Search

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]

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.

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.