This book offers a critical analysis of current challenges and developments of the State immunity regime through three dimensions: it looks at State immunity from a comparative perspective; it discusses the major trends relating to the interplay between State immunity and the protection of human rights as well as counter-terrorism; and it examines the relationship between State immunity and the financial obligations of States.
This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the international law regime of jurisdictional immunities in employment matters. Three main arguments lie at its heart. Firstly, this study challenges the widely held belief that international immunity law requires staff disputes to be subject to blanket or quasi-absolute immunity from jurisdiction. Secondly, it argues that it is possible to identify well-defined standards of limited immunity to be applied in the context of employment litigation against foreign states, international organizations and diplomatic and consular agents. Thirdly, it maintains that the interaction between the applicable immunity rules and international human rights law gives rise to a legal regime that can provide adequate protection to the rights of employees. A much-needed study into an under-researched field of international and employment law.
AdvertisementIn Head of State Immunity under the Malabo Protocol: Triumph of Impunity over Accountability?, Kobina Egyir Daniel engages the subject of Head of State Immunity in international law against the backdrop of the African Union (AU)’s decision to create a Court with international criminal jurisdiction before which “Heads of State” or persons “entitled to act in such capacity” will have immunity during incumbency. The AU asserts - in justification - not only that it is standing up for itself against “neo-colonialist imperialist forces,” which have perverted international criminal justice and target African States through the International Criminal Court (ICC), but also that it is preserving the very soul of international criminal justice as well as customary international law on immunities.
AdvertisementBeyond the analysis to determine whether the immunity that the AU’s Malabo Protocol of 2014 confers represents a retrogression in international law norms that seek accountability for jus cogens crimes, Daniel provides valuable insights into the status-inspired dialectics and self-serving hero-villain polemics that fuel contestations of right between the AU and the ICC, and the worldviews that respectively seek to overturn/preserve the asymmetry of the international legal order. Through a review of legal history, case law from national and international tribunals, state practice and academic expositions, the book examines the evolution and practice of Head of State immunity as well as recent trends in the practice of the doctrine in light of the countervailing push to establish exceptions to immunity in order to ensure accountability under international human rights and international criminal law.
AdvertisementThe open access book examines the consequences of the Italian Constitutional Court’s Judgment 238/2014 which denied the German Republic’s immunity from civil jurisdiction over claims to reparations for Nazi crimes committed during World War II. This landmark decision created a range of currently unresolved legal problems and controversies which continue to burden the political and diplomatic relationship between Germany and Italy. The judgment has wide repercussions for core concepts of international law and for the relationship between different legal orders.
The book’s three interlinked legal themes are state immunity, reparation for serious human rights violations and war crimes (including historical ones), and the interaction between international and domestic institutions, notably courts.
Besides a meticulous legal analysis of these themes from the perspectives of international law, European law, and domestic law, the book contributes to the civic debate on the issue of war crimes and reparation for the victims of armed conflict. It proposes concrete legal and political solutions to the parties involved for overcoming the present paralysis with a view to a sustainable interstate conflict solution and helps judges directly involved in the pending post-Sentenza reparation cases.
After an Introduction (Part I), Part II, Immunity, investigates core international law concepts such as those of pre/post-judgment immunity and international state responsibility. Part III, Remedies, examines the tension between state immunity and the right to remedy and suggests original schemes for solving the conundrum under international law. Part IV adds European Perspectives by showcasing relevant regional examples of legal cooperation and judicial dialogue. Part V, Courts, addresses questions on the role of judges in the areas of immunity and human rights at both the national and international level. Part VI, Negotiations, suggests concrete ways out of the impasse with a forward-looking aspiration. In Part VII, The Past and Future of Remedies, a sitting judge in the Court that decided Sentenza 238/2014 adds some critical reflections on the Judgment. Joseph H. H. Weiler’s Dialogical Epilogue concludes the volume by placing the main findings of the book in a wider European and international law perspective.
Der Grundsatz der Staatenimmunität ist ein politisch sensibles und umstrittenes Thema im Völkerrecht. Befeuert werden das Ringen um Reichweite und Entwicklung des Grundsatzes der Staatenimmunität durch die USA und Kanada, die mit dem Erlass einer Terrorismusausnahme zur Staatenimmunität einen neuen Weg beschreiten. Zuletzt erweiterten die USA ihre Gesetzgebung um den »Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act«, der in der Staatenwelt auf erhebliche Kritik stieß. Die Arbeit nimmt dies zum Anlass und untersucht Rechtsprechungs- und Gesetzgebungspraxis beider Staaten. Die Autorin legt dar, dass es sich bei der Terrorismusausnahme zur Staatenimmunität um eine Ausnahme »sui generis« handelt, die als effektives Instrument zur Terrorismusbekämpfung dienen kann. Die Durchbrechung der Staatenimmunität in Fällen des staatlich geförderten Terrorismus stellt gegenwärtig einen Bruch des Völkerrechts dar, der jedoch als Gegenmaßnahme nach den Grundsätzen der Staatenverantwortlichkeit gerechtfertigt sein kann.
In recent years, the Department of Justice has shown increased interest in prosecuting entities associated with foreign states for activities including cybercrime, economic espionage, and sanctions violations. It has also sought third-party evidence from foreign state-owned entities in connection with high-profile criminal investigations, including the Mueller investigation. These actions raise fundamental questions about the immunities of foreign states and state-owned entities from U.S. criminal proceedings. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of—and answer to—these basic questions. In doing so, it upends the widespread but misleading perception that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides the sole basis for exercising jurisdiction over foreign states in every context. The better view is that the FSIA neither authorizes nor prohibits criminal proceedings. Until Congress enacts appropriate legislation, claims to immunity from such proceedings will remain a matter of common law.
The common law of foreign state immunity from criminal proceedings warrants legislative attention. First, Congress can and should make explicit that the FSIA only governs civil proceedings. Second, it should clarify that state-owned enterprises are not entitled to blanket immunity from criminal proceedings simply because they are majority-owned by foreign states. Misapplying the FSIA’s expansive definition of “foreign state” to preclude criminal proceedings can impede the effective investigation and prosecution of foreign corporations whose activities have a significant impact in the United States, and that international law does not necessarily view as entitled to immunity. The default position should be that foreign state-owned companies are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, at least with respect to their commercial activities.
The book examines diplomatic immunity and provides a historical analysis of the granting of diplomatic immunity to non-diplomats, based on the perspectives of several states. It features contributions in which experts from four continents and from academia and practice present their views and perspectives.
This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state’s international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court’s denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.
Wenn ausländische Staaten Schulden nicht zurückzahlen, bleibt Gläubigern häufig nur, ihre Forderungen auf dem Vollstreckungsweg durchzusetzen. Schnell gerät das Vermögen von Zentralbanken ins Visier vollstreckungswilliger Gläubiger. Ein ungehinderter Vollstreckungszugriff würde die Rolle der Institute als Garanten des jeweiligen Währungs- und Finanzsystems bedrohen. Wie die eingehende Analyse der Staatenpraxis zeigt, bietet das Völkerrecht Zentralbanken einen weitreichenden, aber keinen uneingeschränkten Immunitätsschutz. Im Ausgangspunkt verhindert jede Immunität, dass anerkannte Rechte verwirklicht werden. Marcus Bsaisou weist nach, dass die deutsche Rechtsordnung sowohl den völkerrechtlichen Immunitätsvorgaben als auch dem individuellen Rechtschutzanspruch gerecht werden kann, wenn völkerrechtliche Spielräume konsequent genutzt werden.
Das Recht auf Zugang zu Gericht ist zu einem Sinnbild der sich stetig entwickelnden Rechtsposition des Einzelnen im Völkerrecht geworden, da es vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) justiziabel ist. Im Falle eines Aufeinandertreffens mit der Staatenimmunität hat es nach Ansicht des EGMR vollständig zurückzutreten, was nach Ansicht der Autorin den durch die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) garantierten Mindeststandard unterschreitet. Der Konflikt zwischen regional verbindlichem Völkervertragsrecht (Art. 6 I EMRK) und allgemein verbindlichem Völkergewohnheitsrecht (Staatenimmunität) ist Ausdruck einer fragmentierten Völkerrechtslandschaft, in der zwei (Teil-)Rechtsordnungen bzw. sog. Regime gemeinsame Schnittmengen aufweisen (Inter-Regime-Konflikt). Die vorliegende Arbeit schlägt vor, die betroffenen Interessen in Einklang zu bringen und hierbei beiden Regimen den jeweils größtmöglichen Anwendungsspielraum zu belassen. Sie appelliert an den EGMR, seinem Auftrag aus Art.19 EMRK entsprechend seine Verantwortung für eine praktische und effektive Durchsetzung des Rechts auf Zugang zu Gericht aus Art. 6 I EMRK ernst- und wahrzunehmen.
Drawing the line between disputes that can be adjudicated in domestic (U.S.) courts, and those that cannot, has perplexed judges and jurists since the Founding Era. Although Congress provided a statutory framework for the jurisdictional immunities of foreign states in 1976, important ambiguities remain. Notably, in 2010, the Supreme Court held in Samantar v. Yousuf that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not govern suits against foreign officials unless the foreign state is the “real party in interest.” This decision clarified, but did not fully resolve, conceptual and doctrinal questions surrounding the immunities of foreign officials whose conduct is challenged in U.S. courts, and who do not fall within existing statutes. To date, the contours of common-law immunity have only been addressed at the district and circuit court levels. The conundrum thus persists: how to define which claims are barred by immunity, who decides, and which claims are barred?
This Article offers an original historical account of strategies used by litigants, judges, legislators, and executive branch officials to navigate tensions between rules-based approaches to jurisdictional immunity administered by the judiciary and case-by-case approaches administered by the political branches. Part I excavates the practices and understandings of those involved in these cases, as the Executive Branch disclaimed the authority to instruct courts to dismiss claims on immunity grounds. Although past is not necessarily prologue, this early U.S. practice offers important insights into the interplay between legal and political considerations in immunity determinations that persist in the present day. Part II continues the historical narrative by exploring two pivotal twentieth-century cases involving foreign ships, in which the Executive Branch appears to have advanced — and courts ultimately accepted — a more robust political role in immunity determinations. Although cases against foreign officials appear to have been relatively few and far between during the twentieth century, the advent of modern human rights litigation inaugurated a new wave of cases against foreign officials for acts including torture and genocide. Today, privately initiated civil suits continue to be brought against current and former foreign officials in the United States for conduct ranging from torture, war crimes, and kidnapping, to domestic worker abuse. Part II elucidates some of the conceptual and procedural challenges to adjudicating these claims, which continue to defy straightforward resolution.
Few topics of international law speak to the imagination as much as international immunities. Questions pertaining to immunity from jurisdiction or execution under international law surface on a frequent basis before national courts, including at the highest levels of the judicial branch and before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, international immunity law is and remains a challenging field for practitioners and scholars alike. Challenges stem in part from the uncertainty pertaining to the customary content of some immunity regimes said to be in a 'state of flux', the divergent – and at times directly conflicting - approaches to immunity in different national and international jurisdictions, or the increasing intolerance towards impunity that has accompanied the advance of international criminal law and human rights law. Composed of thirty-four expertly written contributions, the present volume uniquely provides a comprehensive tour d'horizon of international immunity law, traversing a wealth of national and international practice.
Der IStGH verfolgt völkerrechtliche Verbrechen, die insbesondere durch Staatsoberhäupter verübt werden, welche durch völkerrechtlichen Immunitätsschutz grundsätzlich vor internationaler Strafverfolgung geschützt sind. Dieses Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Völkerstrafanspruch und völkerrechtlichem Immunitätsschutz ist aktueller Gegenstand zahlreicher politischer Auseinandersetzungen, die insbesondere afrikanische Staatsoberhäupter betreffen. Die vorliegende Arbeit löst das Spannungsverhältnis unter Begutachtung relevanter Vorschriften unter Berücksichtigung aktueller gerichtlicher Entscheidungen auf, indem sie im Schwerpunkt aufzeigt, dass sich bis heute im vertikalen Verhältnis sehr wohl eine völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Anerkennung einer Ausnahme von der persönlichen Immunität für amtierende Staatsoberhäupter (auch aus Nichtvertragsstaaten) vor dem IStGH etabliert hat und sich diese Ausnahme auch auf das horizontale, zwischenstaatliche Verhältnis ausweiten lässt.
On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident Saudi journalist residing in the United States, where he was a columnist for the Washington Post, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. This article seeks to comprehensively analyze Khashoggi’s killing from the standpoint of the human right to life. It sets out the relevant legal framework, addressing inter alia the issue that Saudi Arabia is not a party to what would otherwise be the most relevant human rights treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It examines not only the obligations of Saudi Arabia, but also those of Turkey and the United States, in protecting Khashoggi’s right to life from third parties, and ensuring respect through an effective investigation of his killing and mutual cooperation for the purpose of that investigation. It also looks at the extraterritorial scope of these various obligations.Finally, the article examines possible norm conflicts between state obligations under human rights law and their obligations under diplomatic and consular law, such as the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, agents, and means of transportation.
The article argues that the fundamentals of the operation of the right to life in its various aspects regarding Khashoggi are reasonably clear. First, before the killing, the positive duty to protect Khashoggi’s life was triggered if Turkey and the United States knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to Khashoggi’s life. It seems possible, if not likely, that these two states, and potentially others as well, did in fact possess such information so that the threat to Khashoggi’s life was reasonably foreseeable to them. If such was the case, at the very minimum these states had the duty to warn Khashoggi of the threat, which they did not do.
Second, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia was in flagrant violation of the negative obligation to refrain from arbitrary deprivations of life. As for Turkey, if it knew, or ought to have known, of the threat to Khashoggi’s life in the premises of the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, it would have been required by its obligation to protect his life to forcibly enter the consulate if that was the only way of saving his life.
Third, Khashoggi’s killing engaged the procedural positive obligation to investigate his death. The article shows that many of the decisions that Turkey had made which compromised the effectiveness of the investigation, but which Turkey claimed it had to pursue in order to respect consular privileges and immunities, were in fact not required by consular law. For example, no rule of international law required Turkey to allow the Saudi agents to leave the country, to allow the consul-general and other members of consular staff to leave the country, or to ask Saudi Arabia for consent to search the consul-general’s residence or the consulate’s vehicles.
The article concludes that regardless of whether accountability for Khashoggi’s killing is ever fully realized, this does not change the fact that his right to life was protected by international law, as was the right to life of countless other victims of authoritarian regimes worldwide. The murder was a violation of the rights Khashoggi himself had had under international law, not simply those of the Turkish state. It deserves to be discussed in those terms.
Dieses Buch behandelt die völkerrechtliche Immunität von Staaten und ihren Untergliederungen gegen hoheitliche Zwangsmaßnahmen anderer Staaten. Solche Maßnahmen umfassen jegliche Zugriffe auf staatliches Vermögen, die in gerichtlichen Vollstreckungs- und Anspruchssicherungsverfahren vorgenommen werden. Diese Immunität hat mit einem sich wandelnden Souveränitätsverständnis im Völkerrecht kontinuierlich Modifikationen erfahren, die sich zunächst in Ausnahmen für privatwirtschaftliches Handeln des Staates und später in Ansätzen zur normativen Einschränkung der Immunität nach schweren Völkerrechtsbrüchen äußerten. In diesem Buch werden die Entstehung und der aktuelle völkerrechtliche Gehalt der Vollstreckungsimmunität und ihrer Einschränkungen aus verschiedenen Quellen ermittelt. Zuvorderst wird die nationale Gesetzgebungs- und Spruchpraxis verschiedener Staaten untersucht und verglichen. Auch internationale Kodifikationen zur Staatenimmunität, vor allem die United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, und das Urteil des Internationalen Gerichtshofs im Fall "Jurisdictional Immunities of the State" aus dem Jahre 2012 werden im Zusammenhang dargestellt. Anders als die kommerzielle Ausnahme zur Vollstreckungsimmunität lässt sich eine Ausnahme für die Aufarbeitung schwerer Völkerrechtsbrüche nicht auf eine gewachsene Staatenpraxis stützen, sondern wird in der Literatur mit dogmatischen Argumenten begründet. Hierzu zählen die Heranziehung einer Normenhierarchie, übergreifender Gerechtigkeitsargumente oder des völkerrechtlichen Instruments der Gegenmaßnahme ebenso wie die Darstellung, die der Staatenimmunität eine Kollision mit fundamentalen Menschenrechten attestiert und diesen Normenkonflikt zulasten der Immunität auflöst. Diese Ansätze werden im vorliegenden Buch eingehend auf ihre Stichhaltigkeit nach dem geltenden Völkerrecht untersucht und auf die besondere Situation einer Geltendmachung der Vollstreckungsimmunität übertragen. Schließlich gibt das Werk einen Überblick über die Völkerrechtsentwicklung und das aus ihr jeweils folgende Souveränitäts- und Immunitätsverständnis. Aus dieser Analyse heraus werden Prognosen und Vorschläge dafür erarbeitet, wie sich die Staaten- und Vollstreckungsimmunität - als Ausfluss der staatlichen Souveränität - zukünftig im völkerrechtlichen Gefüge positionieren kann und welche Ansätze dazu genutzt werden könnten, auftretende Adjudikations- und Vollstreckungsdefizite völkerrechtskonform zu bewältigen.
