European Convention On State Immunity 1972 Pdf
European Treaty Series-No. Hackers Toolkit 2005 on this page. 74 European Convention on State Immunity Basle, 16.V.1972 Preamble The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto. State Immunity: Recent Developments and Prospects. State Immunity: Recent Developments and. Implement the European Convention on State Immunity 1972.
Not to be confused with the doctrine of, whereby the government of a state may not be amenable before its own courts. The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a is given from being sued in the of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of. Convention to which jurisdictional immunities of. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be. Having taken note of the text of the European Convention on State Immunity. A procedure which shall be as expeditious and simple as possible.RESOLUTION (72) 2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the European Convention on State Immunity adopted at the 206th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies on 18 January 1972 The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
There is now a trend in various states towards substantial exceptions to the rule of immunity; in particular, a state can be sued when the dispute arises from a commercial transaction entered into by a state or some other non-sovereign activity of a state. The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, which is not yet in force, formulates the rules and the exceptions to them. It does not cover criminal proceedings, and it does not allow civil actions for against state agents where the abuse has occurred in another country. Contents • • • • • • Immunity against civil proceedings for serious human rights abuses [ ] According to some commentators, it is not obvious why states should have in cases relating to serious abuses. The argument is made that fundamental human rights such as the and the prohibition against torture should take precedence over rules of state immunity.
The argument goes that these rights have a higher ranking and importance (in technical terms, they constitute norms of ) than a rule of state immunity, and that the recent focus on ending for serious human rights abuses should ensure that the law develops to allow states to be sued. The argument on the other side is that immunity should be ended, but other ways exist to accomplish this.