Abstract
One of the major challenges faced by the effective realization of international human rights is State immunity, whose recognition is capable of undermining, in particular, the right to access to justice, from both a procedural and a substantial point of view. The aim of the chapter is to explore the extent to which the rise and development of victims’ rights can contribute to a progressive shrinking of State immunities, especially in the light of the consolidation of the right to individual compensation. This latter will be taken into account, looking in particular at ‘burden sharing’ mechanisms conveying the idea that serious human rights violations may entail the subsidiary liability of the whole international community. If this is true, resort to immunity by responsible States might become harder, given that the viability of judicial action works as an essential prerequisite of any contribution by innocent States to the reparation of human rights breaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Committee against Torture, General Comment no 3 (2012), para. 42.
- 2.
- 3.
Authoritative doctrine distinguishes between substantial reparation (in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, as set out by Art. 34 of the ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts) and procedural reparation, consisting of the obligation, for States, to provide individuals with effective internal remedies. See Committee against Torture, General Comment no. 3, para. 5. The Draft Articles were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001.
- 4.
Francioni (2007), pp. 10ff.
- 5.
In favour of a ‘slow’ development of an individual right to reparation, see, among others: Pisillo-Mazzeschi (2003), p. 347. More optimistic views are expressed by Evans (2012), p. 39; Cançado Trindade (2011), pp. 197ff., 209; Francioni (2007), pp. 33ff. An opposite opinion is expressed by Tomuschat, who emphasises the difficulty generally encountered by individuals in enjoying rights stemming from customary norms, often due to jurisdictional obstacles (Tomuschat 1999, pp. 14ff.). In a sense favourable to an individual right to compensation, see also the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, paras. 593ff. The same paragraph recalls that the international obligation to pay compensation was first laid down in Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare and restated in each of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (footnote no. 213). It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss compensation issues in the context of armed conflict. On this theme see, from the many, Ronzitti (2007), pp. 95ff.
- 6.
- 7.
Examples of a direct obligation for States to provide reparations to ‘the injured party’ are found in the European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 4 November 1950; entry into force 3 September 1953; Art. 41), in the American Convention on Human Rights (San José, 22 November 1969; entry into force 18 July 1978; Art. 63 para. 1) and in the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Maputo, 10 June 1998; entry into force 25 January 2004; Art. 27 para. 1). On the issue of reparation measures prescribed by international tribunals and organs, see Bartolini (2009).
- 8.
Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity; the Code was adopted by the International Law Commission in 2019.
- 9.
As explicitly stated by Art. 6 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (New York, 2 December 2004), ‘A State shall give effect to State immunity […] by refraining from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding before its courts against another State and to that end shall ensure that its courts determine on their own initiative that the immunity of that other State […] is respected’. The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 59/38 of 16 December 2004 and is not yet in force.
- 10.
A previous attempt to codify the law of State immunity was made by the Council of Europe, through the adoption of the European Convention on State Immunity (Basel, 16 May 1972, entry into force 11 June 1976). The Convention has only been ratified by three States.
- 11.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Art. 5: ‘A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State subject to the provisions of the present Convention’.
- 12.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Art. 7; the consent of the State can be expressed by international agreement, in a written contract, or by a declaration before the court or by a written communication in a specific proceeding (para. 1).
- 13.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Art. 8 para. 1; however, consent will not be considered to have been given if the State takes part in the proceeding only to invoke immunity or to assert a right in property involved in the proceeding (Art. 8 para. 2). Nor can immunity be invoked in relation to counterclaims arising out of the same legal relationship which is the object of a proceeding instituted before the court of another State (Art. 9 para. 1). The same applies if the State merely intervenes to present a claim (Art. 9 para. 2).
- 14.
Part III includes commercial transactions (Art. 10), employment contracts (Art. 11), State rights or interests in ownership, possession and use of property (Art. 13), intellectual and industrial property (Art. 14), participation in companies or other collective bodies (Art. 15), the operation of ships for non-commercial purposes (Art. 16), disputes relating to a commercial arbitration agreement entered into by the State (Art. 17).
- 15.
Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, with Commentaries, 1991, p. 44.
- 16.
Italian Supreme Court, 11 March 2004, no. 5044/04.
- 17.
Italian Constitutional Court, 22 October 2014, no. 238.
- 18.
Italian Supreme Court, 11 March 2004, no. 5044/04, p. 11.
- 19.
Italian Supreme Court, 11 March 2004, no. 5044/04, p. 12.
- 20.
According to Article 41 of the Draft, States shall cooperate to bring to an end violations of peremptory norms (para. 1), they shall not recognise as lawful a situation created by such a breach nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation (para. 2).
- 21.
Italian Constitutional Court, 22 October 2014, no. 238, p. 20.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 20.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 21.
- 24.
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 99, para. 93.
- 25.
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 99. Among the considerable number of works published on this issue, see: De Sena and De Vittor (2013), pp. 89ff; Gattini (2005), pp. 224ff; Boudreault (2012), pp. 1003ff; Francioni (2012), pp. 1125ff; Orakhelashvili (2012), pp. 609ff; Pisillo-Mazzeschi (2012), pp. 310ff; Salerno (2012), pp. 350ff; Frulli (2011), pp. 1129ff; Iovane (2004), pp. 165ff; Focarelli (2005), pp. 951ff.
- 26.
In this respect see for all Peters (2016), p. 551.
- 27.
The role of the individual has strongly emerged in the LaGrand case, where the ICJ stated that Art. 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention on consular relations ‘creates individual rights’ (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 466, para. 77). The statement has been recalled by the Court in the Avena case (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 12, para. 40).
- 28.
Nowadays, the majority of doctrine tends to recognise individual legal personality (Shaw 2017, pp. 204–205); however, Crawford defines the classification of the individual as a subject as ‘unhelpful’, given the lack of some capacity and notes that the norms of human rights law are not yet regarded as applying horizontally and international law provides no means for their enforcement (Brownlie 2012, p. 121).
- 29.
Van Boven (2012), p. 694.
- 30.
Committee against Torture, General Comment no. 3 (2012), para. 2. See also UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, General Assembly resolution 60/147, 16 December 2005, Chapter IX (Reparation for harm suffered).
- 31.
Examples of this kind of legislation are, with reference to the Italian legal system, the law establishing a national fund for victims of motor accidents, guaranteeing compensation to victims if the vehicle is not covered by insurance or the liable person has not been identified (Italian Law 24-12-1969 no. 990, Assicurazione obbligatoria della responsabilità civile derivante dalla circolazione dei veicoli a motore e dei natanti, Official Journal of 3 January 1970, no. 2). Victims of organised crime can apply for compensation based on different funds, one of which is specifically devoted to victims of the Mafia (Italian Law 22 December 1999, no. 512, Istituzione del Fondo di rotazione per la solidarietà alle vittime dei reati di tipo mafioso, Official Journal of 10 January 2000, no. 6). On the establishment of the Victims’ Rights Movement and on the first examples of the related legislation, see Daigle (2013), pp. 7ff.
- 32.
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.
- 33.
McCracken (2005), p. 77. The adoption of the Principles is the outcome of a long process that began with the transfer, in 1950, to the United Nations, of the functions of the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission (‘IPPC’). The IPPC was an international body created to promote cooperation in the development of international crime policies (https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/dbpjvcap/dbpjvcap_ph_e.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2021).
- 34.
Basic Principles, no. 12-14.
- 35.
Basic Principles, no. 15-23.
- 36.
Basic Principles, no. 20.
- 37.
Basic Principles, no. 4.
- 38.
Basic Principles, no. 6, 7.
- 39.
Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, 8 February 2005.
- 40.
Haldemann and Unger (2018), pp. 4–5.
- 41.
Updated Principles, no. 32; reparation programmes can be addressed to individuals and communities and they should be implemented with the participation of victims and civil society, attempting to ensure the contribution of women and minority groups.
- 42.
Updated Principles, no. 34.
- 43.
Updated Principles, Definitions, letter A.
- 44.
Updated Principles, no. 1.
- 45.
Updated Principles, no. 21.
- 46.
Updated Principles, no. 22.
- 47.
See, in particular, the ‘Restrictions on rules of law justified by action to combat impunity’, set out by the Updated set of principles, where State immunity is not listed (Part III, letter c).
- 48.
UN Basic Principles, Preamble.
- 49.
Haldemann and Unger (2018), p. 7.
- 50.
Study on Amnesty Laws and Their Role in the Safeguard and Promotion of Human Rights, E/CN.4/Sub.2/19, 21 June 1985, para. 51. In 1997, the same Author issued a Report, including the first version of the Updated Principles and introducing the same structure adopted by these latter (Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political), E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, 26 June 1997).
- 51.
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), cit., para. 26. The Foundation did not provide compensation directly to individuals, but rather to ‘partner organisations’ such as the International Organisation for Migration. However, many Italian internees never had access to compensation, given their military status.
- 52.
The UN Compensation Commission was established by Security Council resolution 687/1991. The Commission was charged with the task of administering the Fund (para. 18). The processing of claims was concluded in 2005 and payments ceased in 2007. For reference, see: Mensah (2011); Gattini (2002), pp. 161ff; Frigessi di Rattalma and Treves (1999).
- 53.
Institut de droit international, Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, 2015, para. 144. On the choice, by the responsible State, between administrative compensation and the tort approach, including the case where the former is not even available (so-called ‘judicial closure’), see Malamud-Goti and Sebastián Grosman (2006), pp. 546–547.
- 54.
Institut de droit international, Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, 2015, para. 146.
- 55.
See, in this sense, Groenhuijsen (2014), pp. 37–38.
- 56.
European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, Strasbourg, 24 November 1983, entry into force 1 February 1988. The Convention has so far received only three ratifications.
- 57.
- 58.
Draft UN Convention on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 8 February 2010, Art. 11.1. See Groenhuijsen (2008), pp. 121ff.
- 59.
Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, Istanbul, 11 May 2011, entry into force 1 August 2014. The resolution encourages States to create national funds for compensation (point no. 13).
- 60.
Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, Istanbul, 11 May 2011, entry into force 1 August 2014, Art. 30, para. 2. See, also, the Nairobi Declaration on Women’s and Girls’ Right to a Remedy and Reparation (2007), stating ‘That national governments bear primary responsibility to provide remedy and reparation’ (point 6).
- 61.
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Warsaw, 16 May 2005, entry into force 1 February 2008. The Convention has thus far been ratified by ten States.
- 62.
Ibid., Art. 15 para. 4. According to the same provision, compensation ‘could be funded’ through sanctions against the offender.
- 63.
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, New York, 15 November 2000, entry into force 29 September 2003.
- 64.
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, New York, 15 November 2000, entry into force 25 December 2003, Art. 6 para. 6. See Van Dijk (2002), pp. 15ff.
- 65.
Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, OJ L 261, 6 August 2004, pp. 15–18, Art. 2.
- 66.
Ibid., Art. 12 para. 2.
- 67.
The text of Art. 14 reads as follows: ‘Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible’.
- 68.
Committee against Torture, Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning Communication No.854/2017, para. 7, 9 letter d). In the case at issue, compensation based on domestic law had already been granted to the complainant, a victim of rape during the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina (para. 4.4.).
- 69.
Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups, 2007. The Principles were adopted by the United Nations at the international conference ‘Free children from war’ held in Paris in 2007.
- 70.
Ibid., para. 3.23.
- 71.
Ibid., para. 7.2.
- 72.
Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, 2019, Art. 12 para. 3.
- 73.
Administrative compensation has been defined as an approach where: ‘victims are defined in standardized terms in a statute that provides a relatively fixed, tabulated amount of compensation for all’ (Malamud-Goti and Sebastián Grosman 2006, p. 540).
- 74.
See, in particular, Art. 30 para. 2 of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence: ‘Adequate State compensation shall be awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health, to the extent that the damage is not covered by other sources such as the perpetrator, insurance or State-funded health and social provisions’.
- 75.
Shelton (2015), p. 19.
- 76.
Van Boven (2012), p. 695.
- 77.
See, as an example, the Rainbow Warrior case, where declarations of material breaches by France of its obligations were considered sufficient satisfaction for New Zealand by the arbitral tribunal (Case Concerning the Difference Between New Zealand and France Concerning the Interpretation or Application of Two Agreements, Concluded on 9 July 1986 Between the Two States and Which Related to the Problems Arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, 30 April 1990, para. 123).
- 78.
Committee against Torture, Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning Communication No.854/2017, para. 5.3.
- 79.
In this regard, the approach taken by the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings consists of setting out grounds for jurisdiction (Art. 31 para. 1) and of generically establishing States’ duty to ensure compensation (Art. 15 para. 1,3). The same approach is followed by the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Art. 44 para. 1; Art. 30 para. 1). Grounds for jurisdiction refer to State territory, as well as to the nationality of the perpetrator and of the victim.
- 80.
The topic of universal jurisdiction was analysed in particular by the Institut de droit international in its report Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, 2015.
- 81.
UN Basic Principles, no. 4, 5.
- 82.
The Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Note by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, E/CN.4/2004/57, 10 November 2003, p. 9.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 10.
- 84.
Principle 13. Similar language is found in the Draft UN Convention on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (Art. 11.6).
- 85.
Updated Principles, no. 32.
- 86.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, entry into force 1 July 2002.
- 87.
Ibid., Art. 79 para. 3.
- 88.
Ibid., Art. 79 para. 2.
- 89.
Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims, 3 December 2005.
- 90.
Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims, 3 December 2005, Art. 21 letter. a); the Regulations also mention ‘other sources’: money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture, resources collected through awards for reparations ordered by the Court and such resources, other than assessed contributions, as the Assembly of States Parties may decide to allocate (Art. 21 letters b), c) and d)).
- 91.
Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims, 3 December 2005, Art. 22.
- 92.
Ibid., Art. 23.
- 93.
Dannebaum (2010), pp. 258–259. The same expression is found in Article 98 of the Rules of Evidence of the Court (para. 3), mentioning the case where a collective award is deemed more appropriate. According to that provision, individual awards for reparations shall be made directly against a convicted person (para. 1) and can be deposited with the Trust Fund only when it is impossible to make individual awards directly to each victim. In this case, they shall be separated from other resources of the Trust Fund and shall be forwarded to each victim as soon as possible (para. 2). On the Trust Fund for Victims see, also, Rombouts and Parmentier (2009), pp. 149ff; Davidovic (2015), pp. 217ff.
- 94.
Balta et al. (2019), pp. 233–234.
- 95.
Regulation no. 2000/15 on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, Art. 25.1.
- 96.
Ibid., Art. 25.2.
- 97.
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia—Internal Rules (rev.9) as revised on 16 January 2015, Rule 23(5).
- 98.
Prosecutor v Kaing Guek Eav, Appeal Judgment, 3 February 2012, para. 654ff.
- 99.
- 100.
Guidebook to Judicial Reparations in Case 02/02 before the ECCC, p. 3.
- 101.
Ibid., p. 7.
- 102.
The Chambers were created to prosecute international crimes committed in Chad between 7 June 1982 and 1 December 1990. The Agreement on the Establishment of the Extraordinary African Chambers within the Senegalese Judicial System between the Government of the Republic of Senegal and the African Union was signed on 22 August 2012; the Chambers were inaugurated in February 2013.
- 103.
Statute of the Extraordinary African Chambers, Art. 28 para. 1.
- 104.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was set up under UN Resolution 1757(2007) to deal with claims relating to terrorist attacks occurring in Lebanon since 2004. The Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of the Tribunal was signed by the Government of Lebanon and the United Nations respectively on 23 January and on 6 February 2007. Unlike the other tribunals mentioned so far, compensation claims must be addressed to national tribunals or ‘other competent institutions’ (Art. 25 para. 3 of the Statute).
- 105.
The SCSL was established by an agreement between the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone (Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone; Freetown, 16 December 2002) to prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996. Following the termination of the Courts’ activities in 2013, the Residual Court was established, dealing with the remaining legal obligations of the SCSL.
- 106.
Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, para. 601.
- 107.
Ibid., para. 595.
- 108.
Ibid., para. 595.
- 109.
Ibid., para. 601.
- 110.
The Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Note by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, E/CN.4/2003/63, 27 December 2002, para. 13.
- 111.
International Centre for Transitional Justice, Reparation and the Darfur Peace Process: Ensuring Victims’ Rights, November 2007, p. 42. The text also notes how international assistance may be more appropriate to peace-building measures. A similar opinion has been expressed by Segovia (2006), p. 659.
- 112.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 48 para. 2 letter b). According to letter a), such States are also entitled to request cessation of the internationally wrongful act, and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition.
- 113.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, p. 127.
- 114.
International Court of Justice, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, pp. 3, 32.
- 115.
Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, 2015, para. 107.
- 116.
Ibid., para. 108. The duty of solidarity was also mentioned by the Institute in the resolution on The Protection of Human Rights and the Principle of Non-intervention in Internal Affairs of States, 1989, Art. 1.
- 117.
Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, para. 108. As is known, the notion of ‘responsibility to protect’ was first formulated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, set up by the Canadian Government, in its report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. It was later endorsed by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change formed by experts appointed by the UN Secretary General. In its report, adopted in 2004, the panel submits that Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows military intervention in case of disasters or mass atrocities occurring within States’ borders (para. 201). The idea was re-stated by the UN Secretary General in its report ‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All’, adopted in 2005. (para. 132).
- 118.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 48 para. 2 letter b). Such a provision must be read in conjunction with Article 54, confirming the right of any State, entitled under Article 48, para. 1 to invoke the responsibility of another State to take lawful measures against that State to ensure cessation of the breach and reparation in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached.
- 119.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, paras. 115–116.
- 120.
Ibid., para. 117.
- 121.
Ibid., Art. 41 para. 1.
- 122.
Universal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes, 2015, paras. 110–111. The report focuses its attention on other States’ obligation not to hinder compliance with the obligation to provide redress, i.e. by preventing the transfer of funds deposited in its banks to the responsible State (para. 112). Under these terms, according to the Institut, States would actually be bound by the obligation to compensate.
- 123.
Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, Art.12 para. 3.
- 124.
Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, with Commentaries, p. 107, footnote no. 541.
- 125.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). The complaint was brought by The Gambia in relation to acts performed by the Government of Myanmar against members of the Rohingya group, allegedly victims of genocidal acts. The jurisdiction of the Court is based on Article IX of the Convention against Genocide, ratified by both The Gambia and Myanmar. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in Paris on 9 December 1948, entered into force on 12 January 1951.
- 126.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order, 23 January 2020.
- 127.
Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, para. 597. See, also, the Final Award rendered by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, where it notes that: ‘The size of the Parties’ claims raised potentially serious questions involving the intersection of the law of State responsibility with fundamental human rights norms’ (Final Award, Ethiopia’s Damages Claims between The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and The State of Eritrea, 17 August 2009, para. 19).
References
Balta A (2018) Extraordinary chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, regulation of marriage, and reparations: judgment in case 002/02 under review. Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2018/11/20/extraordinary-chambers-in-the-courts-of-cambodia-regulation-of-marriage-and-reparations-judgment-in-case-002-02-under-review/. Accessed 15 Apr 2021
Balta A, Bax M, Letschert R (2019) Trial and (potential) error: conflicting visions on reparations within the ICC system. Int Crim Just Rev 29:221–249
Bartolini G (2009) Reparation for violations of human rights: possible co-ordination in the case-law of international supervisory bodies. Federalism. https://federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?artid=13780. Accessed 15 Apr 2021
Bassiouni C (1987) Introduction to the United Nations resolution and declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power. De Paul University, Chicago
Boudreault F (2012) Identifying conflicts of norms: the ICJ approach in the case of the jurisdictional immunities of the state (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening). Leiden J Int Law 25:1003–1012
Brownlie I (2012) Public international law, 8th edn. OUP, Oxford
Cançado Trindade AA (2011) The access of individuals to international justice. OUP, Oxford
Chukwuemeke Okeke E (2018) Jurisdictional immunities of states and international organizations. OUP, Oxford
Daigle LE (2013) Victimology: the essentials. Sage, Los Angeles
Dannebaum T (2010) The International Criminal Court, Article 79, and transitional justice: the case for an independent trust fund for victims. Wisconsin Int Law J 28:234–298
Davidovic J (2015) International Criminal Court, the trust fund for victims, and victim participation. In: Edenberg E (ed) Jus Post Bellum and transitional justice. CUP, Cambridge, pp 217–243
De Sena P, De Vittor F (2013) State immunity and human rights: the Italian Supreme Court decision on the Ferrini case. Eur J Int Law 16:89–113
Evans E (2012) The right to reparation in international law for victims of armed conflict. CUP, Cambridge
Fattah EA (1992) Towards a critical victimology. ST.Martin’s Press, New York
Focarelli C (2005) Denying foreign state immunity for commission of international crimes: the Ferrini decision. Am J Int Law 54:951–958
Fox H, Webb P (2013) The law of state immunity, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford
Francioni F (2007) The rights of access to justice under customary international law. In: Access to justice as a human right. OUP, Oxford, pp 1–55
Francioni F (2012) From Utopia to disenchantment: the ill fate of ‘Moderate Monism’ in the ICJ judgment on the jurisdictional immunities of the state. Eur J Int Law 23:1125–1132
Frigessi Di Rattalma M, Treves T (1999) The United Nations Compensation Commission: a handbook. The Kluwer Law International, Hague
Frulli M (2011) ‘The Times they are A-Changing’ – the Italian Court of Cassation denies Germany immunity from execution to allow compensation to war crimes’ victims. J Int Crim Just 9:1129–1143
Gattini A (2002) The UN Compensation Commission – old rules, new procedures on war reparations. Eur J Int Law 13:161–181
Gattini A (2005) War crimes and state immunity in the Ferrini Decision. J Int Crim Just 3:224–242
Groenhuijsen M (2008) The Draft UN Convention on justice and support for victims of crime, with special reference to its provisions on restorative justice. Int Ann Criminol 46:121–137
Groenhuijsen M (2014) The development of international policy in relation to victims of crime. Int Rev Victimol 20:31–49
Haldemann F, Unger T (2018) Introduction. In: The United Nations principles to combat impunity – a commentary. OUP, Oxford
Iovane M (2004) The Ferrini Judgment of the Italian Supreme Court: opening up domestic courts to claims of reparation for victims of serious violations of fundamental human rights. Italian Yearb Int Law 14:165–193
Killean R (2017) Pursuing retributive and reparative justice within Cambodia. In: Lawther C, Moffett L, Jacobs D (eds) Research handbook on transitional justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 466–487
Malamud-Goti JE, Sebastián Grosman L (2006) Reparations and civil litigations: compensations for human rights violations in transitional democracies. In: De Greiff P (ed) The handbook of reparations. OUP, Oxford, pp 539–559
Mccracken K (2005) Commentary on the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. Revue internationale de droit pénal 76:77–79
Mensah TA (2011) United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC). In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. OUP, Oxford
Orakhelashvili A (2012) Jurisdictional immunities of states. Am J Int Law 106:609–616
Panebianco M (1967) Giurisdizione interna e immunità degli Stati stranieri. Jovene, Naples
Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights – the legal status of the individual in international law. CUP, Cambridge
Pisillo-Mazzeschi R (2003) Reparation claims by individuals for state breaches of humanitarian law and human rights: an overview. J Int Crim Just 1:339–347
Pisillo-Mazzeschi R (1999) International obligations to provide for reparation claims? In: Randelzhofer A, Tomuschat C (eds) State responsibility and the individual. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 149–172
Pisillo-Mazzeschi R (2012) Il rapporto fra norme di ius cogens e la regola sull’immunità degli Stati: alcune osservazioni critiche sulla sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia del 3 febbraio 2012. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 6:310–326
Rombouts H, Parmentier S (2009) The International Criminal Court and its trust fund are coming of age: towards a process approach for the reparation of victims. Int Rev Victimol 16:149–182
Ronzitti N (2007) Access to justice and compensation for violations of the law of war. In: Francioni F (ed) Access to justice as a human right. OUP, Oxford, pp 95–134
Ronzitti N (2008) Le immunità giurisdizionali degli Stati e degli altri enti internazionali. Cedam, Padua
Salerno F (2012) Gli effetti della sentenza internazionale nell’ordinamento italiano: il caso Germania c. Italia. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 6:350–370
Segovia A (2006) Financing reparations programs. In: De Greiff P (ed) The handbook of reparations. OUP, Oxford, pp 650–675
Shaw MN (2017) International law. CUP, Cambridge
Shelton D (2015) Remedies in international human rights law. OUP, Oxford
Sperfeldt K (2012) Collective reparations at the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia. Int Crim Law Rev 12:457–491
Stoll PT (2011) State immunity. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. OUP, Oxford
Tomuschat C (1999) Individual reparation claims in instances of grave human rights violations: the position under general international law. In: Randelzhofer A, Tomuschat C (eds) State responsibility and the individual. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 1–25
Van Alebeek R (2008) The immunity of states and their officials in international criminal law and international human rights law. OUP, Oxford
Van Boven T (2012) The need to repair. Int J Hum Rights 16:694–697
Van Dijk JJM (2002) Empowering victims of organized crime: on the concurrence of the Palermo Convention with the UN declaration on basic principles of justice for victims. Int Rev Victimol 9:15–30
Yang X (2012) State immunity in international law. CUP, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruozzi, E. (2022). Shrinking of Jurisdictional Immunities and Victims’ Rights: From Separation to Synergy. In: Bismuth, R., Rusinova, V., Starzhenetskiy, V., Ulfstein, G. (eds) Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87705-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87706-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)