Search results

On October 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered an important judgment on diplomatic immunity. It was the first time the Supreme Court had considered the implications of human trafficking for the scope of diplomatic immunity. As Lord Sumption noted, "[s]ince there is some evidence that human trafficking under cover of diplomatic status is a recurrent problem, this is a question of some general importance."

I was a silent observer in deliberations and readings at the ICJ for
fifteen cases, and my opinion of those was very positive. Laborious, yes,
time-consuming, yes. But in the end, it improves the outcome. What I find so
striking about the ICJ in comparison to other courts and so important with
its status as the principal judicial organ is that it is the judges who hold
the pen. There is a drafting committee of three judges, but after that the
judges have readings where they engage with the draft paragraph by paragraph
for the first reading, page by page for the second reading. In most cases
this process leads to a net improvement in the final result, so I can see
from an efficiency point of view it may not be ideal, but for the authority
and the quality of the judgment I think it is very important.

Four features make states potentially different to other litigants.
First, states are still the principal player in international law—they are
the parties to treaties, members of international organizations, and the
makers and breakers of customary international law. They also establish
courts, decide on budgets, and elect the judges. Second, states enjoy
immunity from jurisdiction and from enforcement measures—courts are obliged
to consider such immunity in limine litis and on
their own initiative. Third, states, whether they are democracies or
dictatorships, are political entities. Fourth, sovereignty is associated
with notions of honor, dignity, and comity.