Abstract

The purpose of the article is to determine the current form of parliamentary immunity in various countries. The author uses the comparative-law method to analyse constitutions that represent the most common solutions, taking into account the geographic criterion, used in countries located on different continents and having different legal cultures. The author analyses the subjective scope of non-accountability and non-violability and focuses on the time and place in which the protection is provided, and trace the objective scope of the protection and the solutions related to the possibility to lift the parliamentary immunities. The analysis leads to the conclusion that non-accountability is similar in different countries, has undergone few modifications over the years, and it is permanently formed. In the case of non-violability, there are more extensive differences, in particular in the objective scope and the degree of protection. However, various solutions prove that there is not a single universally accepted model of immunity and that the scope of the guaranteed protection can be more diverse, it can be subject to change, and be adapted to the changes in political systems and the political and social expectations.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call