The Right to a Fair Trial in International Lawbrings together the diverse sources of international law that define the right to a fair trial in the context of criminal (as opposed to civil, administrative or other) proceedings. The book provides a comprehensive explanation of what the right to a fair trial means in practice under international law and focuses on factual scenarios that practitioners and judges may face in court. Each of the book's fourteen chapters examines a component of the right to a fair trial as defined in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and reviews the case law of regional human rights courts, international criminal courts as well as UN human rights bodies. Highlighting both consensus and divisions in the international jurisprudence in this area, this book provides an invaluable resource to practitioners and scholars dealing with breaches of one of the most fundamental human rights.

The right to a fair trial is the most litigated human right in the world. Understanding the right requires reference not only to its interpretation by courts, treaty bodies, rapporteurs, experts, and scholars, but also to the preparatory work of the treaty (travaux preparatoires) and the circumstances of its conclusion. This volume brings together for the first time the complete travaux to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with reference to the discussion regarding other articles where relevant. It traces the evolution of the text over more than a decade of the drafting process through a number of United Nations bodies. The materials reveal a lengthy and complex process of drafting the Covenant, the intentions of the delegates regarding the interpretation of certain provisions, and those issues that they left open for states parties to decide through their practice. This is a companion volume to The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (OUP 2020).

Revised and updated to include recent developments since 2013, the third edition of The Law of State Immunity provides a detailed guide to the operation of the international rule of State immunity which bars one State's national courts from exercising criminal or civil jurisdiction over claims made against another State. Building on the analysis of its two previous editions, it reviews relevant material at both international and national levels with particular attention to US and UK law; the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and its Property (not yet in force), and also seeks to assess the significance of recent changes in the evolution of the law. Although the restrictive doctrine of immunity is now widely observed by which foreign States may be sued in national courts for their commercial transactions, the immunity rule remains controversial, not only by reason of the recognition of a single State's right to deny a remedy for a wrong - China, a major trading State, continues to adhere to the absolute bar - but also by the exclusion of any reparation or relief for the commission on the orders of a State of grave human rights violations. The complexity and moral challenge of the issues is illustrated by high profile cases such as Pinochet, Amerada Hess, Saudi Arabia v Nelson and more recently NML v Argentina in national courts; Al-Adsani v UK and Jones v UK in the European Court of Human Rights; and Judgments of the International Court of Justice in Arrest Warrant, Djibouti v France and most recently in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, which, particularly since the 2014 contrary ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, has attracted strong juristic criticism. The expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction of national courts with regard to torture in disregard of pleas of act of State and nonjusticiability as in Belhaj and Rahmatullah offers a further challenge to the exclusionary nature and continued observance of State immunity. Recent developments in key areas are examined, including: impleading; public policy and non-justiciability; universal civil jurisdiction for reparation for international crimes; the application of the employment exception to embassies and diplomats; immunity from enforcement and procedural measures; immunity of State officials, and tensions between national constitutional requirements and superior international norms.

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.