State Immunity and Breaches of Human Rights

Phillip Jessup included both public international law and private international law in his definition of transnational law. Jessup thought that transnational law includes “all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers.”1 Within this umbrella definition of transnational...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: CHONG, Adeline
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1172
https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_openaire_primary_doi_036f34fbdacd503c64577a0ad97b3899&context=PC&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Regulatory%20Hybridization%20in%20the%20Transnational%20Sphere
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
Description
Summary:Phillip Jessup included both public international law and private international law in his definition of transnational law. Jessup thought that transnational law includes “all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers.”1 Within this umbrella definition of transnational law, one can discern an intertwining of public and private law norms and the blurring of the distinctions between public international law and private international law. This chapter considers an area which brings into sharp relief the interplay between these two areas of law. The focus is on the situation where victims of breaches of fundamental human rights pursue civil claims against the foreign perpetrator states before national courts. The claim would be a private international law claim, usually one sounding in tort. However, in adjudging such a claim, the national court will have to consider public international law principles, most notably, the doctrine of state immunity.