DOCSLIB.ORG

IMMUNITY V. ACCOUNTABILITY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IMMUNITYIMMUNITY v. ACCOUNTABILITY: ConsideringConsidering the Relationship between StateState Immunity and Accountability forfor Torture and other Serious InternationalInternational Crimes DecemberDecember 20052005 THETHE REDRESSREDRESS TRUSTTRUST 3rd Floor, 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ Tel: +44 (0)20 7793 1777 Fax: +44 (0)20 7793 1719 Registered Charity Number 1015787, A Limited Company in England Number 2274071 info@[email protected]@redress.orgress.org (general correspondence) URL: www.redress.orgwww.redress.org Published by THE REDRESS TRUST in December 2005 3rd Floor, 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ United Kingdom Copyright © THE REDRESS TRUST ISBN-10: 0-9551981-0-0 ISBN-13: 978-0-9551981-0-6 ”State immunity is the number one barrier in any international case that involves torture. State immunity is a way where torturers hide behind a veil called “immunity”.” Sulaiman Al-Adsani (Torture Survivor) 17 November 2005 “Foreign states have always denied our (mine and others) rights to reparation under international law. Hiding behind the barrier of state immunity, they have never had to dispute the alleged heinous crimes. Nor have they ever had to admit to a blatant breach of international treaties outlawing torture. State immunity incites travesties of justice. Even worse – almost – foreign states have ‘paid millions’ to their lawyers to fight their cause on the technicality – state immunity – to avoid a full trial. Instead, they could have used these substantial funds to recompense the victim.” Keith Carmichael (Torture Survivor, Founder and Honorary President of REDRESS) 19 November 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Project was made possible by the Nuffield Foundation which generously supported this initiative. We are also grateful for the support of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights which also contributed funding to this initiative. This Report was researched and written by Lorna McGregor with input and editorial support from Carla Ferstman, Gabriela Echeverria, and Lutz Oette at REDRESS. We wish to thank Keith Carmichael and The Baroness D’Souza of Wychwood in the County of Oxfordshire for their support as well as the Advisory Committee to the Project composed of Professor Mads Andenas (Leicester Law School); Lord Archer of Sandwell QC; Mr. Dapo Akande (Oxford University, New College); Mr. Jonathon Cooper (Doughty Street Chambers); Lady Fox QC; Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC; Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP; Mr. Roger Smith (JUSTICE); and Professor Colin Warbrick (Durham Law School) who have provided invaluable guidance and commentary throughout the Project. We wish to thank the externs, Mike Amman, Marc Faux, Iain Frame, Christopher McCorkindale; Anna Nowakowska; Catherine Schell and Tatiana Shlykova to the Project for their country and thematic research. We also wish to acknowledge and thank the following people for all their assistance in making this Report possible: Susie Alegre (OSCE); Professor Roger Alford (Pepperdine University School of Law, USA); Tamsin Allen (Bindman & Partners, UK); Professor Dr. Kai Ambos (Universität Göttingen, Germany); Dr. Jörg Arnold (Max Planck Institut, Freiburg, Germany); Mark Arnold (Gardiner Miller Arnold, Canada); Dr. Ilias Bantekas (Westminster Law School, UK); Dr. Roland Bank (UNHCR, Germany); Michael Battista (Watson Jordan Battista, Canada); Peter Beaton (European Commission); Luis Benavides (Subsecretaría para Asuntos Multilaterales y Derechos Humanos, Mexico); Rafael Benitez (Council of Europe); Raju Bhatt (Bhatt Murphy, UK); Professor Andrea Bianchi (Institut universitaire de hautes études internationales, Switzerland); Caterina Bolognese (Council of Europe); Dr. Susan Breau (British Institute of International and Comparative Law); Dr. Sherman Carroll MBE (Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture); Peter Carter QC (Bar Human Rights Committee); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Against the War); Professor Eric David (University libre de Bruxelles); Netta Amar (Diakonia Regional Office in Jerusalem); Donald Donovan (Debevoise & Plimpton, US); Catriona Drew (The School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of London); Helen Duffy (INTERIGHTS); Fanny Fontaine (Conseiller Adjoint, Direction Générale de la Législation, Belgique); Dr. Maria Gavouneli (Faculty of Law, University of Athens, Greece); Professor Alessandra Gianelli (University of Teramo); Mr. Eric Gillet (CMS DeBacker, Belgium); Christopher Keith Hall (Amnesty International); Hannes Honecker (Republican Lawyers Association, Germany); Professor Scott Horton (Columbia University School of Law); Dr. Florian Jessberger (Humboldt Universität, Berlin); Wolfgang Kaleck (President, Republican Lawyers Association, Germany); Dr. Joachim Lau (Rechtsanwalt-Avvocato, Italy); Dr. Paul Lemmens (Institute for Human Rights, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven); Manuel Lezertua (Council of Europe); Iain McLeod (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK); Professor Antonio Marchesi (University of Teramo); Eric Metcalfe (JUSTICE); Haldia Mokkedem (Council of Europe); Caroline Morgan (European Commission); Alex Neve (Amnesty International, Canada); Michael Ratner (Centre for Constitutional Rights, USA); Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza (University of California, Hastings College of Law); Anthea Roberts (Debevoise & Plimpton, UK); Professor Stephen Parmentier (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven); Jorg Polakiewicz (Council of Europe); Sérgio Saba (consultant to Council of Europe); Dr. Annalisa Savaresi, (Research Student, Law Department, University of Durham), Petra Schlagenhauf (Republican Lawyers Association); Juergen Schneider (Lawyer, Germany); Wolfgang Schulz (Lawyer, Germany); Keir Starmer QC (Doughty Street Chambers); Jayne Stoyles (World Federalist Movement); Jeanne Sulzer (FIDH, Paris); Bojana Urumova (Council of Europe); Peter van der Auweraert (Avocats San Frontiers); Professor Beth van Schaack (Santa Clara University School of Law); Mr. Michael Verhaeghe (Advocat, Brussels); Emmanuel Voyiakis (Brunel Law School, UK); Mr. Luc Walleyn (Advocat, Brussels); Peter Weiss (Centre for Constitutional Rights, USA); Chanaka Wickremasinghe (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK); Emily Willmott (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK); Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Chatham House, UK) The views and positions advanced in this report do not necessarily correlate to the members of the Advisory Committee or any of the other persons mentioned above outside of REDRESS. Any errors or omissions remain those of REDRESS. INDEX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………......…….i I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 II. ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE STATE AS A SYSTEM AND RIGHT TO REPARATION ............................................................................................... 4 1. State Responsibility under International Law .................................................................. 4 2. Available Forums in which States May Be Held Responsible ............................................. 6 III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE IMMUNITY .................................................... 9 1. What is State Immunity? Terminology .......................................................................... 9 2. The Historical Emergence and Character of State Immunity ...........................................10 a) State Immunity Emerged out of the Immunity Granted to the Sovereign Ruler ........11 b) State Immunity as a Right of the Foreign State under International Law .................11 c) State Immunity as an Exception to the Jurisdiction of the Forum State ...................12 3. Is there a Rule of State Immunity under International Law? ...........................................15 a) A Customary International Law Rule? ..................................................................15 b) Agreements at the International Level .................................................................17 IV. ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE IMMUNITY AND SERIOUS INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ................................................. 21 1. Immunity for Commercial Acts .....................................................................................21 2. Immunity for Torts .....................................................................................................22 a) Commission of the Tort in the Territory of the Forum State ...................................23 b) “Public” and “Private” Torts.................................................................................24 3. Jus Cogens Norms ......................................................................................................28 a) Cases Finding that Immunity is not Available for Jus Cogens Norms .......................29 b) Why the Approach of the Courts of Dualist States Must Be Assessed for Its Compatibility with International Law ....................................................................34 c) Attempts to Distinguish Between the Availability of Immunity on the Basis of the Type of Proceeding, Civil or Criminal ....................................................................38 4. Immunity and Access to Justice ...................................................................................39 V. CONCLUSION: IS STATE IMMUNITY A LEGITIMATE BAR IN EXTRATERRITORIAL CIVIL CLAIMS FOR TORTURE AND OTHER SERIOUS INTERNATIONAL CRIMES? ....................................................... 42 1. State Immunity May Result in Impunity for Torture .......................................................44
Recommended publications
  • 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

    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.
  • Christopher Plummer

    Christopher Plummer

    Christopher Plummer "An actor should be a mystery," Christopher Plummer Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 Biography ................................................................................................................................. 4 Christopher Plummer and Elaine Taylor ............................................................................. 18 Christopher Plummer quotes ............................................................................................... 20 Filmography ........................................................................................................................... 32 Theatre .................................................................................................................................... 72 Christopher Plummer playing Shakespeare ....................................................................... 84 Awards and Honors ............................................................................................................... 95 Christopher Plummer Introduction Christopher Plummer, CC (born December 13, 1929) is a Canadian theatre, film and television actor and writer of his memoir In "Spite of Myself" (2008) In a career that spans over five decades and includes substantial roles in film, television, and theatre, Plummer is perhaps best known for the role of Captain Georg von Trapp in The Sound of Music. His most recent film roles include the Disney–Pixar 2009 film Up as Charles Muntz,
  • CRANFORD (N.J.) CHRONICLE Thursday, April 14,1963 '

    CRANFORD (N.J.) CHRONICLE Thursday, April 14,1963 '

    Pftge 20 CRANFORD (N.J.) CHRONICLE Thursday, April 14,1963 ' Garwood artist... Kenilworth sign exits-fwm parkway. ,7 gifted students.. .gym Democrats squabble... show...tax rate... tax hike... school 3' dances, .page' computers...page 18 USPS 136 800 Second Class Postage Paid Cranford, N.J. 25 CENTS stacks up. At VOL. 91 N6.16 Published Every Thursday Thursday, April 21,1983 Serving Cranford, Keniluprth and Garwood The beets are sweet. The beans are tender and tasty. The home-fries taste it. Because the low Special prices in our shopping list below and the delicious. The spinach and broccoli have a rich color to match their hearty JJnadyertised Specials at your Kings store will let you stock up on a whole showers precipitate town record flavor. The frozen flounder and sole cook up moist, flakey and flavorful. The pantryful and freezerful of good foocff% tuna does you proud in salads and sandwiches. The juices have the fresh taste of :. And to insure that our White Rose products measure up to, your expectations the best-known brands. The spring water is fresh. and ours, our Consumer Affairs department conducts comparisons with other The name for all this good food—and more—is White Rose. supermarket house and name brands on a weekly basis.. And White R(jse is the brand of canned and frozen foods that we selected Check the color, the cut, the consistency, the look as well as the taste and years ago. to be Kings money-saving alternative td famous-name brands! aroma. And see if you don't find that White Rose, like so many other good If you've ever—or never—tried White Rose brand foods, this is the week to do foods at Kings, is worth every penny—and then some.
  • 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

    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.
  • Head-Of-State and Foreign Official Immunity in the United States After Samantar: a Suggested Approach

    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).
  • State Immunity and the Promise of Jus Cogens, 9 Nw

    State Immunity and the Promise of Jus Cogens, 9 Nw

    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 2 Spring 2011 State Immunity And The rP omise Of Jus Cogens Sevrine Knuchel Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Recommended Citation Sevrine Knuchel, State Immunity And The Promise Of Jus Cogens, 9 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 149 (2011). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2010 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 9, Number 2 (Spring 2011) Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights State Immunity and the Promise of Jus Cogens Sévrine Knuchel* I. INTRODUCTION ¶1 On June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Samantar v. Yousuf, that the U.S. statute governing the sovereign immunity of foreign states, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), does not cover the immunity claims of individual foreign officials.1 In this case, five natives of Somalia were seeking damages from Mohamed Ali Samantar, who served as former Minister of Defense, First Vice President, and Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Somalia, and whom they claimed was responsible for the acts of torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killing that were inflicted on them or their family members in Somalia during the 1980s. ¶2 The Supreme Court’s decision comes as the jurisdictional immunity of states and their officials before the courts of foreign states in cases involving human rights violations has increasingly been called into question.
  • Criminal Immunity of State Officials for Core International Crimes Now and in the Future by ZHONG Yuxiang FICHL Policy Brief Series No

    Criminal Immunity of State Officials for Core International Crimes Now and in the Future by ZHONG Yuxiang FICHL Policy Brief Series No

    POLICY BRIEF SERIES Criminal Immunity of State Officials for Core International Crimes Now and in the Future By ZHONG Yuxiang FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 20 (2014) 1. State Sovereignty and a broader perspective of the evolution of the internation- International Criminal Justice al legal order. Our times show that man’s capacity for evil knows no 2. International Law Immunities Before Interna- limits. This realisation has become a force to be reck- tional Courts and Tribunals oned with in the international community. With some acts being condemned as crimes under international law 2.1. Inconsistency in ICC Jurisprudence and the establishment of several international criminal As can be observed in the Bashir case, the ICC takes an jurisdictions, international criminal justice has nearly ambiguous stand on the immunity issue. ICC Pre-Trial from its start epitomised a ‘post-sovereign era’. Chamber (‘PTC’) I specified that “[i]mmunity of either Almost by definition, international criminal law, as former or sitting Heads of State cannot be invoked to op- one single facet of a broader theme, poses a fundamental pose a prosecution by an international court”.3 This, challenge to traditional international law immunities. In- however, does not please PTC II, which in a recent deci- dividuals who bear the greatest responsibility for what is sion held that as for a non-State Party, “[t]he question of typically considered macro-criminality, are often pre- personal immunities might validly arise”.4 cisely the ones for whom traditional immunity protec- Despite the sharp disagreement expressed by the Af- tion is strongest. rican Union Commission5 and PTC II, PTC I is not alone The international law of immunities has recently at- in holding that immunities cannot be successfully raised tracted attention of the International Court of Justice in international criminal proceedings.
  • Post Goals Set at Lake Workshop

    Post Goals Set at Lake Workshop

    Inside: Tax Story.......................Page 3 Veterinary Services........Page 4 Tex, MP's Top Dog.........Page 5 AYA .......... P......wPage 9 TV Listings ................. Page 18 Volume 1 Number 1 Published in the interest of personnel at Fort Leonard Wood. Thursday, January 15,1987 _111_________ __ Post goals set at Lake workshop By Jeffrey Peyton "This post has overcome the lish a document about the things we This document should be ready by all of our energies totally to the mat- The result was a cohesive and en- What is going well at Fort common problems that face many formulated-our purpose, a vision for early February." ters at hand." thusiastic command team working Leonard Wood? What is not going installations When we asked 'What the future, and the key things Fort When asked why the workshop "The staff and command ad- on the problems identified by the well at Fort Leonard Wood? What is going well? the soldiers gave Leonard Wood should focus on. I m took place at the Lake of the Ozarks dressed the issues," said Maj. Gen. soldiers "There are no disasters out our mission state- is going well within your directorate? us more than The fishing is great. going to publish Murn said "we wanted to get away James W. van Loben Sels. The See "Workshop" These questions and others were When we asked 'What's not going ments and our established goals. from the office so we could devote team-building efforts turned out well continued on page 6 sent out to the post directorates well? the soldiers gave positive in November and the command- suggestions, not nit-picking trivial ing general used the directorate things.
  • The Last Bastion of Sovereign Immunity: a Comparative Look at Immunity from Execution of Judgments

    The Last Bastion of Sovereign Immunity: a Comparative Look at Immunity from Execution of Judgments

    The Last Bastion of Sovereign Immunity: A Comparative Look at Immunity from Execution of Judgments By Jeremy Ostrander* INTRODUCTION The twentieth century has brought significant progress for plaintiffs seek- ing to recover against state defendants in U.S. courts. Indeed, given the devel- opment of the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity in the middle of the twentieth century,' one would expect a growing number of effective adjudica- tions and subsequent executions of judgments against foreign states. Although there has been an increase in such suits against foreign states, particularly in the area of terrorist related tort actions in the United States, 2 successful claimants * J.D., 2004, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). The author would like to thank Professor Richard Buxman for guiding the seminar that resulted in this work and articles editor Meridith Bentley for her excellent contributions. 1. The restrictive theory of sovereign immunity refers to the idea that foreign governments should not be able to claim a defense of sovereign immunity when a claim against them is based on private acts (jure gestionis) of the state. Up until the mid 1950s, the United States adhered to the absolute theory of sovereign immunity, which immunized almost all actions of foreign states from U.S. judicial scrutiny. See Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812). This immunity was extended to the property of a foreign government engaged in a commercial enterprise. Berizzi Bros. Co. v. Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562 (1926). Gradually, the Court relied more on the policy and practices of the State Department to determine whether immunity was appropriate.
  • Crime Wave for Clara CRIME WAVE

    Crime Wave for Clara CRIME WAVE

    Crime Wave For Clara CRIME WAVE The Filmgoers’ Guide to the Great Crime Movies HOWARD HUGHES Disclaimer: Some images in the original version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. Published in 2006 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www.ibtauris.com In the United States and Canada distributed by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 Copyright © Howard Hughes, 2006 The right of Howard Hughes to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. The TCM logo and trademark and all related elements are trademarks of and © Turner Entertainment Networks International Limited. A Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. © and TM 2006 Turner Entertainment Networks International Limited. ISBN 10: 1 84511 219 9 EAN 13: 978 1 84511 219 6 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress catalog card: available Typeset in Ehrhardt by Dexter Haven Associates Ltd, London Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International,
  • BBG) Board from January 2012 Through July 2015

    BBG) Board from January 2012 Through July 2015

    Description of document: Monthly Reports to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Board from January 2012 through July 2015 Requested date: 16-June-2017 Released date: 25-August-2017 Posted date: 02-April-2018 Source of document: BBG FOIA Office Room 3349 330 Independence Ave. SW Washington, D.C. 20237 Fax: (202) 203-4585 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. Broadcasting 330 Independence Ave.SW T 202.203.4550 Board of Cohen Building, Room 3349 F 202.203.4585 Governors Washington, DC 20237 Office of the General Counsel Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Office August 25, 2017 RE: Request Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act - FOIA #17-058 This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act .(FOIA) request dated June 16, 2017 to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which the Agency received on June 20, 2017.
  • International Law - State Immunity: Canada Amends Its State Immunity Act to Allow Victims of Terrorism to Sue in Canadian Courts

    International Law - State Immunity: Canada Amends Its State Immunity Act to Allow Victims of Terrorism to Sue in Canadian Courts

    INTERNATIONAL LAW - STATE IMMUNITY: CANADA AMENDS ITS STATE IMMUNITY ACT TO ALLOW VICTIMS OF TERRORISM TO SUE IN CANADIAN COURTS Most of the world’s major legal systems have on their books laws barring lawsuits against foreign countries in their own courts. They are usually called State Immunity Acts. Essentially, the acts state that the courts of those countries have no jurisdiction to handle lawsuits directed against foreign states. The acts usually provide limited exceptions to the immunity rule such as when a foreign state causes bodily injury or material damage in the other country. Then, there is no immunity and the victim can sue the foreign country in the courts of the country where the injury or damage occurred. It is easy to understand why in some situations this would be the best option, as the alternative could sometimes be to go before the subservient courts, if they even exist, of a foreign dictatorship, for example. Ten years after the United States of America did it, last spring, Canada decided to follow and added a new exception to its State Immunity Act, removing jurisdictional immunity for states that support terrorism. The government sets out a list of foreign states that have supported or support terrorism. The list can be revised to add or remove states from the list. In Canada, Iran and Syria were recently included in the list. This explains why many U.S. victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks have flocked to Canada with U.S. court judgments in hand to have them recognized by Canadian courts in order to enforce them on assets of Iran in Canada.