The Law of State Immunity before the Brazilian Supreme Court: what is at stake with the "Changri-La" case?

Abstract

This article examines the critical legal issues arising from the "Changri-La" case, in which the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) addressed the principle of state immunity in the context of alleged human rights violations. Originating from the sinking of the Changri-La fishing vessel by a German submarine during World War II, the case raises fundamental questions about the tension between the doctrine of state sovereignty and the protection of human rights. The STF faced a pivotal choice: whether to uphold customary international law, which grants immunity to sovereign states, or to prioritize constitutional principles, such as the prevalence of human rights. By analyzing the votes of various justices and their implications, the article highlights the potential consequences of adopting an exception to state immunity, including risks of diplomatic disputes and inconsistencies with international legal norms. Ultimately, the discussion reflects broader debates on the interplay between domestic and international legal systems and the evolving interpretation of state immunity in cases involving grave human rights abuses.