DOCSLIB.ORG

International Law Professors in Support of Petitioner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Law Professors in Support of Petitioner No. 16-1094 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPUBLIC OF SUDAN, Petitioner, v. RICK HARRISON, ET AL., Respondents. On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INTERNATIONAL LAW PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER GEORGE A. BERMANN DAVID P. STEWART Jerome Greene Hall Georgetown University Law Columbia Law School Center 435 West 116th Street 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W. New York, NY 10027 Washington, DC 20001 (212) 854-4258 (202) 662-9927 JARED L. HUBBARD (Counsel of Record) FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 542-5542 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve process upon the head of the ministry of foreign affairs under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by a mailing “through,” “via,” or “care of” the foreign state’s diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 I. THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS DISALLOWS SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A STATE VIA ITS EMBASSY.............................................. 5 II. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATES SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A STATE’S MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ................ 13 III. THIS COURT SHOULD CONSTRUE THE FSIA SO AS NOT TO CONFLICT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW ........................ 16 IV. SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN EMBASSY REQUIRES “CONSENT OF THE HEAD OF THE MISSION” ...................... 19 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 24 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDIX Appendix A: List of Amici Curiae ............................ 1a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) .......................... 12 Benz v. Compania Navera Hidalgo, S.A, 353 U.S. 138 (1957) ............................................... 17, 18 Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536 (1884) ................................................................. 17 Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC, 766 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................................... 21, 22 Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Moore, 345 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1965) ....................................8, 9, 22, 23 Kumar v. Republic of Sudan, 880 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2018) .......................................... 2, 3 McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10 (1963) ...................... 17 Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804) ................................................ 4, 16 Prewitt Enters. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 21, 22 Sumitomo Shoji Am. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) .......................................................... 13 Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 8 v Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 33 (1982)............. 17 FOREIGN CASES Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co. & Republic of Iraq [1995] 1 WLR 1147 ................. 11 La société NML Capital v. La République argentine, Cour de cassation [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., March 28, 2013, Judgment No. 394 .............................. 14 Sebina v. South African High Commission 2010 3 BLR 723 IC ............................................. 12 Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic, [2015] 126 O.R. (3d) 545 (Can. Ont. C.A.) ................... 12 Village Holdings Sdn. Bhd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (1988) 2 MLJ 656 ...................................................................... 12 Wallishauser v. Austria, Application No. 156/04, Judgment, 19 November 2012 (ECtHR) ............................................................. 14 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1608 .................................. 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 19 Malawi Immunities and Privileges Act 1984 § 14(1) .................................................................... 15 vi PL 94–583 (HR 11315), PL 94–583, October 21, 1976, 90 Stat 2891(1) ............................................. 16 Singapore State Immunity Act 2014, Ch. 313, § 14(1) ................................................................. 15 UK State Immunity Act 1978, Ch. 33, § 12(1) ........ 14 TREATIES European Convention on State Immunity, ETS No. 074, Art. 16(2) ...................................... 14 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77, TIAS 6820 (1969) ................................ 3 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227, TIAS 7502 (1972) .............. passim United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, G.A. Res. 59/38, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/RES/59/38 (Dec. 2, 2004) .......................... 13, 14 United Nations Headquarters Agreement, Art. III, § 9, available at 22 U.S.C. § 287 ................. 21 OTHER AUTHORITIES Anderson, Matthew Smith, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450-1919 (Longman, 1993) ..................................................................... 6 Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (4th ed. 2016) ..................................... 11 vii Gamal Badr, State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View 214 (1984) ........................ 15 H.R. Rep. No. 94–1487, at 2 (1976), as reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6605 ........................... 4. 18 ILC Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, ILC Yearbook, 1991, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 60, §§ 1-3 ................................................................... 15 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 115 (Am. Law Inst. 1986) .......................................................... 16 Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law: Jurisdiction Treaties § 109 TD No 1 (2016) ................................................................. 16 U.S. State Department, What is a U.S. Embassy?, https://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplom acy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm ........... 8, 20 United Nations Treaty Collection, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.a spx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III- 3&chapter=3&clang=_en ..................................... 6 United States Mission Vacancy Announcement: Mailroom Clerk, https://ca.usembassy.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/27/2016/04/16-44- Mailroom-Clerk-Toronto.pdf .............................. 21 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Amici curiae listed in the Appendix are law professors and scholars at U.S. law schools who teach, research, and write about international law, both public and private. They share a common view that United States courts must properly apply international treaties to which the United States is a party, thereby adhering to its international legal obligations. INTRODUCTION This case involves a $314 million default judgment rendered against a foreign sovereign based upon two crucial conclusions of law: (1) that a foreign embassy is a proper conduit for service of process under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3); and (2) that acceptance of a mail parcel by an embassy’s mail room constitutes “consent of the head of the mission” to receive service of process under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”), 23 U.S.T. 3227, TIAS 7502 (1972). Each of these conclusions of law is erroneous and jeopardizes long- held principles of international law, practice, and diplomacy critical to the foreign policy of the United States. Amici curiae submit this brief to elaborate on the reasons why an embassy is not a proper 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have provided the Clerk letters granting blanket consented to the filing of amicus briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2. 2 conduit for service of process on a foreign sovereign and why a mail room’s acceptance of a parcel cannot constitute consent to service by other means. The FSIA provides that service on a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) must be made by “any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” The statute thus identifies a specific recipient, and the question is whether the recipient—the “head of the ministry of foreign affairs”—should be served where he or she is actually located—“the ministry of foreign affairs”—or may be served at a location where that official is rarely if ever present—namely, the foreign sovereign’s diplomatic mission in the United States. Amici agree with Petitioner that the plain reading of the statute is that service must occur at the ministry of foreign affairs. It is well accepted that the provisions of § 1608(a) require “strict compliance.” See, e.g., Kumar v. Republic of Sudan, 880 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2018) (observing that “based on §1608(a)’s four precise methods
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Immunity of Official Visitors
    The Immunity of Official Visitors Michael Wood* A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 16, 2012, p. 35-98. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill N.V. * I thank Penelope Nevill and Eran Sthoeger for their valuable assis- tance. 36 Max Planck UNYB 16 (2012) I. Introduction II. Immunity ratione personae of serving Heads of State and other High-Ranking Officials; and “Official Act” Immunity 1. Immunity ratione personae of serving Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and other High- Ranking Office Holders 2. “Official Act” Immunity III. The Convention on Special Missions IV. Evidence of the Customary International Law on Official Visitors 1. The Special Missions Convention and Customary International Law 2. State Practice 3. ICJ Case-Law 4. Writings V. The Customary International Law on the Immunity of Official Visitors 1. Minimum Requirements for an Official Visit Attracting Immu- nity a. The Need for the Visitor to Represent the Sending State b. The Need for the Receiving State to Consent to the Visit as one Attracting Immunity c. Whether Consent is given is a Matter of Policy d. The Status of Persons on High-Level Official Visits VI. Conclusion Annex State Practice Wood, The Immunity of Official Visitors 37 Abstract This article reviews the customary international law concerning official visitors, in particular the inviolability of the person and immunity from criminal jurisdiction that they enjoy. It looks at State practice, including the case-law. It also considers the work of the ILC and the literature. Three separate heads of immunity may come into play in the case of any particular official visit: the immunity ratione personae of holders of high-ranking office; “official act” immunity; and the immunity of offi- cial visitors, including those on special missions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Privileges and Immunities of United
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 33 | Issue 1 Article 4 Winter 1-1-1976 A Comparative Study Of The rP ivileges And Immunities Of United Nations Member Representatives And Officials With The rT aditional Privileges And Immunities Of Diplomatic Agents Yu-Long Ling Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Yu-Long Ling, A Comparative Study Of The Privileges And Immunities Of United Nations Member Representatives And Officials With The Traditional Privileges And Immunities Of Diplomatic Agents, 33 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 91 (1976), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol33/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICIALS WITH THE TRADITIONAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS Yu-LONG LING* I. INTRODUCTION Modern states possess wide jurisdictional authority over their na- tional domain.' This authority normally extends to persons, both nationals and aliens, residing within a country and to property lo- cated therein. That a nation rules over all persons and things within its territory constitutes one of the basic principles of international law.2 For a variety of reasons, however, states have accepted limita- tions upon their jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Regime of Persona Non Grata and the Namru-2 Case
    Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.32, 2014 Legal Regime of Persona Non Grata and the Namru-2 Case Marcel Hendrapati* Law Faculty, Hasanuddin University, Jalan Perintis Kemerdekaan, Kampus Unhas Tamalanrea KM.10, Makassar-90245, Republic of Indonesia * E-mail of the corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Just like the diplomatic immunity principle, the principle of persona non grata aims to ensure justice for both the state seeking to evict a diplomat (receiving state) and the state whose diplomat is being evicted (sending state). This is because both principles can guarantee the dignity and equality of sovereign states when resolving issues in international relation. Not every statement of persona non grata has to culminate in expulsion because a statement may be issued by the receiving state both after the diplomatic agent has started performing his functions and even before he arrives at the receiving state. If such a statement is followed by the expulsion of the diplomat, it should be based on article 41 of the Vienna Convention, 1961 (infringement on laws of receiving state and/or espionage actions). Also, expulsion may occur due to war and severance of diplomatic relation between two states. Indonesia has had to deal with issues of persona non grata on several occasions both as receiving and sending state. This paper analyses several cases of declaration of persona non grata involving several countries, especially Indonesia in order to give a better understanding of how the declaration of persona non grata plays out between states, and the significance of the Vienna Convention of 1961 on diplomatic relations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Function of State and Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: the Position in Switzerland
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 23, Issue 5 1999 Article 3 The Function of State and Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The Position in Switzerland Paul Gully-Hart∗ ∗ Copyright c 1999 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Function of State and Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The Position in Switzerland Paul Gully-Hart Abstract In so far as diplomats are concerned, their immunity from legal process arises under customary international law and treaty law (i.e., the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,’ the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,2 and the New York Convention on Special Missions’ (or “New York Convention”)). All three conventions state in their preliminaries that diplomatic immunity and privilege arise from international custom and that their function is not to benefit individuals, but to ensure the smooth and efficient performance of their duties in the interest of comity and of friendly relations between sovereign nations. ESSAYS THE FUNCTION OF STATE AND DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS: THE POSITION IN SWITZERLAND Paul Gully-Hart* Privileges and immunities apply to different categories of persons (i.e., persons performing official acts, diplomats, and heads of state). In addition, states, government agencies, and corporate entities acting on behalf of, or to the benefit of, na- tions also enjoy immunity within certain limits. Persons performing official acts by reason of their official capacity or functions may be immune from the judicial and ad- ministrative processes of their own state, the state where they are performing such recognized official acts, or in any state where their official acts have effect.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
    Case 2:15-cv-08130-ODW-GJS Document 48 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:1004 1 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO 3 Deputy Director Federal Programs Branch 4 JASON LEE (CA Bar No. 298140) 5 Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 6 Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW 7 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 514-3367 8 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 Email: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for the United States of America 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 13 14 AMHET DOǦAN, individually and on behalf of his deceased son, FURKAN No. 2:15-CV-08130-ODW (GJSx) 15 DOǦAN; and HIMET DOǦAN, individually and on behalf of her Assigned to the Honorable Otis D. Wright II 16 deceased son, FURKAN DOǦAN, SUGGESTION OF IMMUNITY BY THE 17 Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES 18 v. 19 EHUD BARAK, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Suggestion of Immunity by the United States Case No. 2:15-cv-08130-ODW (GJSx) Case 2:15-cv-08130-ODW-GJS Document 48 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:1005 INTRODUCTION 1 2 The United States respectfully submits this Suggestion of Immunity to inform the Court 3 of the Executive Branch’s determination regarding the immunity of former Israeli Minister of 4 Defense Ehud Barak in this action.1 This case implicates principles of foreign official immunity, 5 and the United States has strong interests in ensuring the correct application of those principles 6 as accepted by the Executive Branch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diplomatic Mission of Archbishop Flavio Chigi, Apostolic Nuncio to Paris, 1870-71
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1974 The Diplomatic Mission of Archbishop Flavio Chigi, Apostolic Nuncio to Paris, 1870-71 Christopher Gerard Kinsella Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Recommended Citation Kinsella, Christopher Gerard, "The Diplomatic Mission of Archbishop Flavio Chigi, Apostolic Nuncio to Paris, 1870-71" (1974). Dissertations. 1378. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1378 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1974 Christopher Gerard Kinsella THE DIPLOMATIC MISSION OF ARCHBISHOP FLAVIO CHIGI APOSTOLIC NUNCIO TO PARIS, 1870-71 by Christopher G. Kinsella t I' A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty:of the Graduate School of Loyola Unive rsi.ty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy February, 197 4 \ ' LIFE Christopher Gerard Kinsella was born on April 11, 1944 in Anacortes, Washington. He was raised in St. Louis, where he received his primary and secondary education, graduating from St. Louis University High School in June of 1962, He received an Honors Bachelor of Arts cum laude degree from St. Louis University,.., majoring in history, in June of 1966 • Mr. Kinsella began graduate studies at Loyola University of Chicago in September of 1966. He received a Master of Arts (Research) in History in February, 1968 and immediately began studies for the doctorate.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Recognition of State Immunity As a Judicial Countermeasure to Jus Cogens Violations: the Human Rights Answer to the ICJ Decision on the Ferrini Case
    Goettingen Journal of International Law 4 (2012) 3, 809-852 Non-Recognition of State Immunity as a Judicial Countermeasure to Jus Cogens Violations: The Human Rights Answer to the ICJ Decision on the Ferrini Case Patricia Tarre Moser Table of Contents A. Introduction ......................................................................................... 810 B. Some Clarifications ............................................................................. 814 C. Conditions for the Validity of Solidarity Countermeasure ................. 816 D. Non Recognition of State Immunity as a Judical Countermeasure .... 827 I. Legality of Judicial Countermeasures ............................................. 832 II. Compliance With the Conditions of Validity of Countermeasures 835 E. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 849 Patricia Tarre Moser earned her law degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela and an LL.M in international human rights law from the University of Notre Dame. Ms. Tarre Moser is a lawyer at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The opinions expressed on this article do not reflect the opinions of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights or its registry. The author would like to thank Rose Rivera, Pier PigoZZi, Professor Mary Ellen OConnell, and Professor Douglass Cassel for their valuable comments. doi: 10.3249/1868-1581-4-3-moser 810 GoJIL 4 (2012) 3, 809-852 Abstract This paper examines whether the non-recognition of State Immunity, as a response to jus cogens violations committed by the wrong-doing State against its own citizens, can be a valid countermeasure. First, the paper clarifies the hypothesis being examined. Second, the paper considers what the conditions the according countermeasures have to comply with, are. Finally, the paper examines whether the non-recognition of State Immunity can be a lawful solidarity countermeasure.
    [Show full text]
  • (I) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
    SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT YUSUF Disagree with the contradictory conclusion of the Court on Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — Provision characterized as “unhelpful” in reasoning and set aside — Later, used in dispositif to deny status of “premises of the mission” to building at 42 avenue Foch — Court should have ascertained as threshold matter whether building at 42 avenue Foch was “used” as “premises of the mission” within meaning of Article 1 (i) — Criterion of effective use is the key — Jurisprudence of domestic courts and international tribunals confirm that conclusion — Relevance of definitional provisions to applicability and operation of other provisions should have been analysed — It is illogical to dismiss relevance of “use” criterion in Article 1 (i) but deny status of “premises of the mission” to building on the basis of the same article. Requirement of “prior approval” or “power to object” has no basis in the Convention — Object and purpose of the Convention insufficient to establish these requirements — Vienna Convention is a self-contained and reciprocal régime that specifies the means at disposal of receiving State to counter possible abuses — Requirement of “prior approval” or “power to object” will generate unnecessary misunderstandings and tensions in diplomatic relations — Court should have analysed Articles 41 and 21 of the Vienna Convention as relevant context to Article 1 (i) — Practice of few States on a different plane from concordant practice embracing all parties to treaty — Convention does not make compliance with domestic laws and regulations of receiving State condition to the application of Article 1 (i) — France did not have general, well-known and transparent practice at the relevant time — Requirement of “prior approval” or “power to object” is unqualified and unclear — Criteria for exercise of this power have no basis in the Convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Head-Of-State and Foreign Official Immunity in the United States After Samantar: a Suggested Approach
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 34, Issue 2 2011 Article 6 Head-of-State and Foreign Official Immunity in the United States After Samantar: A Suggested Approach Christopher D. Totten∗ ∗ Copyright c 2011 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Head-of-State and Foreign Official Immunity in the United States After Samantar: A Suggested Approach Christopher D. Totten Abstract A concept of immunity for foreign heads of state has existed since ancient times. Such immu- nity constitutes customary international law (“CIL”) and, when applicable, frees such individuals from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign nations while carrying out their duties. In the United States, executive branch guidance is considered determinative on the issue of foreign head-of-state immunity; however, the executive branch does not always provide suggestions of immunity, or it may provide suggestions that violate CIL. Drawing upon both US and against foreign sitting and former heads of state and government officials increasingly are becoming more established and ma provide additional guidance in the absence of, or as a supplement to, US executive branch guidance. For example, while relevant international immunity law norms generally prohibit crim- inal prosecutions by domestic jurisdictions against foreign sitting heads of state and other senior governmental officials, they allow such suits against former leaders and officials in certain circum- stances. Moreover, these same norms permit prosecutions against both sitting and former heads of state and officials if these prosecutions are commenced by international criminal tribunals (e.g., the ongoing International Criminal Court proceeding against President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan).
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Solutions to the Problem of Diplomatic Crime and Immunity William G
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 36 | Issue 2 Article 19 2007 Constitutional Solutions to the Problem of Diplomatic Crime and Immunity William G. Morris Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Morris, William G. (2007) "Constitutional Solutions to the Problem of Diplomatic Crime and Immunity," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 36: Iss. 2, Article 19. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol36/iss2/19 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morris: Constitutional Solutions to the Problem of Diplomatic Crime and I NOTE CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF DIPLOMATIC CRIME AND IMMUNITY I. INTRODUCTION No one is above the law. This principle has been a driving force throughout the great ideological experiment known as democracy. From childhood, we are told that people who commit crimes must answer for them. However, the simplistic nature of this notion fails to capture the whole truth of the nuanced system of international law. International law permits certain individuals to escape accountability for their crimes. For centuries, the principle of diplomatic immunity has enabled foreign diplomats to avoid prosecution for violations of the host country's laws. 1 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which the United States is a party, has codified customary international law.2 The Vienna Convention grants diplomats, their families, and diplomatic property numerous protections.
    [Show full text]
  • 767 Third Avenue Associates V. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Zaire: an Uncompensated Governmental Taking
    DePaul Law Review Volume 45 Issue 1 Fall 1995 Article 6 767 Third Avenue Associates v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Zaire: An Uncompensated Governmental Taking David Foster Bartlett Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation David F. Bartlett, 767 Third Avenue Associates v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Zaire: An Uncompensated Governmental Taking, 45 DePaul L. Rev. 165 (1995) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol45/iss1/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 767 THIRD AVENUE ASSOCIATES v. PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAIRE: AN UNCOMPENSATED GOVERNMENTAL TAKING INTRODUCTION Diplomats enjoy many privileges and immunities which shield them from penalties or punishment others receive under the law of foreign states for the same actions.' Recent outrageous conduct by diplomats has placed those privileges and immunities under close scrutiny by the American public. 2 Never before, however, have diplomatic immuni- 1. The Vienna Convention outlines the privileges and immunities currently enjoyed by diplo- mats. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. Articles 29, 31, and 32 of the Vienna Convention govern the protection of diplomats who have violated the laws or customs of a receiving state. Article 29 proclaims that a diplomatic agent is inviolable and may not be arrested or'detained.
    [Show full text]
  • Exercising Diplomatic Protection the Fine Line Between Litigation, Demarches and Consular Assistance
    Exercising Diplomatic Protection The Fine Line Between Litigation, Demarches and Consular Assistance Annemarieke Künzli* I. Introduction The last Draft Article that was proposed by the Special Rapporteur to the Inter- national Law Commission for inclusion in the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Pro- tection concerns the relationship between diplomatic protection and consular as- sistance. International law distinguishes between (at least) two kinds of interna- tional relations.1 This is stipulated by the existence of two separate treaties: the two Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 have codified the rules with respect to dip- lomatic and consular relations respectively.2 A fundamental difference is that a dip- lomatic agent is a political representative of a state, while a consular officer has no such function.3 As a consequence, the establishment of a consulate in non- recognised territories does not always imply recognition while establishing an em- bassy usually does and immunities granted to ambassadors are markedly different from those granted to consuls.4 In accordance with the two regimes applicable to international relations, international law recognises two kinds of protection states can exercise on behalf of their nationals: consular assistance and diplomatic protec- tion. There are fundamental differences between consular assistance and diplomatic protection. A persistent subject of debate and controversy however is the question of which activities by governments fall under diplomatic protection and which ac- tions do not. This debate is fuelled by an equally persistent misunderstanding of * Ph.D-fellow in Public International Law, Leiden University. The author wishes to thank Prof. John D u g a r d and Prof.
    [Show full text]