英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

留学生宪法Law Essay

论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-07编辑:zcm84984点击率:3384

论文字数:3254论文编号:org201409281315076794语种:中文论文 Chinese地区:爱尔兰价格:免费论文

关键词:留学生宪法Law EssayUsa International Law司法管辖权FSIA

摘要:本文是一篇留学生宪法Law Essay,2010年4月在访问美国时,道路运输和高速公路部长卡迈勒?纳特因涉嫌参与1984年的锡克教徒暴乱问题而被联邦地区法院送去了通知。案件是司法部根据《外国人侵权索赔法案》对锡克教组锡克教徒的反人类,有辱人格的待遇和非法杀害的罪名提起诉讼。

引言


2010年4月在访问美国时,道路运输和高速公路部长卡迈勒?纳特因涉嫌参与1984年的锡克教徒暴乱问题而被联邦地区法院送去了通知。案件是司法部根据《外国人侵权索赔法案》对锡克教组锡克教徒的反人类,有辱人格的待遇和非法杀害的罪名提起诉讼。


《外国人侵权索赔法》允许美国法院对外国人在美国犯下侵犯人权的侵权行为提供帮助。根据这一规定,案件已在美国地方法院提起诉讼。

1976年的(美国)外国主权豁免法案 (“FSIA”)规定“外国应免受司法管辖权”。是否“国家”这个词包括了代表国家的个人这个问题一直在不断争论中,伴随着各种矛盾的决定。最近,在2010年6月1日,美国最高法院给出了否定的答案。[1]仔细地讨论豁免权,它认为个人不受FSIA的保护,以及“在普通法下,请愿者是否可能享有豁免权,和他是否可能有其他有效防御严重的指控的措施,是地方法院在还押候审时首先要解决的问题。”[2]


Introduction

In April 2010, while on a visit to the US, the Road Transport and Highways Minister Kamal Nath was served a notice by a federal district court for his alleged role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The case was filed by a Sikh group called Sikhs for Justice under the Alien Torts Claims Act for against humanity, degrading treatment and wrongful killing.

The Alien Torts Claims Act enables US courts to provide relief in torts that are committed by Aliens that affect persons in US. It is under this provision that the case has been filed in the US district court.

The (US) Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976 (“FSIA”) provides that a “foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction”. Whether the word 'state' includes individuals acting on behalf of the State has been in constant dispute - with various conflicting decisions. Very recently - on June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of the US has decided that it does not. [1] Discussing immunities in great detail, it held that individuals were not protected under the FSIA, and “[w]hether petitioner may be entitled to immunity under the common law, and whether he may have other valid defenses to the grave charges against him, are matters to be addressed in the first instance by the District Court on remand.” [2]

The Kamal Nath issue has spiraled into a big debate involving various ethical and political aspects - whether the US courts should be congratulated for providing justice that Indian courts failed to give, whether an Indian should submit himself to the jurisdiction of a US court, especially in light of the difficulty being faced in moving forward with the Bhopal Gas trail, and so on. There is a legal aspect involved as well - the propriety of a US court trying an Indian Minister for a crime committed on Indian soil over two decades ago. Prima facie, it sounds absurd. But then again, the US Supreme Court has taken to distributing justice without being impeded by petty jurisdictional issues; indeed, the US has taken to distributing justice without being impeded by petty jurisdictional issues!

This paper does not consider the morality of Minister Nath being tried in the US. Nor does it scrutinize his alleged role in the riots. It focuses on a very specific legal aspect - whether he is entitled to any sort of immunity from such proceedings, and if so, what is the procedure for claiming the same. This paper studies, primarily, US case law to come to a conclusion that Minister Nath is unlikely to be granted immunity from trial.

Part I discusses the notion of Head of State Immunity under common law. Part II describes the availability of the immunities – the conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for immunity to be granted. Part III discusses the 论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

共 1/6 页首页上一页123456下一页尾页

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非

   Europe (24-hours)
   EN:13917206902
   china (24-hours)
   CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041 
  

微信公众订阅号