The European Convention on State Immunity and International Crimes

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 507-520
Author(s):  
Roger O’Keefe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual State ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Vexed Question

The European Convention on State Immunity provides for the immunity of states and their organs from the domestic courts of the respective Contracting States. In doing so, it makes no apparent distinction between those courts’ civil and criminal jurisdictions. Yet the vexed question of the immunity of state officials from the latter, especially in respect of crimes established under international law, has been spectacularly brought to the fore by the Pinochet case. It is on this question—the immunity of individual state officials from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states specifically in respect of international crimes—that this article focuses.

The European Convention on State Immunity and International Crimes

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 507-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger O’Keefe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual State ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Vexed Question

The European Convention on State Immunity provides for the immunity of states and their organs from the domestic courts of the respective Contracting States. In doing so, it makes no apparent distinction between those courts’ civil and criminal jurisdictions. Yet the vexed question of the immunity of state officials from the latter, especially in respect of crimes established under international law, has been spectacularly brought to the fore by the Pinochet case. It is on this question—the immunity of individual state officials from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states specifically in respect of international crimes—that this article focuses.

Ius Humanitatis and the Right to Reparation for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Core Element ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Humanitarian Ethics ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.

II. Ex parte Pinochet: Lacuna or Leap?

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Eileen Denza
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Heads Of State

The Lords were not lost in admiration of section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978. Lord Browne-Wilkinson described it as “strange” and “baffling”. It is certainly true that (as Lord Browne-Wilkinson continued) “Parliament cannot have intended to give heads of state and former heads of state greater rights than they already enjoyed under international law”.1 Nor was it intended that their rights should be inadvertently curtailed. The State Immunity Bill originally introduced into the House of Lords in 1977 would, by reflecting in UK statute law the European Convention on State Immunity2 make huge inroads into absolute sovereign immunity—tottering but not yet demolished through the repeated onslaughts of Lord Denning. The European Convention was however “essentially concerned with ‘private law’ disputes between individuals and States”.3 It was not intended to have any application to criminal proceedings—in so far as lawyers in 1977 even contemplated criminal proceedings in domestic courts against foreign States in their public capacity. It did not deal with the personal privileges or immunities of heads of state. There were no ready-made treaty rules on heads of state and no clear customary rules either.4

scholarly journals Foreign Official Immunity in the International Law Commission: The Meanings of “Official Capacity”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 156-160
Author(s):  
William S. Dodge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

Of all the issues facing the International Law Commission (ILC) in its work on the topic of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction,” how to define “act performed in an official capacity” is certainly one of the most difficult and important. If serious international crimes, like torture, are considered acts performed in an official capacity, then foreign officials responsible for such crimes may (unless an exception applies) be immune from criminal jurisdiction in other states for such acts even after they leave office.

ANALYSIS OF IMMUNITY BASED ON THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS: WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-455
Author(s):  
Nargiza Rashitovna Kadirova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
National Interests ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Republic

This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime.

THE EVOLUTION IN SPANISH LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY LEADING TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESTRICTIVE THEORY

1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-81
Author(s):  
Alberto Soria Jiménez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Spanish Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Right

SUMMARY Judgment 107/1992 of the Spanish Constitutional Court has not only cleared up any possible doubts about the alleged unconstitutionality of State immunities and it has discarded any possible contradictions that these immunities might have with art. 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution.. Judgment 107/1992 has also directly linked the right to due process of law with the correct jurisdictional application of the international rules to which art. 21.2 of the LOPJ remits. The Constitutional Court feels that extending immunity from enforcement to foreign State property beyond the provisions of Public International Law violates the right to due process because it limits the right to enforcement of judgments without any legal support. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court points out that when the rules of Public International Law impose absolute immunity from enforcement, the aforementioned right is not violated. That in these cases, this right might be guaranteed by diplomatic protection or, as a last resort, by an assumption by the forum State of its duty to satisfy judicially mandated obligations when the absence of enforcement of these might imply undue sacrifice for an individual contrary to the principle of equality before public burdens. Therefore it seems wise for the Spanish State to establish some procedure which would prevent the recognition of immunity would also be highly recommendable for Spain to enact a statute containing a list of exceptions to State immunity as soon as possible. It is the executive branch, therefore, that should resolve this situation by proposing a bill on this issue and perhaps, as a complementary measure, by ratifying the European Convention on State Immunity.

scholarly journals Immunities and International Crimes before the ILC: Looking for Innovative Solutions

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Forteau
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
High Expectations ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
Over Time

The International Law Commision's (ILC's) work on Immunity of State officials from Criminal Jurisdiction, which started ten years ago, has generated over time high expectations. In light of progress in international criminal law, the ILC is expected to strike a reasonable balance between the protection of sovereign equality and the fight against impunity in case of international crimes. It requires the Commission to determine whether or not immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies or should apply when international crimes are at stake. At its 2017 session, the ILC eventually adopted Draft Article 7 on this issue, which proved quite controversial and did not meet states’ approval. The purpose of this essay is to shed some light on the main shortcomings of this provision and to identify possible alternatives that could permit the ILC to overcome the deadlock concerning its adoption.

scholarly journals Methodological Flaws in the ILC's Study on Exceptions to Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinmin Shen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
International Law Commission

In July 2017, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted Draft Article 7 on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, by a recorded vote of twenty-one votes in favor, eight votes against, and one abstention. In the view of the majority of ILC members, immunity ratione materiae does not apply to the six international crimes listed in the draft article—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance—either because of a limitation or because of an exception. The unusual practice of adopting a draft article by recorded vote demonstrated the deep controversy among the ILC members themselves. After all, exceptions to official immunity lie at the core of the project of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” that was started a decade ago by the ILC. This divisive Draft Article 7 naturally garnered criticism and equally deep controversy among states in discussions on the ILC's work report at UN General Assembly Sixth Committee in late October 2017.

International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dapo Akande
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Agents ◽  
Humanitarian Values

The tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty is reflected in the debate on whether state officials should be held responsible in external fora for international crimes committed while in office. This debate involves the interplay between two branches of international law. Firstly, there is the well-established law according immunities to the state and its agents from the jurisdiction of other states (state and diplomatic immunities). This law proceeds from notions of sovereign equality and is aimed at ensuring that states do not unduly interfere with other states and their agents. On the other hand, there are those newer principles of international law that are based on humanitarian values and define certain types of conduct as crimes under international law (international criminal law). One of the challenges in this latter area has been to develop international and national mechanisms by which individuals who commit these crimes may be held responsible. Since states often fail to institute domestic prosecution of their own officials and agents alleged to have committed international crimes, renewed attention has been paid to the possibility of subjecting state agents to prosecution in foreign domestic courts or in international courts. For such prosecution in foreign domestic courts to take place, it will usually have to be shown (1) that those courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by foreigners against foreigners (i.e..universalorquasi-universal jurisdiction),and (2) that such jurisdiction extends to state agents (i.e., that international law immunities are unavailable). Recent years have seen a significant increase in attempts to institute prosecutions for alleged international crimes in the national courts of states other than that where the acts occurred. However, it has not proved easy to establish the two propositions identified above. Indeed, it has become apparent that the views that states possess universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed abroad and that incumbent and former state officials are subject to foreign domestic prosecution for such crimes are by no means universally held.

Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others intervening)

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 575-677
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right Of Access

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff — Claims for infringement of employment rights — Whether claims barred by State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”), Section 1 — Exceptions to immunity — Limitations to exceptions — Section 16(1)(a) of SIA — Section 4(2)(b) of SIA — Scope of immunity — Absolute immunity — Restrictive immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — Distinction between jure gestionis and jure imperii — Customary international law — Whether rule of customary international law justifying Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether United Kingdom having jurisdiction over respondent States — Whether Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union engagedDiplomatic relations — Immunity from jurisdiction — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff employed locally — Whether members of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 1 — Whether Section 16(1)(a) of SIA applicable to claimants — Whether employment of domestic staff of diplomatic mission an act jure gestionis — Whether State entitled to State immunity in proceedings against employer embassiesRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 6 and 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47 — Incorporation into English law — Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether compatible — Whether Article 6 of European Convention engaged by claim to State immunity — Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights — Customary international law — Scope of State immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — International Law Commission’s Draft Article 11 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 2004, Article 11 — Relevance — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA having any basis in customary international law — Whether employer States entitled to immunity as regards claimants’ claims — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA compatible with Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Right of access to court — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — State Immunity 576Act 1978 — Claimants bringing proceedings against foreign States in relation to employment at embassy — Whether defendant States immune — Whether provisions of SIA barring claimants’ access to court — Whether recognition of immunity involving violation of right of access to courts — Whether infringement of Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Prohibition of discrimination — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Section 4(2)(b) of State Immunity Act 1978 discriminating on grounds of nationality — Whether infringing Article 14 taken together with Article 6 of European Convention — The law of England

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document