In:
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 47, No. 4 ( 1998-10), p. 950-958
Abstract:
The relationship between State immunity and diplomatic immunity has always been a rather complex one. The two concepts undoubtedly have a common juridical background in the form of the concepts of sovereignty, independence and dignity. 1 On the other hand, recent developments in both fields have seen a move towards a more functional-based approach. Thus, in relation to diplomatic immunity, the dominant theoretical basis is that of functional necessity. 2 As regards State immunity, recent developments in both international law 3 and, more particularly, in UK law 4 , from absolute to restrictive State immunity, have resulted in a more functionally orientated approach, that is, a shift of emphasis in matters of State immunity from immunity ratione personae to immunity ratione materiae . 5 Now two recent cases in the United Kingdom have raised the possibility that, in the case of diplomats at least, the two concepts may be combined to provide a double immunity for diplomatic agents against civil suit. More controversially, the cases have raised the possibility of a third type of protection based upon immunity ratione personae in what could be said to amount to a modified act of State doctrine. The cases in question are Propend Finance Pty Ltd. v. Alan Sing and The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police 6 and Re P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction) . 7
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0020-5893
,
1471-6895
DOI:
10.1017/S0020589300062631
Language:
English
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Publication Date:
1998
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2044426-6
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2911-7
SSG:
2
Bookmarklink