I. Diplomatic Representations and Diplomatic Protection

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 723-733

  Warbrick, Colin ^a   Mcgoldrick, Dominic ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36649031527     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/51.3.723     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Waite and Kennedy v Germany ECt HR (1999-I)
2. Beer and Regan v Germany (1999) (international immunity)
3. Al Adsani v UK (2001)
4. Fogarty v UK (2001)
5. McElhinney v Ireland (2001) (state immunity).
6. On the right of access to a court, see R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 637–643.
7. European Convention on State Immunity, 1972, ETS No 74.
8. See Protection of Nationals Abroad, B: Diplomatic Action and Claims Practice, (1988) 37 ICLQ 1002, 1006–8.
9. United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1999, in (1999) LXX BYIL 527 (emphasis in original).
10. LXX BYIL, Rule III.
11. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), who properly separates his treatment into three chapters, ‘The Responsibility of States’, ‘The Admissibility of State Claims’, and ‘Injury to the Persons and Property of Aliens on State Territory’.
12. United States v Mexico (Neer) IV UNRIAA 60, 61–2.
13. R. Lillich, The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 51–61.
14. Above, n 9, 526–8.
15. The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law, 529.
16. No 788/60, (1961) 4 YbECHR 112.
17. Denmark v Turkey ECtHR (2000) (friendly settlement), text in (2000) 21 HRLJ 58.
18. Soering v UK ECtHR A/161 (1989).
19. Selmouni v France ECtHR (1999-V).
20. A/25 ECtHR (1979).
21. J.R. Dugard, First Report on Diplomatic Protection, Fifty-second Session of the International Law Commission, A/CN 4/506, paras 19–32 (Report).
22. Report, para 17.
23. Report, para 32.
24. Report, para 73.
25. Report, para 87.
26. ILC Report on the work of its fifty-third session, A/56/10, para 456.
27. Report, para 88.
28. Articles on State Responsibility, 41, 48, and 54.
29. For diplomatic protection, see the summary of the debate in the ILC by the Rapporteur, ILC Report, above n 30, paras 450–5.
30. International Law Association, Report of the Sixty-Ninth Conference (2000), Interim Report on ‘The Changing Law of nationality of Claims’ by Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuna, 631, 633.
31. See Jasinskij v Lithuania No 38985/97, European Court of Human Rights (admissibility), THE LAW, para 2.
32. Germany v United States (LaGrand) ICJ (2001).
33. ICJ, para 77.
34. W.K. Geck, ‘Diplomatic Protection’, in R Bernhardt (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Volume 1 (Amsterdam, London: North Holland, 1992), 1045, 1051–2.
35. G. Erasmus and L Davidson, ‘Do South Africans have a Right to Diplomatic Protection?’ (2001) 25 SAYIL 113.
36. SAYIL, 119.
37. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
38. R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Pirbhai 129 SJ 756.
39. See esp, R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Butt CA (1999) (unreported)
40. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Kamalposhany (2001) (unreported), per Sir Richard Tucker, ‘there is no duty upon the Secretary of State to ensure that nations comply with their human rights obligations … There may be cases where the United Kingdom government has, for example by diplomatic means, chosen to seek to persuade another state to take a certain course of action in its treatment of British nationals; but there is no duty to do so’, para 19.
41. The Independent, 16 Mar 2002, 2.