Many thanks to all for this interesting chain of comments. I did suggest in my initial post that, because DSK cannot claim status immunity under any treaty to which the US is a party, he would have to claim any such immunity under customary international law instead. Although I am of the view that widespread ratification of treaties is important in ascertaining the content of CIL (see, e.g., Keitner, <em>"Cheap Talk" about Customary International Law</em>, in Sloss, Ramsey, Dodge, eds., The US Supreme Court and International Law: Continuity and Change, pp. 494-98), I do not think it is sufficient in all cases; otherwise, this would obliterate the distinction between parties and non-parties. In any event, I invite readers to continue weighing in, and also to refer to the similar conversation going on over at EJIL Talk!, which also discusses the IMF's apparent decision not to claim status immunity and then waive it.
↧