Transparency International France v. Mr X

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 219-226
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vice President ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Transparency International ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State

219State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Immunity of individual officials — Head of State immunity — Immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae — Immunity ratione personae confined to Head of State and certain high-ranking officials — Immunity ratione materiae applicable only in respect of official acts — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Immunity of diplomatic agents — State sovereignty — Customary international law — The law of France

The Practice and Case Law of Israel in Matters Related to International Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 668-700 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Norms ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign Countries

Two decisions were rendered recently by Israeli courts of lower instances which concern the field of diplomatic immunities. The first, delivered by the Magistrate Court in Petah Tikwa, deals with the inviolability of diplomatic premises and with the waiver thereof; and the second, by the District Court in Jerusalem, refers to the question of state immunity from attachment and execution, and seems to constitute a clear diversion from the accepted international norms and rules on this issue. Both decisions, rendered in the matter of the residence of the Ambassador of Côte d'Ivoire to Israel, will be examined separately, following the factual background relevant to each.The question of the inviolability of diplomatic premises, as well as that of a diplomat's immunity from jurisdiction, is a separate issue from that of state immunity. The first considers the treatment given to diplomats in foreign countries, and is codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the “Convention”), while the latter consists only of customary international law, and deals with the concepts of acts of state and the immunity of sovereign states from jurisdiction by the courts of another state. In the following survey we will show that in some instances, the two issues have been confused and conclusions drawn from one to the other without consideration of the differences between the two.

Kazakhstan Ministry of Finance and National Bank of Kazakhstan v. Ascom Group SA, Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 387-413
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
National Bank ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Ministry Of Finance

387State immunity — Immunity from execution — Customary international law — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 — Articles 19 and 21 — Whether property of a State central bank immune from measures of constraintArbitration — Post-Award enforcement — Attachment — Whether property of a State central bank immune from attachment in satisfaction of an arbitral award rendered against the State — The law of Sweden

Book III Privileges and Immunities, 12 Privileges and Immunities of the State, The Head of State, State Officials, and State Agencies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
General Description ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an account of the immunities of the State, its officials, and state agencies in international law. It first offers a general description of the plea of state immunity and a brief historical account of the development of the law of state immunity. Then it briefly sets out the law relating to the immunities of the State itself as a legal person, followed by the law applicable to its officials and to state agencies. In addition an account based on customary international law will be provided on the immunities of senior state officials. The chapter concludes by taking note of the extent to which the practice of diplomatic missions at the present time accords with requirements of state immunity law as now set out in written form in the 2004 UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property.

scholarly journals Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions: The Recent Indian Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Indian Experience ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Abstract The successful adoption of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is hailed as the ‘landmark of the highest significance in the codification of international law’. It represented the first significant codification of any international instrument since the United Nations was established. However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on the pre-existing customary international law, the scope of diplomatic protection was not free from issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there is a growing tendency amongst the diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status to commit acts prohibited by law and still claim immunity from legal process. The States-parties also aggravate this situation by selectively interpreting the rules in their favor, ignoring the fact that reciprocity is the basis for the successful functioning of the diplomatic protection. In this connection, this paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations, especially with special reference to the recent Indian experience. It explores the two recent Indian diplomatic confrontations, namely, the arrest of Devyani Khobragade and the travel ban on Daniele Mancini. Based on the study, it highlights the need for a well-balanced and equitable enforcement of the Vienna Conventions in the interest of maintenance of cordial diplomatic relations in the international community.

Exemption of Mission Premises from Taxation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
General Practice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Local Taxes ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

This chapter examines Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the exemption of the diplomatic mission premises from taxation. Article 23 states that the sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission. This exemption however shall not apply to dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission. This practice traces its roots from the nineteenth century when it was not based on diplomatic immunity but on courtesy. Many States concluded bilateral agreements or arrangements providing exemption—a practice which would have been unnecessary if customary international law had required it. During the twentieth century, general practice based on courtesy or on reciprocity began to harden into a customary rule requiring exemption from central and local taxes on mission property.

Preamble

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Character Theory ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter describes the Preamble of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations set forth by the International Law Commission, the main legal body which promotes the progressive development of international law and oversees its codification. It briefly describes three theories that form as the basis of the statements written at the Preamble —the ‘exterritoriality’ theory, the ‘representative character’ theory, and the ‘functional necessity’ theory. All of these theories heavily influence matters regarding diplomatic privileges and immunities. Ultimately, the Preamble to the Convention has two important legal functions—to state the view of the participating States on the theoretical basis of diplomatic privileges and immunities, and to make explicit the relationship between the Convention and customary international law.

Diplomatic immunity ratione materiae, immunity ratione materiae of state officials, and state immunity: A comparative analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Xinxiang Shi
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Personal Liability ◽  
State Functions

Abstract This article explores the scope and nature of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) by comparing this immunity with state immunity and immunity ratione materiae of ordinary state officials in general international law. It is argued that diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is distinct from immunity ratione materiae of ordinary state officials because ‘functions’ of a mission member should not be treated as ‘state functions’ in general but should be understood within the framework of Article 3(1) of the VCDR, which sets out the functions of a diplomatic mission as a whole. This means that the immunity cannot be upheld for serious violation of international law. On the other hand, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is also different from state immunity both in scope and in nature. Therefore, the immunity must be understood as a unique concept which includes both the substantive issue of non-personal-liability and the procedural issue of immunity from jurisdiction. This hybrid nature of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is the corollary of the functional emphasis of the Vienna Convention.

Head of State Immunity and the Rome Statute: A Critique of the ptc’s Malawi and drc Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ramsden ◽  
Isaac Yeung
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

The scope and effect of the Head of State immunity doctrine before the International Criminal Court has prompted much discussion following the 2011 decision of the first Pre-Trial Chamber concerning the immunity of serving Sudanese President, Omar Al Bashir. The ptcI held that, as a matter of customary international law, there existed an exception to Head of State immunity where such official is sought by an international court with jurisdiction, here the icc. In an apparent retreat, a differently constituted ptc in 2014 based the inapplicability of such immunity on the terms of Security Council Resolution 1593. Using the 2011 and 2014 ptc decisions as a critical lens, and drawing upon recent material, this article assesses the proper application of Head of State immunity under Article 98(1) of the Rome Statute.

Immunities and Criminal Proceedings; (Equatorial Guinea v. France)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 219-373
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Diplomatic relations — Immunity of State officials and State property — Prima facie jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 (“Palermo Convention”) — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Plausibility — Article 22 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Inviolability of diplomatic premises — Whether building located at 42 Avenue Foch could plausibly be regarded as housing diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Link between provisional measures requested and rights sought to be protected International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Palermo Convention — Whether references to customary international law incorporate those rules of customary law into the Convention — Sovereign equality of States — Whether dispute regarding alleged breach of customary law principle within jurisdiction of the Court under the Palermo Convention — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocol — Dispute regarding status of buildings claimed as premises of diplomatic mission International Court of Justice — Admissibility — Abuse of process — Abuse of rights — Whether reasons not to exercise jurisdiction under Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — Matter for preliminary objections — Whether exceptional circumstances existing — Whether Application inadmissible on that basis — Abuse of rights — Whether ground of inadmissibility when establishment of rights claimed properly a matter for merits Treaties — Palermo Convention — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Article 35(2) of Palermo Convention — Scope of jurisdiction ratione materiae under Palermo Convention — Article 4 of Palermo Convention — Incorporation of customary rules of international law on State immunity by reference to principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs of other States — Alleged overextension of jurisdiction by France in implementing provisions of Palermo Convention 220Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Articles II and III of Optional Protocol — Meaning of “premises of the mission” under Article 1(i) of Vienna Convention — Whether definition of “premises of the mission” falling within scope ratione materiae of Vienna Convention — Whether a dispute concerning inviolability of the building at 42 Avenue Foch State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Head of State immunity — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Basis for any claim to immunity — Customary international law — Whether incorporated into Palermo Convention

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document