Talk:State immunity

"It is not obvious why states should have immunity in cases relating to serious human rights abuses".

To be honest I would say it is rather obvious. The need for peaceful relations between states and the possibility of armed conflict come to mind and should definitely be the starting point for any discussion. But that is just my point of view. Just like this is clearly the authors. I don't think this article gives a decent account of what is an increasingly important topic in general actually. What about the important relationship with individual immunities enjoyed by state officials - that are in effect derived from state immunity? --Simon Lamb 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

=============================================================================

That states should in certain cases enjoy immunity from one another is one thing; I am not sufficiently proficient to form an enlightened opinion on this matter, so I shall simply assume there are some good reasons for this, since many competent people seem to say so... although my gut feeling is that any form of total immunity somehow does not add up.

But that states should enjoy immunity from individuals or corporations is such an assymetrical situation that I cannot understand how any human being worth half his or her salt can seriously declare it is a good thing that families whose members have been raped, killed, robbed or otherwise spoliated as a direct consequence of a state's action shall have no way of claiming reparation against the originator.

For instance: the families of victims of the state assasins who killed the passengers of the PanAm flight over Lockerbie and the French UTA flight over Africa had absolutely no legal recourse. They only obtained (some for of) compensation because their countries negociated with the criminal state. Had their countries refused to do this (which frequently happens, see below) they would have had absolutely no recourse and would have been left, alone, to pay the price of their country's diplomacy which, need I say this, is supposed to benefit all the citizens. So, are the victims not owed anything at all?

Such has been the case of the family of a French magistrate assasinated in Ethiopia on official business some 15 years ago (found officialy to be a suicide), which had to wait for a change in the French presidency before legal proceedings were brought by France in this matter. By sheer luck the new president was in favour of such action.

Such is the case of 316000 French holders of defaulted Russian bonds worth US$ 90 billion who, in a Franco-russian agreement (May 1997), France officially undertook not to uphold against Russia. Unlike the families of Lockerbie victims, they now have nowhere to go to.

Of course states should not enjoy immunity in the case of human rights abuse. If it is complicated to set this up, let us just find an angle. It is there.

Let's not forget that we are on Wikipedia here and not on some social forum. State immunity at the moment is under fire due to the Italian Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ferrini. Ferrini, and his relatives, were victims of the Second World War and sought compensation from the State of Germany. Germany then went to the ICJ. There is an obvious tension between justice and efficiency in the form of stable international relations. In other words, get back on track. Take out the biased wording of Wikipedia. We need to start adding actualities to this topic. If I have the time I will try to add some of the information that is made available to the ICJ from their website and add it to this page.  MarxMorley ^(Talk)

The definition of the term

"The rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states."

Why are only courts mentioned here? State immunity, as far as I understand, means protection against any law enforcement against a state. Not only courts enforce law. 92.36.16.248 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)