ANALYSIS OF IMMUNITY BASED ON THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

• Authors: Kadirova Nargiza Rashitovna

Title variants

PL

ANALIZA IMMUNITETU W OPARCIU O KONWENCJĘ WIEDEŃSKĄ W STOSUNKACH KONSULARNYCH W KONTEKŚCIE INTERESÓW NARODOWYCH REPUBLIKI UZBEKISTANU

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

W tym artykule przestawiono, w jakim stopniu urzędnicy państwowi podlegająściganiu w zagranicznych sądach krajowych za zbrodnie międzynarodowe. Zostały rozważone różne rodzaje immunitetu, jakie prawo międzynarodowe przyznaje urzędnikom państwowym, powo-dy przyznania tego immunitetu i czy mają zastosowanie w przypadkach, w których zarzuca się, że urzędnik popełnił przestępstwo międzynarodowe.

EN

This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime.

Keywords

PL

Stosunki konsularne; immunitet dyplomatyczny; konwencja; immunitet konsularny; funkcje; kraj wysyłający; kraj przyjmujący; odpowiedzialność; stosunki międzynarodowe; międzynarodowe prawo publiczne

EN

consular relations; diplomatic immunity; convention; consular immunity; functions; sending state; receiving state; responsibility; international relations; public international law

• Publisher: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka – Edukacja – Rozwój w Warszawie
• Journal: International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS)
• Year: 2018
• Issue: 4(2)
• Pages: 441-455

Dates

published

2018-12

Contributors

author

Kadirova Nargiza Rashitovna

References

• 1. WHOMERSLEY, ‘Some Reflections on the Immunity of Individuals for Official Acts’, 41 ICLQ (1992) 848; TOMONORI, ‘The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct’, 29 Denver J Int’l L and Policy (2001) 261; H. FOX, The Law of State Immunity (2nd edn, 2008), at 455–464 and Ch. 19; WATTS, ‘The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers’, 247 Recueil des Cours (1994-III) 13; Wick- remasinghe, ‘Immunities Enjoyed by Officials of States and International Organiza-tions’, in M. EVANS (ed.), International Law (3rd edn, 2010), at 380.
• 2. ARTS 29 and 31 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR), 500 UNTS 95; Art. IV, Section 11, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Na-tions 1946, 1 UNTS 15 and 90 UNTS 327 (corrigendum to vol. I).
• 3. ARTS 21, 39, and 31 UN Convention on Special Missions 1969, 1400 UNTS 231
• 4. TUNKS, ‘Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity’, 52 Duke LJ (2002) 651, at 656.
• 5. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case (United States of America v. Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3, at para. 91.
• 6. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal, ibid., at para. 75: ‘immunities are granted to high State officials to guarantee the proper function-ing of the network of mutual inter-State relations, which is of paramount importance for a well-ordered and harmonious international system’. See also Fox, supra note 1, at 673.
• 7. JENNINGS R., WATTS A., (eds), Oppenheim's International Law (9th edn, 1992), at para. 445: ‘the head of government …does not represent the international persona of the state in the same way in which the Head of State does’. See also Watts, supra note 1, at 102–103: ‘heads of government and foreign ministers, although senior and important figures, do not symbolize or personify their States in the way that Heads of State do. Ac-cordingly, they do not enjoy in international law any entitlement to special treatment by virtue of qualities of sovereignty or majesty attaching to them personally.’
• 8. AKANDE D., SHAH S., (2010). Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts, Eur J Int Law 21 (4): 815-852.
• 9. MAHMOUDI S. (1990). Some Remarks on Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal Juris-diction. –J. Ramberg, O. Bring, S. Mahmoudi (eds.). Festskrift till Lars Hjerner: Studies in International Law. Stockholm: Norstedts, p. 327.
• 10. I.L.C. Yearbook, 1958, vol. II, p. 105.
• 11. ARTICLE 41, paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention, which states that “without preju-dice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privi-leges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”.
• 12. HIGGINS R., (1985). The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: Recent Unit-ed Kingdom Experience. –American Journal of International Law, 1985, vol. 79, p. 645.
• 13. WRIGHT S.L., (1987). Diplomatic Immunity: A Proposal for Amending the Vienna Convention to Deter Violent Criminal Acts. –Boston University International Law Jour-nal, vol. 5, pp. 177–211.
• 14. AKANDE D., SHAH S., (2010). Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts, Eur J Int Law 21 (4): 815-852.

Identifiers

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0013.0027

ISSN

2543-7097

EISSN

2544-9478