Academic literature on the topic 'Jurisdictional immunity'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Jurisdictional immunity.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Jurisdictional immunity"
1
JURATOWITCH, Ben. "Waiver of State Immunity and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards." Asian Journal of International Law 6, no. 2 (February 13, 2015): 199–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s204425131400040x.
Full textAbstract:
If a state has waived state immunity by agreement with a non-state entity in advance of court proceedings brought by that entity to enforce an arbitral award against that state, then the enforcement court should give effect to the waiver. That is the opposite of what the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere, but it is the approach reflected in the 2004 United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property. After examining that Hong Kong case and that United Nations Convention, this paper considers the position in various jurisdictions. The prevalent position is in general terms that consent to arbitration usually constitutes waiver of state immunity from jurisdiction of a court to recognize the arbitral award as creating a debt binding on the state, but usually does not constitute waiver of state immunity from execution of that debt against the assets of the state. The conclusion of the paper includes a model waiver of state immunity from jurisdiction and from execution.
2
Ren, Hu, and Zhaoxin Jin. "On the Restrictive Jurisdictional Immunity of AIIB in China." International Law Research 10, no. 1 (February 24, 2021): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v10n1p185.
Full textAbstract:
The jurisdictional immunity of international organizations is a necessity for them to independently perform their functions and achieve their purposes. Therefore, the international community generally grants absolute jurisdictional immunity to international organizations. China has always advocated the position of absolute jurisdictional immunity, however, in the AIIB Agreement and the Headquarters Agreement between China and AIIB, China turn to the view that AIIB only share restrictive jurisdictional immunity. The change of China’s opinion on AIIB is not only the result of the development of international organizations immunity, but also the result of AIIB’s functional necessity. The fact that AIIB only enjoys restrictive jurisdictional immunity in China makes AIIB possible to be sued in China’s domestic courts. If the eligible plaintiff bring a lawsuit against AIIB in China, the courts could handle the case in accordance with domestic laws, the AIIB Agreement and the Headquarters Agreement to alleviate the dilemma of China’s lack of international organization law.
3
Negri, Stefania. "Sovereign Immunity v. Redress for War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy)." International Community Law Review 16, no. 1 (February 3, 2014): 123–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341273.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the judgment delivered in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), the International Court of Justice held that under the present state of international customary law State immunity encompasses all acta jure imperii, regardless of whether they are unlawful. Following the ruling that States are entitled to jurisdictional immunities before foreign courts even if their sovereign acts amount to violations of peremptory norms, the Court found that Italy had violated Germany’s immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement. In rendering such a conservative judgment, the Court missed a double opportunity: to contribute to the development of international law by interpreting the rule on sovereign immunity in harmony with international human rights law and its dynamics, and to finally serve justice for the victims of war crimes.
4
Mora, Paul David. "Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict." Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 50 (2013): 243–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0069005800010857.
Full textAbstract:
SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
5
Bureš, Pavel. "Recent Developments of International Law Commission Work on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction." Polish Review of International and European Law 10, no. 2 (December 18, 2021): 63–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.03.
Full textAbstract:
Immunity is a well bedded concept within international law and mainly within the principle of sovereign equality of states. There are different procedural implications of the concept of immunity – diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, State jurisdictional immunities and also immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Article focuses on the latter one and portrays on recent developments of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction as it is elaborated by the UN International Law Commission (‘ILC’). The author frames (in the introduction) the concept of immunity and especially the immunity of State officials and puts it in a large theoretical structure of international law and in the work of ILC. Then, he focuses his attention on the phenomenon of progressive development of international law (2) and how it is used with respect to the topic considerated by the ILC. He then presents main ILC conclusions regarding limitations and exceptions to immunity of State officials (3) and finally outlines latest development (4) of the ILC work dealing mainly with relationship between foreign criminal jurisdiction and international criminal jurisdiction and other procedural questions.
6
Del Mar, Katherine. "The Effects of Framing International Legal Norms as Rules or Exceptions: State Immunity from Civil Jurisdiction." International Community Law Review 15, no. 2 (2013): 143–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341248.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The finding by the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State that Italy violated its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity from civil jurisdiction comes as no surprise. The anticipated conclusion of the Court is the outcome of the powerful tradition of framing State immunity as a rule to which an exercise of jurisdiction by a domestic court is an exception expressly established under customary international law. As technically faultless as this finding may appear, it sits uncomfortably with deeper, structural developments in international law that challenge the very application of the ‘rule-exceptions’ framework of State immunity. This article questions the underlying assumption upon which the Court’s judgment is premised: that State immunity operates as a predominant rule, to which only exceptions that are established under customary law can apply, and it proposes an alternative understanding of the doctrine of State immunity.
7
Schmalenbach, Kirsten. "Austrian Courts and the Immunity of International Organizations." International Organizations Law Review 10, no. 2 (June 20, 2014): 446–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15723747-01002012.
Full textAbstract:
Austria is host state to several international organizations, and as a result the immunity of international organizations and their officials is a constant concern to the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and from time to time this issue is considered by Austrian Courts. But who in Austria authoritatively decides on the presence of jurisdictional immunities: the judiciary or the government? What kind of acts or omissions count as a waiver of immunity, and who has the power to do just that? What is the scope of the organization’s immunity ratione materiae, especially when compared to the immunity of states? What is the scope of the jurisdictional immunity of officials? And, finally, do Austrian courts balance the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations with the human right of access to courts? This paper outlines the international laws and domestic rules applicable to questions of immunity, and then analyzes eleven final judgments from Austrian courts that deal with the immunity of international organizations and their officials. It concludes with a brief evaluation of the scope of the immunity of international organizations and their officials in light of the Austrian legal order.
8
Treichl, Clemens, and August Reinisch. "Domestic Jurisdiction over International Financial Institutions for Injuries to Project-Affected Individuals." International Organizations Law Review 16, no. 1 (January 7, 2019): 105–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15723747-01601005.
Full textAbstract:
Project-affected individuals are increasingly bringing tort claims against international financial institutions in domestic courts. In the US, such plaintiffs such plaintiffs have regularly failed to overcome the obstacle of the defendant institutions’ jurisdictional immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act. In pending litigation, the US Supreme Court has resolved a long-standing debate as to its scope. This paper examines the issue of jurisdictional immunity in the context of international project finance. It focuses on the specific frameworks established in treaties, analyses the interplay between international and domestic US norms and looks at possible implications of the exercise of domestic jurisdiction. A key finding is that US courts, at least previously, used to grant more extensive immunities than international law required. While doubts persist as to whether domestic courts are a suitable venue for claims brought by project-affected people, existing means of international dispute settlement should be strengthened.
9
Chechi, Alessandro. "Judgment No. 238 – 2014 (IT. Const. Ct.)." International Legal Materials 54, no. 3 (June 2015): 471–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/intelegamate.54.3.0471.
Full textAbstract:
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.
10
Gombos, Katalin. "Rules of jurisdiction in the new Hungarian private international law." Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 61, no. 1 (July 5, 2021): 52–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2052.2021.00285.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOn 1 January 2018, a new act entered into force in Hungary. This act is the new code of private international law in Hungary. The basic purpose of this article is to present the jurisdictional rules of the new law. In the description I discuss how the new act differs from the rules of the old code. In addition, I focus on international and European trends in private international law. I also examine the extent to which the new Hungarian code complies with these trends, as well as discussing the peculiarities of the Hungarian regulation. The new Code uses the concept of jurisdiction as a rule for the ‘international distribution’ of cases and in the sense of public international law. Therefore, I also address in this article the definition of jurisdiction and other conceptual issues, the doctrines of immunity and the description of the jurisdictional system of the Code. I present the relationship between international, European and Hungarian rules which are relevant in private international law. In addition, I provide an overview of the novel system of jurisdictional rules in the Code.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Jurisdictional immunity"
1
McCready, William Robert. "The qualified interpretation of immunity ratione materiae : reassessing the limits of jurisdictional immunity for official acts." Thesis, University of Bristol, 2015. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.684644.
Full textAbstract:
It is often claimed that, under customary international law, immunity ratione materiae can be refused in domestic criminal proceedings regarding ce11ain egregious crimes. I label this the 'Qualified Interpretation of immunity ratione materiae.' I ask whether this claim is true and, if it is, which crimes it applies to. While the Qualified Interpretation gained prominence after Pinochet, the stock arguments for the claim appear unconvincing. More recent decisions such as the Arrest Warrant Case, Italy v Germany and Jones v UK cast further doubts. In pm1icular, it has been found that, in civil proceedings, immunity ratione materiae covers all conduct for which the State would be immune if sued directly, including violations of jus cogens norms. Nonetheless, I argue that a narrow version of the Qualified Interpretation, applying specifically in criminal proceedings regarding international crimes, can be defended. In order to do so, however, it is necessary to re-examine the underlying rules and rationales for immunity ratione materiae. Three distinct rules are identified: i) The Non-Circumvention' rule: Litigants must not sue individual State officials as a means of indirectly accessing State funds. ii) The 'Exclusive-Attribution' rule: Acts performed on behalf of the State cannot generally be attributed to individual officials. iii) The 'Treaty-Based' rule of immunity ratione materiae: Host States must not exercise jurisdiction over consular personnel or former diplomatic agents with regard to acts performed in exercise of the specific functions listed in the VCCR and VCDR respectively. I argue that the first rule applies in civil proceedings even with regard to violations of jus cogens norms but does not apply in criminal proceedings. The second is subject to a customary international law exception regarding all crimes for which international law imposes individual criminal responsibility. The third is subject to a treaty-based exception regarding acts that violate international law
2
Daneshvar, Fatemeh. "L’immunité juridictionnelle des États et des organismes d'État." Thesis, Université de Lorraine, 2018. http://www.theses.fr/2018LORR0270.
Full textAbstract:
L'immunité juridictionnelle des États a été pendant des siècles une question incontestée fondée sur le principe de l'égalité des Etats et sur leur indépendance absolue. Cette règle a été élaborée à une époque où tenter une action contre un État dans un pays étranger aurait été considéré comme une violation de sa souveraineté. Toutefois, les fonctions des Etats ont changé au cours des siècles. Désormais, les Etats s’engagent dans les activités commerciales comme une personne privée et jouent un rôle essentiel dans ce secteur.Alors, bien que le droit de l'immunité soit lié à l'octroi de l'immunité aux États pour leur permettre d'accomplir efficacement les fonctions publiques, le droit international moderne n'exige pas que les tribunaux d'un Etat s’abstiennent de connaître un litige simplement parce que l’État étranger n'a pas la volonté de défendre.Ce travail de recherche, est donc consacré à l’étude de l’immunité de juridiction et l’immunité d’exécution afin de montrer le droit international actuel sur la matière.Cette thèse vise à examiner une question spécifique qui a été mise en évidence au cours de ces dernières années. Comment et dans quelle mesure les États et ses démembrements devraient être soumis à des règles spécifiques de l'immunité d’Etat ?The issue of jurisdictional immunity of states was for centuries an undisputed matter based on the principle of state equality and absolute independence of states. The rules were developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country. However, the functions of states have changed over the centuries and nowadays states are involved in commercial activities as a private person and accordingly play an essential role in the commercial activities of the world. In fact, the issue of state immunities is an increasingly important and rapidly developing area of international law and practice. The state practice reflects the emerging global consensus that States and State enterprises can no longer claim absolute, unrestrained immunity from the proper jurisdiction of foreign courts, especially for their commercial activities. Therefore, although the law of state immunity is related to the grant of immunities to states to enable them to carry out their public functions effectively, modern international law does not require the courts of one state to refrain from deciding a case merely because a foreign state is an unwilling defendant. It is therefore important to know how a plea of state immunity may be made and to what type of dispute it applies
3
Olahová, Kateřina. "Diplomatické imunity vs. lidská práva." Master's thesis, Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2008. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-12014.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis aims at description and analyses of the position of diplomatic immunities and human rights in international law, focusing on areas where these two sets of international rules clash. One objective of this work is an attempt to establish a hierarchy between norms granting diplomatic immunities and those protecting fundamental human rights, which could possibly resolve the collision. This solution, however, narrows down to one of most general principles of diplomatic relations, the principal of reciprocity. Mentioned are also some alternative approaches suggested for resolution of this conflict together with the obstacles, which prevent them from use. The thesis further looks at possible remedies against abuse of diplomatic immunity.
4
Chamlongrasdr, Dhisadee. "Implications from the undertaking to arbitrate : waiver of immunity from jurisdiction and from execution." Thesis, University of London, 2006. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.428121.
Full text
5
Akman, Keder. "Challenges for the International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression : jurisdiction, immunity and politics." Thesis, Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen, 2014. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-101537.
Full text
6
Lindén, Johan. "Immunity of International Organizationsand the Right of Access to Justice for Individuals." Thesis, Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen, 2018. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-359979.
Full textAbstract:
International Organizations are a growing force in the global arena. While themandate and influence of the UN has increased over the last decades, the existinglegal regime regarding privileges and immunities remain the same as they were atthe founding of the organization. This has led to mass tort claims towards the UN,stemming from damages caused by the organizations. These damages often consistof human rights violations, something the organization is generally regarded as aprotector of, rather than violator.As individuals seek to obtain reparations and remedies for the damages inflictedupon them, they are generally obstructed by the claim for immunity by theinternational organization. This constitutes a conflict of competing interests thatthe domestic courts must address and solve. This conflict is central to my thesis,as I will discover how this issue has been tackled by the national as well asinternational courts, and which consequences the current legal practice has for theindividuals. The thesis concludes with a discussion on what needs to be done inorder to bridge the current accountability gap created by the immunity ofinternational organizations.
7
Thoms, Anna. "Criminal Accountability of UN officials serving in peacekeeping operations : With focus on sexual exploitation and abuse." Thesis, Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen, 2014. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-233221.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the criminal accountability of UN officials. To do this, the question if UN officials are in fact held accountable and if so, who holds them accountable, will be investigated. Who has the legal authority to impose criminal accountability on UN employees committing crimes? Further, if they are not, what could be done to ensure criminal accountability?
8
Shi, Xinxiang. "Diplomatic immunities ratione materiae under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations : towards a coherent interpretation." Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/33152.
Full textAbstract:
Rules of diplomatic immunity, which nowadays are enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, play an important role in interstate diplomacy because they ensure the efficient performance of diplomatic functions. This thesis investigates a particular form of diplomatic immunity - diplomatic immunity ratione materiae. Unlike diplomatic immunity ratione personae, which pertains to the personal status of a diplomatic agent, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae depends in essence on the official nature of a particular act In practice, however, the determination of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae may meet with many conceptual and practical difficulties. For one, it is not always easy to distinguish the official acts of a diplomatic agent, who represents the sending State in the receiving State, from his or her private acts. In case of disagreement between the two States, questions may also arise as to who has the authority to make a final determination. The Vienna Convention does not offer much guidance on these issues; on the contrary, the Convention complicates them by employing, without adequate explanation, distinct formulas for different kinds of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae. This thesis examines these formulas in detail. On a general level, it is submitted that diplomatic immunity ratione materiae for certain types of activity constitutes not only a procedural bar to court proceedings but also a substantive exemption of individual responsibility. More specifically, it is argued that each formula must be understood in the light of the rationale behind immunity, the type of immunity concerned, and the specific functions or duties performed. In case of controversy, weight should be given to the opinion of the sending State, although the authority to make a decision lies ultimately with the court of the receiving State.
9
Franey, Elizabeth Helen. "Immunity, individuals and international law : which individuals are immune from the jurisdiction of national courts under international law?" Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London), 2009. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/309/.
Full textAbstract:
State immunity under international law extends to protect some individuals from criminal prosecution before national courts. This thesis aims to identify which individuals are immune from prosecution before the English courts, for what conduct, and for what period. The justifications for immunity are examined, and the extent of immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae are explored. This thesis argues that immunity ratione personae is only narrowly available to high state officials, and that the immunity accorded, by consent, to special missions is sufficient to cover other official visits. In Pinochet (No 3) all seven judges agreed: 1. An ex-head of state is immune from prosecution for murder and conspiracy to murder alleged to have been committed in the forum state. 2. All state officials no matter how minor are entitled to continuing immunity This thesis analyses state practice in arresting or prosecuting foreign state officials, and argues that both of these statements are incorrect. This thesis argues that immunity does not attach to conduct alone, for a person to have continuing immunity ratione materiae they must have had immunity ratione personae. The forum state must have agreed to the official being present on its territory, and agreed to the purpose of the visit. Those officials present on the territory of a foreign state with the consent of that state who have immunity ratione personae have continuing immunity ratione materiae only for official conduct, acta jure imperii. This does not extend to acts of violence. Finally the development of the regime for the prosecution and punishment of international crimes by national courts is considered. The conflict with immunity is examined, and a possible reconciliation between the two principles is suggested by using the complementarity principle in the statute of the International Criminal Court.
10
Murungu, Chacha Bhoke. "Immunity of state officials and prosecution of international crimes in Africa." Thesis, University of Pretoria, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/25163.
Full textAbstract:
This study deals with two aspects of international law. The first is ‘immunity of state officials’ and the second is ‘prosecution of international crimes.’ Immunity is discussed in the context of international crimes. The study focuses on Africa because African state officials have become subjects of international criminal justice before international courts and various national courts both in Europe and Africa. It presents a new contribution to international criminal justice in Africa by examining the practice on prosecution of international crimes in eleven African states: South Africa; Kenya; Senegal; Ethiopia; Burundi; Rwanda; DRC; Congo; Niger; Burkina Faso and Uganda. The study concludes that immunity of state officials has been outlawed in these states thereby rendering state officials amenable to criminal prosecution for international crimes. The thesis argues that although immunity is founded under customary international law, it does not prevail over international law jus cogens on the prosecution of international crimes because such jus cogens trumps immunity. It is argued that, committing international crimes cannot qualify as acts performed in official capacity for the purpose of upholding immunity of state officials. In principle, customary international law outlaws functional immunity in respect of international crimes. Hence, in relation to international crimes, state officials cannot benefit from immunity from prosecution or subpoenas. Further, the study criticises the African Union’s opposition to the prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It argues that however strong it may be, such opposition is unfounded in international law and is motivated by African solidarity to weaken the role of the ICC in Africa. It concludes that the decisions taken by the African Union not to cooperate with the ICC are geared towards breaching international obligations on cooperation with the ICC. The study calls upon African states to respect their obligations under the Rome Statute and customary international law. It recommends that African states should cooperate with the ICC in the investigations and prosecution of persons responsible for international crimes in Africa. At international level, the study reveals the conflicting jurisprudence of international courts on subpoenas against state officials. It argues that, state officials are not immune from being subpoenaed to testify or adduce evidence before international courts. It contends that issuing subpoenas to state officials ensures fairness and equality of arms in the prosecution of international crimes. It recommends that international courts should treat state officials equally regarding prosecution and subpoenas. It further recommends that African states should respect their obligations arising from the Rome Statute and that, immunity should not be used to develop a culture of impunity for international crimes committed in Africa.Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2012.
Centre for Human Rights
unrestricted
Books on the topic "Jurisdictional immunity"
1
Guo ji zu zhi de si fa guan xia huo mian yan jiu: Jurisdictional Immunity of International Organizations. Beijing: Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she, 2013.
Find full text
2
Bu de yuan yin guo jia huo mian de su song: Guo jia ji cai chan guan xia huo miao li wai wen ti yan jiu = The proceedings in which state immunity cannot be invoked. Guangzhou: Ji nan da xue chu ban she, 2011.
Find full text
3
Chamlongrasdr, Dhisadee. Foreign state immunity and arbitration. London: Cameron May, 2007.
Find full text
4
Gordon, Michael W. Foreign state immunity in commercial transactions. Salem, N.H: Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1991.
Find full text
5
Jurisdiction and sovereign immunity in Nigerian commercial law. Lagos, Nigeria: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, 2007.
Find full text
6
State immunity and cultural objects on loan. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.
Find full text
7
Morgan, Edward M. International law and the Canadian courts: Sovereign immunity, criminal jurisdiction, aliens' rights, and taxation powers. Toronto: Carswell, 1990.
Find full text
8
Morgan, Edward M. Foreign state debtors in the domestic courts: A theory of sovereign immunity. [Toronto, Ont.]: International Business and Trade Law Programme, 1988.
Find full text
9
Martino, Gerardo. L' immunità giurisdizionale degli stati stranieri tra regionalismo ed universalismo. Salerno: Elea press, 1990.
Find full text
10
International, Amnesty, ed. United Kingdom : the Pinochet case : universal jurisdiction and the absence of immunity for crimes against humanity. London: Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1999.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Jurisdictional immunity"
1
Onida, Valerio. "Moving Beyond Judicial Conflict in the Name of the Pre-Eminence of Fundamental Human Rights." In Remedies against Immunity?, 331–35. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_17.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractSentenza 238/2014 can be criticized insofar as it seems to ground Italy’s refusal to comply with the Jurisdictional Immunities Judgment of the International Court of Justice on the basis of the right of access to a judge for the victims of the conduct of German armed forces during World War II. Indeed, the principle of state’s immunity to the civil jurisdiction of other states regarding the conduct of their own armed forces does not in itself breach a victim’s right of access to a judge, which theoretically in this case might also be granted by a German court. However, Sentenza 238/2014 has the merit of highlighting, in the specific case of the Italian Military Internees (IMIs), the violation of the victims’ right to an effective judicial protection of their fundamental rights, given that German jurisdictions excluded every reparation that favoured IMIs. Such fundamental rights must prevail over the international rules relating to state immunity because, according to the supreme principles of the Italian constitutional order and to international law itself, fundamental human rights violations related to crimes against humanity must benefit from an effective protection. The impasse between Italy and Germany should be solved through a new joint initiative between the two governments (carried out ideally under a common understanding of the two Presidents of the Republic), which should examine the applicants’ cases in order to grant them reparation. Though symbolic, such reparation will have an important moral dimension.
2
Palchetti, Paolo. "Right of Access to (Italian) Courts über alles? Legal Implications Beyond Germany’s Jurisdictional Immunity." In Remedies against Immunity?, 39–53. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_2.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe main consequence of Sentenza 238/2014 is that Germany has been denied jurisdictional immunities before Italian courts. However, the inflexible conception of the right of access to courts adopted by the Corte Costituzionale gives rise to a number of questions that go well beyond the issue at stake in Judgment 238/2014. First, there is the issue of whether the right of access to justice should also prevail over the international customary rule on immunity from execution. Secondly, one may ask whether the need to protect the right provided by Article 24 of the Italian Constitution could trump the criteria established by Italian law for exercising civil jurisdiction in order to allow access to justice in respect to all international crimes, even those committed outside Italian territory and involving individuals having no link to Italy. Finally, there is the question of whether a sacrifice of the right of access to justice would be justified if alternative, non-judicial means of redress were available to the victims; in particular, whether an alternative means of redress should in any case ensure to each and every individual victim full compensation or whether instead, in light of the specific circumstances of the case—the fact that the crimes occurred in the course of an international armed conflict affecting hundreds of thousands of victims—such alternative means could provide only symbolic compensation based on a lump sum settlement. This chapter aims at exploring these and possibly other issues arising in connection to the broad interpretation of the principle of access to justice given by the Corte Costituzionale.
3
Ruozzi, Elisa. "Shrinking of Jurisdictional Immunities and Victims’ Rights: From Separation to Synergy." In Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, 247–72. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_10.
Full text
4
Bankas, Ernest K. "The ILC Report On Jurisdictional Immunities of States." In The State Immunity Controversy in International Law, 247–81. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64043-2_8.
Full text
5
Kadelbach, Stefan. "State Immunity, Individual Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Crimes, and Future Prospects." In Remedies against Immunity?, 143–57. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_7.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis chapter first recapitulates the state of affairs as to the principle of state immunity and why exceptions from jurisdictional immunity for gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law are not recognized. It explores customary law and the global compensation treaty between Germany and Italy. Both indicate that Italy would be obligated to indemnify Germany from individual claims raised before Italian courts.In a second step, the development towards individual rights in public international law will be taken up. It appears that human beings are increasingly recognized as holders of individual claims but, apart from human rights treaty systems, lack the capacity under international law to invoke their rights before courts. Instead, they depend on their home states, which have standing but are not entitled to waive the individual rights of their citizens.In order to reconcile the seemingly antagonistic regimes of state immunity and claim settlement, prospects for a friendly solution of the present dilemma will be assessed. Against the background of cases pending before Italian courts, it will be examined whether the distinction between jurisdictional immunity and immunity from execution opens up a way out of the impasse, which the two states and private capital could pursue, and whether this solution would create a precedent for other similar constellations.Lastly, some concluding remarks will address lessons to be learnt for future conflicts. They will deal with elements of a general regime of compensation, drawing from the experience of both past reparation schemes and the experience of reconciliation in post-totalitarian societies. Such elements could be a duty to seek bona fide settlements, possible consequences of violations for domestic court proceedings, methods of assessing damages inspired by mass claim processing, the categorization of claims according to the gravity of violations, rules on evaluating evidence, procedures to give victims a say, and appropriate forms of monetary and non-pecuniary compensation including the necessary institutional framework.
6
Zimmermann, Andreas. "Would the World Be a Better Place If One Were to Adopt a European Approach to State Immunity? Or, ‘Soll am Europäischen Wesen die Staatenimmunität Genesen’?" In Remedies against Immunity?, 219–33. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_12.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis chapter argues not only that there is no European Sonderweg (or ‘special way’) when it comes to the law of state immunity but that there ought not to be one. Debates within The Hague Conference on Private International Law in the late 1990s and those leading to the adoption of the 2002 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, as well as the development of the EU Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, as amended in 2015, all demonstrate that state immunity was not meant to be limited by such treaties but ‘safeguarded’. Likewise, there is no proof that regional European customary law limits state immunity when it comes to ius cogens violations, as Italy and (partly) Greece are the only European states denying state immunity in such cases while the European Court of Human Rights has, time and again, upheld a broad concept of state immunity. It therefore seems unlikely that in the foreseeable future a specific European customary law norm on state immunity will develop, especially given the lack of participation in such practice by those states most concerned by the matter, including Germany. This chapter considers the possible legal implications of the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court for European military operations (if such operations went beyond peacekeeping). These implications would mainly depend on the question of attribution: if one where to assume that acts undertaken within the framework of military operations led by the EU were to be, at least also, attributable to the troop-contributing member states, the respective troop-contributing state would be entitled to enjoy state immunity exactly to the same degree as in any kind of unilateral military operations. Additionally, some possible perspectives beyond Sentenza 238/2014 are examined, in particular concerning the redress awarded by domestic courts ‘as long as’ neither the German nor the international system grant equivalent protection to the victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during World War II. In the author’s opinion, strengthening the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, bringing interstate cases for damages before the International Court of Justice, as well as providing for claims commissions where individual compensation might be sought for violations of international humanitarian law would be more useful and appropriate mechanisms than denying state immunity.
7
Francioni, Francesco. "Overcoming the Judicial Conundrum: The Road to a Diplomatic Solution." In Remedies against Immunity?, 343–49. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_19.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe role of international law and of international lawyers is at its best when it results in a ‘work of reconciliation and realistic construction’ (Dag Hammarskjöld, 1953). Unfortunately, it is difficult to find much of this spirit in the unfolding, regrettable and never-ending saga of Germany versus Italy. In answering the basic question of whether Germany is obliged to negotiate a settlement with Italy, this chapter argues that even if there is no hard and fast legal obligation, there is a political and moral obligation to negotiate a settlement, as indicated by paragraph 104 of the Jurisdictional Immunities Judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the same obligation is incumbent upon Italy. The current legal ‘black hole’ cannot be filled by further proceedings before the ICJ because immunity serves the value of the equality of states, yet equality is not a value in its own sake but is functional to the preservation of peaceful and orderly international relations and to the ‘realistic construction’ of conditions for the fulfilment of human rights. Negotiations in view of the creation of a joint German–Italian fund for the reparation of victims is the appropriate way to overcome the present impasse and to do justice to a whole class of victims who so far have fallen into oblivion.
8
Tomuschat, Christian. "The Illusion of Perfect Justice." In Remedies against Immunity?, 55–70. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_3.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) of 22 October 2014 has set a bad precedent for international law by denying the implementation, within Italy, of the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 3 February 2012. The ICJ found that Italian courts and tribunals had violated German jurisdictional immunity by entertaining suits brought by Italian citizens against Germany on account of damages caused by war crimes committed during World War II by German occupation forces. According to a well-consolidated rule of general international law, no state may be sued before the courts of another state with regard to acts performed in the exercise of its sovereign power. In contravention of Article 94 of the UN Charter, the ItCC deemed it legitimate to discard that ruling because of the particularly grave character of many of the violations in question. It proceeded from the assumption that the right to a remedy established under the Italian Constitution was absolute and must apply even where the financial settlement of the consequences of armed conflict is at issue. However, it has failed to show the existence of any individual reparation claims and has omitted to assess the issue of war reparations owed by Germany in their broader complexity. The judgment of the ItCC might be used in the future as a pretext to ignore decisions of the World Court.
9
Ardito, Giovanni. "Assessing State Jurisdictional Immunities Through the Lenses of the European Court of Human Rights: Embassy Employment Disputes as Test Bench for Restrictive Immunity." In Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, 273–96. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_11.
Full text
10
Pavoni, Riccardo. "A Plea for Legal Peace." In Remedies against Immunity?, 93–117. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_5.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis chapter advocates legal peace between Germany and Italy as the most sensible and appropriate way to deal with the aftermath of Sentenza 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court and its declaration of the unconstitutionality of the 2012 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities. This plea does not only arise from frustration with the current impasse but also from the suspicion that the public good of legal peace has never seriously been canvassed by the Italian and German governments. Section II takes stock of the legal developments relating to the dispute between Germany and Italy since Sentenza 238/2014 was delivered. It especially focuses on the attitudes of the governments concerned, both in the context of the ongoing proceedings before Italian courts and elsewhere. It finds such attitudes opaque and unduly dismissive of the necessity to devise legal peace in the interest of the victims and of the integrity of international law. Section III highlights how the behaviour of the governments so far was at odds with the successful outcome of other intergovernmental negotiations concerning reparations for crimes committed during World War II (WWII), a process which has not been entirely finalized, as evidenced by the 2014 Agreement between the US and France on compensation for the French railroad deportees who were excluded from prior French reparation programmes. The Agreement between the US and France and all previous similar arrangements were concluded under mounting pressure of litigation before domestic courts against those states (and/or their companies) that were responsible for unredressed WWII crimes, thus a situation resembling the current state of the dispute between Germany and Italy. It is telling that litigation ended when the courts took cognizance of the stipulation of intergovernmental agreements establishing fair mechanisms for compensating the plaintiffs and victims of the relevant crimes. Such practice, therefore, is essentially in line with the proposition that state immunity (for human rights violations) is essentially conditional on effective alternative remedies for the victims. This and other controversial aspects related to the law of state immunity—such as the nature of state immunity, the North American remedies against immunity for state sponsors of terrorism, and the persistent dynamism of pertinent practice—are revisited in section IV. The purpose is to suggest that certainty about the law of international immunities, as allegedly flowing from the 2012 ICJ Judgment, is more apparent than real and that this consideration should a fortiori urge the realization of legal peace in the German–Italian affair.
Conference papers on the topic "Jurisdictional immunity"
1
"Immunity from Jurisdiction with Special View to Kuala Luampur War Crime Tribunal." In International Conference on Trends in Economics, Humanities and Management. International Centre of Economics, Humanities and Management, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.15242/icehm.ed0315033.
Full text