Inmunidad de jurisdicción y derechos humanos: dos astillas no hacen fuego
Cargando...
Ficheros en el ítem
Fecha
2022
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales
Resumen
En 2021, dos tribunales estatales, la Corte del Distrito Central de Seúl y el Supremo Tribunal Federal de Brasil, se pronunciaron con motivo de dos casos relacionados con la inmunidad de jurisdicción del Estado extranjero y la violación de los derechos humanos. Ambos dictaminaron que la inmunidad de jurisdicción no era aplicable dado que los actos objeto del litigio se veían afectados por la grave vulneración de los derechos humanos. En sendos casos, los tribunales apelan a su norma constitucional y a la evolución de la práctica para anteponer la protección de los derechos humanos al principio de inmunidad. Mientras que la Corte de Distrito de Corea del Sur, en el asunto Comfort Women c. Japón, se apoya en la protección de las víctimas de los crímenes contra la humanidad y su derecho a la tutela judicial, el Supremo Tribunal Federal de Brasil, en el asunto Changri-la c. Alemania, se remite a la observancia de los derechos humanos en términos generales para fundamentar su decisión. El presente artículo se pregunta por la fundamentación jurídica esgrimida por ambos tribunales para interpretar la excepción al principio de inmunidad de jurisdicción.
During 2021, two domestic courts – the District Court of South Korea and the Brazilian Supreme Court– ruled on two cases related to States’ immunity from jurisdiction and the violation of human rights. Both courts decided that immunity was not applicable due to the fact that the acts covered by the dispute were affected by violations of human rights. In both cases the courts appealed to their constitutional norm and to the evolution of international practice in order to put protection of human rights before the principle of sovereign immunity of the States. While the District Court of South Korea in the Comfort Women against Japan case based its decision on the protection of victims of crimes against humanity and the victims’ right to judicial protection; in the Changri-la against Brazil case, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court applied human rights laws in broad terms in order to support the exception to immunity. This article questions the legal foundations that both tribunals used in their application of the exception to immunity from jurisdiction.
During 2021, two domestic courts – the District Court of South Korea and the Brazilian Supreme Court– ruled on two cases related to States’ immunity from jurisdiction and the violation of human rights. Both courts decided that immunity was not applicable due to the fact that the acts covered by the dispute were affected by violations of human rights. In both cases the courts appealed to their constitutional norm and to the evolution of international practice in order to put protection of human rights before the principle of sovereign immunity of the States. While the District Court of South Korea in the Comfort Women against Japan case based its decision on the protection of victims of crimes against humanity and the victims’ right to judicial protection; in the Changri-la against Brazil case, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court applied human rights laws in broad terms in order to support the exception to immunity. This article questions the legal foundations that both tribunals used in their application of the exception to immunity from jurisdiction.
Descripción
Materias
Citación
Abrisketa, J. (2022). Inmunidad de jurisdicción y derechos humanos: dos astillas no hacen fuego. Revista electrónica de estudios internacionales (REEI), 43.