The dispute between the Parties as to whether Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention have been violated in this case in consequence of the breach of paragraph 1 (b) does relate to the interpretation and application of the Convention. This is also true of the dispute as to whether paragraph 1 (b) creates individual rights and whether Germany has standing to assert those rights on behalf of its nationals. These are consequently disputes within the meaning of Article I of the Optional Protocol. Moreover, the Court cannot accept the contention of the United States that Germany's claim based on the individual rights of the LaGrand brothers is beyond the Court's jurisdiction because diplomatic protection is a concept of customary international law. This fact does not prevent a State party to a treaty, which creates individual rights, from taking up the case of one of its nationals and instituting international judicial proceedings on behalf of that national, on the basis of a general jurisdictional clause in such a treaty. Therefore the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction with respect to the whole of Germany's first submission.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der WissenschaftenWissenschaften e.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Nationality. In: Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. World Court Digest, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87467-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87467-6_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-87466-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-87467-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)