exhaustion of local remedies
Before a state can exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national injured by another state, the injured person must first have used the available and effective remedies under that state's law. The rule respects the respondent state's right to redress the wrong through its own system. The International Court of Justice applied it in the Interhandel case (1959).
The rule does not apply where local remedies are not available, are ineffective, or would be futile, such as where the courts lack independence or undue delay occurs. It is also a condition of admissibility before many human rights bodies. In Indian constitutional law, a similar but separate idea is the rule that a High Court may decline writ relief where an alternative remedy exists; that rule does not bar Article 32.
Example
The claim before the ICJ was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies, as the company's appeal was still pending in the respondent state's courts.
In Indian law
- Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States) (International Court of Justice, 1959)
See also
erga omnes · diplomatic immunity
Read more in the study notes
- States in general: definition, kinds, rights and the Monroe Doctrine (Public International Law)
- State responsibility (Public International Law)