Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chapter 16 Pg. 192-205

    Uploaded by

    Kurt Ryan Jesura
    17 views14 pages

    Original Title

    Chapter 16 pg. 192-205

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views14 pages

    Chapter 16 Pg. 192-205

    Uploaded by

    Kurt Ryan Jesura

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    TREATMENT oF ALIENS 193 tate agai ; itso ee the independence of the state and subordinate me to the welfare of the alien. or pee principle that the state is not an within its ens fe or property of the alien when he is eee Tritory.’ Like all individuals exposed to the of social intercourse, he is expected to take the ae, Precautions for the protection of his own rights te avail himself of the usual remedies when these we are violated. Accordingly, the state generally cannot 1cid respousible if the alien is victimized by a pics pocket or a swindler or is hurt in an accident through the fault of another individual and is unable to redress the wrong done to him. The relation between him and the state in these cases is too tenuous to make the latter liable for the injury he has sustained. The Doctrine of State Responsibility Notwithstanding the above observations, there are instances when the alien can claim a more favored position than the national of the local state and, in proper cases, hold the state liable for injuries committed against him while within its territory. Such instances are governed by what is known as the doctrine of state responsibility. Un- der this doctrine, a state may be held responsible for: (a) an international delinquency (b) directly or indirectly im- to it (c) which causes injury to the national of an- other state. Liability will attach to the state where its treatment of the alien falls below the international stan- dard of justice or where it is remiss in according him the protection or redress that is warranted by the cireum- stances. The doctrine of state responsibility has been fre- quently invoked in recent times because of the expanding Pewee * Ibid. INTERNATIONAL Law 194 esire of nations for wider ee sot ond cultural activities. Its Aeete in theiy _ coe let that when his rights are violated ann assure tbe a will not be denied any remedy simply ie sta, one of its nationals. The idea, in other wordt uo jgnot O00 ‘more intercourse among the peoples rina od throveh inter-visitation of their respective Si of the untries, gue Joternational Standard of Justice The international standard of justice is a one controversial content that has defied precise definition, come writers describe it as the standard of the reasonable tate, that is, aS referring to the ordinary norms of official aduct observed in civilized jurisdictions. As thus envi- ed, the international standard of justice is deemed not ged if the laws of a state are intrinsically unjust, as there is a marked disproportion between the degree offense and the penalty imposed for it, e.g., when a or crime like petty theft is punished with death. The will also be below this standard if they authorize the sary decision of contentious cases without the obser- ‘of the usual rights to notice and hearing and other illy accepted requirements of due process. ‘TREATMENT OF ALIENS 195 rine ae of the international standard of justice was Brean en en hattin Case,’ where the United States filed ibaa alf of, a national who was allegedly arrested, anal eae illegally by the Mexican government ee Ran to inhuman treatment in jail. In upholding dea the charges filed by the claimant, the arbitrators lared in part: ‘ The whole of the proceedings discloses a’most astonish- Sted of seriousness on the part of the Vourt. . . Neither luring the investigation nor during the hearings in open court yas | sanys such thing as an oral examination or cross- examination of any importance attempted. It seems highly im- probable that the accused have been given

    You might also like