This chapter evaluates the Court's references to international State immunity law in Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Fogarty v. United Kingdom, and McElhinney v Ireland. The three cases concerned a very controversial area of State immunity, namely torture committed outside of the forum State, a tort committed in the forum State, and employment relationships in an embassy. These themes are especially adapted to an analysis of the Court's reception techniques in international law, given that they are part of a sphere of law which is still in a state of flux. It is argued that the Court's approach — guided by pragmatic considerations — remained hermetic and traditional. Facing a conflict between international legal rules, the Court chose to proceed on the basis of domestic law and practice. In this context, its approach was influenced by the margin of appreciation granted to Contracting States, which lead the Court to defer to their position.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.