Rätt till diplomatiskt skydd?
ILC:s arbete
• FN:s folkrättskommission (ILC); bas i FNstadgan artikel 13(1)(a) (’encouraging the
progressive development of international law
and its codification’)
• Är ADP huvudsakligen Kodifiering eller
progressiv utveckling?
När får en stat utöva diplomatiskt skydd?
• (1) ”an international wrongful act, attributable
to the injuring State” (Art. 1, ADP);
• (2) ”may only be exercised by the State whose
nationality the harmed individual possesses”
(Art. 3, ADP);
• (3) ”the harmed individual must exhaust all
local remedies” (Art. 14, ADP).
”an international wrongful act, attributable
to the injuring State” (Art. 1, ADP)
• ADP handlar enbart om sekundära regler (jfr
statsansvaret)
• Relevanta normer för sökas på annat håll (MRkonventioner, sedvanerätt om
egendomsskydd, m.m.)
”may only be exercised by the State whose nationality the
harmed individual possesses” (Art. 3, ADP)
• ADP gör skillnad på fysiska och juridiska
personer
• Fysiska (Nottebohm)
• Juridiska (Barcelona Traction)
”the harmed individual must exhaust all local
remedies” (Art. 14, ADP)
• Kan vara svårt att dra gränsen mot statsansvar
(USA v Iran Hostages case, Avena).
Rätt eller skyldighet att utöva
diplomatiskt skydd?
• Traditionellt har staten rätt att skydda sina
medborgare, men ingen skyldighet att göra
det (Barcelona Traction)
• Staten utövar diplomatiskt skydd efter eget
godtycke (Barcelona Traction)
• Kan diplomatiskt skydd betraktas som en
mänsklig rättighet?
Hur ska vi se på relationen mellan diplomatiskt
skydd och mänskliga rättigheter?
• Den internationella minimistandarden
• Uttömmande av inhemska rättsmedel
(ömsesidig påverkan mellan DP och MR?)
• DP obsolet?
Två huvudpunkter
• DP bygger på en fiktion
• Vems är rätten?
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions
• ’By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by
resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial
proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting
its own rights – its right to ensure, in the person of its
subjects, respect for the rules of international law. The
question, therefore, whether the present dispute
originates in an injury to a private interest, which in
point of fact is the case in many international disputes,
is irrelevant from this standpoint. Once a State has
taken up a case on behalf of its own subjects before an
international tribunal, in the eyes of the latter the State
is sole claimant.”
Artikel 1, ADP
• ’. . , diplomatic protection consists of the
invocation by a State, through diplomatic
action or other means of peaceful settlement,
of the responsibility of another State for an
injury caused by an internationally wrongful
act of that State to a natural or legal person
that is a national of the former State with a
view to the implementation of such
responsibility’
ADP, Kommentaren
• ’[m]any of the principles contained in the
articles on Responsibility of States . . . Are
relevant to diplomatic protection and are
therefore not repeated in the present draft
articles [ADP]. This applies in particular to the
provisions dealing with the legal
consequences of an internationally wrongful
act . . . All these matters are dealt with in the
articles on Responsibility of States.’
Art. 44, ARSIWA
• Utvecklas i ADP
Förpliktelser erga omnes
• ’When a State admits into its territory foreign investments
or foreign nationals, whether natural or juristic persons, it
is bound to extend to them the protection of the law and
assumes obligations concerning the treatment afforded to
them. These obligations, however, are neither absolute nor
unqualified. In particular, an essential distinction should be
drawn between the obligations of a State towards the
international community as a whole, and those arising visà-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By
their very nature the former are the concern of all States. In
view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can
be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are
obligations erga omnes (para. 33)
Art. 48, ARSIWA
• ’Any State other than the injured Stateis
entiled to invoke the responsibility of another
State …’
• Skapar en möjlighet till Actio popularis?
DRC v Uganda (2005)
• Simma (diss)
’mixed claims’
• Klassificering; kan kränkningar av individuella
rättigheter ses som direkta skador på staten
(vars nationalitet individen har)?
• Det är inte klart vad som är en indirekt skada
(på staten) och en skada genom medborgare
(ICJ antyder i Avena att det finns en skillnad,
para. 35-36)
Avena
• Mexico…
• ’may, in submitting a claim in its own name,
request the Court to rule on the violation of
rights which it claims to have suffered both
directly and through the violation of individual
rights conferred on Mexican nationals…’
• Alltså inte nödvändigt för Mexico att uttömma
inhemska rättsmedel
Tre metoder
• Sine qua non test; skulle anspråket framställts
om det inte vore för skadan på individen?
• ’preponderance’ test; vilket element väger
tyngst
• Remediernas karaktär; vad begär den skadade
staten?