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.

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.

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.

La sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia relativa al caso Germania c. Italia: profili di diritto intertemporale

2012 ◽  
pp. 335-349
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jus Cogens

The author comments on the judgment delivered by the ICJ on 3rd February 2012 in the case of Germany v. Italy, concerning jurisdictional immunity of the State against actions for compensation in respect of crimes committed during World War II. The article focuses on the intertemporal law aspects of the case, commenting that the ICJ, while correctly identifying State immunity rules as having a procedural nature, failed in clarifying that whenever their application requires a qualification of the relevant facts, this is to be performed pursuant to the law in force at the time they were committed. Arguably, at the time of the conflict, the category of jus cogens norms had not yet been sufficiently established, nor had a special regime of State responsibility for international crimes or for serious breaches of peremptory rules of general international law developed yet. Therefore, the supposed prevalence of the breached norms on State immunity rules, which the ICJ has correctly excluded due to the different nature of either set of rules, arguably was to be excluded for intertemporal reasons altogether.

State-Owned Entities and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihaela Maria Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Alternative Perspective ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Private Corporations

The monograph focuses on the human rights challenges that are associated with the involvement of States in economic activities and on the role that international law has to play in addressing and understanding some of those challenges. State-owned entities are looked at through the lens of several topics of international law that have been found to hold particular relevance in this context, such as the concept of legal personality in international law, the process of normativity in international law, State immunity and State responsibility. The monograph shows how SOEs have had a significant role in shaping the evolution of international law and how, in turn, international law is currently shaping the evolution of State-owned entities. By focusing on State-owned or State-controlled business entities, rather than private corporations, the monograph aims to offer an alternative perspective on the challenges associated with corporations and human rights.

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