Sovereign immunity—immunity from execution—customary international law—Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations—embassy bank accounts—aircraft belonging to state-owned airline

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 573-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Trooboff ◽  
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Bank Accounts

Commisimpex v. Republic of Congo

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-460
Author(s):  
Eloïse Glucksmann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Republic Of Congo ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
French Case ◽  
Bank Accounts

The law in France regarding waivers of foreign state (or sovereign) immunity from execution of judicial judgments (based largely on consideration of international law principles) has recently undergone significant developments. Previously, French case law had required a foreign state's waiver of immunity from execution to be both express and specific to consider valid the attachment of foreign state property allocated to public services (including bank accounts used for the functioning of both diplomatic missions and delegations to international organizations). In 2015, the French Court of Cassation relaxed the criteria it had previously required for giving effect to waivers of sovereign immunity in such situations, thus facilitating the ability of judgment creditors to attach foreign state property in France. Its decision in the Commisimpex v. Republic of Congo case appeared to put an end to that requirement by abandoning the criterion of a “specific” waiver on the ground that “customary international law does not require a waiver of immunity from execution other than express.” In December 2016, however, the French government enacted new legislation reinstating the need for a specific waiver of immunity for the attachment of the property as well as bank accounts of foreign embassies and diplomatic missions and additionally requiring a court order authorizing the attachment or seizure. As a result, France has now embraced a distinctly more protective approach to the immunity of foreign state assets from attachment and execution of judicial judgments.

The Practice and Case Law of Israel in Matters Related to International Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 668-700 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Norms ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign Countries

Two decisions were rendered recently by Israeli courts of lower instances which concern the field of diplomatic immunities. The first, delivered by the Magistrate Court in Petah Tikwa, deals with the inviolability of diplomatic premises and with the waiver thereof; and the second, by the District Court in Jerusalem, refers to the question of state immunity from attachment and execution, and seems to constitute a clear diversion from the accepted international norms and rules on this issue. Both decisions, rendered in the matter of the residence of the Ambassador of Côte d'Ivoire to Israel, will be examined separately, following the factual background relevant to each.The question of the inviolability of diplomatic premises, as well as that of a diplomat's immunity from jurisdiction, is a separate issue from that of state immunity. The first considers the treatment given to diplomats in foreign countries, and is codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the “Convention”), while the latter consists only of customary international law, and deals with the concepts of acts of state and the immunity of sovereign states from jurisdiction by the courts of another state. In the following survey we will show that in some instances, the two issues have been confused and conclusions drawn from one to the other without consideration of the differences between the two.

scholarly journals Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions: The Recent Indian Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Indian Experience ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Abstract The successful adoption of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is hailed as the ‘landmark of the highest significance in the codification of international law’. It represented the first significant codification of any international instrument since the United Nations was established. However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on the pre-existing customary international law, the scope of diplomatic protection was not free from issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there is a growing tendency amongst the diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status to commit acts prohibited by law and still claim immunity from legal process. The States-parties also aggravate this situation by selectively interpreting the rules in their favor, ignoring the fact that reciprocity is the basis for the successful functioning of the diplomatic protection. In this connection, this paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations, especially with special reference to the recent Indian experience. It explores the two recent Indian diplomatic confrontations, namely, the arrest of Devyani Khobragade and the travel ban on Daniele Mancini. Based on the study, it highlights the need for a well-balanced and equitable enforcement of the Vienna Conventions in the interest of maintenance of cordial diplomatic relations in the international community.

Exemption of Mission Premises from Taxation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
General Practice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Local Taxes ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

This chapter examines Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the exemption of the diplomatic mission premises from taxation. Article 23 states that the sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission. This exemption however shall not apply to dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission. This practice traces its roots from the nineteenth century when it was not based on diplomatic immunity but on courtesy. Many States concluded bilateral agreements or arrangements providing exemption—a practice which would have been unnecessary if customary international law had required it. During the twentieth century, general practice based on courtesy or on reciprocity began to harden into a customary rule requiring exemption from central and local taxes on mission property.

Preamble

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Character Theory ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter describes the Preamble of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations set forth by the International Law Commission, the main legal body which promotes the progressive development of international law and oversees its codification. It briefly describes three theories that form as the basis of the statements written at the Preamble —the ‘exterritoriality’ theory, the ‘representative character’ theory, and the ‘functional necessity’ theory. All of these theories heavily influence matters regarding diplomatic privileges and immunities. Ultimately, the Preamble to the Convention has two important legal functions—to state the view of the participating States on the theoretical basis of diplomatic privileges and immunities, and to make explicit the relationship between the Convention and customary international law.

scholarly journals The Obligation of Diplomats to Respect the Laws and Regulations of the Hosting State: A Critical Overview of the International Practices

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Nehaluddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Critical Overview ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state “may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.” However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on pre-existing customary international law, the opportunity for diplomatic protection is not free of issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency amongst diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status, in order to commit acts prohibited by law and claim immunity from the legal process. This paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations. We analyze several past cases of declaration of persona non grata involving various countries.

Transparency International France v. Mr X

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 219-226
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vice President ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Transparency International ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State

219State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Immunity of individual officials — Head of State immunity — Immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae — Immunity ratione personae confined to Head of State and certain high-ranking officials — Immunity ratione materiae applicable only in respect of official acts — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Immunity of diplomatic agents — State sovereignty — Customary international law — The law of France

Exemption from Giving Evidence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Strong Incentive ◽  
Do So

This chapter considers Article 31.2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which states that a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness during trial. Under customary international law a diplomat was immune from compulsion in regard to appearing or giving evidence as a witness but was probably not exempt from the legal obligation to do so if requested in proper terms. It should be noted that the exemption from the duty to give evidence is not limited by the exceptions to immunity from jurisdiction set out in Article 31.1(a), (b), and (c). It was emphasized that a diplomatic agent involved for whatever reason as plaintiff or as defendant in legal proceedings would always have a strong incentive to give evidence in order to win his case, but that the decision whether to permit him to do so should remain with the sending State.

PENERAPAN PRINSIP PERSONA NON GRATA TERHADAP DUTA BESAR DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF HUKUM INTERNASIONAL (STUDI KASUS PENGANIAYAAN TKI OLEH DUTA BESAR ARAB SAUDI DI JERMAN)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Devi Yusvitasari
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Recipient Country ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The World ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right

A country needs to make contact with each other based on the national interests of each country related to each other, including among others economic, social, cultural, legal, political, and so on. With constant and continuous association between the nations of the world, it is one of the conditions for the existence of the international community. One form of cooperation between countries in the world is in the form of international relations by placing diplomatic representation in various countries. These representatives have diplomatic immunity and diplomatic immunity privileges that are in accordance with the jurisdiction of the recipient country and civil and criminal immunity for witnesses. The writing of the article entitled "The Application of the Principle of Non-Grata Persona to the Ambassador Judging from the Perspective of International Law" describes how the law on the abuse of diplomatic immunity, how a country's actions against abuse of diplomatic immunity and how to analyze a case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. To answer the problem used normative juridical methods through the use of secondary data, such as books, laws, and research results related to this research topic. Based on the results of the study explained that cases of violations of diplomatic relations related to the personal immunity of diplomatic officials such as cases such as cases of persecution by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Indonesian Workers in Germany are of serious concern. The existence of diplomatic immunity is considered as protection so that perpetrators are not punished. Actions against the abuse of recipient countries of diplomatic immunity may expel or non-grata persona to diplomatic officials, which is stipulated in the Vienna Convention in 1961, because of the right of immunity attached to each diplomatic representative.

scholarly journals Criminal Proceedings Against Albers

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-638
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In August 2012, the First Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court or Court), the highest Italian domestic court, issued a judgment upholding Germany’s sovereign immunity from civil claims brought by Italian war crime victims against Paul Albers and eight others in the Italian courts (Albers). In so doing, the Court overruled its own earlier decisions and also reversed the judgment of April 20, 2011, by the Italian Military Court of Appeal (Military Court), which had upheld such claims relating to war crimes committed by German forces in Italy during World War II. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation put an end to its decade long effort to find an exception to the well-known rule of customary international law providing for sovereign immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction for actsjure imperii. Thisrevirementresulted from the Court’s decision to give effect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inGermany v. Italy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document