Does a Sovereign State Immunity Say More than We Think? ITLOS’s Decision in ARA LIBERTAD Case
Nation’s immunity from the jurisdiction of other nations’ Courts has been recognized and codified by many nations under the term of ‘Sovereign States Immunity’. But, States still have to emphasize on the scope of this immunity in order to prevent conflicts of States’ sovereignty from enjoyment of other States immunity on their territory. Thus, many nations have provided for a ‘restrictive immunity’ in their domestic law. Following the path of these nations, the 2004 UNCSI has also provided for a ‘restrictive immunity’. However, the 1982 UNCLOS has addressed the issue of Sovereign State Immunity too. Surprisingly or interestingly, the interpretation of UNCLOS Article 32 by ITLOS in Libertad Case demonstrates that unlike to many pretentions or understandings, UNCLOS provides Sovereign States for an ‘absolute immunity’ for warships. This paper will try to find out some justifications for ITLOS’s position before coming to the conclusion that rather than a creative role, ITLOS played its role of interpretation. Keywords: Sovereign State Immunity; Warship; Restrictive immunity; Absolute immunity; ITLOS.
European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures
The practice of national courts in Europe with regard to enforcement immunity is far from uniform. Nevertheless, certain common principles have emerged over the last decades. Absolute immunity from enforcement measures has been largely abandoned and almost all jurisdictions have adopted a restrictive approach to enforcement immunity in one or another form. Enforcement measures are usually permitted in case of waiver or with regard to earmarked property. In practice, the most important exception from immunity concerns non-governmental property. Here it is primarily the purpose of the property against which enforcement measures are sought that determines whether or not immunity will be granted. This article surveys the judicial practice in Europe, focusing on the case-law of the last 50 years, in order to permit an assessment of whether various recent codifications, most importantly the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, actually codify such practice or depart from it.
Police and Political Violence in the 1960s and 1970s: Germany and Italy in a Comparative Perspective
Notwithstanding the significant differences between the German and Italian police models (federal and civil vs. centralised and militarised), in both countries the confrontation with the protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s had a profound impact on police conceptions and public order strategies. Police forces in some German federal states (West Berlin) followed a hard line until the late 1960s, while in others (Munich, Hamburg) reforms to the Weimar-centred police intervention tactics took place beginning in the early to mid-1960s. In Italy, traditional police conceptions and strategies remained largely unchanged and re-emerged in 1968. Here, a movement from within the police led to the demilitarisation and unionisation of the state police in 1981. In both countries, fighting left-wing terrorism in the 1970s stimulated technical modernisation and enhanced the centralisation of the police. In critical response to police tactics, in the late 1970s Germany police matters were increasingly perceived as a concern not only of the state but of civil society—even if policing remained a highly contested terrain. In Italy, such matters largely remained state concerns in which only politicians and internal security specialists were entitled to intervene.