II. State Immunity, Diplomatic Immunity and Act of State: A Triple Protection Against Legal Action?

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 950-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
J. Craig Barker
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Civil Suit ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between State immunity and diplomatic immunity has always been a rather complex one. The two concepts undoubtedly have a common juridical background in the form of the concepts of sovereignty, independence and dignity.1On the other hand, recent developments in both fields have seen a move towards a more functional-based approach. Thus, in relation to diplomatic immunity, the dominant theoretical basis is that of functional necessity.2As regards State immunity, recent developments in both international law3and, more particularly, in UK law4, from absolute to restrictive State immunity, have resulted in a more functionally orientated approach, that is, a shift of emphasis in matters of State immunity from immunityratione personaeto immunityratione materiae.5Now two recent cases in the United Kingdom have raised the possibility that, in the case of diplomats at least, the two concepts may be combined to provide a double immunity for diplomatic agents against civil suit. More controversially, the cases have raised the possibility of a third type of protection based upon immunityratione personaein what could be said to amount to a modified act of State doctrine. The cases in question arePropend Finance Pty Ltd. v. Alan Sing and The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police6and Re P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction).7

9. Immunities from National Jurisdiction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship

States and international organisations and their representatives in the courts of other States enjoy immunity from legal process. This immunity can be split conveniently into State (or sovereign) immunity, and diplomatic and consular immunities. The first concerns foreign States per se (including the Head of State), while the second concerns the personal immunities enjoyed by representatives of those States. This chapter discusses the general principles of state immunity in international law; state immunity in the United Kingdom; Heads of State and other holders of high-ranking office; the relationship between immunity and acts contrary to international law; the immunities of international organisations and their staff; and diplomatic and consular immunities.

STATE AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: EUROPEAN LAW TO THE RESCUE?

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Garnett
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Domestic Practice ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Employment Rights

AbstractThe issues of State and diplomatic immunity in cases involving persons employed by foreign States in embassies or consulates or engaged directly by diplomats remain controversial. The focus of this article is on recent developments in European law, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Brussels I Regulation and the Charter of the European Union, the effect of which has been to enhance the rights of employees of foreign States. Analysis is also made of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property and the current domestic practice of States with the aim of identifying the present international law standard on State immunity and embassy and consular employment. Employees of diplomats, however, remain inadequately protected and this article considers possible strategies for improving their position.

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.

On the Mechanism and the Rate of Sub-Ground Erosion in the Loess Material

2011 ◽  
Vol 233-235 ◽  
pp. 2528-2531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi An Li ◽  
Qiang Xu ◽  
Hong Zhou Lin ◽  
Wan Jun Ye
Keyword(s):  
Critical Condition ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Field Survey ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
The Other ◽  
Initial Water Content ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Erosion Process ◽  
Initial Water ◽  
The Relationship

Sub-ground erosion often resulted in severe problems in various engineering constructions, most of which is due to the sub-erosion in loess. In this paper, the critical condition of “soil bursting” was analyzed and the formula describing the critical condition of soil bursting was derivated by the analytical method. Furthermore, the velocity of tunnel-erosion in loess and its influential factors were studied. A set of tests are designed to study the relationship between the tunnel-erosion velocity and the key influential factors. The key factors considered in the test include soil density as well as the initial water content. The other purpose is to reveal the characteristics of the tunnel-erosion process. Phenomena observed during the tests together with the data from field survey revealed the mechanism of tunneling in loess very well, and the work in this paper formed a theoretical basis for further study about sub-ground erosion in loess.

International Law and Colombian Constitutionalism: A Note on Monism

1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-620
Author(s):  
William Marion Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
National Constitution ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In explaining the nature of international law, each of the two major schools of thought draws upon legal philosophy and practice for evidence in support of its interpretation. It is not the purpose of this note to offer any conclusions or proofs as to the validity of the reasoning of one or the other of the two schools. It would require more than the subject-matter here considered to prove the “Monist” position, or to detract from that of the “Dualist.” However, inasmuch as state practice is one of the guides to the resolution of the debate on the nature of international law, it is hoped that an explanation of the attitude of the Colombian Supreme Court concerning the relationship of pacta to the national constitution and legislation of that state may merit mention.

Treaties on Transit of Energy via Pipelines and Countermeasures

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azaria Danae
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The One ◽  
Bilateral Treaties ◽  
The Relationship

This monograph examines the relationship between treaties providing for uninterrupted energy transit and countermeasures under the law of international responsibility. It analyses the obligations governing energy transit through pipelines in multilateral and bilateral treaties, looking at the WTO Agreement, the Energy Charter Treaty, and sixteen bespoke pipeline treaties. It argues that a number of transit obligations under these treaties are indivisible, reflecting the collective interests of states parties. The analysis is placed in the historical and normative landscape of freedom of transit in international law. After setting out the content and scope of obligations concerning transit of energy, it distinguishes countermeasures from treaty law responses, and examines the dispute settlement and compliance supervision provisions in these treaties. Building on these findings, the work discusses the availability and lawfulness of countermeasures as, on the one hand, a means of implementing the transit state’s responsibility for interruptions of energy transit via pipelines; and, on the other hand, circumstances that preclude the wrongfulness of the transit state’s interruptions of transit. The competing interests of the transit state and those of the states dependent on the pipeline make this question one of the most controversial aspects of modern international law.

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.

“Recapturing” the “Other”: Jewish Laws of War and International Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-65
Author(s):  
Betina Kuzmarov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Direct Consequence ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Jewish Law ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of International Law ◽  
The Relationship

The story would recapture the trace of Judaism, particularly the mystical Jew, in the early literature of international law—I think most readily of Gentilis' obsession with Judaism—a Judaism that seems at once the law that revelation and redemption replace and the mysticism that law and state refuse. Paradoxically enough, we find here our own complex relationship between law and religion exactly mirrored in the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.This article examines the relationship between the Jewish laws of war and international law. As Kennedy notes in the opening quote, one way of understanding the relationship between Jewish laws of war and international law is as part of the relationship between international law and its “other.” Kennedy defines Jewish law as mystical, and in so doing he asserts that Jewish law is different in form than state law/international law. Kennedy's opposition of Jewish law and international law is not accidental. It is a direct consequence of the history of international law. As Mutua has noted “[i]nternational law claims to be universal, although its creators have unambiguously asserted its European and Christian origins.” From this point of view, international law has “universalized” its particular origins with the consequence that any non-European or non-Christian tradition is not universal and is the “other.” This fact leads Kennedy to argue that international law has ignored (among many other things) the traces of religion, mysticism and Judaism in its history in its quest to claim secular universality.

The Relationship Between the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and the Short-Form Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie J. Francis ◽  
Charlotte L. Craig ◽  
Mandy Robbins
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Short Form ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Keirsey Temperament Sorter ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Two Indices ◽  
The Relationship

The two models of personality proposed by the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS) and by the short-form Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-S) both propose measures of extraversion-introversion, but in other respects the two models are quite different. While the KTS proposes measures of sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving, the EPQR-S proposes measures of neuroticism, psychoticism, and a lie scale. In order to test the comparability of the two indices of extraversion-introversion and the independence of the other constructs, a sample of 554 undergraduate students attending a university-sector college in South Wales, in the United Kingdom, completed the KTS and the EPQR-S. The data demonstrate that the Keirsey Temperament Sorter scales map in quite a complex way onto the model of personality proposed by the EPQR-S.

Jurisdictional Immunities of States and International Organizations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
International Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Conceptual Confusion

This book covers the relationship between the jurisdictional immunities of States and international organizations, addressing their similarities and dissimilarities. Their relationship with diplomatic immunity is also examined. It considers that the immunity of international organizations was historically conceived in terms of diplomatic immunity and State immunity. The major aim of this book is to clarify the conceptual confusion that has often bedeviled the understanding of the law of the (different but interrelated) jurisdictional immunities of both States and international organizations. The approach is to holistically analyze and synthesize select and relevant opinions of international courts and national courts. To achieve this, the book focuses more on what the law is than on what it should be. An understanding of the law is more useful to a practitioner than a criticism of it. The book is not an exegesis on everything immunity. The distinct jurisdictional immunities of heads of State and of diplomats are beyond the scope of this book, and are only tangentially examined. The book concludes by making the case that the jurisdictional immunities of States and international organizations are not only sustainable but also necessary for the international legal order to foster international relations and cooperation. The author intends to position the book to be of use both to scholars and to practicing lawyers and legal advisers in government and international organizations, as well as to lawyers whose practice concerns issues and laws of privileges and immunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document