The Resolution of the Institute of International Law on the Immunities of Heads of State and Government

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Civil Aircraft ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Witch Hunts ◽  
State Of Israel

A pressing issue of the day requiring authoritative resolution is whether public officials when in office carrying out their official functions may be prosecuted by the courts of other countries for alleged international crimes. Objection has been made, though not by the Danish Government, to a new ambassador appointed by the State of Israel, taking up his appointment as head of the Israeli diplomatic mission in Copenhagen, on the ground of his implication in war crimes. Recently, criminal proceedings were brought in the French courts against Colonel Ghadaffi as the serving Head of the State of Libya for complicity in acts of terrorism resulting in the destruction of a French civil aircraft and death of all its passengers. Writing critically of the Lords' decision in the Pinochet case, Henry Kissinger talks of the tyranny of judges replacing that of government, of prosecutorial discretion without accountability and warns that ‘historically the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and witch hunts’.

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

International Law within the Israel Legal System

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The State ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Military ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
High Seas

Since the establishment of the State and up to the present day, Israeli law has had to deal with a great number of various problems in the field of international law, e.g. whether the State of Israel is a successor to the obligations of the Mandatory government; the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts with regard to offences committed in demilitarized zones or beyond the State's boundaries (on the high seas or abroad); the immunity of foreign states and their representatives from the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and from measures of execution; the status of international organizations and of their employees; the effect and implications of official acts performed within the territory of a state which is at war with Israel; the effect of international treaties in Israel; the question whether the Eastern neighbourhoods of Jerusalem are part of Israel; various issues concerning extradition, and of course, many questions regarding the laws of war: the powers of the military governor, and in particular his power to expropriate land in the territories under Israeli control and to expel residents from the territories, the extent of his legislative powers, etc.

scholarly journals Western Interest dalam Proses Perkembangan Negara Israel (1917-1948) Sebagai Akar Utama Konflik Israel-Palestina

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Tika Tazkya Nurdyawati
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
International Law ◽  
Religious Identity ◽  
National Interest ◽  
The State ◽  
The West ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
Rational Actor ◽  
State Of Israel

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is often found to continue for more than 7 decades is inseparable from the root of the problem itself, namely; designation of the Palestinian territories as a national home for the Jews which would later lead to Israeli independence in 1948. Referring to the Balfour Declaration 1917 under the British decision, the massive migration of Jews from Europe to Palestine was inseparable from the benefits that were gained by Western hegemonies in the West. the winner of the war at the time. This can be studied using a realism perspective which views the state as a rational actor with all its decisions under the national interest. Using the literature review method, this article tries to answer whether the tension that occurs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based solely on differences in religious identity between the two? Or are there interests of several parties that do not appear on the surface? Why can the annexation case in the formation of an Israeli state that violates international law continue without strict sanctions? The economic and political motivated interests of the West and the connection of Zionism in the founding of the state of Israel will be examined as concrete evidence. This article is expected to be useful as a reference for later literature for similar research.

scholarly journals Criminal Responsibility of States In International Law: Rethinking Or Permanent Abandonment of the Concept?

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-168
Author(s):  
Enis Omerović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Peremptory Norms

The responsibility of states and international organizations is an essential issue of contemporary international law. All other debates in this branch of law seem to follow up on this issue. In fact, whenever a state violates its international obligation, the question of the responsibility of such a state arises. However, in addition to being essential, this issue is also an extremely politically sensitive area, as only some states, guided mainly by demand for respect for their territorial sovereignty and the principle of equality of all states, are willing to accept all the consequences of such behavior in international relations with other subjects of international law, while those that consider themselves more equal than others (primus inter pares), particularly the great world powers, will be largely reluctant to accept legal responsibility for their illegal acts, and especially for the commission of international crimes in the narrow sense, which includes the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. With international organizations, the problems in this regard are perhaps even greater.In this paper we examine the meaning of further survival of the concept of criminal responsibility of states and international organizations, wanting to examine the concept and definition of criminal responsibility of transnational corporations at the international level, while in the second part of the article we try to shed a light on political-legal responsibility. In addition to the fact that this concept is probably unsustainable under international law, it seems that the approach to advocating for the criminal responsibility of the state, as well as international organizations, is unnecessary. Therefore, we should work on building and thoroughly elaborating the concept of international responsibility of the state and the international organization in the conditions of international crimes stricto sensu, in other words, serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of general international law. In this way, without creating legally unsustainable constructions, essentially the same goal would be achieved.

scholarly journals The Immunity of Heads of States of Nonparties in the Early Years of the ICC

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
Dapo Akande
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Senior Leaders ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Heads Of State

More than any other international criminal tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has, in its early years, pursued cases against heads of state. The Court issued arrest warrants for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan and for Muammar Gaddafi while he was Libya's head of state, and it charged Uhuru Kenyatta shortly before he became head of state of Kenya. These attempts to prosecute heads of states have not only led to tensions between the Court and the African Union,1 but also pit the desire to hold senior leaders accountable for grave international crimes against the customary international law principle that certain senior state officials—especially heads of state—have immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction by virtue of their status, including immunity from arrest and their inviolability when abroad.2

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

1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rotem M. Giladi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The State ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
Regular Practice

On February 24, 1998, the government submitted the International Treaties (Approval by the Knesset) Bill, 1998 to the Knesset. This governmental bill represents the culmination of fifty years of exchange between the Executive and the Legislature concerning the constitutional authority to conclude international agreements on behalf of the State of Israel.Normally, it would have been preferable to await the completion of the enactment process before commenting on the new legislative arrangements. Due to the constitutional importance of the Bill and the fact that it raises several important questions, the regular practice will be abandoned in this case.Despite the availability of an abundance of materials on the treatymaking practice of the State of Israel and the status of treaties under municipal Israeli law both in English and in Hebrew, an in-depth analysis of the Bill requires an extensive expositionde lex lataon both these questions. Only then will the provisions of the Bill be presented. This will take the form of an issue-by-issue analysis, with conclusions drawn in each segment. The review will conclude with several additional observationsde lege ferenda.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document