183 / 532
167
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION…
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION AND OTHER MECHANISMS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AGAINST SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:
LIMITING THE DISCRETION
Pavel Caban
Abstract:
The aim of this note is to briefly outline endeavours to limit the “absolute”
discretion of states in exercising diplomatic protection and to try to put these efforts
in the context of other possible mechanisms which could be used as a remedy for
serious violations of human rights of an individual abroad. The note first refers to
the discussions in the International Law Commission on the topic of diplomatic
protection and, namely, to
de lege ferenda
suggestions concerning the obligation
to exercise diplomatic protection in cases of grave breaches of
ius cogens
against
an individual, as suggested by the Special Rapporteur for this topic and rejected
by the Commission as not yet ripe for codification. Decisions of national courts in
several states are described which subjected the considerations of the executive power
concerning the exercise of diplomatic protection to partial judicial oversight based on
standards of rule of law / due process (the individual’s legitimate expectation and the
prohibition of arbitrariness). Even if the universal and European systems of protection
of human rights do not regard diplomatic protection as a human right and do not
restrict the “unlimited” discretion of states in this area, a brief reference is made to
opinions which point to the sharp and perhaps not legitimate difference of protection
of nationals within the borders of national states and outside these borders and
speculate about the possibility of inferring “the right to justiciability of the decisions
concerning the exercise of diplomatic protection” from personal jurisdiction of the
home state of the individual and from the positive obligations of states to protect
nationals from the acts of third-party states. Finally, other possible remedies for serious
violations of human rights abroad are mentioned, such as entitlements of the home
state of the injured individual which are based on the regime contained in relevant
international conventions for the suppresion of serious crimes. It is suggested,
de lege
ferenda
, that diplomatic protection and other potential protective mechanisms could
be taken together in their context with the aim of creating a certain kind of obligation
of the home State of the injured individual to provide or at least consider providing
(following a due process requirements in processing the request for protection) any
appropriate protective or remedial measure towards the third, responsible State.
Resumé:
Cílem tohoto krátkého příspěvku je nastínit snahy o omezení “absolutní”
diskreční pravomoci států při výkonu diplomatické ochrany a pokusit se uvést tyto
snahy do kontextu dalších možných mechanismů, které by bylo možno využít jako
prostředek ochrany či nápravy v reakci na závažná porušení lidských práv jednotlivce
mimo území domovského státu. V úvodu jsou zmíněny diskuse v rámci Komise pro