Home Department. 63 The Abbasi decision is not the first British case concerning review of the (non)exercise of diplomatic protection. It thus should be con- sidered in the light of preceding decisions, in particular the Pirbhai case64 and the Ferhut Butt case.65 The Pirbhai case concerned a claim by British nationals who had lost their property in Uganda after having been expelled from that country by General Xxxx’x government. The decision of the High Court, later confirmed on appeal, firmly stated that the decision by the Secretary of State not to intervene on behalf of the British nationals could not be reviewed by the Court. Despite the fact that concern was expressed over the situation of the applicants, it was concluded on appeal that [w]hatever the jurisdiction of the court, few would disagree with the proposition that in the context of a situation with serious implications for the conduct of international relations, the court should act with a high degree of circumspection in the interests of all concerned. It can rarely, if ever, be for judges to intervene where diplomats fear to thread.66 Diplomatic protection was thus considered to be a discretionary right rather than one to be subjected to judicial review. Although the Court did present its decision as reflecting the general rule, this case, concerning loss of property, must be distinguished from cases involving individual human rights, such as Abbasi but also the Ferhut Butt case. I shall return to this distinction in the discussion on the van Xxx decision (below, section 3.8). More relevant for the interpretation of the Abbasi decision is the Ferhut Butt case as the facts of the case bear some resemblance to Xxxxxx. The case was brought by the sister of a British national detained in Yemen on the suspicion of terrorist activities. She claimed that both the trial and the condi- tions of detention, including allegations of torture and inhuman treatment, were in flagrant violation of international human rights law and that therefore the British government was obliged to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of her brother and other British nationals detained with him. Although the High Court phrased its concern over the fate of the detained British nationals delicately, it clearly accepted that the situation was the result of ‘the most 63 [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, [2002] All ER (D) 70 (Nov) (CA, Civ Div), see also 125 ILR 685-726.
Home Department. The joint appointee will be considered a member of the home department for purposes of faculty rank, status, seniority, workload, and eligibility for sabbaticals and other leaves. Faculty may seek and secure FSP projects only through the home department.
Home Department. 1. The department to which the employee displaces a less senior employee or the department to which an employee is recalled to, shall be the employee's home department if the employee qualifies by attaining satisfactory quality and efficiency standards in a reasonable training period. If disqualified, they will either be asked by the Human Resources Department to work in another department or may be laid off.
Home Department. Any employee not assigned to a regular department shall be supervised by the Administrative Department.
Home Department. 7.2.3.1 Every new faculty member and departmental assistant, including those on dual departmental assignment, shall have a designated home department at the time of appointment. Promotion, tenure, merit compensation, service on committees and Faculty Senate, and voting rights shall accrue for only the home department. Workloads of faculty members shall be approved by the home Department Chairperson.
