The Personal Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in Emergency Situations

Author(s):  
Paul Behrens

Personal inviolability is one of the oldest rights of diplomatic agents and is often considered to be at the root of diplomatic immunity. The wording it received in the Vienna Convention does not allow for any exceptions. But the absolute nature of the right can lead to difficulties—especially in situations in which diplomats themselves cause a danger to the general public or particular individuals. This chapter explores potential inroads under international law into the concept of inviolability and thus discusses the applicability of self-defence, necessity, and distress in situations of emergency. It also raises the question whether the human right to life imposes certain obligations on the receiving State which are capable of limiting diplomatic inviolability. In a concluding section, the chapter reflects on the justifications which are particularly likely to carry validity in situations marked by a need to deal with dangers arising from diplomatic actions.

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Devi Yusvitasari

A country needs to make contact with each other based on the national interests of each country related to each other, including among others economic, social, cultural, legal, political, and so on. With constant and continuous association between the nations of the world, it is one of the conditions for the existence of the international community. One form of cooperation between countries in the world is in the form of international relations by placing diplomatic representation in various countries. These representatives have diplomatic immunity and diplomatic immunity privileges that are in accordance with the jurisdiction of the recipient country and civil and criminal immunity for witnesses. The writing of the article entitled "The Application of the Principle of Non-Grata Persona to the Ambassador Judging from the Perspective of International Law" describes how the law on the abuse of diplomatic immunity, how a country's actions against abuse of diplomatic immunity and how to analyze a case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. To answer the problem used normative juridical methods through the use of secondary data, such as books, laws, and research results related to this research topic. Based on the results of the study explained that cases of violations of diplomatic relations related to the personal immunity of diplomatic officials such as cases such as cases of persecution by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Indonesian Workers in Germany are of serious concern. The existence of diplomatic immunity is considered as protection so that perpetrators are not punished. Actions against the abuse of recipient countries of diplomatic immunity may expel or non-grata persona to diplomatic officials, which is stipulated in the Vienna Convention in 1961, because of the right of immunity attached to each diplomatic representative.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-87
Author(s):  
Devi Yusvitasari

A country needs to make contact with each other based on the national interests of each country related to each other, including among others economic, social, cultural, legal, political, and so on. With constant and continuous association between the nations of the world, it is one of the conditions for the existence of the international community. One form of cooperation between countries in the world is in the form of international relations by placing diplomatic representation in various countries. These representatives have diplomatic immunity and diplomatic immunity privileges that are in accordance with the jurisdiction of the recipient country and civil and criminal immunity for witnesses. The writing of the article entitled "The Application of the Principle of Non-Grata Persona to the Ambassador Judging from the Perspective of International Law" describes how the law on the abuse of diplomatic immunity, how a country's actions against abuse of diplomatic immunity and how to analyze a case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. To answer the problem used normative juridical methods through the use of secondary data, such as books, laws, and research results related to this research topic. Based on the results of the study explained that cases of violations of diplomatic relations related to the personal immunity of diplomatic officials such as cases such as cases of persecution by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Indonesian Workers in Germany are of serious concern. The existence of diplomatic immunity is considered as protection so that perpetrators are not punished. Actions against the abuse of recipient countries of diplomatic immunity may expel or non- grata persona to diplomatic officials, which is stipulated in the Vienna Convention in 1961, because of the right of immunity attached to each diplomatic representative.


Author(s):  
Thielbörger Pierre

This chapter addresses water security, which is a contested normative concept, without clear definitions, meanings, or interpretations. With this in mind, the term ‘water security’ must be understood in two distinct ways: security through water (meaning individuals’ access to water to sustain their lives and livelihoods) and security against water (meaning the absence of water-related threats, both natural and man-made). The concept of water security as security through water is a tool to guarantee certain minimum standards of water for individuals. This aspect of water security is closely related to the idea of a human right to water as derived from and related to other human rights such as the right to life, an adequate standard of living, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. However, water can also pose threats. For instance, given its outstanding political and economic significance, the likelihood of ‘water wars’ has been discussed in international law and politics for some time. Special challenges to water security include the widespread privatization of water, climate change as catalyst for future water conflicts and water-related natural disasters, and the often forgotten ‘sanitation gap’.


Author(s):  
J.-G. Castel

SummaryWith the end of the Cold War, the United States has emerged as the sole remaining superpower whose ambition is to create a new open and integrated world order based on principks of democratic capitalism. To ensure its hegemony, the United States is prepared to resort to military action with or without UN approval when its international and national security interests are at stake. The intervention in Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing is a good example of this policy and raises the question of its legality and legitimacy under contemporary international law. May or must a state resort to military intervention against a state sponsoring terrorism or depriving its nationals of their internationally recognized human rights? The so-called “Bush doctrine” of anticipatory or preventive self-defence against a state accused of supplying weapons of mass destruction to a foreign terrorist organization, which was one of the reasons advanced by the Coalition of the Willing for intervening in Iraq, meets neither the conditions laid out in Article 51 of the UN Charter nor those of customary international law. Thus, at the present stage of development of international law, the Bush doctrine is not even lege ferenda. It is not an extension of the customary international law right of pre-emptive self-defence. Only with the approval of the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter or when it takes place within the strict confines of self-defence, can armed intervention be legitimate.The second reason for intervening in Iraq given by the Coalition of the Willing is based on humanitarian considerations, which raises the question whether the protection of human rights can be assured from the outside. Here, international law is evolving in the right direction since the international community is prepared to adopt the concept of responsibility to protect, which justifies the use of force to protect and enforce human rights as an exception to Article 2(4) and (7) of the UN Charter. Again, such intervention is legal only when approved by the Security Council acting pursuant to Chapter VII on the ground that human right crises do not fall “essentially within the jurisdiction of any state.” However, the international community, with the exception of the Coalition of the Willing, is not yet prepared to support a right of unilateral military intervention as a last resort when the Security Council is incapable and unwilling to do so. This includes intervention motivated by the non-democratic form of government of the targeted state. Although the primary responsibility to deal with human right crises rests with the United Nations based on the responsibility to protect, it is argued that one should not rule out unilateral military action based on a customary international law right of intervention to meet the gravity and urgency of the situation provided the intervening state fully observes the necessary precautionary principles governing such type of intervention. The conclusion is that terrorism and human rights abuses can only be effectively challenged through a concerted multilateral collective approach not through the politics of unilateralism.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Casey-Maslen ◽  
Christof Heyns

The Right to Life under International Law offers the first-ever comprehensive treatment under international law of the foundational human right to life. It describes the history, content, and status of the right, considers jurisdictional issues, and discusses the application of the right to a wide range of groups, such as women, children, persons with disabilities, members of minorities, LGBTI persons, refugees, and journalists. It defines the responsibility of not only governments but also the private sector, armed groups, and non-governmental organisations to respect the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. It also explains the nature and substance of the duty to investigate potentially unlawful death as well as the mechanisms at global and regional level to promote respect for the right to life.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32

The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that the right to life belongs to the basic constitutional human rights, therefore, its observance and protection is the duty of the state. Despite its undeniable importance, today the right to life anywhere in the world is not really ensured in sufficient quantities. The constitutional consolidation of the right to life raises a number of issues related to the concept, nature, legislative and practical implementation of this right. It should be noted that various aspects of the human right to life were considered in the scientific works of G.B. Romanovsky, O.G. Selikhova, T.M. Fomichenko, A.B. Borisova, V.A. Ershov and other Russian authors. The aim of the study is to study and comparative analysis of the legal content of the constitutional norm that defines the right to life, to comprehend and identify possible problems of the implementation of this right. To achieve this goal, this article discusses relevant issues of ensuring the right to life, proclaimed by Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 27 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan Republic. The results of a comparative analysis of these constitutional norms and the relevant norms of industry law allow us to determine, that there is no contradiction between Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the norms of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, which imply the death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment, because a moratorium has been imposed on the death penalty in the Russian Federation since April 16, 1997. However, after the abolition of the death penalty in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1998, there was a discrepancy between parts II and III of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the criminal legislation of Azerbaijan Republic that requires the introduction of the necessary changes in the content of the analyzed constitutional norm. The value of the work is determined by the fact that the introduction of appropriate changes will contribute to the further improvement of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the effective implementation of the right to life of everyone.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-94
Author(s):  
Komang Sukaniasa

Diplomatic officials are state representatives in developing diplomatic relations with other countries where it is accredited. Diplomatic officials have the rights of immunity and privileges granted by the sending country. Besides enjoying these rights, diplomatic officials also have obligations. As a diplomatic official from North Korea, Son Young Nam is obliged to obey the rules contained in the 1961 Vienna Convention, the 1969 New York Convention, and to respect the national law of the country of Bangladesh which is the country where he was accredited. Son Young Nam's smuggling of gold into Bangladesh was a form of abuse of diplomatic immunity. The act violated Articles 27 and 41 (1) of the 1961 Vienna Convention and Article 25b of The Special Power Act of Bangladesh. Although they have the right to immunity, these rights are not absolute. Immune rights can be breached in the event of gross violations committed by diplomatic officials.


Author(s):  
Ian Park

There is a difference between a State’s substantive and procedural right to life obligations. This chapter explores what amount to a state’s substantive right to life obligations with reference to Article 2, ECHR and Article 6, ICCPR. The respective provisions are analysed to determine the extent of a state’s substantive right to life obligations during armed conflict and then a comparison between the two international law instruments is undertaken. In order to undertake such a comparison, the exceptions to the right to life in both the ECHR and ICCPR are examined. Once determined, the planning and conduct of a military operation are considered, to assess the extent to which, in general terms, right to life obligations are considered in these areas.


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-113
Author(s):  
Klaus Vieweg

Abstract Can one speak philosophically of a justified limitation of freedom? Hegel’s logically founded definition of free will and his understanding of right and duty can contribute to a clarification of the concept of freedom. Important is a precise differentiation between freedom and caprice (Willkür) – the latter being a necessary but one-sided element of the free will. In caprice, the will is not yet in the form of reason. Rational rights and duties are not a restriction of freedom. Insofar as individual rights can collide (e. g. in emergency situations), there can be a temporary and proportionate restriction of certain rights in favour of higher rights, such as the right to life. Dictatorships are instances of capricious rule which restrict freedom; the rationally designed state, by contrast, restricts only caprice. What is tobe defined are the duties and the rights of the state and the duties and the rights of the citizens.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Edward Guntrip

International investment law balances public and private interests within the broader framework of international law. Consequently, when water supply services, which constitute a public good, are privatized and operated by foreign investors, questions arise regarding whether foreign investors could be held responsible for the right to water under international law. This article considers how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina allocated responsibility for compliance with the right to water between the host State and the foreign investor when resolving a dispute over privatized water services. It highlights how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina supports different understandings of public and private based on whether the human rights obligation is framed in terms of the duty to respect or protect. The article argues that the tribunal’s rationale overcomplicates the process of allocating responsibility for violations of the human right to water when water supply services have been privatized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document