In Angela Stergiopoulos v. Iran, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that state immunity does not bar exequatur proceedings against a foreign state when those proceedings seek the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judicial decision finding the state responsible for serious breaches of human rights. Stergiopoulos confirms the Italian courts’ persisting inclination to champion a human rights limitation to state immunity in contrast to mainstream transnational case law. It also reveals several legal and policy risks arising out of that position. Yet the decision should be seen in the context of a new constellation of states prioritizing human rights enforcement over state immunity, including Brazil and, at least in the Court’s view, the United States, especially given the availability under U.S. law of proceedings against states sponsors of terrorism accused of certain egregious violations of human rights.
Amoroso, D., Pavoni, R. (2023). Stergiopoulos v. Iran: Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Decision on Human Rights Limitations on Sovereign Immunity in International Law and Italian Constitutional Law. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 117(2), 315-321 [10.1017/ajil.2023.7].
Stergiopoulos v. Iran: Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Decision on Human Rights Limitations on Sovereign Immunity in International Law and Italian Constitutional Law
Pavoni R.
2023-01-01
Abstract
In Angela Stergiopoulos v. Iran, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that state immunity does not bar exequatur proceedings against a foreign state when those proceedings seek the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judicial decision finding the state responsible for serious breaches of human rights. Stergiopoulos confirms the Italian courts’ persisting inclination to champion a human rights limitation to state immunity in contrast to mainstream transnational case law. It also reveals several legal and policy risks arising out of that position. Yet the decision should be seen in the context of a new constellation of states prioritizing human rights enforcement over state immunity, including Brazil and, at least in the Court’s view, the United States, especially given the availability under U.S. law of proceedings against states sponsors of terrorism accused of certain egregious violations of human rights.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Amoroso-Pavoni, AJIL 2023, pp 315-321.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
PDF editoriale
Licenza:
PUBBLICO - Pubblico con Copyright
Dimensione
217.12 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
217.12 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1232838