Human Trafficking in the Context of Global Migration: Modern Manifestation of De Facto Slavery, Servitude and Forced or Compulsory Labour

In recent years there has been a significant increase in trafficking in human beings as a global phenomenon. COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that increased the number of persons who were vulnerable to human trafficking and disrupted current and planned anti-trafficking initiatives. Human trafficking treats human beings as commodities to be bought and sold and put to forced labour often for lower or no payment. This constitutes a modern form of de facto slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. This article provides an overview of international law on human trafficking and considers response to human trafficking in Africa. It further considers whether diplomats can be held accountable for exploitation of migrant domestic workers in receiving States. It further examines whether diplomatic immunity can be used as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by domestic courts and tribunals of a state which hosts the diplomat (the ‘receiving state’) in cases of employment of a trafficked person by a former or serving diplomat. It ends by considering whether trafficked persons should be held to bear individual criminal responsibility for crimes they have committed (or were compelled to commit) in the course, or as a direct consequence, of having been trafficked. Such crimes may include unlawful entry into, presence or residence in another country of transit or destination, working without a work permit, sex work, and use of false identity/false passport.

Russian Diplomatic Espionage in Italy

After uncovering Russian espionage activities on Italian territory, Italy expelled two Russian diplomats allegedly involved in such activities. The Italian decision, as well as the Russian response, offer a classic example of States’ reaction to acts of non-violent espionage. This comment offers a legal assessment of the events that unfolded in March 2021 and takes into account the implications, in matters concerning espionage, of declarations of persona non grata, diplomatic immunity and, generally, customary international law.

Penerapan Prinsip Persona Non Grata Terhadap Duta Besar Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Hukum Internasional (Studi Kasus Penganiayaan TKI Oleh Duta Besar Arab Saudi Di Jerman)

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.

Diplomatic Immunity Ratione Materiae and Crimes in International Law

Diplomatic immunity ratione materiae covers not official acts in general but merely acts performed in the exercise of diplomatic functions. Consequently, crimes in international law cannot be protected by this immunity because Article 3(1) of the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations (vcdr) in general should accord with international law, although certain functions under the Article do not contain a ‘legal’ element. Further, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae cannot be upheld for jus cogens violations because Article 3(1) must not contradict a jus cogens prohibition. The dividing line between the procedural rule of immunity and the substantive rule of jus cogens is blurred by the fact that the scope of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae essentially hinges upon the contents a substantive treaty provision setting out diplomatic functions.

Regina (Charles and Dunn) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

662Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic correspondence — Exchange of Notes between United States Embassy and United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office — Express waiver of United States Embassy Administrative and Technical staff’s diplomatic immunity from criminal jurisdiction of United Kingdom, in relation to acts performed outside course of duties — Whether express waiver of criminal immunity applying to family members of United States Embassy Administrative and Technical staff — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Whether entitling family members of diplomatic staff to derivative set of privileges and immunities or conferring separate entitlements to inviolability and immunity — The law of England

A Local Authority v. AG, DG, and SG, GG & AG

659Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Family of diplomatic agent — Child protection — Children Act 1989 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31, 32 and 37 — Treaty interpretation — Relevance of human rights agreements — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Human Rights Act 1998Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31 and 37 — Diplomatic immunity — Exceptions to diplomatic immunity — Whether to read in exception to diplomatic immunity to protect children at riskRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether Vienna Convention could be read to include exception to diplomatic immunity to protect children at risk — Role of Parliament — Whether proposed exception violating plain and natural meaning of Vienna Convention — Reciprocity — Principle of diplomatic immunity — The law of England

Diplomatic immunity ratione materiae, immunity ratione materiae of state officials, and state immunity: A comparative analysis

This article explores the scope and nature of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) by comparing this immunity with state immunity and immunity ratione materiae of ordinary state officials in general international law. It is argued that diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is distinct from immunity ratione materiae of ordinary state officials because ‘functions’ of a mission member should not be treated as ‘state functions’ in general but should be understood within the framework of Article 3(1) of the VCDR, which sets out the functions of a diplomatic mission as a whole. This means that the immunity cannot be upheld for serious violation of international law. On the other hand, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is also different from state immunity both in scope and in nature. Therefore, the immunity must be understood as a unique concept which includes both the substantive issue of non-personal-liability and the procedural issue of immunity from jurisdiction. This hybrid nature of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is the corollary of the functional emphasis of the Vienna Convention.