Chapter Four The Judgment Fifteen Years On Pinochet J. Craig Barker I.) Introduction I am delighted to have been invited to contribute to this volume. As a colleague of Professor Sandy Ghandhi for just over ten years, and a friend for even longer, I have benefitted, through countless engaging and challenging discussions, from Sandy’s wisdom, thoughtfulness and rigour. It is particularly his rigour that I believe sets Sandy apart as a human rights lawyer. Christopher Waters, in the first Chapter of this volume, has highlighted Sandy’s concern with procedure” and his focus on the achievement of the furtherance of human protection “proper the confines of the relevant treaty or legislation”. The work that Sandy and I did “within together on the case, resulting in a co-authored piece published in the Pinochet Indian in 2000, fully reflects Sandy’s rigorous approach. The purpose Journal of International Law of that article was to examine the House of Lord’s judgment in and Ex Parte Pinochet No. 3 to highlight some of the potential implications of that judgment in terms of both domestic and international law, with a particular emphasis on the question of the protection of human rights. For many leading scholars writing at the time, the case was a game changer. Pinochet According to Ruth Wedgewood, for example, the decision the structure of “changed international law”. William Aceves asserted that the case represented an Pinochet “emerging trend towards the development of a universal system of transnational law litigation”, while Christine Chinkin spoke of a victory for the globalization of human rights law over the horizontal vision of international law based upon the sovereign equality of States. Furthermore, the character” of the case led Andrea Bianchi to assert that “unprecedented jurisdictional immunities nor act of State and other doctrines of judicial self-restraint “neither
Chapter Four The Pinochet Judgment Fifteen Years On J. Craig Barker I.) Introduction I am delighted to have been invited to contribute to this volume. As a colleague of Professor Sandy Ghandhi for just over ten years, and a friend for even longer, I have benefitted, through countless engaging and challenging discussions, from Sandy’s wisdom, thoughtfulness and rigour. It is particularly his rigour that I believe sets Sandy apart as a human rights lawyer. Christopher Waters, in the first Chapter of this volume, has highlighted Sandy’s concern with “proper procedure” and his focus on the achievement of the furtherance of human protection “within the confines of the relevant treaty or legislation”. The work that Sandy and I did together on the Pinochet case, resulting in a co-authored piece published in the Indian Journal of International Law in 2000, fully reflects Sandy’s rigorous approach. The purpose of that article was to examine the House of Lord’s judgment in Ex Parte Pinochet No. 3 and to highlight some of the potential implications of that judgment in terms of both domestic and international law, with a particular emphasis on the question of the protection of human rights. For many leading scholars writing at the time, the Pinochet case was a game changer. According to Ruth Wedgewood, for example, the decision “changed the structure of international law”. William Aceves asserted that the Pinochet case represented an “emerging trend towards the development of a universal system of transnational law litigation”, while Christine Chinkin spoke of a victory for the globalization of human rights law over the horizontal vision of international law based upon the sovereign equality of States. Furthermore, the “unprecedented character” of the case led Andrea Bianchi to assert that “neither jurisdictional immunities nor act of State and other doctrines of judicial self-restraint