PRACTICE OF LIMITATION OF STATE IMMUNITY BY COUNTERMEASURES UNDER MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Introduction. The article considers an issue if a court of an injured state could deny immunity to a state committed an internationally wrongful act and if that denial could represent a legally acceptable countermeasure. Authors consider an issue if a limitation to the state immunity can be a subject to countermeasure and if this type of countermeasure complies with the conditions of legality.

Materials and methods.  In the course of incubation of research, we use writings of foreign and Russian authors, United Nations International Law Commission materials, practice of states and practice of international and national courts. Methodological foundation of research is composed by general scientific and specific scientific methods of obtaining knowledge (dialectical method, analysis method, synthesis method, deduction method, induction method and rather-legal method).

Research results. Based on the results of the research conducted authors suggest a mechanism of denial of immunity to a state by a court of an injured state which represents a countermeasure. Authors conclude that if the conditions of legality of countermeasures were met, a denial of immunity to a defendant state by a court of an injured state, which represents a countermeasure, would comply with international law.

Discussion and conclusions.  The article draws attention to special aspects of denying of immunity to a state by a court of an injured state, which represents a countermeasure, in case of lodging personal criminal injury claim. Authors conclude that limitation to the state immunity by national courts, which represents a countermeasure, isn’t prohibited by rules of international  law.

1. Bianchi A. Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany. Italian Court of Cassation. March 11, 2004. – American Journal of International Law. 2005. Vol. 99. Issue 1. P. 242–248.

2. Bröhmer J. State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights. The Hague: Artinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1997. 260 p.

3. Cassese A., Gaeta P., Jones J. R. W. D. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002. 2380 p.

4. Chernichenko S.V. Kontury mezhdunarodnogo prava. Obshchie voprosy [International Law Contours]. Moscow: Nauchnaya kniga Publ. 2014. 592 p. (In Russ.)

5. Chernichenko S.V. Vzaimosvyaz’ imperativnykh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava (jus cogens) i obyazatel’stv erga omnes [Interrelation of Peremptory Norms of International Law (jus cogens) and Obligations erga omnes]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2012. No. 3 (87). P. 3-17. (In Russ.)

6. Crawford J. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. Oxford: University Press. 2012. 888 p.

7. Crawford J. International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. 387 p.

8. Fox H. The Law of State Immunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. 704 p.

9. Gattini A. The Dispute on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State before the ICJ: Is the Time Ripe for a Change of the Law? – Leiden Journal of International Law. 2011. Vol. 24. Issue 1. P. 173–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000683

10. Gevorgjan K. G. “Odnostoronnie sanktsii” i mezhdunarodnoe pravo [Unilateral Sanctions and International Law]. – Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’. 2012. No. 8. P. 93–104. (In Russ.)

11. Glotova S.V. Yuridicheskie predposylki primeneniya norm mezhdunarodnogo prava v rossiiskoi pravovoi sisteme (na primere ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya po mezhdunarodnomu pravu) [The Legal Preconditions for Applying International Law within the Russian Legal System (example - criminal liability for crimes against international law)]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2015. No. 6 (105). P. 68–79. (In Russ.)

12. Kolodkin R.A. Fragmentatsiya mezhdunarodnogo prava [Fragmentation of International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2005. No. 2 (58). S. 38-61. (in Russ.)

13. Kurdyukov G.I. Kontrmery v mezhdunarodnom prave i usloviya ikh primeneniya [Countermeasures under International Law and the Conditions of their Application]. – Uchenye zapiski KGU. 1998. Vol. 133. P. 130–137. (In Russ.)

14. Kurdyukov G.I., Keshner M.V. Sootnoshenie otvetstvennosti i sanktsii v mezhdunarodnom prave: doktrinal’nye podkhody [Correlation of Responsibility and Sanctions in International Law: doctrinal approaches]. – Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2014. No. 9 (213). P. 103–115. (In Russ.)

15. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoi otvetstvennosti [The Law of International Responsibility]. Moscow: Volters Kluver Publ. 2004. 404 p. (In Russ.)

16. Moser P. Non-Recognition of State Immunity as a Judicial Countermeasure to Jus Cogens Violations: The Human Rights Answer to the ICJ Decision on the Ferrini Case. – Göttingen Journal of International Law. 2012. Vol. 4. Issue 2. P. 809-852. DOI: 10.3249/1868-1581-4-3-moser

17. Orakhelashvili A. Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. 662 p.

18. Romashev Yu.S. Mezhdunarodnoe pravookhranitel’noe pravo [International Law of the Protection of Rights]. Moscow: Norma Publ.; Infra-M Publ. 2010. 368 p. (In Russ.)

19. Vitcum V.G. [et al.]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law]. Moscow: Infotropik Media Publ. 2011. 992 p. (In Russ.)

20. White M. Pinochet, Universal Jurisdiction, and Impunity. – Southern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas. Vol. 7. 2000. P. 209–226.