Exhaustion of Local Remedies

The exhaustion of local remedies rule is a long-standing principle of customary international law, particularly central to the law of diplomatic protection and international human rights litigation. It requires that, before a state espouses a claim on behalf of its national, or before an individual petitions an international body, the claimant must first attempt to obtain redress through the courts and administrative procedures of the state alleged to have caused the injury.

The rationale is twofold: it respects the sovereignty of the host state by giving it the opportunity to remedy a wrong through its own legal system, and it prevents international tribunals from being flooded with disputes that could be resolved domestically. The International Law Commission codified the rule in Articles 14–15 of its 2006 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection.

The classic articulation appears in the Interhandel case (Switzerland v. United States), where the International Court of Justice in 1959 held Switzerland's claim inadmissible because Interhandel's litigation in U.S. courts was still pending. The ICJ further refined the rule in ELSI (United States v. Italy, 1989), clarifying that remedies must be reasonably available and effective.

Several exceptions are recognized:

• Remedies are unavailable, inadequate, or ineffective in practice
• Undue delay in the domestic process attributable to the responsible state
• No relevant connection between the injured person and the state at the time of injury
• The respondent state has waived the requirement
• Manifest bias or futility of pursuing the remedy

The rule also appears in regional human rights instruments: Article 35(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee applies a similar admissibility test under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.