Search

‘Act of State’ doctrine absolves state action from judicial review by a foreign court. Indeed, it is settled law that there is no cause of action that will make a foreign state liable in domestic courts. The doctrine has developed in a manner which focuses on the sovereign nature of an act rather than the status of the person who committed it. In the UK, recent judgments have evaluated the honesty and fairness of dealings in the public policy context. The courts have moved beyond competence and restraint, and state officials who have breached a fundamental principle of international law have faced judicial scrutiny. Courts have developed the concept of a qualified state immunity for the actions of officials that are contingent on human rights. This paper argues that courts should develop a doctrine that allows judicial activism when wrongs are committed by states that infringe customary international law. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Samantar v. Yousuf regarding the adjudication of individual foreign official immunity and the implications of circuit split on the on jus cogens exceptions.

An essay is presented which explores the rejection of a jus cogens exception by the China's government for sovereign immunity on U.S. judicial practice after the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case Yousuf v. Samantar and its impact on international law.

Judgment 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court reopens the debate on the extent of the immunity enjoyed by states for violations of jus cogens. The decision, which questions the authority of the ICJ's 2012 judgment in Germany v Italy, could certainly have effects on the formation of customary international law. In addition, it revives the discussion on the relationship between national and international law and on the supremacy of the latter over the former, especially if read in light of the previous Medellín and Kadi I decisions. Judgment 238/2014 is an opportunity to reappraise the role played by international law in domestic courts, particularly in cases where international law conflicts with core domestic constitutional values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the jurisdictional immunity of States in respect of proceedings before the forum State's court in which a foreign State claims immunity for actions of its armed forces. Injurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) the International Court of Justice held that Germany is entitled to immunity before Italian courts for acts of its armed forces committed during the Second World War, even though it considered the German acts as displaying a complete disregard for the "elementary considerations of humanity". The World Court decided that a breach of jus cogens rules does not amount to a denial of immunity. State immunity is procedural in nature and therefore it is not in conflict with peremptory rules of international law, since the two sets of rules operate at different levels. The thesis advanced in this article is that State immunity protects substantive principles of international law and therefore it cannot be regarded only as a procedural rule. The paper focuses also on other aspects of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, including the tort exception to State immunity and a right to individual compensation under Article 3 of the Hague Regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the rhetorical structure of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision in the Germany v Italy case. The author maintains that in all likelihood the ICJ’s decision will exert great influence on future State practice. This is due to a number of different reasons, ranging from the particularly authoritative role that the ICJ enjoys in the epistemic community of international lawyers to the rhetorically persuasive use of the arguments by the Court in a judgment that is perfectly attuned to the Court’s main audience. Indeed, it is a well known principle in rhetoric that the adjustment of an argument to the audience is one of the most powerful tools to ensure adherence to whatever the speaker (or the Court in this case) may say. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State. The case concerned German state immunity from civil claims brought in Italian courts by victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by German armed forces during World War II. The Court offered a valuable clarification of the relationship between state immunity and jus cogens norms at customary international law. The conservative reasoning was thorough and extensive and the decision is likely to ossify the evolution of state immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The response of Italy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment of 3 February 2012 on the jurisdictional immunities of the state has been prompt and comprehensive. The Italian judiciary obeyed — contrary to what other national judges do — the ICJ decision either on the basis of a joint interpretation of Article 94 of the UN Charter and Articles 10 and 11 of the Italian Constitution; or by stressing the authoritativeness of the ICJ decision and denying ex officio the jurisdiction of the Italian judge; or by taking note of the isolation of the Court of Cassation on the principle of immunities of the state in cases where jus cogens was violated. Moreover, on 21 December 2012, the Italian Parliament adopted a new law that modifies the Code of Civil Procedure in order to introduce a mechanism aimed at automatically reviewing any decision of Italian courts that is contrary to a ICJ judgment. However, in light of ICJ observations on the treatment of Italian military internees during World War II and the conduct of the parties afterwards, it is advised Germany and Italy should conduct negotiation aimed at resolving the still pending issue of compensation to those military internees. Arguably, and in keeping with the Court’s invitation, an appropriate settlement through meaningful reparation to the numerous victims is the only way to ensure a fair and just solution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper, we question the decision of the Superior Labor Court that through Jurisprudential Guidance (OJ) n. 416 affirmed the absolute jurisdictional immunity of international organizations. This understanding contradicts the Theory of Relative Immunity, which is also applied in the Nations. The underlying question concerns the fact that more diplomatic protection is granted to these institutions than to the Nations themselves. It should be noted that access to jurisdiction is denied to those waging legal battles against international bodies and aiming to have their labor rights actualized, as these are already included in the list of human rights. The supremacy of peremptory principles and norms (jus cogens) should enforce international treaties, by which the Nation undertakes to provide effective remedies against human rights violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author explores the extent to which customary international law (jus cogens) has made cultural property owned by sovereign states immune from measures of constraint or seizure. More specifically, the author discusses how international legal norms are impacting the rules on the immunity from execution enjoyed by foreign states and their cultural property. A case involving measures of constraint taken against cultural property belonging to Germany located in Italy is discussed.

Immunity for state officials is part of state immunity, and still generally obtains in criminal or civil proceedings instituted against them before national courts. The official capacity of the officials cannot be lightly assumed away in such proceedings, and the capacity attaches regardless of the perceived nature of the acts of such persons. A debate exists in practice and theory over the granting of state immunity in cases of international crimes. The current practice, however, still places state immunity on a higher level to other rules of international law that found national jurisdiction, as opposed to international jurisdiction. This may be due to the unchanged foundation of the international order based in the UN Charter. Any denials of state immunity of foreign officials by national courts, without a basis in international law, will challenge the fundamental principles of that order. Nonetheless, they will not alone generate new rules of customary law. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines whether the non-recognition of State Immunity, as a response to jus cogens violations committed by the wrong-doing State against its own citizens, can be a valid countermeasure. First, the paper clarifies the hypothesis being examined. Second, the paper considers what the conditions the according countermeasures have to comply with, are. Finally, the paper examines whether the non-recognition of State Immunity can be a lawful solidarity countermeasure. The paper concludes that non-recognition of State Immunity can also be lawful and valid. Nonetheless, it must comply with certain important conditions. Additionally, an opportunity for the victims to have a remedy as well as to maintain the most important values of the international community arises when the non-recognition of State Immunity is properly accomplished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses jurisdictional immunity and the International Court of Justice's ruling on February 3, 2012 in the case Germany v. Italy which deals with Germany's claim of immunity in Italian court for war atrocities that were allegedly committed during World War II. Foreign sovereign immunity and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon are examined. The jus cogens international legal principle is also mentioned.

This Article examines the basis of an asserted jus cogens exception to sovereign immunity. It demonstrates that the vision of jus cogens one embraces depends on background assumptions about the present and future of the international system. A robust conception of jus cogens assumes: (1) that independent judges and tribunals, informed by the views of non-state actors, can identify core international obligations and manage their tradeoffs with other values pursued by the international legal system, and (2) that the actions of independent judges and tribunals, informed by non-state actors, will influence state behavior. Doubts about the abilities of judges and tribunals, or fear about the rise of powerful and authoritarian actors in the international system, leads to a much narrower role for jus cogens, and thus broader sovereign immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views regarding the state officials' international law immunities. The author discusses the intrinsic governmental and restrictive natures of the mentioned immunity theory. The author denotes the connectivity of jus cogens and immunities. The author also notes the information about extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The article focuses on the issues regarding international law immunities and jus cogens norms. It discusses the statements of Alexander Orakhelashvili concerning the issues engulfing the mentioned law immunities. It highlights the status of immunities such as functional and special mission immunity. Moreover, the extra-territorial jurisdiction of immunities is also discussed.

The article examines the effect of peremptory norms of international law on immunity assertions. It explores the different implications of the doctrine of sovereign immunity for international communities. It also assesses the relevant U.S. case law involving foreign sovereign immunity and jus cogens and evaluates how domestic courts address the issue of immunity.

The article discusses the International Court of Justice's reported ruling in a 2012 case involving state jurisdictional immunities and a dispute between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic. According to the article, the case deals with Germany’s purported immunity in Italian courts for the atrocities that were allegedly committed by German troops during World War II. Foreign sovereign immunity, Greek laws, and the jus cogens legal doctrine are also mentioned.

The article discusses the issue of State immunity and allegations of jus cogens violations brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). An examination of the relation between the ATS and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is also presented. Information on the status of customary law in the context of the issue of jus cogens and state immunity, as well as its effects on the U.S., is offered.

Whenever State immunity from jurisdiction norms oppose ius cogens, the law in force demands the former to be void or unapplied since they are relative law. A contextual analysis that takes law purposes into account shows that there must be an implicit exception of peremptory law in order to achieve the previous effects. Legal and political objections have been raised against the previous theses, but a detailed study indicates that they have no solid grounds. Normative hierarchy theory allows international law to be more human and prevents its fragmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whenever State immunity from jurisdiction norms oppose ius cogens, the law in force demands the former to be void or unapplied since they are relative law. A contextual analysis that takes law purposes into account shows that there must be an implicit exception of peremptory law in order to achieve the previous effects. Legal and political objections have been raised against the previous theses, but a detailed study indicates that they have no solid grounds. Normative hierarchy theory allows international law to be more human and prevents its fragmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]