Advanced

Rättsstridig rättvisa? - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act och dess förhållande till internationell sedvanerätt

Hall, Tilda LU (2016) LAGF03 20162
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Staters immunitet framför nationella domstolar är en central folkrättslig princip som är starkt förankrad i statssuveräniteten. Immuniteten, som utgör en inskränkning i staters jurisdiktion, brukar legitimeras med hänvisning till den latinska frasen par in parem non habet imperium - mellan två likar har ingendera av dem myndighet över den andra.
Tidigare i höstas skapade antagandet av en amerikansk lag, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), rubriker och diskussion. Lagen instiftar ett undantag till den judikativa immunitet som stater som huvudregel åtnjuter enligt internationell sedvanerätt vilket möjliggör för stater att utsättas för en amerikansk domstolsprocess vid anklagelser om staten stött terroristverksamhet och... (More)
Staters immunitet framför nationella domstolar är en central folkrättslig princip som är starkt förankrad i statssuveräniteten. Immuniteten, som utgör en inskränkning i staters jurisdiktion, brukar legitimeras med hänvisning till den latinska frasen par in parem non habet imperium - mellan två likar har ingendera av dem myndighet över den andra.
Tidigare i höstas skapade antagandet av en amerikansk lag, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), rubriker och diskussion. Lagen instiftar ett undantag till den judikativa immunitet som stater som huvudregel åtnjuter enligt internationell sedvanerätt vilket möjliggör för stater att utsättas för en amerikansk domstolsprocess vid anklagelser om staten stött terroristverksamhet och därmed indirekt orsakat skada för käranden. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda vilka undantag till suverän immunitet som den internationella sedvanerätten ger stöd för gällande just skadeståndsmål samt hur JASTA förhåller sig till denna. Vidare undersöker uppsatsen även vilka möjliga konsekvenser lagstiftningen för med sig, främst med betoning för folkrätten.
Utredningen visar att ett nekande av immunitet med basis i JASTA troligtvis strider mot internationell sedvanerätt. En möjlig konsekvens av detta är att USA kan hållas ansvariga enligt de folkrättsliga reglerna om statsansvar. En annan möjlig konsekvens är att lagstiftningen, på grund av reciprocitetens betydelse i internationella relationer, innebär startskottet för en utveckling mot ett JASTA-liknande undantag i den internationella sedvanerätt. (Less)
Abstract
A state’s right to immunity in foreign domestic courts is a fundamental principle of international law with strong ties to the concept of sovereignty. The argument for the concept of immunity, which does entail an infringement on states jurisdictional rights, is usually derived from the Latin maxim par in parem non habet imperium – an equal has no power over an equal.
Earlier this fall the enactment of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in the United States caused headlines and public debate. The act creates an exception to the sovereign immunity that states normally enjoy in foreign domestic courts according to international customary law and allows states to be subjected to a legal process in American courts when... (More)
A state’s right to immunity in foreign domestic courts is a fundamental principle of international law with strong ties to the concept of sovereignty. The argument for the concept of immunity, which does entail an infringement on states jurisdictional rights, is usually derived from the Latin maxim par in parem non habet imperium – an equal has no power over an equal.
Earlier this fall the enactment of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in the United States caused headlines and public debate. The act creates an exception to the sovereign immunity that states normally enjoy in foreign domestic courts according to international customary law and allows states to be subjected to a legal process in American courts when faced with accusations that the same state sponsored terrorism and thereby caused injury to the plaintiff.
The purpose of this paper is to examine what exceptions to sovereign immunity exist in current international customary law in regards to civil pecuniary claims and how those exceptions relates to JASTA. The purpose is also to assess possible consequences of the legislation, mainly in regards to international law.
This paper concludes that a denial of immunity on the grounds laid out in JASTA in all likelihood constitutes a violation of international customary law. One possible consequence of this is that the United States opens itself up to being held accountable according to the rules of state responsibility in international law. Another possible consequence is that the legislation, because of the importance of reciprocity in international relations, will trigger a development towards establishing an exception similar to JASTA in international customary law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hall, Tilda LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20162
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
public international law, immunity, terrorism
language
Swedish
id
8897436
date added to LUP
2017-02-08 11:29:17
date last changed
2017-02-08 11:29:17
@misc{8897436,
  abstract     = {A state’s right to immunity in foreign domestic courts is a fundamental principle of international law with strong ties to the concept of sovereignty. The argument for the concept of immunity, which does entail an infringement on states jurisdictional rights, is usually derived from the Latin maxim par in parem non habet imperium – an equal has no power over an equal.
	Earlier this fall the enactment of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in the United States caused headlines and public debate. The act creates an exception to the sovereign immunity that states normally enjoy in foreign domestic courts according to international customary law and allows states to be subjected to a legal process in American courts when faced with accusations that the same state sponsored terrorism and thereby caused injury to the plaintiff.
The purpose of this paper is to examine what exceptions to sovereign immunity exist in current international customary law in regards to civil pecuniary claims and how those exceptions relates to JASTA. The purpose is also to assess possible consequences of the legislation, mainly in regards to international law. 
This paper concludes that a denial of immunity on the grounds laid out in JASTA in all likelihood constitutes a violation of international customary law. One possible consequence of this is that the United States opens itself up to being held accountable according to the rules of state responsibility in international law. Another possible consequence is that the legislation, because of the importance of reciprocity in international relations, will trigger a development towards establishing an exception similar to JASTA in international customary law.},
  author       = {Hall, Tilda},
  keyword      = {public international law,immunity,terrorism},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rättsstridig rättvisa? - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act och dess förhållande till internationell sedvanerätt},
  year         = {2016},
}