Case Note: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy - Greece Intervening) (Judgment) (International Court of Justice, General List No 143, 3 February 2012)

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Walker
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Judgment No. 238 – 2014 (IT. Const. Ct.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-506
Author(s):  
Alessandro Chechi
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Constitutional Legitimacy

On October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court rendered a decision on the constitutional legitimacy of certain domestic norms that required Italy’s compliance with the rule on state immunity sanctioned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the Judgment Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). The Constitutional Court declared that the international customary obligations on state immunity from jurisdiction can be applied automatically within the Italian legal order only as long as they are in conformity with the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY v ITALY) JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 741-752
Author(s):  
J Craig Barker
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
German Reich

The vexed question of State immunity and the extent and application thereof has once again found its way to the International Court of Justice (the Court) in the form of the Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy).1 On this occasion, the precise question concerned the so-called ‘territorial tort exception’ to State immunity and involved an assessment of the immunity to be granted to Germany, by Italy, in relation to compensation claims brought in Italy by Italian claimants against German armed forces and the organs of the German Reich during the Second World War.2

scholarly journals State Immunity Before the International Court of Justice: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy)

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew McMenamin
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Jus Cogens

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State. The case concerned German state immunity from civil claims brought in Italian courts by victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by German armed forces during World War II. The Court offered a valuable clarification of the relationship between state immunity and jus cogens norms at customary international law. The conservative reasoning was thorough and extensive and the decision is likely to ossify the evolution of state immunity.

scholarly journals The Application of Estoppel in International Law and Experiences for Vietnam

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-114
Author(s):  
Tran Thang Long
Keyword(s):  
International Relation ◽  
International Law ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Wrong Interpretation

AbstractIn international relation, estoppel is a principle whereby a state is not able to say or act against what it said or did before. The theory of estoppel was originated in the past from the English law system, which was later incorporated into international law. Its main purpose is to prevent a State from benefiting from its inconsistent attitudes, and thus, causing damage to another State. Therefore, estoppel must meet the main conditions. First, the expression of the said State leads to the assumption of the estoppel must be clear and non-ambiguous. Second, this expression must be expressed voluntarily, unconditionally and must be well authorized. Third, there must be a goodwill trust from another State into the expression of a State giving that expression, resulting in damage to the State with this trust or to the benefit of the expressive side. The paper examines the principle of estoppel in international law and the practice of applying this principle in cases tried at the International Court of Justice. On that basis, the paper discusses explaining the factors that constitute an estoppel situation for Vietnam in order to reject the China’s wrong interpretation of the 1958 Diplomatic Note of the late Prime Minister Pham Van Dong.

scholarly journals Territory of state as indivisible whole and the norms of Constitution

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonid TYMCHENKO ◽  
Valerii KONONENKO
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Grounds

In the study of the substantive legal grounds for the resolution of territorial disputes, the judicial form is characterized by the priority of the grounds of legal title (agreemental title, uti possidetis) based on international treaties, or legal acts of the state possessing sovereignty over the grounds of actual title (effective occupation and governning of the territory, tacit recognition, prescriptional acquisition). Like the initial occupation, the acquisition of territory on the basis of prescription has a long and effective occupation of territory as a prerequisite. The possession of alien or contested territory without a treaty may be legal and enforceable only when there is an inviolable, uninterrupted and undisputed exercise of possession. Where the disputable territory is in fact administrated by a state other than that which holds title, the International Court of Justice gives preference to the title holder.

State Immunity Against Claims Arising from War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice inJurisdictional Immunities of the State

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 773-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Christoph Bornkamm
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court

The recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in theCase Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening) marks the climax of a series of legal proceedings before Greek, Italian, and German courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stretching over a period of more than fifteen years. The international community had eagerly awaited the ICJ's findings on the issue at the heart of the dispute, namely the scope of state immunity before foreign courts in cases concerning claims arising from serious violations of international humanitarian law. While most expected the Court to rule in favor of Germany and to uphold state immunity in principle, it was unclear whether the Court would acknowledge the increasing erosion of immunity with respect to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. To the disappointment of many, the Court took a conservative approach and rejected the idea of an emerging exception from state immunity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document