Grandaubert: L’immunité d’exécution de l’état étranger et des organisations internationales en droit international

Victor Grandaubert has published L’immunité d’exécution de l’état étranger et des organisations internationales en droit international (Pedone 2023). Here's the abstract:

Pour quelle raison les immunités d’exécution de l’État étranger et des organisations internationales résistent-elles fermement au processus d’érosion des immunités internationales ? Selon toute apparence, contrairement à l’immunité de juridiction, l’immunité d’exécution fait échapper ses bénéficiaires à des actes d’une certaine gravité sur leurs biens, à savoir des mesures de contrainte étatique. Ce constat en soi est toutefois insusceptible d’expliquer la solidité commune dont ces immunités font preuve dans un contexte où l’on distingue a priori entre l’immunité souveraine de l’État et les immunités fonctionnelles des organisations internationales.

Pour appréhender précisément la singularité de l’immunité d’exécution, cette thèse démontre que cette immunité tire sa force de son caractère fondamental pour le maintien de l’architecture du droit international. Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’en analysant ainsi l’immunité d’exécution, la thèse contribue à mettre en évidence l’effacement de la distinction communément admise entre les immunités de l’État et celles des organisations internationales.

En effet, l’immunité d’exécution a par essence pour objet d’assurer une protection contre la contrainte étatique, exercée dans un cadre juridictionnel ou non, aux biens employés par des entités agissant librement en qualité de pouvoir public en dehors d’un cadre exclusivement national. Reflet de la stabilité qui caractérise cette immunité en droit international, la protection qu’elle assure en pratique s’inscrit du reste dans un phénomène de consolidation.

Brunk: Central Bank Immunity, Sanctions, and Sovereign Wealth Funds

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) has posted Central Bank Immunity, Sanctions, and Sovereign Wealth Funds (George Washington Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Central bank assets held in foreign countries are entitled to immunity from execution under international law. Even as foreign sovereign immunity in general has become less absolute over time, the trend has been towards greater protection for foreign central bank assets. As countries expand their use of central banks, however, recent cases have limited immunity for certain kinds of sovereign wealth funds held by central banks. Sanctions on foreign central bank assets have also become more common, raising issues about the relationship between central bank immunity and the recognition of governments, the relationship between immunity and executive actions, and the denial of central bank immunity as a countermeasure.

This symposium essay explores recent developments in central bank immunity focusing on sovereign wealth fund litigation in Sweden, U.S. sanctions on Afghan central bank assets, and the global response to sanctions imposed on Russian central banks following the invasion of Ukraine. Some of these actions and cases do not and should not implicate foreign sovereign immunity. However, proposals to confiscate Russian central bank assets and U.S. litigation to turn Afghan central bank assets over to private plaintiffs, even if presented as countermeasures to secure reparations, would undermine significantly one of the increasingly rare areas of international economic law around which there is a global consensus: the immunity of foreign central banks from measures of execution.

Okeke: Human Trafficking and the “Commercial Activity” exceptions to International Immunities

Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke has posted an ASIL Insight on Human Trafficking and the “Commercial Activity” exceptions to International Immunities.

Bismuth, Rusinova, Starzhenetskiy, & Ulfstein: Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure: Norms, Values and Interests

Régis Bismuth (Sciences Po), Vera Rusinova (National Research Univ. Higher School of Economics), Vladislav Starzhenetskiy (National Research Univ. Higher School of Economics), & Geir Ulfstein (Univ. of Oslo) have published Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure: Norms, Values and Interests (Springer 2022). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

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.

Rossi: International Law Immunities and Employment Claims: A Critical Appraisal

Pierfrancesco Rossi has published International Law Immunities and Employment Claims: A Critical Appraisal (Hart Publishing 2021). Here's the abstract:

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.

Daniel: Head of State Immunity under the Malabo Protocol: Triumph of Impunity over Accountability?

Kobina Egyir Daniel has published Head of State Immunity under the Malabo Protocol: Triumph of Impunity over Accountability? (Brill | Nijhoff 2021). Here's the abstract:

In 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.

Beyond 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.

Sadat: New Developments in State Practice on Immunity of State Officials for International Crimes

Leila Sadat (Washington Univ. in St. Louis - Law) has posted an ASIL Insight on New Developments in State Practice on Immunity of State Officials for International Crimes.

Volpe, Peters, & Battini: Remedies against Immunity? Reconciling International and Domestic Law after the Italian Constitutional Court’s Sentenza 238/201

Valentina Volpe (Lille Catholic Univ. - Law), Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), & Stefano Battini (Italian National School for Public Administration) have published Remedies against Immunity? Reconciling International and Domestic Law after the Italian Constitutional Court’s Sentenza 238/2014 (Springer 2021). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

The 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.

Dorn: Die Durchbrechung der Staatenimmunität im Falle des staatlich geförderten Terrorismus

Pia Dorn has published Die Durchbrechung der Staatenimmunität im Falle des staatlich geförderten Terrorismus (Duncker & Humblot 2021). Here's the abstract:

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.

Keitner: Prosecuting Foreign States

Chimène Keitner (Univ. of California - Hastings College of the Law) has posted Prosecuting Foreign States (Virginia Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

Novaković: Diplomatic Immunity: Evolution and Recent Country Developments

Marko Novaković (Institute of International Politics and Economics, Belgrade) has published Diplomatic Immunity: Evolution and Recent Country Developments (Palgrave Macmillan 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

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.

Longobardo: State Immunity and Judicial Countermeasures

Marco Longobardo (Univ. of Westminster - Law) has posted State Immunity and Judicial Countermeasures (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

Bsaisou: Vollstreckungsimmunität von Zentralbanken

Marcus Bsaisou has published Vollstreckungsimmunität von Zentralbanken (Mohr Siebeck 2020). Here's the abstract:

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.

Call for Submissions: Challenging the International Law of Immunities: New Trends on Established Principles?

The Revista de Direito Internacional/Brazilian Journal of International Law has issued a call for submissions for a special issue on "Challenging the International Law of Immunities: New Trends on Established Principles?" to be published in March 2021. The call is here.

Conference: Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Emergence of New International Customary Law Rules – by Whom?

On October 3-4, 2019, the Faculty of Law of National Research University Higher School of Economics and the PluriCourts Center of the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo will hold a conference on "Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Emergence of New International Customary Law Rules – by Whom?" The program is here.

Gabius: Staatenimmunität im Konflikt mit dem Rechtsschutzanspruch des Einzelnen aus Art. 6 I EMRK

Anne Gabius has published Staatenimmunität im Konflikt mit dem Rechtsschutzanspruch des Einzelnen aus Art. 6 I EMRK (Duncker & Humblot 2019). Here's the abstract:

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.

Keitner: Between Law and Diplomacy: The Conundrum of Common Law Immunity

Chimène Keitner (Univ. of California - Hastings College of the Law) has posted Between Law and Diplomacy: The Conundrum of Common Law Immunity (Georgia Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

Call for Papers: Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Emergence of New International Customary Law Rules – by Whom?

The Faculty of Law of National Research University Higher School of Economics and the PluriCourts Center of the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo have issued a call for papers for a conference on "Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Emergence of New International Customary Law Rules – by Whom?," which will take place October 3-4, 2019, in Moscow. The call is here.

Ruys & Angelet: The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law

Tom Ruys (Universiteit Gent) & Nicolas Angelet (Université Libre de Bruxelles), with Luca Ferro (Universiteit Gent) have published The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2019). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

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.

Perkins & Pei: Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Nancy Perkins (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) & Sally Pei (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) have posted an ASIL Insight on Jam v. International Finance Corp.