State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got it Wrong

Posted: 20 Jun 2008

Date Written: November 2007

Abstract

The proper way of addressing the impact of normative hierarchy on state immunity is to adopt the normative-evidentiary approach cleansed of preconceptions motivated by certain risk factors that possess only theoretical significance. The European Court stated in Al-Adsani on the hierarchy of norms issue without properly examining most of its crucial aspects. The Joint Dissenting Opinion of six judges has exposed the weaknesses in the Court's reasoning. Still, some national courts, especially the House of Lords in Jones v. Saudi Arabia, have taken the Al-Adsani ruling as axiomatic, and accepted its outcome without enquiring into whether the line of reasoning the European Court had pursued was consistent or supported with evidence. The outcome is an unfortunate thread of judicial decisions, which do not properly examine the impact of the hierarchy of norms on State immunity, and consistently uphold the impunity of the perpetrators of torture as well as the denial to victims of the only available remedy.

Suggested Citation

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got it Wrong (November 2007). European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, Issue 5, pp. 955-970, 2007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1148656 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm049

Alexander Orakhelashvili (Contact Author)

University of Birmingham - Law School ( email )

Birmingham Law School
Edgbaston
Birmingham, B15 2TT
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.bham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/orakhelashvili.shtml

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
405
PlumX Metrics