Restrictive Immunity

简明释义

有限豁免

英英释义

例句

1.The court ruled that the defendant could claim Restrictive Immunity 限制性豁免权 because the actions were conducted within the scope of official duties.

法院裁定，被告可以主张限制性豁免权Restrictive Immunity，因为这些行为是在官方职责范围内进行的。

2.The legal team argued that the company's policy was based on Restrictive Immunity 限制性豁免权, which limited their liability in certain situations.

法律团队辩称，该公司的政策基于限制性豁免权Restrictive Immunity，这在某些情况下限制了他们的责任。

3.Understanding Restrictive Immunity 限制性豁免权 is crucial for navigating diplomatic relations between countries.

理解限制性豁免权Restrictive Immunity对于处理国家之间的外交关系至关重要。

4.The concept of Restrictive Immunity 限制性豁免权 is often debated in cases involving human rights violations by state actors.

在涉及国家行为者侵犯人权的案件中，限制性豁免权Restrictive Immunity的概念常常受到辩论。

5.In international law, Restrictive Immunity 限制性豁免权 applies to state-owned enterprises when they engage in commercial activities.

在国际法中，当国有企业从事商业活动时，适用限制性豁免权Restrictive Immunity。

作文

In the realm of international law, the concept of Restrictive Immunity plays a critical role in defining the extent to which sovereign states can claim immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This principle is grounded in the notion that while states should respect each other's sovereignty, there are certain limitations to this respect, especially when it comes to human rights violations and other egregious acts. The idea of Restrictive Immunity contrasts with the traditional notion of absolute immunity, which provided blanket protection to state officials and entities from legal proceedings abroad. The evolution of Restrictive Immunity reflects the changing dynamics of international relations and the increasing emphasis on accountability and justice. For instance, in cases involving torture, genocide, or crimes against humanity, the application of Restrictive Immunity allows for the possibility of holding perpetrators accountable, regardless of their official status. This shift has been particularly significant in the context of international tribunals and courts, which seek to address grave offenses that shock the conscience of humanity.One of the key aspects of Restrictive Immunity is its application in civil matters as opposed to criminal cases. In civil litigation, individuals may seek redress against foreign states or officials for actions that cause harm, such as expropriation or breach of contract. Under the doctrine of Restrictive Immunity, states can be held liable for their unlawful acts, thereby providing a mechanism for victims to pursue justice. This framework has been instrumental in promoting the rule of law at the international level, as it encourages states to adhere to their obligations and respect the rights of others.However, the implementation of Restrictive Immunity is not without challenges. Different jurisdictions may interpret the principle differently, leading to inconsistencies in how cases are handled. Moreover, political considerations often influence the willingness of states to waive their immunity in certain situations. As a result, victims of atrocities may find themselves caught in a complex web of legal and diplomatic hurdles when seeking justice.In conclusion, Restrictive Immunity represents a significant advancement in the quest for accountability in international law. By allowing for exceptions to the traditional immunity enjoyed by states, this principle fosters a more just and equitable global order. While challenges remain in its application, the ongoing dialogue surrounding Restrictive Immunity highlights the importance of balancing state sovereignty with the imperative of protecting human rights. As the international community continues to grapple with issues of justice and accountability, the role of Restrictive Immunity will undoubtedly remain a focal point in shaping the future of international law and relations.

在国际法领域，限制性豁免权的概念在定义主权国家在外国法院的管辖权方面扮演着关键角色。这一原则建立在国家应尊重彼此主权的观念上，但在涉及人权侵犯和其他严重行为时，这种尊重是有一定限制的。限制性豁免权的概念与传统的绝对豁免权形成对比，后者为国家官员和实体提供了对国外法律程序的全面保护。限制性豁免权的演变反映了国际关系动态的变化，以及对问责和正义日益重视的趋势。例如，在涉及酷刑、种族灭绝或反人类罪的案件中，限制性豁免权的适用使得追究施害者责任成为可能，无论其官方地位如何。这一转变在国际法庭和法院的背景下尤为重要，因为它们试图解决那些震惊人类良知的严重犯罪。限制性豁免权的一个关键方面是其在民事事务中的适用，而不是刑事案件。在民事诉讼中，个人可以因造成伤害的行为（如征收或违反合同）而寻求针对外国国家或官员的赔偿。在限制性豁免权的原则下，国家可能因其非法行为而承担责任，从而为受害者追求正义提供了一种机制。这一框架在促进国际法治方面发挥了重要作用，因为它鼓励国家遵守义务并尊重他人的权利。然而，限制性豁免权的实施并非没有挑战。不同的法域可能会对这一原则进行不同的解释，导致案件处理上的不一致。此外，政治考量往往影响国家在特定情况下放弃其豁免权的意愿。因此，受到暴行侵害的受害者在寻求正义时，可能会发现自己陷入复杂的法律和外交障碍之中。总之，限制性豁免权代表了国际法在追求问责方面的重要进展。通过允许对国家享有的传统豁免权做出例外规定，这一原则促进了更加公正和公平的全球秩序。尽管在其应用中仍然存在挑战，但围绕限制性豁免权的持续对话突显了在维护国家主权与保护人权之间寻求平衡的重要性。随着国际社会继续努力应对正义和问责问题，限制性豁免权无疑将继续成为塑造国际法和国际关系未来的焦点。