CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ IMMUNITIES OF STATES AND THEIR OFFICIALS IN CONTEMPORARY LAW jumping from one aspect to another without maintaining a coherent structure. This makes this general part rather redundant, taking also into account the main introductory chapter of the book which clearly defines the distinctions between different concepts of immunities. The next part of the chapter deals with the core issue of state immunities: exceptions. It is precisely the issue of exceptions and different approaches of state practice in this regard that make the concept of jurisdictional immunities of states often hard to apply in a unified and universal approach. The author presents the evolution of the concept from absolute state immunity towards developing several exceptions up to the development of the contemporary understanding of the distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis . However, the author keeps this part in a general and theoretical level without dwelling on specificities of particular exceptions from state immunity. The following part analyses the concept of state immunity from the point of view of the sources of international law. State immunity is a well-established concept of customary international law that has not so far reached a sufficient level of codification, despite many important attempts. The author outlines two important attempts – the European Convention of 1972 and the 2004 UN Convention of jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. This part needs a factual update, because the latter convention has currently 21 contracting parties, Slovakia being the twenty-first to ratify the Convention. Generally, this part comes with a critical overview of the Convention, including the process of its adoption. It also touches upon the understandings annexed to the Convention, but, maybe unfortunately, does not devote much interest to it. Indeed, the character of the understandings would shed more light into the applicability of the Convention as such. The Chapter continues in analyzing, in a rather descriptive manner, the main contributions of the 2012 ICJ Judgement. The Judgement, being one of the most important decisions of international courts on the subject matter, makes its inclusion in this chapter unavoidable, and its analysis contributes importantly to the overall scope of the chapter. The next part of the chapter forms its core. It deals with four different national courts’ jurisprudence in the issue of State immunity: namely in Italy, Slovakia, United Kingdom and Canada. This part has to be read in mutual relation with the particular country situations. In case of each state, the author highlights a particular decision of the domestic court, giving many details of the case and reasoning of the respective constitutional or high court of the country. Through these examples, this part gives an important overview of the contribution of national courts to the development of the concept and, even more importantly, the application of the international law rules in the jurisprudence of the court, giving an evaluation on how the domestic court tackle with the immunity issues, often being faced with the application of a contradictory rule: a human rights rule. Among these four case studies, the decision of the Slovak Constitutional Court comes in a very specific aspect— the court dealt with the issue of immunity of state, however not of a foreign state, but the Slovak state itself. There was no international link present that makes the relevance of this decision questionable. The chapter continues towards the final part dealing with the need to reconcile state immunity with human rights of individuals that are not able to receive proper compensation for any injuries entailed in connection with acts subject to state immunity. Although not formulating a universal solution or option, there are some suggestions in this regard.

617