The subject

It is acknowledged generally that local remedies are relevant to the settlement of certain international disputes involving states. The rule that such remedies must be exhausted owes its origin to the diplomatic protection of aliens in which area it was first applied. That the celebrated ‘rule of local remedies’ is accepted as a customary rule of international law needs no proof today, as its basic existence and validity has not been questioned. The rule has been affirmed in recent diplomatic practice, particularly by developed countries against whom or in regard to whose nationals the rule is most likely to be invoked in regard to the protection of aliens. It has been assumed to exist as a principle of customary or general international law in such conventions as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, in recent history it has been invoked in international litigation before both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other arbitral tribunals in circumstances in which such international courts have conceded either expressly or implicitly that the rule exists. For example, the rule was invoked by the respondent state before the ICJ in the Interhandel Case, where the Court stated categorically that ‘The rule that local remedies must be exhausted before international proceedings may be instituted is a well-established rule of customary international law’.