DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the International Court of Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the International Court of Justice General Assembly A/72/4 Official Records Seventy-second Session Supplement No. 4 Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August 2016-31 July 2017 United Nations New York, 2017 Note Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. ISSN 0251-8473 [5 August 2017] Contents Chapter Page I. Summary ...................................................................... 5 II. Role and jurisdiction of the Court ................................................. 12 III. Organization of the Court ........................................................ 14 A. Composition ............................................................... 14 B. Privileges and immunities .................................................... 17 C. Seat ...................................................................... 17 IV. Registry ....................................................................... 19 V. Judicial activity of the Court ...................................................... 21 A. Pending contentious proceedings during the period under review ................... 21 1. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) .......................... 21 2. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) ...................................................... 21 3. Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) ............................................................ 23 4. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) ........... 24 5. Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ............................................................ 25 6. Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ................................................ 26 7. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) ............................................................ 28 8. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) ................. 33 9. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) .............. 35 10. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom) ........ 37 11. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) ................. 38 12. Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) ..... 41 13. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) ........... 42 14. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) ..... 45 17-14050 3/68 15. Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) .. 47 16. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) ..................... 49 17. Application for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v. Singapore)............................... 54 18. Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) .......................................... 55 19. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v. Singapore)............................... 57 B. Pending advisory proceedings during the period under review ...................... 58 Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 ................................................................. 58 VI. Visits to the Court and other activities .............................................. 60 VII. Publications and presentation of the Court to the public ............................... 62 VIII. Finances of the Court ............................................................ 65 Annex International Court of Justice: Organizational structure and post distribution of the Registry as at 31 July 2017............................................................... 67 4/68 17-14050 A/72/4 Chapter I Summary Brief overview of the judicial work of the Court 1. During the period under review, the International Court of Justice once again experienced a particularly high level of activity. Among other things, it delivered judgments in the following cases: (1) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India), Judgment on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application (see para. 162); (2) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan), Judgment on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application (see para. 175); (3) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent (see para. 185); (4) Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent (see para. 200). 2. The Court or its President also handed down 14 orders. The purpose of 10 of those orders was to fix the time-limits given to the parties for the filing of written pleadings in the following cases (in chronological order): (1) the case concerning Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) (see para. 104); (2) the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (see para. 85); (3) the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (see para. 90); (4) the case concerning Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (see para. 241) — by the same Order, the Court decided to join the proceedings in this case with those in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (see paras. 242 and 148); (5) the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) (see para. 201); (6) the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) (see para. 223); (7) the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (see para. 232); (8) the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International 17-14050 5/68 A/72/4 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) (see para. 257); (9) the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) (see para. 282); (10) the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (see para. 91). Three were in response to requests for the indication of provisional measures submitted in the following cases (in chronological order): (1) the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) (see para. 221); (2) the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) (see para. 256); (3) the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) (see para. 280). Finally, the Court delivered an Order on the organization of advisory proceedings, and in particular fixed the time limits for the presentation of written statements and written comments on those written statements in: Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (request for an advisory opinion) (see para. 294). 3. During the same period, the International Court of Justice held public hearings in the following cases (in chronological order): (1) in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), it held hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Kenya (see paras. 187 to 201); (2) in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), it held hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Equatorial Guinea (see paras. 210 to 223); (3) in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), it held hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Ukraine (see paras. 246 to 257); (4) in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), it held hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by India (see paras. 267 to 282);
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions As Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts
    The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions as Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts Lori Fisler Damrosch* INTRODUCTION This essay offers aN iNstallmeNt of what would have beeN a coNtiNuiNg conversation with David D. Caron, a close colleague in the field of international law, oN themes that eNgaged both of us across multiple phases of our intersecting careers. The issues are fundamental ones for both the theory and the practice of internatioNal law, involving such core coNcerns as how iNterNatioNal law caN be enforced in an international system that is not yet adequately equipped with institutioNs to determine the existeNce aNd coNsequeNces of violatioNs or to impose saNctioNs against violators; aNd how to eNsure that self-help enforcement measures iN a largely deceNtralized aNd still iNcomplete system are coNsisteNt with the priNciples aNd values uNderlyiNg the iNterNatioNal legal order. David CaroN was uNiquely positioNed to speak aNd write oN these issues, Not oNly with a mature scholar’s authority, but also with the authoritativeness conferred by the judicial appointmeNts he held in receNt years aNd the cases oN which he would have deliberated and rendered judgments, but for his untimely death. Without his eloquent voice to provide wisdom aNd reach decisioNs iN the coNtext of coNcrete disputes, I venture still-evolving thoughts on what may well seem unanswerable questions. The topic of ecoNomic saNctioNs as couNtermeasures for iNterNatioNally wroNgful acts provides the opportuNity to revisit questioNs that I eNcouNtered for the first time as a braNd-new international lawyer in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. DepartmeNt of State; these questioNs would later eNgage David CaroN’s iNterest as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
    The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45618 SUMMARY R45618 The International Emergency Economic Powers July 14, 2020 Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Christopher A. Casey, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad Coordinator authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national Analyst in International emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at Trade and Finance the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions Ian F. Fergusson are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a Specialist in International declared emergency. Trade and Finance Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 Dianne E. Rennack to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First Specialist in Foreign Policy World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a Legislation national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means Jennifer K. Elsea to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block Legislative Attorney international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Reference
    Thesis The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism WEILL, Sharon Abstract My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of [...] Reference WEILL, Sharon. The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2012, no. D. 852 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-235753 DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:23575 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:23575 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 7 International Organizations
    Table of Contents CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................. 215 International Organizations ..................................................................................................... 215 A. UNITED NATIONS .......................................................................................................... 215 1. Upholding International Law while Maintaining International Peace and Security ........ 215 2. Rule of Law...................................................................................................................... 217 3. Charter Committee ........................................................................................................... 218 B. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................... 220 1. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States) ..................... 220 2. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States) ................................................................. 227 3. Relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States) ..................... 234 4. Request for Advisory Opinion on the British Indian Ocean Territory ............................ 235 C. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION .................................................................... 251 1. ILC Draft Conclusions on the Identification of Customary International Law ............... 251 2. ILC’s Work at its 70th Session ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ccg-Nlud-Technology-And-National
    CENTRE FOR COMMUNICATION GOVERNANCE AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY LAW AND POLICY SEMINAR COURSE (FEBRUARY - JUNE 2020) B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) PROGRAMME NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI Course Facilitator Gunjan Chawla Programme Manager, Technology and National Security, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi; email: [email protected] ABOUT THE COURSE Given the rapidly evolving landscape of international security issues and the challenges and opportunities presented by new and emerging technologies, Indian lawyers and policymakers need to acquire the capacity to engage effectively with national security law and policy. However, curricula in Indian law schools do not engage adequately with issues of national security. National security threats, balance of power, issues of secrecy and political accountability, terrorism and surveillance laws tend to be discussed in a piece-meal manner within various courses or electives. To fill this knowledge gap within the legal community, the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi (CCG-NLU) is offering this seminar course to fourth and fifth-year students of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Programme. The course will explore interdisciplinary approaches in the study of national security law and policy, with a particular focus on issues in cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. Through this course curriculum, we aim to (1) recognize and develop National Security Law as a discrete discipline of legal studies, and (2) impart
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— BANK MELLI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL BENNETT, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LISA W. BOHL JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MOLOLAMKEN LLP ROBERT K. KRY 300 N. LaSalle St. Counsel of Record Chicago, Illinois 60654 MOLOLAMKEN LLP (312) 450-6700 The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) provides that “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party)” are subject to execution to satisfy certain terrorism judgments. 28 U.S.C. §1610 note §201(a). In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiffs with default judgments against Iran to execute against funds that Visa owes to Bank Melli, an Iranian state-owned bank. It did so even though Visa rather than Bank Melli is the owner of the assets, and even though Bank Melli is a separate entity distinct from the Iranian government that had no role in the underlying disputes. The questions presented are: 1. Whether TRIA requires that the respondent actu- ally own the assets at issue, as the D.C. Circuit has held and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether the statute instead permits execution even absent owner- ship, as the Ninth Circuit held below.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN V
    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice 231. CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) [PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS] Summary of the judgment of 13 February 2019 On 13 February 2019, the International Court of Justice rendered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court was composed as follows: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judges ad hoc Brower, Momtaz; Registrar Couvreur. * * * History of the proceedings (paras. 1-17) The Court recalls that, on 14 June 2016, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter “Iran” or the “Applicant”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter the “United States” or the “Respondent”) with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations by the United States of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, which was signed by the two States in Tehran on 15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957 (hereinafter the “Treaty of Amity” or “Treaty”). The Court notes that, in its Application, Iran seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity. The Court further recalls that, after Iran filed its Memorial in the case, the United States raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
    The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20 (2021) 395–441 brill.com/lape Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice Fernando Lusa Bordin Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Abstract The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. Those developments comprise jurisdiction ratione materiae under compromissory clauses; procedural preconditions in compromissory clauses; expert opinions; admissibility challenges based on abuse of process and the “clean hands” doctrine; conditions for the indication of provisional measures; and the Court’s discretion to give advisory opinions in cases where a request overlaps with a dispute between States. Keywords International Court of Justice – compromissory clause – jurisdiction ratione materiae – admissibility – abuse of process – “clean hands” doctrine 1 Introduction The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. The Court had the occasion to consider several procedural matters in its judg- ments on preliminary objections in Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), © Fernando Lusa Bordin, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15718034-12341451 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:39:38PM via free access 396 Bordin Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice Handbook
    INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 1 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 2 ISBN 978-92-1-157364-0 Sales number No de vente : 1162 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 3 The International Court of Justice Handbook INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 4 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 5 Foreword The role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague (Netherlands), is to settle in accordance with international law disputes submitted to it by States. In addition, certain international organs and agencies are entitled to call upon it for advisory opinions. Also known as the “World Court”, the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was set up in June 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations and began its activities in April 1946. The ICJ is the highest court in the world and the only one with both general and universal jurisdiction : it is open to all Member States of the United Nations and, subject to the provisions of its Statute, may entertain any question of inter- national law. The ICJ should not be confused with the other — mostly criminal — interna- tional judicial institutions based in The Hague, which were established much more recently, for example the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, an ad hoc court created by the Security Council and which operated from 1993 to 2017) or the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent inter- national criminal court, established by treaty, which does not belong to the United Nations system).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 February 2021 Judgment Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republ
    3 FEBRUARY 2021 JUDGMENT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ___________ VIOLATIONS ALLÉGUÉES DU TRAITÉ D’AMITIÉ, DE COMMERCE ET DE DROITS CONSULAIRES DE 1955 (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN c. ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE) 3 FÉVRIER 2021 ARRÊT TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-23 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 24-38 II. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT RATIONE MATERIAE UNDER ARTICLE XXI OF THE TREATY OF AMITY 39-84 1. First preliminary objection to jurisdiction: the subject-matter of the dispute 42-60 2. Second preliminary objection to jurisdiction: “third country measures” 61-83 III. ADMISSIBILITY OF IRAN’S APPLICATION 85-96 IV. OBJECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE XX, PARAGRAPH 1 (B) AND (D), OF THE TREATY OF AMITY 97-113 OPERATIVE CLAUSE 114 ___________ INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2021 2021 3 February General List No. 175 3 February 2021 ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Factual background. 1955 Treaty of Amity in force on date of filing of Application Iran party to 1968 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons International Atomic Energy Agency and Security Council critical of Iran’s nuclear activities Security Council resolutions on Iranian nuclear issue Iran subject to nuclear-related “additional sanctions” by United States Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) concerning nuclear programme of Iran concluded on 14 July 2015 Revocation of certain United States nuclear-related “sanctions” under Executive Order 13716 of 16 January 2016 Participation of United States in JCPOA terminated under National Security Presidential Memorandum of 8 May 2018 Reimposition by United States of “sanctions” on Iran, its nationals and companies under Executive Order 13846 of 6 August 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Mpilux Research Paper Series 2020 (1), [
    Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series | N° 1 (2020) The Aftermath of the 9/11 Litigation: Enforcing the US Havlish Judgments in Europe Dr Stephanie Law Lecturer in Law University of Southampton Dr Vincent Richard Senior Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Dr Edoardo Stoppioni Senior Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Ms Martina Mantovani Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law www.mpi.lu The ‘MPI Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series’ gathers pre-publication versions of academic articles, book chapters, or reviews as well as intermediary research reports on various legal issues. All manuscripts are offered on the Institute’s website as well as our SSRN webpage and are released by each author in the interest of advancing scholarship. The quality of the research papers is guaranteed by a rigorous internal review, and final approval is given by at least one of the Directors of the Institute. The content is the responsibility of individual authors. Papers may be downloaded by individuals, for their own use, subject to the ordinary copyright rules. All rights reserved No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author(s) Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series ISSN: 2309-0227 4, rue Alphonse Weicker L-2721 Luxembourg www.mpi.lu The 9/11 Iranian Litigation in Luxembourg Courts: Private and Public International Law Stephanie Law, Vincent Richard, Edoardo Stoppioni and Martina Mantovani Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Article last updated: December 2019 Abstract The paper takes stock of the attempts made by the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to enforce, in Europe, the judgment rendered by the Southern District Court of New York in In Re Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Fiona Havlish and others v Usama Bin Laden and others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Due Process and Other Constitutional Rights of Foreign Nations
    ARTICLE THE DUE PROCESS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS Ingrid Wuerth* The rights of foreign states under the U.S. Constitution are becoming more important as the actions of foreign states and foreign state-owned enterprises expand in scope and the legislative protections to which they are entitled contract. Conventional wisdom and lower court cases hold that foreign states are outside our constitutional order and that they are protected neither by separation of powers nor by due process. As a matter of policy, however, it makes little sense to afford litigation-related constitutional protections to foreign corporations and individuals but to deny categorically such protections to foreign states. Careful analysis shows that the conventional wisdom and lower court cases are wrong for reasons that change our basic understanding of both Article III and due process. Foreign states are protected by Article III’s extension of judicial power to foreign-state diversity cases, designed to protect foreign states from unfair proceedings and to prevent international conflict. The Article III “judicial power” over “cases” imposes procedural limitations on federal courts that we today associate with due process. In particular, Article III presupposes both personal jurisdiction and notice for all defendants, not just foreign states. Under the Fifth Amendment, foreign states are “persons” due the same constitutional “process” to which other defendants are entitled. “Process” only reaches defendants within the sovereign power, or jurisdiction,
    [Show full text]