Abstract

Civilians who bring claims against powerful states or their officials, for harm resulting from the conduct of war, face challenges that no single legal procedure can possibly overcome. Certain codified international laws outline specific protections for civilians, but this protective infrastructure stands in the shadow of two creatures of uncodified international customary law: state sovereignty and the immunity of states and their officials. The subject of this case note is a civil claim before a Dutch domestic court, against powerful officials of the state of Israel. The claimant, a Palestinian Dutch national, is attempting to sue the officials for the unlawful killing of six members of his family in the intentional bombing of their home in Gaza in 2014. In January 2020, he set out to establish the Dutch court’s jurisdiction based on an exceptional provision of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. This contribution argues that the Dutch court erred in allowing the asserted ‘functional immunity’ of the foreign officials to counter its own jurisdiction.

中文翻译：

---

齐达（Ziada）诉甘茨（Gantz）和埃舍尔（Eshel）

摘要

向战争强权国或其官员提出索赔的平民，因为战争所造成的伤害，面临着无法通过单一法律程序克服的挑战。某些已编纂的国际法概述了对平民的具体保护，但是这种保护性基础设施处于两种未编纂的国际习惯法生物的阴影之下：国家主权以及国家及其官员的豁免权。该案例的主题是向荷兰国内法院提起的针对以色列国强大官员的民事诉讼。索赔人是一名荷兰籍巴勒斯坦巴勒斯坦人，正试图起诉官员，因为他们有意在2014年加沙炸毁其在加沙的房屋时非法杀害了其六口之家。2020年1月，他着手根据《荷兰民事诉讼法》的特殊规定建立荷兰法院的管辖权。这一观点认为，荷兰法院允许外国官员所谓的“职能豁免权”对抗其本国管辖权是错误的。