Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Conceptual Confusion

This chapter introduces the purpose of the book, which is to clarify the conceptual confusion that has bedeviled the proper understanding of both the jurisdictional immunities of States and of international organizations. It also sets out the scope of the book, which is to cover the similarities and dissimilarities between the jurisdictional immunities of States and international organizations. It examines the distinct rules of diplomatic immunity and head-of-State immunity to the extent they have a bearing on the scope of the immunities of international persons that are the main focus of this book. Furthermore, it examines the nature of jurisdictional immunity and lays out the structure of the book.

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.

Diplomatic Immunity, Head of State Immunity, State Immunity: Misconceptions of a Notorious Human Rights Violator

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bröhmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

This decision of the House of Lords is significant because it is the first decision of a major court of an important country refusing to grant a former head of state immunity from adjudication in the context of alleged gross violations of human rights. It is shown that state immunity, diplomatic immunity and head of state immunity are to be distinguished and the rules pertaining to head of state immunity are explained. Whereas the author agrees with the result of Lords' decision, he disagrees with the reasoning because the majority circumvented the immunity question by artificially qualifying the alleged human rights violations of General Pinochet as private acts.

scholarly journals Interpretation and Application of Article 98 of the Rome Statute

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimoza Sadushaj ◽  
Saimir Shatku ◽  
Flori Pustina ◽  
Erdi Kuka ◽  
Geraldo Taraj
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Proper Interpretation

Abstract Many high officials accused for crimes falling under the ICC (International Criminal Court) Statute, like the leader of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, have defended themselves against ICC prosecution using their State, diplomatic or Head of State immunity and there so invoking Art. 98 of the ICC Statute. This paper is to clarify all the incorrect claims, which abusively use Art. 98, to justify the objection of ICC prosecution in cases where the defendant has state, Head of State or diplomatic immunity due to his official capabilities. The paper conclusions will deal with the proper interpretation and application of this article and the reasoning of why Head of States and other high officials cannot be defended from the ICC prosecution using their immunity as an argument.

The First Pinochet Case: Immunity of a Former Head of State

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

The case of Pinochet has aroused enormous interest, both political and legal. The spectacle of the General, whose regime sent so many to their deaths, himself under arrest and standing trial has stirred the hopes of the oppressed. His reversal of fortune, loss of liberty with a policeman, on the door, has been heralded by organisations for the protection of human rights as one small step on the long road to justice. For lawyers generally, the House of Lords' majority decision of 1998 that General Pinochet enjoyed no immunity signalled a shift from a State-centred order of things.1 It suggested that the process of restriction of State immunity, so effectively begun with the removal of commercial transactions from its protection, might now extend some way into the field of criminal proceedings. And it further posed the intriguing question whether an act categorised as within the exercise of sovereign power, so as to relieve the individual official of liability in civil proceedings, may at the same time, as well as subsequent to his retirement, attract parallel personal criminal liability.

Understanding Diplomatic and Consular Inviolability—Learning from the Jamal Khashoggi Tragedy

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Bosch
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Growing Body

The tragic killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Turkey has once again exposed the potential for abuse of privileges afforded diplomatic and consular missions. This incident, which involves torture and murder, occurred at a time when there was, and still is, a growing body of international jurisprudence that demands accountability for breaches of international law. These trends have seen a dilution in head-of-state immunity and increased calls for state responsibility in such instances. Understanding and interpreting the 1961 Vienna Conventions on consular and diplomatic inviolability, in light of these trends, will help to retain their relevance, foster growing accountability, and prevent breaches of international law. This is a piece of doctrinal legal research.

Part III The Current International Law of State Immunity, 14 Immunity from Adjudication: The Employment Exception in respect of (1) A Foreign State and (2) An International Organization

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Standard Terms ◽  
Sick Pay

This chapter examines the exception for employment as it pertains to States and international organizations. Whilst the employment — its terms for performance, remuneration, including sick pay, overtime, and other benefits, notice and procedures for dismissal or termination — may be provided in an individual contract or imported from standard terms of employment or collective bargaining agreements, there may also be a considerable overlay of statutory or mandatory provisions that the national labour law imposes or in respect of which increasingly the forum State has assumed regional or international law obligations. There are also certain generally accepted practices relating to employment to be taken into account in considering the scope of the immunity of a foreign State and international organization as regards employment claims brought before the national courts of another State.

scholarly journals The Judicial Approaches of States’ Executive Immunity and Some Examples of Its

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Keyvan Daryabeigi Balvardi
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Pure State ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Business Operations ◽  
Natural Person ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Foreign Government

Executive immunity means that the criminal court sentence (decision) against a natural person as representative of foreign government resident, is no longer applicable in the another country. This type of immunity other than that in terms of government power in run is faced with different approaches is accepted by public and philosophy of its existence is good performance of diplomatic missions and compliance with the general principle of the sovereignty of states, based on which no government should be tried by another state or another state’s laws applied to him. The most important judicial approaches include the approach based on pure state immunity and its property, the approach based on accepting limit of executive immunity of foreign government, assimilation -based approach of competency and execution stages. By examining judgmental procedure of juridical courts of countries such as Turkey, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Iran, we conclude that most of the juridical immunity of states has been respected and immunity isn’t limited to acts of state and does not include the tenure acts and immunity is not related to business operations. In some cases, a double dealing with the issue of immunity from government and independent international organizations is seen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document