State Of Immunity

This first comprehensive history of the social and political aspects of vaccination in the United States tells the story of how vaccination became a widely accepted public health measure over the course of the twentieth century. One hundred years ago, just a handful of vaccines existed, and only one, for smallpox, was widely used. Today more than two dozen vaccines are in use, fourteen of which are universally recommended for children. State of Immunity examines the strategies that health officials have used—ranging from advertising and public relations campaigns to laws requiring children to be immunized before they can attend school—to gain public acceptance of vaccines. Like any medical intervention, vaccination carries a small risk of adverse reactions. But unlike other procedures, it is performed on healthy people, most commonly children, and has been mandated by law. Vaccination thus poses unique ethical, political, and legal questions. James Colgrove considers how individual liberty should be balanced against the need to protect the common welfare, how experts should act in the face of incomplete or inconsistent scientific information, and how the public should be involved in these decisions. A well-researched, intelligent, and balanced look at a timely topic, this book explores these issues through a vivid historical narrative that offers new insights into the past, present, and future of vaccination.

Xiaodong Yang examines the issue of jurisdictional immunities of States and their property in foreign domestic courts.

The doctrine of state immunity bars a national court from adjudicating or enforcing claims against foreign states. This doctrine, the foundation for high-profile national and international decisions such as those in the Pinochet case and the Arrest Warrant cases, has always been controversial. The reasons for the controversy are many and varied. Some argue that state immunity paves the way for state violations of human rights. Others argue that the customary basis for the doctrine is not a sufficient basis for regulation and that codification is the way forward. Furthermore, it can be argued that even when judgments are made in national courts against other states, the doctrine makes enforcement of these decisions impossible. This fully restructured new edition provides a detailed analysis of these issues in a more clear and accessible manner. It provides a nuanced assessment of the development of the doctrine of state immunity, including a general comprehensive overview of the plea of immunity of a foreign state, its characteristics, and its operation as a bar to proceedings in national courts of another state. It includes a coherent history and justification of the plea of state immunity, demonstrating its development from the absolute to the restrictive phase, arguing that state immunity can now be seen to be developing into a third phase which uses immunity allocate adjudicative and enforcement jurisdictions between the foreign and the territorial states. The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of states and their Property is thoroughly assessed. Through a detailed examination of the sources of law and of English and US case law, and a comparative analysis of other types of immunity, the authors explore both the law as it stands, and what it could and should be in years to come.

Ramona Pedretti offers a comprehensive assessment of customary law rules on immunity of Heads of State and other State officials in the context of crimes pursuant to international law and their relationship with core principles of international law.

The author shows through a careful analysis of the law that restrictive immunity does not have vox populi in developing countries, and that it lacks usus. He also argues that forum law, i.e. the lex fori is a creature of sovereignty and between equals before the law, only what is understood and acknowledged as law among states must be applied in as much as the international legal system is horizontal.

The field of international human rights has been one of the most prominent and dynamic areas of public international law in recent decades. At the same time the law of state immunity, albeit less prominent, has also been subjected to a process of dynamic change. The principle of absolute immunity of states from the adjudicatory jurisdiction of foreign states has been replaced by a restrictive concept under which foreign states can be sued under certain circumstances. The violation of fundamental human rights by foreign states is, however, still widely regarded as immunity- protected conduct, be it because such violations must be considered as governmental acts (acta jure imperii) or because the violations were committed outside the territory of the foreign state. Consequently, it is often impossible for the victim of such violations to bring damage proceedings against the foreign state based on municipal (tort) law in a municipal court. The present study attempts to demonstrate that international law does not per se demand that foreign states be granted immunity in such cases. The current state of international immunity law as evidenced by state practice and the work of several international learned bodies is surveyed extensively. 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. The study concludes that a further restriction of the immunity privilege is necessary, and 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 individual to obtain adequate redress.

The author shows through a careful analysis of the law that restrictive immunity does not have vox populi in developing countries, and that it lacks usus. He also argues that forum law, i.e. the lex fori is a creature of sovereignty and between equals before the law, only what is understood and acknowledged as law among states must be applied in as much as the international legal system is horizontal.

Ours is a world in which the volume of the external trade of the vast majority of nations has greatly expanded and continues to be on the rise. Transnational intercourse of all kinds is now a feature of an interdependent world economy in which no nation can afford to stand aloof from a market-place which has assumed global dimensions. It is also a world where many nations, and not only of the Socialist bloc, conduct some of their transnational business themselves, or else they entrust it to state-owned cor porations and to agencies of the state. In these circumstances it becomes of prime importance to know whether a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality thereof can be sued before the local courts and, if so, whether the final judgement obtained can be enforced against the funds or property of the judgement debtor. The question of the immunity of states from suit and from execution is thus one of direct practical relevance not only to the legal profession but also to governments and the business and banking communities all over the world. The economic effects of a particular legal stand on state immunity are obvious. The position of national courts on state immunity can either attract more business or discourage further dealings with foreign states or their agencies. It can thus affect the balance of payments and, in general, the role the country plays in the world market.