Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:46:07.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another (U.K. Sup. Ct.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

Philippa Webb
Philippa Webb*
Affiliation:
Reader (Associate Professor) of Public International Law, King's College London, and barrister, 20 Essex Street Chambers. Webb was counsel to the First Intervener, Kalayaan. The views represented are her own.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered an important judgment on diplomatic immunity. It was the first time the Supreme Court had considered the implications of human trafficking for the scope of diplomatic immunity. As Lord Sumption noted, “[s]ince there is some evidence that human trafficking under cover of diplomatic status is a recurrent problem, this is a question of some general importance.”

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 320 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another [2017] UKSC 61. On the same day, the Court delivered a judgment on state immunity that concerned similar facts: Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v. Janah [2017] UKSC 62.

2 Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another [2017] UKSC 61, ¶ 3.

3 Id. ¶ 1.

4 Id. ¶ 1.

5 Id. ¶ 1.

6 Id. ¶ 1.

7 [2015] EWCA Civ 32.

8 Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another [2017] UKSC 61, ¶ 4.

9 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations art. 39(2), Apr. 18, 1961, 500 UNTS 95 [hereinafter Vienna Convention].

10 Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another [2017] UKSC 61, ¶ 4.

11 Philippa Webb, The Immunity of States, Diplomats and International Organizations in Employment Disputes: The New Human Rights Dilemma?, 27 Eur. J. Int'l L. 745 (2016); Martina E. Vandenberg & Sarah Bessell, Diplomatic Immunity and the Abuse of Domestic Workers: Criminal and Civil Remedies in the United States, 26 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l. L. 595 (2016).

12 Vienna Convention, supra note 9, art. 31(1)(c).

13 Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another [2017] UKSC 61, ¶¶ 55 (title) and 69.

14 Id. ¶ 45.

15 Id. ¶ 62.

16 Id. ¶ 68.

17 Id. ¶ 16.

18 In Hounga v. Allen [2014] UKSC 47, the U.K. Supreme Court held that an employer (without diplomatic status) could not evade liability to an employee by reference to the illegality of the contract of employment between them in circumstances where the employer had trafficked the person for domestic servitude.

19 Id. ¶ 55 per Lord Wilson.

20 Id. ¶ 51.

21 See the case of Tanzania: Dana Milbank, Dana Milbank: Obama's Ill-Advised Visit to Tanzania, Wash. Post (June 9, 2013), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obamas-ill-advised-visit-to-tanzania/2013/06/07/397b00fa-cf88-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.e1ae2e8a71f9.