The general rule is that, where there has been a violation of international law in the treatment of an alien by a State, local remedies must be exhausted by the alien before his claim may be espoused by his national State.
While on the one hand a sovereign State is given every opportunity of settling such disputes equitably through ist own organs, and it is in the interest of all concerned that such disputes should be settled at the earliest possible opportunity at a local level, on the other hand it is logical that some recognition shoul also be given to the countervailing interests of all parties concerned in efficient justice without, inter alia, financial waste (Amerasinghe C.F., 2008: p. 143).
The foundation of the rule that local remedies must be exhausted is represented by the respect for the sovereignty of the respondent or host State. The essence of the claim should be brought before the local judicial bodies and all available and accessible remedies must be exhausted in that they have been pursued as far as is permitted or required by local law so that a final decision is given. This also means that the alien must use the procedures, evidentiary ones especially, which are available to him to support his claim in the process of exhausting remedies and that he fails to exhaust remedies, if the preparation or presentation of his claim at the local level is faulty and results in a wholly or partially unsuccessful resort to remedies.
The exhaustion of local remedies represents a general rule of the international law, without having the same character as an absolute and imperative juridical norm. This core rule could be avoid it or derogate from it by states through treaties or, in their absence, in accordance with every concrete situation.
1. Anghel, Ion M.(1966). Le traitement accordé aux étrangers en matière de nationalisation, Revue de droit contemporain numèro 2;
2. Anghel, Ion M. (1968), Modul de solu?ionare a diferendelor interna?ionale ce se nasc în leg?tur? cu aplicarea m?surilor de na?ionalizare, în volumul Aspecte juridice ale na?ionaliz?rilor în România, Editura ?tiin?ific?;
3. Anghel, Ion M. (2011), Dreptul Diplomatic ?i Consular, Editura Universul Juridic;
4. Amerasinghe C.F. (2008), Diplomatic Protection, University Press;
5. Amerasinghe C.F. (1990), Whither the Local Remedies Rule?, ICSID Review no.5;
6. Borchard E.M. (1927), The Diplomatic Protection of citizens abroad or the Law of International Claims, New York;
7. Borchard E.M. (1931), Protection diplomatique des nationaux a l’étranger, Session de Cambridge, A.I.D.I;
8. Carreau D. (2001), Droit International, 2001;
9. Cuco? D. (2007), Protec?ia diplomatic? a na?ionalilor în dreptul interna?ional public, Chi?in?u;
10. Cuco? D. (2006), Protec?ia diplomatic?: Metod? contemporan? de protec?ie a drepturilor cet??enilor, în Revista Moldoveneasc? de Drept Interna?ional ?i Rela?ii Interna?ionale nr.1-2;
11. Cuco? D. (2007), Bipatridia ?i natura reclama?iilor înaintate în procesul de acordare a protec?iei diplomatice, în Revista Moldoveneasc? de Drept Interna?ional ?i rela?ii Interna?ionale nr.2;
12. Doehring K. (1997), Local remedies.Exhaustion of, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol.3;
13. Du?u M., Moca Gh. (2008), Drept Interna?ional Public volumul I, Editura Universul Juridic;
14. Fawcett J.E.S. (1954), The Exhaustion of Local Remedies: Substance or Procedure?, BYIL no.31;
15. Hyde C.C. (1922), International Law chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States, vol.I, 1922;
16. Popescu D., N?stase A. (1997), Drept Interna?ional Public, Edi?ie rev?zut? ?i ad?ugit?, Casa de editur? ?i pres? ?ansa srl, Bucure?ti;
17. Popescu D. (2005), Drept Interna?ional Public, Editura Universit??ii Titu Maiorescu, Bucure?ti;
18. Popescu D. Maxim F. (2011), Drept Interna?ional Public volumul I, Editura Rennaissance, Bucure?ti;
19. Schwarzenberger G. (1957), International Law, vol.I, International Law as applied by Interational Courts and Tribunals, third ed., Londra;
20. Preliminary Report on Diplomatic Protection, ILC, 50th Session,1998 (A/CN.4/484);
21. First Report on Diplomatic Protection (plus Addendum), ILC, 52nd Session, 2000 (A/CN.4/506);
22. Second Report on Diplomatic Protection (plus Corrigendum), ILC, 53rd Session, 2001 (A/CN.4/501);
23. Third Report on Diplomatic Protection (plus Addendum), ILC, 54th Session, 2002 (A/CN.4/523);
24. Fourth Report on Diplomatic Protection (plus Addendum), ILC, 55th Session, 2003 (A/CN.4/530);
25. Fifth Report on Diplomatic Protection (plus Addendum), ILC, 56th Session, 2004 ( A/CN.4/538);
26. Sixth Report on Diplomatic Protection, ILC, 57th Session, 2005 (A/CN.4/546);
27. Seventh Report on Diplomatic Protection, ILC, 58th Session, 2006 (a/CN.4/567).
MAZILU, F.-D. (2015). The Rule of Exhausting Local Remedies within the Framework of Diplomatic Protection. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(9). 281-286.
Copyright: © 2015 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
