CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION… DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: LIMITING THE DISCRETION Abstract: The aim of this note is to briefly outline endeavours to limit the “absolute” discretion of states in exercising diplomatic protection and to try to put these efforts in the context of other possible mechanisms which could be used as a remedy for serious violations of human rights of an individual abroad. The note first refers to the discussions in the International Law Commission on the topic of diplomatic protection and, namely, to de lege ferenda suggestions concerning the obligation to exercise diplomatic protection in cases of grave breaches of ius cogens against an individual, as suggested by the Special Rapporteur for this topic and rejected by the Commission as not yet ripe for codification. Decisions of national courts in several states are described which subjected the considerations of the executive power concerning the exercise of diplomatic protection to partial judicial oversight based on standards of rule of law / due process (the individual’s legitimate expectation and the prohibition of arbitrariness). Even if the universal and European systems of protection of human rights do not regard diplomatic protection as a human right and do not restrict the “unlimited” discretion of states in this area, a brief reference is made to opinions which point to the sharp and perhaps not legitimate difference of protection of nationals within the borders of national states and outside these borders and speculate about the possibility of inferring “the right to justiciability of the decisions concerning the exercise of diplomatic protection” from personal jurisdiction of the home state of the individual and from the positive obligations of states to protect nationals from the acts of third-party states. Finally, other possible remedies for serious violations of human rights abroad are mentioned, such as entitlements of the home state of the injured individual which are based on the regime contained in relevant international conventions for the suppresion of serious crimes. It is suggested, de lege ferenda , that diplomatic protection and other potential protective mechanisms could be taken together in their context with the aim of creating a certain kind of obligation of the home State of the injured individual to provide or at least consider providing (following a due process requirements in processing the request for protection) any appropriate protective or remedial measure towards the third, responsible State. Resumé: Cílem tohoto krátkého příspěvku je nastínit snahy o omezení “absolutní” diskreční pravomoci států při výkonu diplomatické ochrany a pokusit se uvést tyto snahy do kontextu dalších možných mechanismů, které by bylo možno využít jako prostředek ochrany či nápravy v reakci na závažná porušení lidských práv jednotlivce mimo území domovského státu. V úvodu jsou zmíněny diskuse v rámci Komise pro Pavel Caban

167