Abstract
In Belhaj the UK Supreme Court established that the State must investigate allegations of gross violations of human rights on the territory of another sovereign because of an emerging exception to sovereign state immunity. The decision raised complex questions of ‘justiciability’ in circumstances which are intensely political as well as raising questions having enormous consequences for international relations and state security. Belhaj demonstrates a decisive shift of a muscular approach to over-seeing national security at precisely the time when terrorism concerns are most heightened. The judicial obligation to uphold fundamental freedoms is recognized as being rooted in the Magna Carta. National security considerations by and in-themselves do not suggest a policy of judicial deference to the executive. The invocation of the foreign act of state doctrine, where torture is exercised, does not trump judicial redress in the regular courts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
