The issue was whether military strikes in the Gaza Strip, which were aimed at preventing attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, but which also caused the deaths of civillians were illegal. The Court held that this depends on the international law of armed conflict and in particular the principle of proportionality.
|
A foreign state could not claim state immunity in respect of English proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitration award where it had agreed in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration.
|
Claims for damages brought by Equatorial Guinea arising out of an alleged attempted coup were non-justiciable in the English courts because the losses sustained were not property interests but arose from decisions taken by the state to defend itself and its citizens, which involved the exercise of sovereign authority.
|
The Tribunal found that Argentina had breached the relevant Bilateral Investment Treaty by failing to accord “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” to Azurix. It awarded compensation in the sum of US$165,240,753.
|
Argentina requested provisional measures against Uruguay (under a 1975 Treaty) to suspend the authorisation and construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay and to compel Uruguay to cooperate with it to protect the environment around the River. The International Court of Justice rejected the request.
|
A majority of the Supreme Court held inter alia that the military commission established by the US Government to try Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee violated the Geneva Conventions.
|
The House of Lords applied the State Immunity Act 1978 to dismiss an action for damages, in relation to alleged torture, against the Ministry of Interior of Saudi Arabia and certain state officials. The Court rejected the argument that the application of the Act would violate Article 6(1) of the ECHR or jus cogens norms of international law.
|
An arbitration tribunal upheld Occidental’s claim against Ecuador, under the Bilateral Investment Treaty between Ecuador and United States, for the refund of certain VAT payments. The English High Court rejected Ecuador’s application, under s67 and s68 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside this award and held that, on the proper construction of the BIT, the tribunal had not exceded its jurisdiction.
|
In a judgment dated 8 December 2005 the House of Lords held (7-0) that evidence obtained by torture by officials of a foreign state is not admissible in English courts. The Courts, inter alia, considered the effect in English law of the United Nations Convention Againt Torture.
|
In October 2005 the House of Lords heard an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence from third parties, which has or may have been obtained by foreign states through torture. One of the issues was whether Article 15 of the United Nations Conventions against Torture (which prohibits the admission of such evidence) has effect in English law and if so, on what basis.
|
| 1 2 |