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.

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.

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

Declarations, Statements and ‘Disguised Reservations’ with Respect to the Convention on the Law of the Sea

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. M. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

The question of reservations was one of the ‘controversial issues’ facing the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in drawing up the final clauses of the Convention. On the one hand it was argued that the integrity of the Convention must be safeguarded and that the ‘package deal’ must be protected from possible disintegration by the making of reservations. On the other hand the view was held that ‘allowance for the possibility of reservations is aimed at accommodating the views of the delegations who have maintained that they cannot become parties to the Convention unless the Convention permits them to exercise a right to enter reservations, in accordance with customary international law and as envisaged under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.’ In short the need to preserve the integrity of the Convention was pitted against the need to secure universal participation in the Convention.

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.

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

scholarly journals The Obligation of Diplomats to Respect the Laws and Regulations of the Hosting State: A Critical Overview of the International Practices

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Nehaluddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Critical Overview ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state “may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.” However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on pre-existing customary international law, the opportunity for diplomatic protection is not free of issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency amongst diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status, in order to commit acts prohibited by law and claim immunity from the legal process. 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. We analyze several past cases of declaration of persona non grata involving various countries.

Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Elizabeth Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Constituent Elements

The demise of custom as a source of international law has been widely forecasted. This is because both the nature and the relative importance of custom’s constituent elements are contentious. At the same time, custom has become an increasingly significant source of law in important areas such as human rights obligations. Codification conventions, academic commentary, and the case law of the International Court of Justice (the Court) have also contributed to a contemporary resurrection of custom. These developments have resulted in two apparently opposing approaches, which I term “traditional custom” and “modern custom.” The renaissance of custom requires the articulation of a coherent theory that can accommodate its classic foundations and contemporary developments. This article seeks to provide an enriched theoretical account of custom that incorporates both the traditional and the modern approaches rather than advocating one approach over the other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document