La sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia relativa al caso Germania c. Italia: profili di diritto intertemporale

2012 ◽  
pp. 335-349
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jus Cogens

The author comments on the judgment delivered by the ICJ on 3rd February 2012 in the case of Germany v. Italy, concerning jurisdictional immunity of the State against actions for compensation in respect of crimes committed during World War II. The article focuses on the intertemporal law aspects of the case, commenting that the ICJ, while correctly identifying State immunity rules as having a procedural nature, failed in clarifying that whenever their application requires a qualification of the relevant facts, this is to be performed pursuant to the law in force at the time they were committed. Arguably, at the time of the conflict, the category of jus cogens norms had not yet been sufficiently established, nor had a special regime of State responsibility for international crimes or for serious breaches of peremptory rules of general international law developed yet. Therefore, the supposed prevalence of the breached norms on State immunity rules, which the ICJ has correctly excluded due to the different nature of either set of rules, arguably was to be excluded for intertemporal reasons altogether.

Jus CogensafterGermanyv.Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEFAN TALMON
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Limited Effect ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn the case concerningJurisdictional Immunities of the State, the ICJ held that rules ofjus cogensdid not automatically displace hierarchically lower rules of state immunity. The Court's decision was based on the rationale that there was no conflict between these rules as the former were substantive rules while the latter were procedural in character. The ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction has been heavily criticized in the literature. Much of the criticism seems to be motivated by the unwanted result of the distinction, namely de facto impunity for the most serious human rights violations. This paper takes a step back from the alleged antinomy of human rights and state immunity and broadens the picture by looking at the relationship between substantive and procedural rules more generally. It is shown that substantive rules of ajus cogenscharacter generally leave procedural rules unaffected and, in particular, do not automatically override such rules. Substantive rules may, however, have a limited effect upon the interpretation and application of procedural rules. It is argued that the ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction is well established in international law and makes eminent sense even when substantive rules ofjus cogensand procedural rules of immunity are involved.

Identifying Conflicts of Norms: The ICJ Approach in the Case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening)

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1003-1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANÇOIS BOUDREAULT
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
German Reich

AbstractThe potential for conflicts of norms is particularly great in modern international law. Yet until now, the International Court of Justice has said very little as to what it considers a conflict of norms. The opportunity to do so arose in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). There, it was argued that granting Germany sovereign immunity in proceedings before Italian courts involving civil claims for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945 would come in conflict with prevailing peremptory (jus cogens) norms of international law. In its 3 February 2012 Judgment, the ICJ rejected this argument. In the present article, the author argues that the conceptions of conflict of norms underlying the Court's judgment and the dissent of Judge Cançado Trindade both have weaknesses. The author suggests an alternative framework to ascertain conflicts of norms. He then applies this framework to the rules of state immunity and the IHL rules breached by Germany, agreeing in the end with the conclusion reached by the majority of the ICJ that these rules did not conflict.

The Nuremberg Trial and International Law

1947 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civilized World

Retribution for the shocking crimes and atrocities committed by the enemy during World War II was made imperative by the overwhelming demands emanating from the public conscience throughout the civilized world. Statesmen and jurists realized that another failure to vindicate the law such as followed World War I would prove their incapacity to make progress in strengthening the international law of the future.1

Book III Privileges and Immunities, 12 Privileges and Immunities of the State, The Head of State, State Officials, and State Agencies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
General Description ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an account of the immunities of the State, its officials, and state agencies in international law. It first offers a general description of the plea of state immunity and a brief historical account of the development of the law of state immunity. Then it briefly sets out the law relating to the immunities of the State itself as a legal person, followed by the law applicable to its officials and to state agencies. In addition an account based on customary international law will be provided on the immunities of senior state officials. The chapter concludes by taking note of the extent to which the practice of diplomatic missions at the present time accords with requirements of state immunity law as now set out in written form in the 2004 UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property.

The Dark Side of Immunity: Is There Any Individual Right for Activities Jure Imperii?

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTEO SARZO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Sensitive Questions ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Procedural Rule ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThe following contribution interprets the ICJ decision on the case Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in a broader picture. The article focuses on the cause of action underlying the domestic civil claims, i.e. the primary rules providing for individual rights. Indeed, the traditional view, which conceives immunity as a ‘procedural’ rule, vigorously upheld by the Court, is not the only way to address this topic. In our view, state immunity is a substitute for other more sensitive questions, namely the definition of ‘state’, its prerogatives, and the individuals as right holders under international law. This approach points out a different rationale under state immunity, leading to major practical consequences in terms of the assessment of international jurisdiction.

A HISTORIC DECISION OF THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ON THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE ITALIAN LEGAL ORDER’S FUNDAMENTAL VALUES AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-52
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Cataldi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Fundamental Values

In judgment No. 238 of 22 October 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the legitimacy of certain norms of the Italian legal order which relate to the implementation of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgment in theJurisdictional Immunities of the State case. In this case the Court found that customary international law concerning State immunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity could not enter the Italian legal order, as it was incompatible with the basic principles of the Italian Constitution. Judgment No. 238/2014 thus reveals a key connection between domestic fundamental values and internationally recognized values. If this connection exists, national courts should decline to give effect to an international decision if it contravenes a fundamental obligation under national as well as international law. Thus, domestic courts may play the role of defenders of the international rule of law from international law itself. According to international law, as well as Italian law, there is no doubt that enforcement of an ICJ decision is mandatory for the State to which the decision is directed. In the case under review, however, the requirement to implement the ruling of the ICJ was set aside in order to defer to the requirement to respect the fundamental values of the Italian legal system, in accordance with the theory of “counter-limits” as developed by the Constitutional Court. This conclusion appears also consistent with the German order, which renders quite weak any possible reaction, or protest, by that State.

scholarly journals State Immunity Before the International Court of Justice: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy)

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew McMenamin
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Jus Cogens

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.

State responsibility and positive obligations in the European Court of Human Rights: The contribution of the ICJ in advancing towards more judicial integration

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-187
Author(s):  
Rosana Garciandia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
International Law Commission

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) follows its own rules regarding the responsibility of states, although the international law of state responsibility enshrined in the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) remains, as general international law, relevant to its decisions. However, case law of the ECtHR shows that the Court is departing from certain ARSIWA principles as it adopts a broad interpretation of rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) giving rise to positive obligations.1Exploring those trends in the state responsibility regime of the ECHR, this article argues that, by clarifying certain ARSIWA provisions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can play an important role by contributing to a higher degree of judicial integration on the law of state responsibility. It is desirable that the ICJ takes any upcoming opportunity to provide greater clarity on the challenges and nuances of the applicability of the law of state responsibility, in particular as it relates to positive obligations. That would contribute to a more systematic use of those rules by regional courts such as the ECtHR, and ultimately to guaranteeing a greater protection of human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document