DOCSLIB.ORG

Counter-Memorial of Italy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Counter-Memorial of Italy INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY V. ITALY) COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF ITALY 22 DECEMBER 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. GENERAL REMARKS ..................................................................................... 5 Section I. Introduction................................................................................................................. 5 Section II. The Agreement Between the Parties on the Jurisdiction of the Court................. 7 Section III. The Real Scope of the Dispute ................................................................................ 8 Section IV. The Position of the Federal Republic of Germany and its International Responsibility for the Crimes Committed by the Third Reich....................................... 9 Section V. The Time Element in the Present Case.................................................................. 10 CHAPTER II. THE FACTS..................................................................................................... 13 Section I. The Events of the Second World War Concerning the Parties ............................ 13 A. IMPRISONMENT AND FORCED LABOUR OF BOTH ITALIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVILIANS.............................................................................................................. 14 B. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION................................................................. 15 Section II. The Exclusion of Italian Victims from Reparations on the Basis of a Mistaken Interpretation of the 1947 and 1961 Waiver Clauses.................................................... 16 Section III. The Mechanisms for Reparation Established by Germany and the Persistent Lack of Effective Reparation for a Very Large Number of Italian Victims ............... 19 A. THE FEDERAL COMPENSATION LAW OF 1953 ................................................................. 19 B. THE COMPENSATION LAW OF 2 AUGUST 2000................................................................ 21 Section IV. The Search for an Effective Remedy in the Light of a Denial of Justice: Access to Justice before Italian Courts and the Derogation from the Principle of Immunity ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Section V. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER III. JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 31 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 31 Section II. Identification of the Real Cause of the Dispute Submitted by Germany for the Purposes of the Court’s Jurisdiction............................................................................... 33 Section III. The Dispute on Immunity Brought by Germany and the Dispute on Reparation Brought by Italy Fall within the Scope Ratione Temporis of the 1957 European Convention....................................................................................................... 37 Section IV. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER IV. IMMUNITY.................................................................................................... 42 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 42 Section II. The Principle of State Immunity from Jurisdiction and Its Limits.................... 43 A. IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY PRINCIPLE.............................................................................................................. 44 B. DEVELOPMENTS OF IMMUNITY LAW ............................................................................... 45 1. Evolution from Absolute to Relative Immunity ....................................................................................45 2. The Exceptions to State Immunity for Personal Injuries.......................................................................51 (a) Irrelevance of Imperii-Gestionis Distinction in Tort Litigation .....................................................51 (b) Applicability of the Torts Exception in Cases Concerning War Damage ......................................54 3. Inter-Temporal Application of the Rules of State Immunity.................................................................56 C. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 59 Section III. The Principles of State Immunity in the Context of Developments of International Law ............................................................................................................. 60 A. JUS COGENS..................................................................................................................... 60 B. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW .................................................................................... 70 C. ACCESS TO JUSTICE......................................................................................................... 73 D. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 80 Section IV. Immunity Cannot Mean Impunity ....................................................................... 80 Section V. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER V. REPARATION ................................................................................................ 87 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 87 Section II. The General Principle of Effective Reparation for Serious Violations of IHL.. 90 A. THE REPARATION RÉGIME FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF IHL........................................ 90 B. THE NON-DEROGABLE CHARACTER OF THE OBLIGATION OF REPARATION IN WAR CRIMES CASES....................................................................................................... 94 C. THE NEED FOR ‘EFFECTIVE’ REPARATION AND THE WAYS IN WHICH STATES FULFIL THEIR REPARATION OBLIGATIONS ........................................................................ 98 Section III. Developments in International Criminal Law, Human Rights Law and Other Relevant Principles Concerning Reparation to Victims of International Crimes.... 100 Section IV. Germany’s Obligations of Reparation for Serious Violations of IHL Against Italian Victims................................................................................................................. 104 CHAPTER VI. BALANCING IMMUNITY AND THE OBLIGATION OF REPARATION .................................................................................................................... 114 Section I. The Position of the Italian Judges with Respect to the Conflict Between Immunity and Reparation ............................................................................................. 114 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 114 B. NATIONAL JUDGES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ............................................................. 117 Section II. The Reasons Why, by Denying Immunity, Italy Did Not Commit an Internationally Wrongful Act........................................................................................ 122 CHAPTER VII. COUNTER-CLAIM ................................................................................... 128 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 128 Section II. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Counter-Claim........................................ 129 Section III. Remedies Sought by Italy.................................................................................... 131 Section IV. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 133 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 134 LIST OF ANNEXES................................................................................................................ 135 CHAPTER I GENERAL REMARKS Section I. Introduction 1.1 In this Counter-Memorial, presented within the deadline laid down by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the Court) by order of 29 April 2009, the Italian Republic (hereinafter Italy) intends, first, to set out the arguments that lead it to ask the Court to reject the request submitted on 23 December 2008 by the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter Germany), illustrated in its Memorial of 12 June 2009. Secondly, Italy intends to explain the reasons on which its own counter-claim, submitted in the same context, is based. 1.2 In its Memorial, Germany emphasizes that the strong links of friendship and cooperation between Italy and Germany are not being called in question in any way by the initiative of bringing before the Court a delicate controversy it seems impossible to resolve any
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, 10 TUL
    DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Sep 29 21:37:28 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 21st ed. Christian Tomuschat, Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, 10 TUL. J. INT'l & COMP. L. 157 (2002). ALWD 6th ed. Tomuschat, C. ., Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, 10 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 157 (2002). APA 7th ed. Tomuschat, C. (2002). Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 10, 157-184. Chicago 17th ed. Christian Tomuschat, "Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations," Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 10 (2002): 157-184 McGill Guide 9th ed. Christian Tomuschat, "Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations" (2002) 10 Tul J Int'l & Comp L 157. AGLC 4th ed. Christian Tomuschat, 'Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations' (2002) 10 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 157. MLA 8th ed. Tomuschat, Christian. "Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations." Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 10, 2002, p. 157-184. HeinOnline. OSCOLA 4th ed. Christian Tomuschat, 'Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations' (2002) 10 Tul J Int'l & Comp L 157 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use: Copyright Information Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Christian Tomuschaf I.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Christian Tomuschat
    The Center for Civil and Human Rights presents a series of lectures by PROFESSOR CHRISTIAN TOMUSCHAT Professor Tomuschat is one of the world’s leading international human rights lawyers and emeritus professor of law at Humboldt University, Berlin. He is an experienced international litigator and judge who has served with the United Nations as a member of the Human Rights Committee, the International law Commission, and as an independent expert in Guatemala and Gaza. Monday, February 7, 2011 12:30 p.m. 3140 Eck Hall of Law Germany v. Italy at the ICJ Professor Tomuschat will discuss public aspects of this case in which he serves as one of the agents for Germany in proceedings against Italy before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague This lecture co-sponsored by the Nanovic Institute for European Studies. Wednesday, February 9, 2011 12:30 p.m. 3140 Eck Hall of Law Human Rights and the Gaza Conflict Professor Tomuschat will discuss his service on a panel of independent experts tasked by the United Nations to “monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side” in light of the allegations in the report of the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission into the Gaza conflict – also known as the Goldstone Report. Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:30 p.m. 3140 Eck Hall of Law What is “General International Law”? Professor Tomuschat will lecture on the concept of general international law. Given the multiplicity of subjects and the overlapping areas of activity covered by international law, he will explore whether a common set of rules – collectively known as “general international law” – may be said to exist.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law Commission – Statements by Professor Georg Nolte
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Last Updated: February 2016 International Law Commission – Statements by Professor Georg Nolte Table of Contents 67th Session (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 6 3277th Meeting, 23 July 2015 (Provisional Application of Treaties) .................................................... 6 3274th Meeting, 22 July 2015 (Visit by the President of the International Court of Justice) .............. 8 3273rd Meeting, 21 July 2015 (Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction) ........ 9 3262nd Meeting, 4 June 2015 (Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice) ........................ 13 3260th Meeting, 2 June 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ......................................................... 22 3259th Meeting, 29 May 2015 (Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice) ....................... 23 3256th Meeting, 26 May 2015 (Crimes against Humanity) ............................................................... 26 3253rd Meeting, 20 May 2015 (Identification of Customary International Law) .............................. 29 3252nd Meeting, 19 May (Identification of Customary International Law) ....................................... 31 3249th Meeting, 12 May 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ....................................................... 32 3246th Meeting, 6 May 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ......................................................... 33 3245th Meeting, 5 May 2015 (Statement
    [Show full text]
  • Document on Crimes Against the Environment, Prepared by Mr. Christian Tomuschat, Member of the Commission
    Document:- ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3 Document on crimes against the environment, prepared by Mr. Christian Tomuschat, member of the Commission Topic: Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind (Part II)- including the draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1996,vol. II(1) Downloaded from the web site of the International Law Commission (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm) Copyright © United Nations DRAFT CODE OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF MANKIND [Agenda item 3] DOCUMENT ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3 Document on crimes against the environment, prepared by Mr. Christian Tomuschat, member of the Commission [Original: English] [27 March 1996] CONTENTS Page Multilateral instruments cited in the present report ...................................................................................... 16 Paragraphs INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 16 Chapter I. HISTORICAL REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 2−13 17 A. The Nürnberg trial ................................................................................................... 3 17 B. The work done by the International Law Commission ........................................... 4–10 17 C. Work done by other United Nations bodies ............................................................ 11–12 20 D. Work done by private
    [Show full text]
  • EJIL: Talk! – Let Not Triepel Triumph – How to Make the Best out of Sentenza No. 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court for a Global Legal Order
    EJIL: Talk! – Let Not Triepel Triumph – How To Make the Best Out of Sentenza No. 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court for a Global Legal Order Analysis Reports Debate! Book Discussion Editorials About EJIL: Talk! EJIL: Live! Blog of the European Journal EJIL: Talk!of International Law Home EJIL Analysis Let Not Triepel Triumph – How To Make the Best Out of Sentenza No. 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court for a Global Legal Order Let Not Triepel Triumph – How To Make the Best Out of Sentenza No. 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court for a Global Legal Order Published on December 22, 2014 Author: Anne Peters The Italian Constiutional Court’s decision no. 238 of 22 Oct. 2014 (unofficial translation into English) already inspired a flurry of comments in the blogosphere (see in EJIL talk! Christian Tams (24 Oct. 2014) and Theodor Schilling (12 Nov. 2014); on the Verfassungsblog amongst others Filippo Fontanelli (27 Oct. 2014); on Opinio Juris Andrea Pin (19 Nov. 2014); on the Völkerrechtsblog Felix Würkert (11 Dec. 2014)); see also Karin Oellers-Frahm, „Das italienische Verfassungsgericht und das Völkerrecht: Eine unerfreuliche Beziehung“, Heidelberg Journal of International Law 2015, issue 1. In that Sentenza, the Corte refused to give effect to the ICJ’s judgment (in) Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) of 3 February 2012, in which the ICJ had upheld the principle of state immunity against allegations of serious human rights violations of German state organs committed during the Second World War. Sentenza No. 238 is important not only because it concerns the persisting tension between respecting (state) immunity and protecting human or fundamental rights (see for a recent publication Anne Peters/Evelyne Lagrange/Stefan Oeter/Christian Tomuschat (eds), Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism (Leiden: Brill 2015)), but – maybe even more importantly – because it concerns the relationship between international law (in the shape of a judgment by the ICJ) and domestic law, as applied by a domestic (constitutional) court.
    [Show full text]
  • Allocation of Law Enforcement Authority in the International System. Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Kiel Insti
    Allocation of Law Enforcement Authority in the International System Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel Herausgegeben von Jost Delbrück Institut für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel 117 Völkerrechtlicher Beirat des Instituts: Daniel Bardonnet John Norton Moore l'Universite de Paris ll University of Virginia, Charlottesville Rodoll Bernhardt Max-Planck-Institut für Fred L. Morrison ausländisches öffentliches University of Minnesota, Recht und Völkerrecht, Minneapolis Heidelberg Albrecht Randelzhofer Lucius Caflisch Freie Universität Berlin Institut Universitaire de Hautes Krzysztof Skubiszewski Etudes Internationales, Geneve Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and Poznan Antonius Eitel Bonn Christian Tomuschat Universität Bonn Luigi Ferrari Bravo Universita di Roma Rüdiger Wolfrum Max-Planck-Institut für Louis Benkin ausländisches öffentliches Columbia University, Recht und Völkerrecht, New York Heidelberg Tommy T. B. Koh Sir Artbur Watts Washington, D. C. London Allocation of Law Enforcement Authority in the International System Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Kiel Institute of International Law March 23 to 25, 1994 Edited by Jost Delbrück Assistant Editor: Ursula E. Heinz Duncker & Humblot · Berlin Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Allocation of law enforcement authority in the international system : proceedings of an international symposium of the Kiel Institute of International Law, March 23 to 25, 1994 I ed. by Jost Delbrück. - Berlin : Duncker und Humblot, 1995 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel ; 117) ISBN 3-428-08335-0 NE: Delbrück, Jost [Hrsg.]; Institut für Internationales Recht (Kiel): Veröffentlichungen des Instituts ... Alle Rechte, einschließlich das der Übersetzung, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus in irgendeiner Weise zu vervielfältigen.
    [Show full text]
  • Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism
    Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism Edited by Anne Peters Evelyne Lagrange Stefan Oeter Christian Tomuschat LEIDEN | BOSTON This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Foreword ix Alain Pellet and Daniel Thürer List of Contributors x 1 Immune against Constitutionalisation? 1 Anne Peters PART 1 State Immunity—National Practice 2 L’immunité souveraine de l’État : la pratique française 23 Pierre Boussaroque et David Lemétayer 3 Sovereign Immunities of States: A German Perspective 32 Martin Ney 4 Current Polish Practice in the Domain of State Immunity 40 Władysław Czapliński 5 The Holy See, a Former Somalian Prime Minister, and a Confijiscated Pissarro Painting: Recent US Case Law on Foreign Sovereign Immunity 51 Thomas Giegerich 6 La renonciation par un État à son immunité d’exécution 70 Mathias Audit PART 2 State Immunity before the ICJ—The Case Germany v. Italy 7 The Case of Germany v. Italy before the ICJ 87 Christian Tomuschat This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV vi Contents 8 Remedies of Victims of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanities: Some Critical Remarks on the ICJ’s Judgment on the Jurisdictional Immunity of States 99 Michael Bothe 9 L’afffaireAllemagne contre Italie ou les dilemmes du droit et de la justice 116 Jerzy Kranz PART 3 Commercial Activities and State Immunity 10 Blurring Boundaries between Sovereign Acts and Commercial Activities: A Functional View on Regulatory Immunity and Immunity from Execution 131 Anne van
    [Show full text]
  • Stanford Law School, Stanford, California, Master of the Science of Law (JSM)
    M ARKUS W AGNER University of Miami School of Law – 1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146 ( 305) 284-1129 – [email protected] PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida January 2009 – present Associate Professor of Law Courses: Constitutional Law, International Law, International Economic Law, Comparative Law, Miami-Leipzig Seminar Service: Entry-level Hiring Committee (2010-2011); Scholarship Committee (2011-2012); Graduate Programs Committee (2011-2012); Faculty Advisor, Middle-Eastern Law Students Association (2009-2011); Faculty Advisor, National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review (2011-2012); Faculty Senate Administrative Services Committee (2012-present). Visiting professor / visiting scholar Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, Bogota / Colombia 2011-present Max Planck Institute for Public International Law, Heidelberg / Germany May – August 2013 University of New South Wales Law School, Sydney / Australia July – August 2012 University of Leipzig, Faculty of Law, Leipzig / Germany May – July 2011 Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing / China June 2013 – present Senior Research Fellow, Center for Teaching and Research of WTO Disputes Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Brussels / Belgium January – July 2007 Legal Consultant Supreme Court of Israel, Jerusalem / Israel June – September 2006 Law Clerk, President emeritus, Honorable Aharon Barak Max Planck Institute for International Law, Heidelberg / Germany July 2002 – July 2005 Research Fellow,
    [Show full text]
  • Biographical Notes
    Bureau of the Court - Biographical Notes (in alphabetical order) updated: 22 February 2021 Emmanuel DECAUX President Emmanuel Decaux is Professor emeritus of the University of Paris II – Panthéon-Assas, where he taught public international law and international human rights law. He was also Director of the Doctorate School of international law, European law, International Relations and Comparative Law. He has published on topics of public international law, international organizations, with a focus on peaceful settlement of disputes and human rights. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Security and Human Rights Monitor publication. In addition to his academic career, Emmanuel Decaux held several functions within the United Nations. He was a member and then President of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances between 2011 and 2019. Prior to that, he was a member of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and a member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. Emmanuel Decaux also participated as a member of the French delegation to the three meetings of the Human Dimension Conference (1989-1991) and to the first Human Dimension Implementation meetings organized by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw. Later he was nominated as an expert as part of the framework of the Moscow Mechanism on Human Dimension on behalf of which he acted twice (in 2003 and 2011) as Rapporteur. 1 Erkki KOURULA Vice-President Judge Kourula holds two degrees (LL.M. and LL.Lic.) in law from the University of Helsinki and a doctorate in international law from the University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaping Communities. Building Bridges. Promoting Dialogue. Corporate Social Responsibility in 2004
    DaimlerChrysler Shaping communities. Building bridges. Promoting dialogue. Corporate Social Responsibility in 2004 DaimlerChrysler AG External Affairs and Public Policy Stuttgart (Germany), Washington (USA) www.daimlerchrysler.com Corporate Social Responsibility 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility 04< DaimlerChrysler Corporate Social Responsibility >>Glossary + Acknowledgements 99 Contents Acknowledgements Editorial 4 sustainability first became apparent five years later, at the 1992 Published by Areas of activity 6 Rio Earth Summit. DaimlerChrysler AG D – 70546 Stuttgart, Germany >>Sustainable development According to the Brundtland Com- Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766, USA Challenges facing a citizen of the world 8 mission (see Sustainability above), the main characteristics of sus- >1. tainable development are the satisfaction of the basic needs of Under the charge of Taking responsibility 10 the world’s poor in particular, and the pursuit of a development DaimlerChrysler AG Globalization – a human perspective 12 model that preserves the planet’s limited resources for future gen- Dr. Michael J. Inacker Transatlantic dialogue 14 erations. Vice President External Affairs and Public Policy - Stuttgart - >2. The proactive workplace 16 HPC 1134 A corporate culture that puts people first 18 >>UNEP United Nations Environmental Program. The United D – 70546 Stuttgart, Germany Nations’ environmental protection organization, based in Nairobi. >3. Working sustainably 24 Project managed and coordinated by Mission objective: environmental protection 26 >>UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural DaimlerChrysler AG Powering mobility in the future 28 Organization. United Nations agency responsible for the promo- Wolfram Heger Global Sustainability Cooperative 30 tion of culture and education. HPC 1134 D – 70546 Stuttgart, Germany >4. Moving around in safety 34 >>WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law Seminar Alumni Conference 2019
    INTERNATIONAL LAW SEMINAR ALUMNI CONFERENCE 2019 FRIDAY 19 JULY 2019 ROOM VII, PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA PROGRAMME Time Session Speakers Verity Robson (2017), President of ILSAN and Legal Counsellor at Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom in Geneva 13:00 Welcome Remarks Vittorio Mainetti, Secretary-General of ILSAN and Coordinator of International Law Seminar Marja Lehto (1993), Member of ILC, Senior Expert for Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and Associate Professor at University of Helsinki Jasmine Moussa (2009), First Secretary at Permanent Mission of Egypt in Geneva Shinya Murase (1975), Member of ILC and Professor Emeritus of Jochi Panel 1: 13:15 University in Tokyo International Law and the Environment Gentian Zyberi (2008), Head of Department at Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Professor at University of Oslo and Member of Human Rights Committee Moderator: Marcelo Kohen (1989), Professor of International Law at Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva 15:00 Tea and Coffee Christian Tomuschat (1966), Professor Emeritus, Humboldt University of 15:30 Keynote Address Berlin Antonios Abou Kasm (2009), Director and Professor of International Law at Lebanese University Mónica Feria-Tinta (2000), Barrister, 20 Essex Street Chambers Panel 2: 15:50 Procedural Issues in Philippe Gautier (1988), Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law International of the Sea Dispute Settlement Raul Pangalangan (1988), Judge of the International Criminal Court Moderator: Brian McGarry (2013), Lecturer and Senior Researcher at Geneva Centre for International Dispute Settlement Mary-Elisabeth Chong (2017), Vice-President (Conferences & Seminars) 17:35 Concluding Remarks of ILSAN and State Counsel at Attorney General’s Chambers of Singapore th 18:00 Reception, Delegates’ Restaurant (8 Floor, Palais des Nations) SPEAKERS Antonios Abou Kasm (2009) Antonios F.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT of CONCILIATION and ARBITRATION Within the OSCE
    COURT OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION within the OSCE Appointed Members and Alternate Members of the Court Valid mandates CONCILIATORS ALBANIA Armand SKAPI Director, International and European Law Department Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania Etleva HAKA Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania AUSTRIA Peter LAUNSKY-TIEFFENTHAL Ambassador, Secretary-General for Foreign Affairs, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs Gerhard HAFNER Professor ret. of International Law, University of Vienna BELARUS Vladimir SENKO Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Former Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Relations and National Security of the Council of the Republic of Belarus Sergei MARTYNOV Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus CYPRUS Antonis R. LIATSOS Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Cyprus Andreas JACOVIDES Former Ambassador International lawyer and consultant MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE COURT - page 2 DENMARK Jonas BERING LIISBERG State Secretary for Foreign Policy Ministry of Foreign Affairs Peter TAKSØE-JENSEN Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs FINLAND Kimmo KILJUNEN Member of the Finnish Parliament Sia Spiliopoulou ÅKERMARK Associate Professor of International Law Director, The Åland Islands Peace Institute FRANCE Pierre BOUSSAROQUE State Councillor Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Emmanuel DECAUX President of the Court Professor Emeritus, Université Paris II, Panthéon-Assas GERMANY Christian TOMUSCHAT Professor emeritus Faculty of
    [Show full text]