{"id":2976,"date":"2022-03-23T23:05:12","date_gmt":"2022-03-23T23:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cornellilj.org\/?p=2976"},"modified":"2022-03-23T23:05:12","modified_gmt":"2022-03-23T23:05:12","slug":"jurisdictional-immunities-and-certain-iranian-assets-missed-opportunities-for-defining-sovereign-immunity-at-the-international-court-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/2022\/03\/23\/jurisdictional-immunities-and-certain-iranian-assets-missed-opportunities-for-defining-sovereign-immunity-at-the-international-court-of-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Jurisdictional Immunities&#8221; and &#8220;Certain Iranian Assets&#8221;: Missed Opportunities for Defining Sovereign Immunity at the International Court of Justice, Vol. 53\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recently, in the case of <em>Certain Iranian Assets<\/em>, the ICJ was presented with a magnificent opportunity to rework, clarify, and enhance the troubled doctrine of sovereign immunity, especially with regard to immunity from execution. The authors believe that the ICJ had a singular opportunity\u2014just as it did in the <em>Jurisdictional Immunities <\/em>case in 2012\u2014to broaden and articulate a modern doctrine of sovereign immunity. Instead of seizing this opportunity, however, the court hid behind outmoded and difficult-to-rationalize concepts of judicial restraint and tradition. As a result, the court has now missed two great opportunities to discuss and clarify a pragmatic and liberal rule of immunity from jurisdiction and execution, which has bedeviled courts and practitioners for many years.&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Recently, in the case of Certain Iranian Assets, the ICJ was presented with a magnificent opportunity to rework, clarify, and enhance the troubled doctrine of sovereign immunity, especially with regard to immunity from execution. The authors believe that the ICJ had a singular opportunity\u2014just as it did in the Jurisdictional Immunities case in 2012\u2014to broaden&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2741,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,22,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-2","category-print-archive","category-volume-53-issue-3"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}