State Immunity

Sommario: 1. Considerazioni preliminari. -2. La domanda riconvenzionale dell'Italia. -3. La difesa italiana e la posizione dei giudici dell'Aja. -4. Segue: la Corte e il primo argomento sull'immunità giurisdizionale: la tort exception. -5. Segue: la Corte e il secondo argomento: la gravità dei crimini e la loro qualificazione come violazioni di ius cogens. -6. Segue: il diritto alla riparazione e la teoria del last resort. -7. Osservazioni critiche. -8. L'esecuzione della sentenza in Italia. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale -N. 3-2012 1 Cfr. De Visscher, Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public, Paris, 1963, p. 219 ss., spec. p. 221. 2 Cfr. in particolare gli artt. 53 e 64 della convenzione di Vienna sul diritto dei trattati del 23 maggio 1969, ratificata ed eseguita dall'Italia ai sensi della l. 12 febbraio 1974 n. 112, in Gazz. Uff., n. 111 del 30 aprile 1974, suppl. ord., sui quali cfr. Gó mez Robledo, Le ius cogens international : sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions, in Recueil des Cours, t. 172, 1981-III, spec. p. 88 ss.

Immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione e negoziazioni fra Stati: sulla vicenda delle comfort women coreane Sommario: 1. La vicenda delle comfort women e la ricerca di una riparazione adeguata.-2. La sentenza della Corte distrettuale di Seoul e le due prospettive per affermare un'eccezione alla immunità dello Stato.-3. Giudici nazionali e eccezioni alla immunità dello Stato per violazione dei diritti umani: la prassi più recente.-4. Rilevanza di eventuali accordi interstatali sulla riparazione: la possibile compressione del diritto individuale di accesso a un giudice e il ruolo delle vittime nei negoziati. O Os ss se er rv va at to or ri io o-D Di ir ri it tt ti i c ci iv vi il li i e e p po ol li it ti ic ci i

El 6 de diciembre de 2016, la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) dictó una orden sobre la solicitud de medidas provisionales presentada por Guinea Ecuatorial (GE) en el asunto denominado Inmunidades y proceso penal (Guinea Ecuatorial c. Francia), por la que dictaminó que Francia debe garantizar la protección de los locales presentados como sede de la misión diplomática de Guinea Ecuatorial en Francia. Asimismo, la CIJ manifestó carecer de jurisdicción prima facie para analizar en esta etapa del procedimiento las cuestiones relacionadas con la inmunidad de jurisdicción penal del Vicepresidente de la República de Guinea Ecuatorial, Sr. Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (en adelante, Obiang). Este caso presenta aristas particulares dado que se trata del primer caso en que un funcionario africano es juzgado por corrupción por tribunales europeos, lo que motivó la presentación de GE ante la CIJ. Al momento de finalizar la redacción de este trabajo la Corte había concluido la etapa oral del proceso en cuanto a las objeciones preliminares planteadas por Francia, que quedaron para la deliberación del tribunal. Este artículo analiza este fallo de la Corte, siguiendo el orden utilizado por el propio tribunal para expedirse en este caso: esto es, en primer lugar se presentan los antecedentes del caso, seguidos por las cuestiones referidas a la jurisdicción prima facie de la Corte, las medidas provisionales y se esbozan algunas conclusiones. Consecuentemente, no se analizan las cuestiones de fondo, ni las objeciones preliminares planteadas por Francia. Las referencias a las cuestiones de jurisdicción de la Corte se limitan a lo tratado con ocasión del dictado de las medidas provisionales que son el objeto de este análisis.

Sommario: 1. Premessa. -2. Sovranità e immunità. -3. La prassi internazionale. -4. La giurisprudenza italiana. -5. Segue: la sentenza Ferrini. -6. Il caso Jones e Mitchell. -7. L'ordinanza Marocco e gli ulteriori sviluppi della giurisprudenza nella sentenza Civitella.

In the art field the centuries-old concepts of property and state immunity are interwoven in an ambivalent relationship. Immunity rules may constitute a shield for the works of art that have been temporarily sent abroad for exhibition purposes. The obverse of the same coin is that the same rules may thwart the legal actions filed by individuals against foreign states to retrieve art objects lost in the past as a result or in connection with grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This article examines this conundrum and argues that the relationship between property rights and immunity rules should be reconceptualised and aligned with the values and priorities of the international community, such as the protection of human rights, the reparation of massive and violent crimes and the respect for cultural heritage.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic has had a global reach, spreading through various social strata and geopolitical contexts, nothing makes more sense than to revamp the social imaginary of our collective body. That body is in danger. It is under attack by other species. It is wounded. Its immunity has to be built. It has to be taken care of. It should heal. And it can only heal collectively. At the same time, nothing seems less probable. The wounds that the virus and its long aftermath inflict don’t hurt everyone equally. Immunity is not built equally either. Care is administered unevenly.

Prólogo de Horacio González e introducción a El don de la ubicuidad. Ramón Carrillo y la cibernología peronista.

Libro completo disponible en: http://www.minoydavila.com/

Sinopsis:

Ramón Carrillo fue el ministro de Salud Pública de Perón durante sus dos primeras presidencias. Su obra como sanitarista es aún recordada como una de las más importantes  llevadas  a cabo en Argentina. Pero Ramón Carrillo también fue un enérgico teórico que pretendió sentar las bases de una ciencia integral de gobierno. Entre sus muchas realizaciones se encuentra el esbozo de una ciencia a la que bautizó cibernología, una ciencia de gobierno que quiso rivalizar con la cibernética, la cual, por esos mismos años, se estaba desarrollando en Estados Unidos. Entre una de sus ramas, la cibernología incluía una vertiente práctica que, significativamente y adelantándose varios años a la obra de Michel Foucault, adquirió el nombre de biopolítica.
Hasta ahora, tanto la cibernología como la biopolítica formuladas por Ramón Carrillo habían sido olvidadas. El presente libro reconstruye en detalle las ciencias políticas creadas por Carrillo, trazando también una historia de la biopolítica en Argentina, es decir, una genealogía acerca de los modos en que gobierno, vida y población se han articulado y desarticulado, desde la época de la Independencia hasta nuestros días. En esta indagación sobre la historia de la biopolítica en Argentina, el problema de la guerra civil (o lo que los griegos conceptuaron como stásis) ocupa un lugar central, trayendo a discusión la índole del enfrentamiento entre peronismo y antiperonismo, pero también un aspecto menos escrutado de los enfrentamientos nacionales: el rol que ha jugado la psicología como arma de guerra. Sobre este asunto, Ramón Carrillo mostró un gran interés por su sistematización. Aquí también exploramos una serie de conferencias por él dictadas y de título: “La guerra psicológica”.
¿Qué relación guarda la teoría de la conducción política de Perón con la cibernología de Ramón Carrillo? ¿Puede reinterpretarse el peronismo clásico tomando como base las teorías de la información? ¿Qué relación existe entre la conformación del poder médico en Argentina y la prédica peronista sobre el bienestar del pueblo? ¿Cómo confluye este haz de cuestiones en el tiempo presente, donde la cibernética se ha expandido por todos los rincones del planeta? Estas son algunas de las principales inquietudes que aborda el presente ensayo, trayendo a la luz documentos históricos por primera vez revelados.

336 páginas, 1ª edición marzo 2021. ISBN 978-84-18095-60-3. Formato 145 x 225 mm. Colección: Filosofía y Teoría Política (dirigida por Fabián Ludueña Romandini).

Companiile recurg la opțiunea unei alianțe strategice având la bază o serie de motivaţii care să le asigure un confort strategic pe piaţă. Cele mai des întâlnite motive al deciziilor de fuziune şi achiziţie sunt cele legate de sinergiiatunci când competenţe similare sau între care exită o legătură, pot fi combinate pentru a facilita dezvoltarea unor noi inovaţii şi crearea unor noi linii de activităţii aducătoare de valoare, îmbunătăţind eficienţa operaţională prin economiile de scară şi de scop sau scad costurile de capital prin nivelarea fluxurilor de numerar, realizând economii financiare de scară şi o mai bună corelare a oportunităţilor de investiţii cu fluxurile interne de numerar. Decizia adoptării unei strategii globale implică două direcţii pentru a creşte profitabilitatea companiei -reducerea costurilor și realizarea economiilor de scară. Practic aceste companii se concentrează pe o strategie de cost-leadership. Departamentele de producţie, marketing şi cercetare-dezvoltare sunt concentrate în câteva locaţii cheie. Firmele globale oferă mai degrabă produse standardizate decât adaptate pieţelor locale sau regionale, având totodată şi o strategie de marketing globală, tocmai pentru că adaptarea duce la creşterea costurilor, ca urmarea a diminuării producţiei şi duplicarea funcţiilor.

L'arrêt du 3 février 2012 rendu en l'affaire des Immunités juridictionnelles de l'Etat trouve ses origines dans une série de condamnations prononcées par les autorités judiciaires italiennes à l'encontre de l'Allemagne pour des crimes commis par les forces d'occupation nazies durant le second conflit mondial. Ainsi appelée à déterminer si le juge national dispose, en accord avec le droit international général, de la faculté de lever les immunités d'un Etat étranger afin de ne pas laisser impunies des atteintes manifestes aux règles internationales les plus fondamentales, la Cour internationale de Justice va se livrer à un minutieux travail d'interprétation des règles coutumières avant de condamner les autorités italiennes au motif que l'avantage procédural que l'Etat tire de ses immunités ne trouve aucune limitation dans la gravité des faits qui lui sont reprochés. Les inévitables choix opérés par la Cour pour aboutir à cette solution donnent à s'interroger sur le rôle que le juge international serait lui-même appelé à exercer dans le processus de formation du droit.

It was 1943 when the Changri-La fishing boat and its ten fishermen crew disappeared near Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro. But only in 2001 the Tribunal Marítimo da Marinha do Brasil recognized that the vessel had been sunk by a German submarine. The relatives of the victims sought compensation at the Brazilian courts for its material damages and non-pecuniary losses. However, they stumbled upon a customary norm of Public International Law: the rule prescribing that a State is entitled to immunity in respect of acta jure imperii before the domestic courts of another State. After a long journey within the Brazilian courts, the case reached the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – the Brazilian Supreme Court, which blends functions of constitutional review and court of last appeal – and in March 2021, the trial finally started. In the Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal (ARE) 954858 – currently suspended after Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ request to see the records –, it is discussed whether human rights violations are an exception to the rule of States’ sovereign immunity. While the case has not yet reached a conclusion, some Justices have already expressed their legal views – their votes, as they are called in the Brazilian Supreme Court – offering potential outcomes for the discussion. In this essay, we analyze two issues present in some of the votes: absence of proper engagement with international legal arguments, revealing a detachment from international law, and the possible consequences of the thesis proposed by the reporting Justice, Edson Fachin. Our endeavor is both to comment and to explain what is at stake with the Changri-la case.

Commentaire de :
1) CA Paris, pôle 4, ch. 8, 3 mai 2018, République du Congo c. Société Commissions Import Export (Commisimpex), (n° 257/18). Immunité d’exécution – Localisation des créances. RGDIP, 2018-3, pp. 770-783.
2) CA Paris, pôle 1, 1ère ch., 16 janvier 2018, MK Group c/ Onix et Financial Initiative (n° 15-21703), Ordre public international – souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles. RGDIP, 2018-3, pp. 761-770.

The contemporary law of state immunity deals with the human rights
exception in a limited and cautious way, if it does at all. The UN Convention on
Jurisdictional Immunity of States and their Property was adopted in 2004 and to
date is the only general convention in this field but is not in force. It did not
include an exception that a state will not be immune when human rights
violations are involved. This study aims to determine whether such an exception
should be included and what are the odds of that happening. To test a hypothesis
that such an exception will not be accepted, we analyzed the relevant conventions
and the doctrinal studies. The results show that it is necessary to include it, but
not in the form of a protocol, as some authors suggested. On this basis, future
research in the International Law Commission should be conducted.

This article examines the relationship between customary international law and Article 11 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, which applies to claims brought against foreign States by their employees. Although Article 11 has been found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to codify customary international law in its entirety, it is argued that neither the travaux nor State practice support this conclusion. Rather, both converge to show that Article 11 provides for a significantly wider immunity than is required by customary international law. The paper then analyzes the impact that Article 11 may have on the future evolution of customary international law by influencing domestic and international judicial practice. This impact appears to be ambivalent. While the ECtHR has referred to Article 11 in order to promote a broader access to courts by State employees, the coalescence of State practice and the provisions of Article 11 may well cause immunity to be extended, at least in countries where the approach of national courts is generally more favorable than Article 11 to the protection of the employees’ rights. The recent Italian case law attests to this risk.

The scope of diplomatic immunity and rights claims by domestic workers in diplomatic households have been the subject of a series of cases in U.S. and U.K. courts in recent years. Parallel to these cases is a related but distinct body of case law on the immunities of states and possible exceptions to immunity claims that arise in the sphere of employment relations. Against this background, international law on state and diplomatic immunities has become increasingly fragmented and uncertain in its scope and application. This Article examines the evolving laws of diplomatic and state immunity as they apply to the employment of domestic workers, with particular reference to the evolving case law in the United Kingdom and the United States. The picture that emerges is a fragmented one, suggesting continuing uncertainty on the part of courts and tribunals when faced with immunity claims. This fragmentation and, at times, dissonance go to the heart of competing views of the purpose of international law and its declared values. The case law and evolving human rights norms examined here reveal a willingness to question the scope and purpose of immunity claims. What remains, however, is a tangled web of state and diplomatic immunity laws, with limited and often highly contested exceptions that pose significant difficulties for domestic workers who seek effective remedies for their claims.

This paper stems from a recent decision by the Indian Supreme Court as to whether the criminal courts of the Indian State of Kerala have jurisdiction over two Italian marines accused of the killing of two Indian fishermen. The analysis is critical of the Court’s reasoning and findings over the two main defences raised by the accused: namely, the lack of jurisdiction of the coastal state on the basis of the law of the sea and in relation to the customary rule on the jurisdictional immunity of military personnel for acts carried out in their line of duty. Finally, this study is also critical of the operational decision by the Indian Supreme Court in providing for the establishment of a specific domestic court deemed by it competent to entertain its jurisdiction over the cause in view of its international nature.

Indictment and an arrest warrant against the then-president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), Slobodan Milošević. 5 However, the defense team representing Taylor was indeed the first one to challenge the Indictment and the arrest warrant on the basis of the argument that a serving head of state may neither be arrested nor surrendered by a foreign state, not even to face trial for charges of international crimes. 6 This is an argument that Milošević never used to challenge the legality of the ICTY arrest warrant.

State immunity is an important area of customary international law as it has its source in sovereign equality of States and the principle par in parem non habet imperium. Nevertheless, immunity is not absolute and international custom approves certain limitations of the general rule. The USA restricted State immunity even further as it introduced a terrorism exception to State immunity, permitting private law-suits for compensation and punitive damages against State sponsors of terrorism. The article analyses the place of the terrorism exception within customary international law by deliberating whether it is or
can become one of accepted exceptions to State immunity. The research is essential because currently Iran has filed an application to the ICJ
asserting a violation of International law. Any possible decision of the ICJ seems to be affected by some drawbacks enumerated in the article.

Whether due to a need to act quickly or a lack of a functioning government with whom to negotiate, the UN often needs to authorize the deployment of peacekeepers and other peace support personnel without the benefit of a Status-of-Forces Agreement (“SOFA”). Unless or until this initial failure to have a SOFA is later cured by the conclusion of a SOFA, the problem arises what immunities UN-mandated peacekeeping forces may enjoy in the absence of a SOFA. UN-mandated peacekeeping operations have traditionally been present in host States with the consent of the State involved. However, the UN Security Council has taken the dramatic step of authorizing the constitution of peacekeeping forces without the consent of the host State. If there is no consent, then State immunity does not apply and we must look to other sources of immunity or comparable protection. These sources can include international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, the UN Immunities Convention, the UN Safety Convention, and customary international law. This paper attempts to assess all of these potential sources of immunities and determine the protections available for UN peacekeepers in the absence of a SOFA.

At its thirtieth ordinary session, the AU decided that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) be asked to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the question of immunity of head of states and other senior officials, in relation to articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 (Rome Statute) and states parties' obligations under international law. The issue of immunity in the context of state cooperation obligations under the International Criminal Court (ICC) legal regime lies at the heart of the Al-Bashir case, and is a contentious issue that has contributed to the deteriorating relationship between the ICC and the AU. Against the backdrop of the Al-Bashir case and the key issues arising in the case warranting clarification that we identify in this article − the meaning of article 98(1) in the context of head of state immunity, solving potential conflicting treaty obligations to (not) cooperate, waiver of head of state immunity by the UNSC, and hierarchy of sources of international law on the relevant issues − we contend that seeking clarification from the ICJ is indeed a more advantageous and appropriate way forward for African states to pursue than the proposed collective withdrawal from the ICC. To this effect, we also argue for the unsuitability of collective withdrawal as a solution to the AU/African states' concerns around ICC prosecution.

On 15 february 2012, during its journey from Singapore to Djibouti, the oil tanker Enrica Lexie, belonging to an Italian corporation, was approached by a boat without flag off the Indian coasts of Kerala. Some Italian marines, who were on board the tanker as a part of a Vessel protection detachment embarked to protect the crew against piracy attacks, opened fire toward the supposed threatening vessel. Actually, it was a trawler -the St Antony -and two Indian fishermen died because of the rifle shots. After the incident, the unaware tanker was called back to the Indian port of Kochi and, once the Enrica Lexie docked, two members of the Italian Navy got arrested. These events have set up the beginning of an harsh dispute between India and Italy, made of different International Law issues that represent the subject of this work. The method used is characterized by an alternation among the analysis of general principles, the comparison with international jurisprudence and the attempt to apply the gleaned principles to the concrete case. The main issues broached are jurisdiction and functional immunity, which -according to the Italian government -would belong to the marines. The first topic, whose aim is to establish if one of the two States has the exclusive jurisdiction over the Italian marines, involves matters like the law of the sea, the general principles of jurisdiction and the cases of cross-border offences. The second theme, the functional immunity, turns out to be less proved than expected and therefore it needs a comparison between the doctrine's stance and the judicial practice. The present dissertation has finally explored other minor but intersting International Law issues involved by the Enrica Lexie affair: the value of unilateral acts, the notion of dispute, the violation of diplomatic immunities, the importance of the principle of the tribunal established by law, the cooperation in criminal matters with Countries allowing death penalty.

This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state's international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court's denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.

Head of State Immunity seems to intrinsically maintain a conflict among Sovereign Immunity, to whom it subsists, Customary Law, to whom it owes its origins, and Executive Prerogative, who assures its implementation. The current article tries to explain and ponder upon the core implications of this conflict by regarding its origins, evolution (if whatsoever) and, perhaps most importantly, its theoretical reasoning. I will argue that the Head of State Immunity is primarily based on the doctrine of Separation of Powers; whereas the Executive exerts all the prerogatives pertaining to Foreign Affairs, the judiciary cannot arrogate itself such attributes. Secondly, I will argue that Head of State Immunity and Sovereign Immunity are related to the same degree of extent to which Sovereign Immunity is related to Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: while Diplomatic Immunity has been separately codified under Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (1961), Head of State Immunity has been maintained subservient to the Sovereign Immunity. Lastly, I will present and analyze relevant precedents in the hope of shedding some light on the legal – and perhaps – political reasoning behind them.

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. − 2. Considerazioni generali circa la configurabilità quale contromisura dell'esercizio della giurisdizione nei confronti di Stati e organizzazioni internazionali o dei loro organi. − 2.1. Esercizio della giurisdizione da parte dello Stato di nazionalità delle vittime oppure di uno Stato non individualmente leso. − 3. Condizioni per la legittimità della contromisura: obiezione alla tesi secondo cui alcune regole in materia di immunità non potrebbero essere violate a titolo di contromisura. − 3.1. Adempimenti preventivi all'esercizio della giurisdizione: ruolo dei giudici e delle autorità di governo nell'adozione di contromisure. − 3.2. Natura non irreversibile della contromisura. − 3.3. Proporzionalità: effetto perturbatore del rifiuto di accordare le immunità. − 3.4. Categorie di obblighi, in relazione alla cui violazione è ipotizzabile il diniego delle immunità come contromisura proporzionata. − 4. Il caso delle immunità da misure di esecuzione. − 5. Normative interne che ricollegano a talune violazioni del diritto internazionale il disconoscimento delle immunità dalla giurisdizione. − 5.1. L'Antiterrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act statunitense. − 5.2. Il Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act canadese. − 5.3. La expropriation exception statunitense. − 6. Considerazioni critiche relative alla prassi in questione. − 7. Festina lente, ovvero sul ruolo della contromisura nello sviluppo progressivo del diritto internazionale.

This paper analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the relationship between state immunity and foreign state employees' right of access to a court, protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While acknowledging that the case law of the Strasbourg Court has in many respects contributed to providing employees of foreign states with broader access to the courts of receiving states, the paper submits that the Court's handling of labour cases presents some major flaws. Namely, it is argued that (i) the Court's assessment of the norms of customary international law in the area of state immunity from employment lawsuits is ill-proven and largely unconvincing; (ii) this flawed assessment of custom has had a negative impact on the scope of employees' right of access to a court; and (iii) under the approach followed by the Strasbourg Court, certain categories of state employees may be left without any judicial means of obtaining redress. It appears crucial that the Court addresses such flaws in future cases.

ZaöRV 76 (2016)

This paper follows up on the effects of Judgment No. 238/2014 by the Italian Constitutional Court. On grounds of both the substantive and procedural legal ambiguity of the ruling, Italian municipal courts have been confronted with the dilemma of either upholding State immunity and complying with the International Court of Justice's judgment or denying State immunity and following the decision of the Constitutional Court. It is condended that the Constitutional Court would have had jurisdiction to carry out a reassessment of customary international law on State immunity without taking for granted the appraisal by the International Court of Justice. On this basis, it could have avoided to resort to the so-called “counter-limits” doctrine for refraining from giving application to international law, finding instead that State immunity for international crimes committed on the territory of the forum State can be denied under both international and domestic constitutional law. Even if this did not amount to full adherence to Article 59 of the ICJ's Statute in procedural terms, it would have meant compliance with the substance of international law at issue. Yet, an attempt to overcome the “Triepelian approach” of the Constitutional Court has recently been made along most original, albeit problematic lines by Italian municipal courts.

Biopolitics occupies a central role in contemporary debates over new political and governance strategies around the world. Based on the Hobbesian assumption of a “mutual relation between protection and obedience” the sovereign power of modern states seems to be founded with the purpose of the preservation and protection of life. But what happens if we look at the present pandemic, whereby governments are struggling against an “invisible enemy” to pursue this end, facing at the same time the problem of keeping up with the growth that sustains the wealth of our economies? Through the discussion of four contemporary, and often antagonistic, takes on biopolitics – Foucault’s understanding of biopower; Agamben’s critique of the logic of sovereignty; Esposito’s concept of immunitas; and Mbembe’s necropolitics – the aim of my paper will be to shed light on the theoretical implications of the pandemic for the foundations of political authority and the definition of modern sovereignty.

Louwette A, ‘Les Juges Belges Face À L’appareil Judiciaire Des États Étrangers et Aux Mécanismes Quasi-Judiciaires Des Organisations Internationales’ in Anne Lagerwall (ed), Les juges belges face aux actes adoptés par les États étrangers et les organisations internationales (Bruylant, 2016)

The benefits of bilateral agreements in regard to international cartels are clear: only a synchronized and international approach will help the developing nations in protecting their markets from unfair competition practices. This article shows the state of anti-cartel policies and legislation in selected jurisdictions, the present state of the coordination of competition policies through promotion and cooperation at the bi-national and international level and highlighted some examples of more publicized anti competition cases. One observation is that more could be done by the developing NIC nations to increase the collaborative ties of their anti competition policies and organs as well as ensure that they fall under the wider umbrella of regional competition regimes such as in the case of South Africa and the European Union. The necessity to safeguard consumer welfare through effective domestic anti competition frameworks was highlighted in the discussed cartel cases. Time will tell whether the emerging economies will be able to balance competition policy and consumer welfare in an effective and progressive way without affecting their trade and investment policies.

International criminal law is characterised by a multiplicity of legal regimes; those comprising the family of domestic law; international criminal tribunal regimes that are susceptible only to the law circumscribed by the Security Council and which can differ from general international law; and international criminal tribunals whose competence is delineated by general international law. Within this variety of legal regimes the concept of immunity does not have uniform application, and conflicts between the regimes as such are obvious. The rejection of immunity ratione personae in the legal regimes composed by international tribunals is an exception to the general rule applicable in the regime of domestic criminal laws. An elaboration of our non-contained system theory attempts to demonstrate that the third party rule (in treaty law and by extension to legal regimes) cannot be sustained as legitimate on many occasions.

The aim of this contribution is to investigate the legal institution of immunity in the context of today’s international law. This latter has gone through significant processes of transformation that, since the beginning of the twentieth century, witnessed a gradual reshaping of the idea of states as “normal types” of subjects of the international society. The role played by non state actors in the management of international affairs has grown, and states are increasingly delegating some of their functions to private operators.
Against this backdrop, this contribution investigates how immunity should be framed with reference to private actors exercising public authority. The analysis will introduce the concept of delegation of public authority, in the context of hybridisation between public and private. It will then focus on the content of the activity as a paradigm to guide the extension of state immunity, through a presumption of non applicability. The analysis of some relevant national case-law, and of a pending case in front of the ECJ will serve as support of the analysis for testing its contentions.

[Immunité juridictionnelle – Immunité de l’Etat – Immunité des agents de l’Etat – Incident de navigation maritime en haute mer – Compétence personnelle passive/Jurisdictional Immunity – State Immunity – Immunity of Agents of the State - Incident of Maritime Navigation on the High Sea]