dc.contributor.author | SOURESH, Anogika | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-10T16:34:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-04-10T16:34:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.identifier.citation | European journal of legal studies, 2017, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 15-36 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1973-2937 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/46066 | |
dc.description.abstract | This article explores the decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening) regarding the relationship between State immunities and jus cogens norms. It focuses on three assertions in the case, regarding the criminal/civil distinction, the procedural/substantive distinction and the pronouncement that the gravity of the crime is irrelevant when assessing the claim for State immunity. The article picks apart the three assertions in turn, which leads to the conclusion that the analysis by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was flawed. Ultimately, it is argued that Germany ought not to have been afforded State immunity for violations of jus cogens norms. | en |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | European University Institute | en |
dc.relation.ispartof | European journal of legal studies | en |
dc.relation.uri | https://ejls.eui.eu/ | en |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en |
dc.title | Jurisdictional immunities of the state : why the ICJ got it wrong | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.identifier.volume | 9 | en |
dc.identifier.startpage | 15 | en |
dc.identifier.endpage | 36 | en |
eui.subscribe.skip | true | |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en |