On the hazards of foreign travel for dictators and other international criminals

International Affairs

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 599-617

  Weller, Marc ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011132662     PISSN: 00205850     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2346.00095     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. House of Commons, Hansard, Written Answers for 15 April 1999, col. 314.
2. See Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a 'Dule', International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, Case No IT-94-1-AR72, para 41-49.
3. See also Prosecutor v. Furundzija, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case No. 17-95-17/1-T, para 153.
4. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d. 876 (1980).
5. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Chranch 116 (1812).
6. There may, however, exist extraordinary exceptions, for example in relation to a head of state indicted by an international tribunal established under a Chapter VII Security Council Resolution.
7. In the Noriega case, proceedings somewhat controversially took place, the US arguing that it had not recognized Noriega as the Head of State (which, in fact, should have been irrelevant) and that, in any event, his alleged drugs-related offences were not exercises of a public function in relation to which immunity would persist, US v. Noriega 746 F. Supp. 1506 (SD Fla 1990).
8. 107 ILR 536.
9. Hilao v. Marcos, (1994) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 119.
10. Exponents of this view were Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Lloyd of Berwick in the initial appeal, and Lord Goff of Chievely in the second appeal.