Are Emirate Rulers Immune from Civil Suits in English Courts?

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-124
Author(s):  
Lucas Bastin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Political Roles

Abstract This article considers whether the rulers of the seven United Arab Emirates are immune from civil suits before English courts. It commences by summarising the constitutional structure of the UAE and political roles which the Emirate rulers play within its federal government, before setting out the relevant English and international law of State and head of State immunity. Having explained this background, this article assesses the position of each ruler and concludes that the rulers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai are immune from civil suits before English courts but that the rulers of Sharjah, Ra’s al-Khaimah, Fujairah, Umm al-Qaiwain and Ajman are less likely to attract immunity.

Educating Ms. Fatima

1970 ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
Tim Walters ◽  
Susan Swan ◽  
Ron Wolfe ◽  
John Whiteoak ◽  
Jack Barwind
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Arabian Peninsula ◽  
High Technology ◽  
Emerging Technology ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
Free Trade Zones ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
K 12

The United Arab Emirates is a smallish Arabic/Islamic country about the size of Maine located at the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Though currently oil dependent, the country is moving rapidly from a petrocarbon to a people-based economy. As that economy modernizes and diversifies, the country’s underlying social ecology is being buffeted. The most significant of the winds of change that are blowing include a compulsory, free K-12 education system; an economy shifting from extractive to knowledge-based resources; and movement from the almost mythic Bedouin-inspired lifestyle to that of a sedentary highly urbanized society. Led by resource-rich Abu Dhabi and Dubai, the federal government has invested heavily in tourism, aviation, re-export commerce, free trade zones, and telecommunications. The Emirate of Dubai, in particular, also has invested billions of dirhams in high technology. The great dream is that educated and trained Emiratis will replace the thousands of foreign professionals now running the newly emerging technology and knowledge-driven economy.

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.

Book III Privileges and Immunities, 12 Privileges and Immunities of the State, The Head of State, State Officials, and State Agencies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
General Description ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an account of the immunities of the State, its officials, and state agencies in international law. It first offers a general description of the plea of state immunity and a brief historical account of the development of the law of state immunity. Then it briefly sets out the law relating to the immunities of the State itself as a legal person, followed by the law applicable to its officials and to state agencies. In addition an account based on customary international law will be provided on the immunities of senior state officials. The chapter concludes by taking note of the extent to which the practice of diplomatic missions at the present time accords with requirements of state immunity law as now set out in written form in the 2004 UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property.

United Arab Emirates growth may depend on transparency

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Initial Level ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fiscal Transparency ◽  
Fiscal Reforms ◽  
Current Deficit

Significance The United Arab Emirates (UAE) economy is increasingly diversified, not least with the imposition of VAT since January 1 -- albeit at a low initial level of 5%. Fiscal transparency has not necessarily kept pace, especially in ad hoc financial support both among the emirates and externally to Gulf neighbours. Impacts Any reduction in financial support from Abu Dhabi through GCC funds might endanger Bahrain’s currency peg. Increased clarity on UAE commitments could help to stabilise weaker economies in Bahrain and Oman. The federal government is likely to convert its current deficit to a surplus of around 2% in 2018. Fiscal reforms and innovations will not challenge Abu Dhabi’s financial dominance among the seven emirates. Plans to privatise state-owned firms will create further pressure to boost transparency.

9. Immunities from National Jurisdiction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship

States and international organisations and their representatives in the courts of other States enjoy immunity from legal process. This immunity can be split conveniently into State (or sovereign) immunity, and diplomatic and consular immunities. The first concerns foreign States per se (including the Head of State), while the second concerns the personal immunities enjoyed by representatives of those States. This chapter discusses the general principles of state immunity in international law; state immunity in the United Kingdom; Heads of State and other holders of high-ranking office; the relationship between immunity and acts contrary to international law; the immunities of international organisations and their staff; and diplomatic and consular immunities.

Head of State Immunity and the Rome Statute: A Critique of the ptc’s Malawi and drc Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ramsden ◽  
Isaac Yeung
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

The scope and effect of the Head of State immunity doctrine before the International Criminal Court has prompted much discussion following the 2011 decision of the first Pre-Trial Chamber concerning the immunity of serving Sudanese President, Omar Al Bashir. The ptcI held that, as a matter of customary international law, there existed an exception to Head of State immunity where such official is sought by an international court with jurisdiction, here the icc. In an apparent retreat, a differently constituted ptc in 2014 based the inapplicability of such immunity on the terms of Security Council Resolution 1593. Using the 2011 and 2014 ptc decisions as a critical lens, and drawing upon recent material, this article assesses the proper application of Head of State immunity under Article 98(1) of the Rome Statute.

The Immunity of Heads of States in US Courts after the Decision of the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon de Smet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The U.S

AbstractThis article investigates the law of Head of State immunity in the United States in light of the recent decision by the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium). It does so by analyzing the U.S. law and comparing it with the customary international law on Head of State immunity as laid out by the world court. The article demonstrates that there are two competing strands in the recent jurisprudence of U.S. courts, neither of which is in conformity with international law. The reasons for this discrepancy are examined and explained in light of the underlying debate about the role of customary international law in the U.S. constitutional system. In conclusion, the author suggests that the best solution to the current dilemma is for the U.S. courts to apply the rules on Head of State immunity as explained by the world court and avoid as much as possible interference by the executive.

IMMUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: A REAFFIRMATION OF TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Yang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Head Of Government

InArrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), decided on 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs was immune from criminal proceedings before a foreign domestic court, even if the charges involved crimes against humanity. Human rights advocates might well regard this decision as a serious setback. Decided against a widespread euphoria brought forth by, and largely due to a neglect of an important dictum in, the historic holding in Pinochet No. 3 [2000] 1 A.C. 147, the case serves further to clarify a crucial point of State immunity in current international law. The Pinochet case dealt with the immunity of a former, as opposed to a serving, Head of State. While the majority of the Law Lords only mentioned in passing that the immunity enjoyed by a serving Head of State ratione personae was absolute, the International Court of Justice stated, in unambiguous language, that: … in international law it is firmly established that, as also diplomatic and consular agents, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document