immunity from adjudication in the context of alleged gross violations of human rights. It is shown that state immunity, diplomatic immunity and head of state immunity are to be distinguished and the rules pertaining to head of state immunity are explained. Whereas the author agrees with the result of Lords' decision, he disagrees with the reasoning because the majority circumvented the immunity question by artificially qualifying the alleged human rights violations of General Pinochet as private acts.

Jus CogensafterGermanyv.Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEFAN TALMON
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Limited Effect ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn the case concerningJurisdictional Immunities of the State, the ICJ held that rules ofjus cogensdid not automatically displace hierarchically lower rules of state immunity. The Court's decision was based on the rationale that there was no conflict between these rules as the former were substantive rules while the latter were procedural in character. The ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction has been heavily criticized in the literature. Much of the criticism seems to be motivated by the unwanted result of the distinction, namely de facto impunity for the most serious human rights violations. This paper takes a step back from the alleged antinomy of human rights and state immunity and broadens the picture by looking at the relationship between substantive and procedural rules more generally. It is shown that substantive rules of ajus cogenscharacter generally leave procedural rules unaffected and, in particular, do not automatically override such rules. Substantive rules may, however, have a limited effect upon the interpretation and application of procedural rules. It is argued that the ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction is well established in international law and makes eminent sense even when substantive rules ofjus cogensand procedural rules of immunity are involved.

scholarly journals Reconciling State Immunity with Remedies for War Victims in a Legal Pluriverse

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-35
Author(s):  
Anne Peters ◽  
Valentina Volpe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
World War ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Modest Proposal ◽  
War Victims ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe chapter explains the threefold aspiration of the book as an academic, societal, and diplomatic project. It introduces the three interwoven themes of international law arising in the German-Italian saga: state immunity, reparation for serious human rights violations committed during World War II, and the interplay between international and domestic law, notably the role of courts therein. The chapter proposes an approach of ‘ordered pluralism’ to coordinate this interplay, and finally tables a ‘modest proposal’ for a way out of the current impasse.

State Immunity in National and International Law: Three Recent Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Peremptory Norms

The issue of state immunity in the case of human rights violations has been controversial in the last decade, partly due to the absence of international judicial pronouncements. The bringing of the three cases previously litigated in the United Kingdom and Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights was supposed to reduce this uncertainty. However, decisions of the Court seem to have failed to meet these expectations. The Court has failed to properly examine whether the sources of international law support the scope of state immunity as portrayed in the decisions. Furthermore, the decision on Al-Adsani is deficient in that it fails to respect the difference between sovereign and non-sovereign acts, and the effects of peremptory norms with regard to state immunity.

scholarly journals Serious Human Rights Violations – Eclipse or Mere Twilight of State Immunity?

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
Ondřej Svaček
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Extensive Discussion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

Abstract Presented article contributes to the extensive discussion over the mutual relationship between serious human rights violations (violation of ius cogens) and the law of state immunity. Th e structure of article derives from the argumentation presented by Germany and Italy in current dispute before the International Court of Justice. Author focuses his attention on delimitation of existing international legal framework and particularly on assessment of friction areas in German and Italian submissions. Three separate issues are analyzed: temporal, territorial and material.

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document