Cookies Policy
Cookie Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Restricting Discretion: Judicial Review of Diplomatic Protection

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

$30.00+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

In the last 30 years, individuals have increasingly filed complaints against their national governments for failure to exercise diplomatic protection on their behalf, in particular in cases of serious violations of international human rights law. Despite the fact that diplomatic protection has traditionally been regarded as a discretionary right of states, the national courts have invariably decided to enter into the merits of the case and to review the exercise of diplomatic protection by the executive. Initially, a draft article on this subject was not accepted by the International Law Commission in the Draft Articles on first reading, but an encouraging provision was included in the Draft Articles adopted on second reading. The development discussed in this article shows support for an obligation to exercise diplomatic protection in case of serious violations of human rights law.


Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Create email alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation