LLB Dissertation 2018/2019
Critically discuss how, if at all, the international rules on state immunity acts for torture
have developed since the case of Al-Adsani.
Word count: 16,768
1
,Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................5
Chapter 1 –State immunity........................................................................................................
1.1The rule of state immunity....................................................................................................11
1.2.UN Convention on Jurisdiction immunities of States and Their Property 2004 – what it is and
the issue with it....................................................................................................................................13
1.3 State Immunity in the UK......................................................................................................15
1.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................16
Chapter 2–.State Immunity in the UK and Human Rights/ECHR rejection of the trumping argument.
2.1 Definition of Jus cogens and the formulation…………………………………………………………..……….17
2.2 Is there a normative hierarchy of jus cogens norms.............................................................19
2.3 The trumping effect of jus cogens on state immunity...........................................................20
2.4. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................32
Chapter 3 – A change of direction regarding state immunity
3.1: Introduction.......................................................................................................................34
3.2 Right to a remedy........................................................................................................................36
3.3.Could immunity mean impunity?.................................................................................................41
3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 4 – Conclusion…………………………………..………………………………………………………………48
2
,Bibliography…..................................................................................................................49
Abstract
3
, This dissertation considers whether the international rules on state immunity acts for
torture have developed since the case of Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom, [2001] 1. Firstly, it
is submitted that there has been no development on the law of state immunity since the
trumping argument is rejected several times. It is argued that the trumping argument should
be upheld rather than rejected because of the concept of human rights and that people
should have a right to a remedy. Secondly, article 6 ECHR could be used as a way of
removing immunity as article 6 trumps immunity. An example of this was shown in the case
of Benkharbouche & Anor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017].2 Therefore, this would
more likely to increase the chance of the victim to be provided a remedy and achieve
justice.
Introduction
1
Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 752 application 35763/97
2
Benkharbouche & Anor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017] UKSC 62
4
Critically discuss how, if at all, the international rules on state immunity acts for torture
have developed since the case of Al-Adsani.
Word count: 16,768
1
,Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................5
Chapter 1 –State immunity........................................................................................................
1.1The rule of state immunity....................................................................................................11
1.2.UN Convention on Jurisdiction immunities of States and Their Property 2004 – what it is and
the issue with it....................................................................................................................................13
1.3 State Immunity in the UK......................................................................................................15
1.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................16
Chapter 2–.State Immunity in the UK and Human Rights/ECHR rejection of the trumping argument.
2.1 Definition of Jus cogens and the formulation…………………………………………………………..……….17
2.2 Is there a normative hierarchy of jus cogens norms.............................................................19
2.3 The trumping effect of jus cogens on state immunity...........................................................20
2.4. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................32
Chapter 3 – A change of direction regarding state immunity
3.1: Introduction.......................................................................................................................34
3.2 Right to a remedy........................................................................................................................36
3.3.Could immunity mean impunity?.................................................................................................41
3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 4 – Conclusion…………………………………..………………………………………………………………48
2
,Bibliography…..................................................................................................................49
Abstract
3
, This dissertation considers whether the international rules on state immunity acts for
torture have developed since the case of Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom, [2001] 1. Firstly, it
is submitted that there has been no development on the law of state immunity since the
trumping argument is rejected several times. It is argued that the trumping argument should
be upheld rather than rejected because of the concept of human rights and that people
should have a right to a remedy. Secondly, article 6 ECHR could be used as a way of
removing immunity as article 6 trumps immunity. An example of this was shown in the case
of Benkharbouche & Anor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017].2 Therefore, this would
more likely to increase the chance of the victim to be provided a remedy and achieve
justice.
Introduction
1
Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 752 application 35763/97
2
Benkharbouche & Anor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017] UKSC 62
4
