Inviolability Not Immunity

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76
Author(s):  
Thomas Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
High State ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Physical Interference ◽  
State Official ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract Recent proceedings involving former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir have highlighted a novel intersection of international and domestic law: the domestic execution of international arrest warrants for an incumbent high state official. While the overwhelming trend over the past decade has been for international and domestic courts to analyse this issue from the perspective of immunity, that approach is not sufficient. The domestic execution of an international arrest warrant presents a question of inviolability, not immunity. Although the immunity and inviolability enjoyed by incumbent high state officials under customary international law often apply coextensively, the two doctrines are distinct in function and scope. While immunity precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a foreign court, it is inviolability that operates as a privilege from physical interference by domestic authorities. The arrest and surrender of incumbent high state officials is likely to persist as both an objective and a challenge for international courts. If they are to succeed in this regard, international courts must account for why the privilege of inviolability does not bar the execution of international arrest warrants.

Thoughts on Domestic Adjudication and the Identification and Formation of Customary International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-149
Author(s):  
Cameron Miles
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication

Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute provides that “judicial decisions” may serve as a subsidiary means for the determination of customary international law. The absence of a qualifying adjective to the term “judicial decisions” confirms that, at least ex facie, there is no priority to be given to international over domestic judgments in this respect. And yet – as the International Law Commission’s Draft Conclusions on Formation and Identification of Customary International Law confirms – the reality of international adjudication is one in which domestic judicial decisions are often side-lined. In this paper, I question the ILC’s assertion that this is due to the relative expertise of international versus domestic courts, and instead posit a model based on the shifting architectonics of international adjudication. Two related developments are key: (1) the florescence of international adjudicative bodies in the post-1945 era, and (2) the tendency for international courts and tribunals to see domestic judicial decisions as evidence of state practice and opinio juris under Article 38(1)(b), rather than as subsidiary means for the determination of custom – that is, as factual rather than legal precedents.

Sources of International Law in Domestic Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Municipal Court ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter maintains that as both municipal and international law use legal norms to regulate social relationships, a space for inter-systemic interaction between both legal spheres emerges. Municipal legal practice can have an ‘upstream’ impact on the formation of the content of the sources of international law, where these require proof of State practice and/or opinio juris for valid norms to be generated. Particularly, domestic court decisions can have a jurisgenerative effect on customary international law, where they become part of a transnational dialogue between domestic and international courts on questions of international law determination. Admittedly, this dialogical process is hamstrung by the particularities of domestic law and the hard-to-eradicate selection bias of international law-appliers. However, a more objective comparative international law process can be grounded, geared to effective problem-solving guided by the persuasiveness and quality of reasoning of municipal court decisions relevant to international law.

Part III Security Governance Tools, Ch.41 Criminal Prosecution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Governance Tools ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter focuses on criminal prosecution. Traditionally, in domestic law, criminal prosecution has been regarded as a tool capable of contributing to peaceful and secure governance. Under international law, however, recourse to criminal prosecution as a safeguard for maintaining international peace and security is very recent and still limited, and in many respects disputed. This is the case both when international rules are applied by international jurisdictions and when they are directed at soliciting the exercise of criminal prosecution by domestic courts. The chapter looks at the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute), which expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the Court ‘shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, and identifies these crimes as the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Given that the ICC Statute does not merely codify customary international law, but also partially develops or restricts it, its adoption has produced some degree of fragmentation of international criminal law, which further impacts on the existing international case law.

Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity Under Customary International Law?

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wood
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
General Practice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Domestic Courts

The present article considers whether there is “a general practice accepted as law” establishing rules of customary international law on the immunity of international organizations from the jurisdiction of domestic courts. Apart from treaties, there does not appear to be a great deal of practice or opinio juris on the immunity of international organizations. And while there are many treaties dealing with the matter, their significance for the generation of a rule of customary international law seems questionable. This article sketches the historical development of the immunity of international organizations since the nineteenth century, describes various approaches that have been suggested to this question, and sets out such practice as there is and academic consideration of that practice. It then considers whether practice has to date generated any rules of customary international law regarding immunities, and finally suggests some conclusions.

La disciplina dei militari impegnati all'estero in missioni umanitarie: in margine al caso Lozano

2009 ◽  
pp. 565-590
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nigro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Functional Immunity ◽  
Head Of Government ◽  
Domestic Law

- In the well-known Lozano case, an Italian intelligence agent, Mr Nicola Calipari, remained killed in 2005 by an American soldier, Mr Mario Luis Lozano, while entering a US checkpoint on the way to the Baghdad airport soon after securing the release of an Italian journalist from Iraqi kidnappers. In the ensuing case, Italian courts addressed a number of sensitive questions, including that of jurisdiction over national troops involved, directly or indirectly, in so-called "humanitarian missions" abroad. Italian courts did have jurisdiction over the killing under Italian domestic law. Indeed, the murder of Mr Calipari can be regarded as a "political crime" under Article 8 of the Italian penal code. On such a premise, the question is whether Article 8 was superseded by a customary international law rule under Article 10 of the Italian Constitution aimed at excluding jurisdiction over Mr Lozano. State practice suggests that neither a customary rule on the exclusive jurisdiction of the sending State (as claimed by the Court of Assise of Rome in 2007) nor a customary rule on Mr Lozano's functional immunity (as claimed by the Court of Cassation in 2008) are established in customary international law. Rather, State practice reveals that a number of States are likely to recognize immunity from jurisdiction to the armed forces only in certain specific circumstances. Moreover, such immunity is quite different from the functional immunity traditionally enjoyed by diplomatic and consular agents, as well as from the immunities enjoyed by other high-ranking State officials, such as the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

5 Formal Requirements for Valid Consent to Direct Military Assistance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Erika
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Valid Consent ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter explores potential formal requirements that may affect the validity of consent to direct military assistance. Customary international law only imposes two specific, formal limitations on the legal construct of military assistance on request. The first would be that the request for or consent to military assistance must be issued (and withdrawn) by the highest officials of a state, namely, the head of state and/or government. Where these two positions are not combined within the same person and there is disagreement between them as to whether consent exists, the domestic law of the country in question may be decisive in determining who has the final say in the matter. However, such disagreement between the two highest state officials is likely to be an indication of the political fragility of the consent, which should caution against relying exclusively on consent as the legal basis for the forcible measures. The second constraint imposed by customary international law concerns the requirement that ex ante consent as expressed in pro-invasion treaty clauses must be complemented by ad hoc consent at the time of the forcible measures. Apart from these two constraints, customary international law does not seem to impose any particular formal requirements on states expressing consent to forcible measures on its territory.

Part V Treaty Interpretation, 20 The Interpretation of Treaties over Time

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjorge Eirik ◽  
Kolb Robert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Sustained Attention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Main Principle ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Legal Sense ◽  
Over Time

This chapter considers an issue that has garnered sustained attention by States and international courts and tribunals in recent years — the potential to allow (or deny) evolutionary interpretations to treaty terms. It highlights five conclusions about the interpretation of treaties over time. First, evolutionary interpretations are made based on an array of means of ordinary interpretation, as enshrined in Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties Articles 31–33 and customary international law. Second, evolutionary interpretation is an issue of fact and law arising in the circumstances of particular cases. Third, the main principle is that of ‘contemporaneous interpretation’, a term referring not to the interpreter but to the parties (i.e. contemporaneous to the time of conclusion of the treaty). Fourth, it makes no sense to apply the principle of contemporaneity in all circumstances, since there are some terms used in treaties that make legal sense only when understood to evolve over time. Finally, to keep the unity of the treaty and its terms, the new interpretation is retrospective, having effect back to the time of the treaty’s conclusion.

scholarly journals Independence and Impartiality in The Judicial Trilemma

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 344-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Keller ◽  
Severin Meier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Past ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Transparency And Accountability ◽  
Judicial Systems

Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack's article is an important and very welcome contribution to the discussion about judicial values. The authors argue that with respect to judicial independence, transparency, and accountability “judicial systems face inherent trade-offs, such that any given court can maximize two, but not all three, of these features.” In our eyes, the article's most important contribution is its holistic view: it shows why these three judicial values can only be understood in their interconnectedness. It is, for instance, not meaningful to make a statement about the correlation between transparency and independence without also taking accountability into the equation. This is because the effect of transparency on independence can only be understood if information about judicial accountability is at one's disposal. In the past, these judicial values have often been analyzed in an isolated manner, thereby leading to wrong conclusions. The Judicial Trilemma will hopefully help in shifting the discourse from isolated to holistic views on independence, transparency, and accountability. Moreover, Dunoff and Pollack lay the groundwork for a meaningful normative discussion of these three judicial values. Any debate about how to structure (international) courts should henceforth take Dunoff and Pollack's holistic view as a basis for discussion.

scholarly journals Using Arbitration for Resolving Foreign Investment Disputes: A Comparative Study of Laws on Arbitration in Ghana and China

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley Ayangbah
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Comparative Manner

<p>International Investment in recent times is seen as one of the fastest-developing areas of international law. In the past decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of bilateral investment treaties and other agreements with investment related provisions that grant foreign investors important substantive and procedural rights, including, most importantly, the right to sue individuals, organizations and even the state hosting their investment for violations of customary international law and treaty obligations. Dispute becomes an inevitable phenomenon as individuals, organizations and countries continue to engage in foreign investment and as such there is the need for dispute solving mechanism to resolve such disputes as and when they arises. Even though there are several dispute solving mechanisms, arbitration seems to be a well-established and widely used mechanism to end dispute probably due to the efficiency and flexibility nature of it. The laws governing arbitration differ from one country to the other and it is for this reason that investors need to be abreast with the different arbitration laws  so as to enable them make inform decisions as to whether to resort to arbitration  or not. This paper analyses the arbitration laws of The Republic of Ghana and Peoples Republic of China in a comparative manner by drawing on the similarities and difference with respect to arbitration laws and procedure in these two countries. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part of this paper gives a brief background as well as the characteristics of the concept of arbitration. The second part looks as the similarities and difference of arbitration between the selected countries, and the final part looks at the arbitration phase and post arbitration phase of the two countries.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document