Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Remember that public international law is quite distinct from other subjects.
It’s often not that hard to find jurisdiction for a country’s claim.
- the key question is conflicting jurisdiction. States do not really mind so long as the
remedy is appropriate.
Must know the law of the local country and the home country.
Diplomatic Premises
Completely inviolable - see Iranian Hostages case.
It is not the territory of the sending state.
It is just inviolable in that the ambassador must consent to others entering.
• There is a special duty to protect ambassador’s residence and the sanctity of
the consular premises.
LAWS1023 IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
MICHAEL JOHN GABRIEL
Domestic legislation upholds this.
Sovereigns are equal = how can each sovereign be subject to the jurisdiction of
another?
Parliament Belge
Facts: Proceedings against a Belgian Ship by a British national.
• Carried passengers and freight, for profit.
• UK AG intervened and argued that the ship had immunity as it was owned by
Belgian Crown. Despite it had been run for profit.
Held: upheld an absolute immunity - ship was covered.
If the former, once that personality (as head of state) is extinguished, you are open to
suit. But still have immunity for your acts. Article 39 of VCDP. Recall that this came up
in Pinochet (no 3).
- once it was clear that torture existed in English law, the courts were not willing
to let torture attract immunity.
- Committing egregious crimes could NOT be an official act. It cannot be said to
be official to commit torture.
- Remember that torture as a customary law was not found to be part of English
law.
There is a paradox: by definition, only a state or its official can commit torture. But this
cannot be an official act that attracts immunity. This was raised by HL.
- Torture is a peremptory norm: it mustn’t be excluded from jurisdiction. Immunity
must be excluded.
A state will only have immunity for actions of a governmental nature. It will not have
immunity for a failure to perform under a contract, for example.
Recall Trendtex Trading. The purpose that the goods will be used for does not matter.
Remember, very rare that a government will not respect the laws of the receiving
problem.
Questions
1. Distinction between commercial and acts of state?
2. What entities are entitled to immunity?
3. What acts/personalities are covered?
~~~~
Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth)
s 9 - foreign state is generally immune from Australian courts.
BUT s 11 - states are not immune in respect of commercial transactions (eg contracts
for supply of goods and services; loans; guarantees); personal injury; and/or
immovable property in Australia.
s 30 - state property is immune.
BUT
S 32 - cannot claim immunity over state commercial property.
S 36 - Diplomatic protections also apply to heads of government.
Tokic
Facts: demonstration in Sydney against Yugoslav embassy.
- Just before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
- Tokic, a student, was shot from a window of the embassy.
- Could there be an exception?
Held: at a minimum, the firing was negligence. Therefore, the government was liable
due to the shooter being an employee. This was PERSONAL INJURY.
LAWS1023 IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
MICHAEL JOHN GABRIEL
Vast amounts of literature on this area. Most Western countries have similar
legislation.
Centrally-planned economies, in their supply contracts, try to keep the absolute
immunity principle. But what they do, to get business, they waive their absolute right.
It’s a fair statement to say that commercial transactions are not covered by immunity.
Should check precise terms of legislation for each jurisdiction. Most Asian states do
not have restrictive immunity, they claim absolute immunity.
Al-Adsani
Facts: Arrested in Kuwait, abused by Kuwait government officials. Tortured.
- UK accepted that this was an act of state and as a result was protected by the
UK Foreign State Immunities Act.
Held: Despite egregious act, still immunity.
- Appeal to ECHR. ECHR rejected the appeal, stating that there is NO customary
rule that would deny immunity to a sovereign for torture.
This is a CIVIL action, not a CRIMINAL action. Criminal proceedings still do not
attract immunity (as was found in Pinochet).
Remember, that a state is not liable under the ICC. This forum only has jurisdiction
over individuals.
*we are in a state of flux in this area.
~~~
A number of cases brought in Australia against China. Zhiang; Pan v Bo; Yan Xie. All
actions have failed.
Germany v Italy
Facts: as in Ferrini case, the Italian courts have been rejecting claims for immunity by
Germany as successor to the Nazi state. Italians forced into labour camps during
WW2.
- Successful claims were satisfied against German assets.
- Now going before ICJ. Germany is arguing that Italy is BOUND to give
immunity.
- Currently pending.
Hicks v Ruddock
Facts: brought a case for habeus corpus. Hicks argued that Australia was OBLIGED
to exercise its diplomatic protection rights to secure the release of Hicks.
Held: Act of state doctrine should not prevent liability for actions of govt breaching
peremptory norms.
Re Bo Xilai - functions of minister for trade similar to foreign minister => covered by
immunity.
LAWS1023 IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
MICHAEL JOHN GABRIEL