Invocation of Responsibility by a State on the Basis of Diplomatic Protection: The Applicability of the Requirement of Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Abstract

The requirements which apply in terms of the admissibility of a state’s invocation of another state’s responsibility for its internationally wrongful acts depends on the nature of the claim. Since the international customary requirements of diplomatic protection are not applicable to cases where the applicant state is directly injured, the claims based on the injuries to a national, which are also by a legal fiction regarded as the indirect injuries to his or her state of nationality, must be considered separately from the former ones. In practice, especially in determining the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, the question arises about whether the state relies on its direct injuries or indirect injuries while asserting rights before international courts. The Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection prepared by the International Law Commission, taking into account the relevant international judicial and arbitral decisions and opinions of jurists, provide that local remedies shall be exhausted where an international claim is brought “preponderantly” on the basis of an injury to a national. However, it is suggested that other criteria or various factors related to the claim, as the case may be, should also be considered in order to decide on the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in such mixed claims containing elements of both injury to the state and injury to the nationals of the state. In this article, the necessity, difficulties, and consequences of determining whether a state invoked the responsibility by means of the right to exercise diplomatic protection are examined in detail in the light of the relevant codification works, decisions of judicial or arbitral bodies, and juristic opinions..

Keywords

• Keywords Invocation of responsibility
• Diplomatic protection
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Direct and indirect injuries
• Mixed claims
• Preponderance test

Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği

Abstract

Bir devletin bir başka devletin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden dolayı sorumluluğuna başvurmasının kabul edilebilirliği bakımından hangi şartların uygulanacağı, başvurunun niteliğine bağlıdır. Başvuran devletin doğrudan zarara uğradığı durumlarda diplomatik himayenin uluslararası örf ve âdet niteliğindeki şartları uygulanmayacağı için, fiilen vatandaşa verilen -ve hukukî bir varsayım gereğince devletin de dolaylı olarak uğradığı kabul edilen- zararlara dayanan başvuruların öncekilerden ayrı mütalaa edilmesi zorunludur. Uygulamada, özellikle iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi şartının uygulanabilirliğinin tespiti bakımından, devletin uluslararası mahkemelerde haklar öne sürerken doğrudan zararlarına mı yoksa dolaylı zararlarına mı dayandığı meselesi gündeme gelmektedir. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonunun ilgili uluslararası yargı ve hakemlik kararlarını ve doktrindeki görüşleri dikkate alarak hazırladığı Diplomatik Himayeye İlişkin Taslakta, bir uluslararası başvurunun “ağırlıklı olarak” vatandaşa verilen zarara dayanarak getirildiğinde, iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi gerekeceği öngörülmüştür. Bununla birlikte, devletin hem doğrudan hem de vatandaşlarının zararlarına dayanarak haklar öne sürdüğü böyle karma nitelikli başvurularda iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi şartının uygulanabilirliği hakkında karar vermek için, duruma göre, başka kriterlerin veya başvuruyla ilgili çeşitli unsurların da göz önünde bulundurulması gerektiği kabul edilebilmektedir. Bu makalede, bir devletin uluslararası sorumluluğa diplomatik himaye hakkını kullanmak suretiyle başvurduğunu tespit etmenin gerekliliği, zorlukları ve sonuçları, ilgili kodifikasyon çalışmaları, uluslararası yargı ve hakemlik organlarının kararları ve hukukî görüşler ışığında ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenmektedir.

Keywords

• Devletin uluslararası sorumluluğa başvurması
• Diplomatik himaye
• İç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi
• Doğrudan-dolaylı zarar ayrımı
• Karma nitelikli başvurular
• Ağırlık kriteri

References

1. Acer Y ve Kaya İ, Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Ders Kitabı (11. Baskı, Seçkin 2020).
2. Adede A O, ‘A Survey of Treaty Provisions on the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ (1977) 18 Harvard International Law Journal 1-17.
3. Adler M H, ‘The Exhaustion of the Local Remedies Rule after the International Court of Justice’s Decision in ELSI’ (1990) 39 ICLQ 641-653.
4. Akehurst M ve Malanczuk P, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7. Baskı, Routledge 1997).
5. Akkutay A İ, Diplomatik Koruma ve İnsan Hakları İlişkisi (Adalet 2013).
6. Aksar Y, Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk, C 2 (5. Baskı, Seçkin 2019).
7. Amerasinghe C F, Local Remedies in International Law (2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2004).
8. Bal A, ‘Bayrak Devletinin Yabancı Gemi Mürettebatı Üzerindeki (Diplomatik) Himayesi’ iç Karadeniz 3. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi Kitabı (UBAK 2020) 292-311 Erişim Tarihi 24.11.2020.

9. Bal A, Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Geçici Tedbirler Rejimi (Seçkin, 2020).
10. Bal A, Uluslararası Hava Hukuku - Hava Sahasının Hukukî Rejimi (Seçkin 2019).
11. Bilge A S, Tebaanın Yabancı Memleketlerde Diplomatik Himayesi (AÜSBF Yayınları 1953).
12. Bodansky D ve Crook J R, ‘Symposium: The ILC’s State Responsibility Articles: Introduction and Overview’ (2002) 96 AJIL 773-791.
13. Borchard E M, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or The Law of International Claims (The Banks Law Publishing Co 1925).
14. Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (6. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2003).
15. Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013) (2013).
16. Crawford J, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press 2002) (2002).
17. Çamyamaç A ve İnci Z Ö, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Ceza Hukuku Yönleriyle Diplomatik Bir Bağışıklık Olarak Ceza Yargısından Muafiyet (Seçkin 2020).
18. Doehring K, ‘Local Remedies, Exhaustion of’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 3 (Elsevier 1997) 238-242.
19. Drenan M T, ‘Gone Overboard: Why the Arctic Sunrise Case Signals an Over-Expansion of the Ship-as-a-Unit Concept in the Diplomatic Protection Context’ (2014) 45 California Western International Law Journal 109-167.
20. Dugard J, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ (Güncelleme Ocak 2007) MPEPIL.
21. Erkiner H H, Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu (On İki Levha 2010).
22. Fitzmaurice G, ‘Hersch Lauterpacht: The Scholar as Judge, Part I’ (1961) 37 BYIL (1961) 1-71.
23. Fitzmaurice G, ‘The Case of the I’m Alone’ (1936) 17 BYIL 82-111.
24. French D, ‘Trail Smelter (United States of America/Canada) (1938 and 1941)’ iç Eirik Bjorge ve Cameron Miles (edr), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Hart Publishing 2017) 159-188.
25. Gaja G, ‘States having an Interest in Compliance with the Obligation Breached’ iç James Crawford, Alain Pellet ve Simon Olleson (edr), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 957-964.
26. Gautier P, ‘On the Classification of Obligations in International Law’ iç Holger Hestermeyer ve diğerleri (edr), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity (Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 853-879.
27. Geck W K, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 1 (Elsevier 1992) 1045-1067.
28. Guilfoyle D, ‘Article 91’ iç Alexander Proelss (ed), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Nomos 2017) 692-699.
29. Gündüz A, Milletlerarası Hukuk Temel Belgeler Örnek Kararlar (5. Baskı, Beta 2003).
30. Hyde C C, International Law: Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Vol 2 (2. Baskı, Little, Brown & Co 1947). Iluyomade B O, ‘Dual Claim and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule in International Law’ (1977) 10 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 83-95.
31. Jessup P C, A Modern Law of Nations: An Introduction (The Macmillan Co, 1948).
32. Jiménez de Aréchaga E ve Tanzi A, ‘International State Responsibility’ iç Mohammed Bedjaoui (ed), International Law: Achievements and Prospects (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991) 347-380.
33. Jiménez de Aréchaga E, ‘International Law in the Past Third of a Century’ (1978) 159 Recueil des Cours 1-343.
34. Kaczorowska A, Public International Law (4. Baskı, Routledge 2010).
35. Karaman I V, Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012).
36. Kato N, ‘Protection of a Ship by the Flag State and Diplomatic Protection: Conceptual Relationship and Admissibility of Claims’ (15.03.2015) 297-316 < http://hokuga.hgu.jp/dspace/ handle/123456789/2861> Erişim Tarihi 25.03.2021.
37. Kjeldgaard-Pedersen A, The International Legal Personality of the Individual (Oxford University Press 2018).
38. Klein N, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press 2004).
39. Kokott J, ‘Interim Report on the Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ iç London Conference Report of International Law Association Committee on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property (2000) 3-27.
40. Kolb R, The International Law of State Responsibility: An Introduction (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017).
41. Lourie G, ‘Diplomatic Protection under the State-to-State Arbitration Clauses of Investment Treaties’ (2015) Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 511-542.
42. Madders K J, ‘Trail Smelter Arbitration’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 4 (Elsevier 2000) 900-903.
43. Marotti L, ‘Determining the Scope of the Local Remedies Rule in UNCLOS Disputes’ (2017) 21 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 36-62.
44. Matsui Y, ‘The Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility’ iç René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Routledge 2016) 3-63.
45. Meray S L, Devletler Hukukuna Giriş, C 1 (3. Baskı, AÜSBF Yayınları 1968).
46. Meron T, ‘The Incidence of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ (1959) 35 BYIL 83-101.593
47. Milano E, ‘Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights before the International Court of Justice: Re-fashioning Tradition?’ (2004) 35 NYIL 85-142.
48. Murphy S D, ‘The ELSI Case: An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice’ (1991) 16 YJIL 391-452.
49. O’Brien J, International Law (Cavendish Publishing Limited 2001).
50. Okowa P, ‘Issues of Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility’ iç Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (3. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2010) (2010) 472-503.
51. Okowa P, ‘Issues of Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility’ iç Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2003) 473-502.
52. Oppenheim L, Jennings R ve Watts A, Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol 1: Peace, Introduction and Part 1 (9. Baskı, Longman 1996).
53. Oxman B H ve Cogliati-Bantz V P, ‘The M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau)’ (2014) 108 AJIL 769-775.
54. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, 3. Kitap (4. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi 2005).
55. Pellet A, ‘The Second Death of Euripide Mavrommatis? Notes on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection’ (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 33-58.
56. Pergantis V, ‘Towards a “Humanization” of Diplomatic Protection?’ (2006) 66 ZaöRV 351-397.
57. Potestà M, ‘Republic of Italy v Republic of Cuba’ (2012) 106 AJIL 341-347.
58. Rao C, ‘ITLOS: The First Six Years’ (2002) 6 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 183-300.
59. Sachariew K, ‘State Responsibility for Multilateral Treaty Violations: Identifying the ‘Injured State’ and its Legal Status’ (1988) 35 Netherlands International Law Review 273-289.
60. Shaw M, International Law (8. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2017).
61. Sohn L B, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2. Baskı, Brill Nijhoff 2014).
62. Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (14. Baskı, Beta 2020).
63. Tanaka Y, The International Law of the Sea (3. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2019).
64. Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: 1960-1989, Supplement 2009, Parts Seven and Eight’ (2010) 80 BYIL (2010) 10-216.
65. Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: 1960-1989, Part Seven’ (1996) 66 BYIL (1996) 1-96.
66. Vattel E, Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliqués à la Conduite et aux Affaires des Nations et des Souverains (1758) iç Charles G Fenwick (çev), The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns (Carnegie Institution of Washington 1916).
67. Vermeer-Künzli A, ‘A Matter of Interest: Diplomatic Protection and State Responsibility Erga Omnes’ (2007) 56 ICLQ (2007/b) 553-581.
68. Vermeer-Künzli A, ‘Case Concerning Mexican Nationals’ (2005) 18 LJIL 49-64.
69. Vermeer-Künzli A, The Protection of Individuals by means of Diplomatic Protection: Diplomatic Protection as a Human Rights Instrument (Leiden University 2007) (2007/a).
70. Wendel P, State Responsibility for Interferences with the Freedom of Navigation in Public International Law (Springer 2007).
71. Whiteman M M, Damages in International Law, Vol 1 (U. S. Government Printing Office 1937).594
72. Wittich S, ‘Direct Injury and the Incidence of the Local Remedies Rule’ (2000; Basım 2002) 5 Austrian Review of International and European Law (2000) 121-187.
73. Wittich S, ‘The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted on Second Reading’ (2002) 15 LJIL 891-919.
74. Yang H, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea (Springer 2006).
75. Yee S, ‘Article 40’ iç Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm ve Christian J. Tams (edr), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2012) 922-999.
76. Özel Belgeler ‘Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 AJIL Special Supplement 133-239.
77. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) (Judgment of 24.05.2007) ICJ Reports 2007.
78. Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United States of America and France (USA/ France) (Award of 09.12.1978) 18 RIAA 417 vd.
79. Alabama Claims of the United States of America against Great Britain (United States of America v Great Britain) (Award of 14.09.1872) 29 RIAA 127 vd.
80. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (Advisory Opinion of 26.04.1988) ICJ Reports 1988.
81. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Judgment of 08.11.2019) ICJ Reports 2019.
82. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade of 08.11.2019) ICJ Reports 2019.
83. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates) (Order of 23.07.2018) ICJ Reports 2018.
84. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates) (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade of 23.07.2018) ICJ Reports 2018.
85. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment of 19.12.2005) ICJ Reports 2005.
86. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment of 14.02.2002) ICJ Reports 2002.
87. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Judgment of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004.
88. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004.
89. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Vereshchetin of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004.595
90. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004.
91. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Sepúlveda of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004.
92. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v Spain) (Judgment of 05.02.1970) ICJ Reports 1970.
93. Case of the Swiss Confederation v the German Federal Republic (No I) (Award of 03.07.1958) 29 RIAA 405 vd.
94. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania) (Judgment of 09.04.1949) ICJ Reports 1949.
95. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) (Judgment of 20.07.1989) ICJ Reports 1989.
96. Factory at Chorzów (Merits) (Germany v Poland) (Judgment of 13.09.1928) PCIJ Series A No 17.
97. Georgia v Russia (I) App no 13255/07 (ECHR (Grand Chamber), 03.07.2014).
98. Georgia v Russia (II) App no 38263/08 (ECHR (Fifth Section), 13.12.2011). I’m Alone (Canada v United States) (Joint Final Report of 05.01.1935) 3 RIAA 1609 vd.
99. ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries’ (2006) 2(2) Yearbook of the ILC (ILC, Draft Articles/Commentaries on Diplomatic Protection).
100. ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries’ (2001) 2(2) Yearbook of the ILC (ILC, Draft Articles/Commentaries on Responsibility).
101. Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of President Klaestad of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959.
102. Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Winiarski of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959.
103. Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959.
104. Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Judgment of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959.
105. LaGrand (Germany v United States of America) (Judgment of 27.06.2001) ICJ Reports 2001.
106. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v Great Britain) (Judgment of 30.08.1924) PCIJ Series A No 2.
107. Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Judgment of 06.04.1955) ICJ Reports 1955.
108. Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Lithuania) (Judgment of 28.02.1939) PCIJ Series A/B No 76.
109. Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France (France/Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) (Judgment of 12.07.1929) PCIJ Series A No 20.
110. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion of 11.04.1949) ICJ Reports 1949.
111. The “Camouco” Case (Panama v France) (Judgment of 07.02.2000) ITLOS Reports 2000.
112. The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v India) (Order of 24.08.2015) ITLOS Reports 2015.
113. The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation) (Award on the Merits of 14.08.2015) PCA Case No 2014-02.596
114. The M/V “Louisa” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Kingdom of Spain) (Order of 23.12.2010) ITLOS Reports 2010.
115. The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v Italy) (Judgment of 04.11.2016) ITLOS Reports 2016.
116. The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999.
117. The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Judge Chandrasekhara Rao of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999.
118. The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Judge Warioba of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999.
119. The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Vice-President Wolfrum of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999.
120. The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 04.12.1997) ITLOS Reports 1997.
121. The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Hoffmann and Judges Marotta Rangel, Chandrasekhara Rao, Kateka, Gao and Bouguetaia of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014.
122. The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Cot and Kelly of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014.
123. The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014.
124. The S.S. Wimbledon (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan v Germany) (Judgment of 17.08.1923) PCIJ Series A No 1.
125. Trail Smelter Case (United States of America v Canada) (Award of 16.04.1938 and 11.03.1941) 3 RIAA 1905 vd.
126. UN Doc A/CN.4/134 and Add 1 (26.01.1961): Sixth Report on International Responsibility by F V Garcia-Amador (Special Rapporteur).
127. UN Doc A/CN.4/217 and Add 1 (20.01.1970): First Report on State Responsibility by Roberto Ago (Special Rapporteur).
128. UN Doc A/CN.4/302 and Add 1-3 (14.07.1977): Sixth Report on State Responsibility by Roberto Ago (Special Rapporteur).
129. UN Doc A/CN.4/344 (01.05.1981): Second Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility by Willem Riphagen (Special Rapporteur).
130. UN Doc A/CN.4/506 and Add 1 (20.04.2000): First Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur).
131. UN Doc A/CN.4/514 (28.02.2001): Second Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur).
132. UN Doc A/CN.4/523 and Add 1 (16.04.2002): Third Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur).
133. UN Doc A/CN.4/538 (04.03.2004): Fifth Report on Diplomatic Protection by Mr. John Dugard (Special Rapporteur).
134. UN Doc A/CN.4/567 (07.03.2006): Seventh Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur).
135. UN Doc A/CN.4/96 (20.01.1956): (First) Report on International Responsibility by F V Garcia- Amador (Special Rapporteur).597
136. UN Doc A/CN.4/L.647 (24.05.2004): Diplomatic Protection: Titles and Texts of the Draft Articles Adopted by the Drafting Committee on First Reading.
137. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) (Judgment of 24.05.1980) ICJ Reports 1980.