This study attempts to demonstrate that international law does not per se demand that foreign states be granted immunity in cases of individuals sueing those states for violations of human rights. The current state of international immunity law as evidenced by state practice, and the work of several international learned bodies, is surveyed. It is shown that the granting of immunity may contradict the procedural guarantees of the European Convention of Human Rights. The impact of human rights law on the traditional concept of diplomatic protection is described, and the study concludes that a further restriction of the immunity privilege is necessary. Criteria are offered to distinguish between violations of human rights which should remain immunity-protected, and violations where the interest of the perpetrating state to remain immune from foreign jurisdiction must yield to the interest of the injured to obtain adequate redress.
.jpg?1680780797)
