Legal and Diplomatic Implications of a Former Head of State's Death Abroad: A Case Study of Mr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu. By Sir APM Lukwesa.
I. Executive Summary
The demise of a former head of state, particularly when occurring in a foreign nation and amidst prevailing political tensions, presents a complex interplay of international law, domestic legal frameworks, and intricate diplomatic considerations. This report meticulously examines these challenges, focusing on the inherent dignity accorded to human remains under international human rights law and the rights of the deceased's family, juxtaposed against the state's prerogative to conduct a national funeral for a figure of national significance. The recent case of Mr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, former President of Zambia, who passed away in South Africa, serves as a compelling illustration. His family's decision to conduct a private burial in the host country, explicitly excluding the incumbent Zambian President, Hakainde Hichilema, from the proceedings, precipitated a notable legal and diplomatic impasse. This report analyzes the legal foundations and practical implications of such disputes, highlighting the delicate balance required between national honor, political reconciliation, and the deeply personal and culturally sensitive aspects of mourning and burial rites.
II. Introduction: The Complexities of Post-Mortem Sovereignty and Political Legacy
The passing of a former head of state is an event that resonates deeply within a nation, often triggering established state protocols, periods of national mourning, and the organization of state funerals to honor their legacy. When such an individual dies in a foreign country, the situation becomes significantly more intricate, layered with considerations of international law, diplomatic courtesies, and the distinct domestic legal frameworks of both the home and host nations. This inherent complexity is further compounded if the deceased maintained an active political role post-presidency and harbored significant political animosity towards the incumbent government, transforming a personal tragedy into a highly charged public affair.
The recent death of former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu in South Africa serves as a compelling and contemporary illustration of these multifaceted challenges. Mr. Lungu, who died in a South African hospital on June 5, 2025, was a figure who remained influential in Zambian politics even after losing the presidency to Hakainde Hichilema in 2021. The decision by Mr. Lungu's family to conduct a private funeral in the host country, explicitly citing his wish to exclude President Hichilema from the funeral proceedings, precipitated a notable diplomatic and domestic legal impasse. This specific scenario underscores the delicate equilibrium required between national honor, political reconciliation, and the deeply personal and culturally sensitive aspects of mourning and burial rites.
For public figures, particularly former heads of state, the personal aspects of death and funeral arrangements often transcend the private sphere and become highly politicized events. The intense feud between Mr. Lungu and President Hichilema, which persisted even after Lungu left office and returned to active politics, directly influenced the family's decision regarding the funeral. This inherent politicization of a former leader's death can lead to significant national disunity, as evidenced by the abrupt cancellation of Zambia's national mourning period and the public discourse surrounding the dispute. It also creates diplomatic complications, requiring apologies from the Zambian government to South Africa for the inconvenience caused by the shifting funeral plans. The fundamental question of whether the deceased's body is "state property" or "family property" becomes a central, highly charged, and frequently legally ambiguous battleground in such circumstances.
Furthermore, the resolution of such disputes involves a nuanced interplay of domestic political contexts and international norms. While international law provides overarching general principles, such as the dignity of the dead and family rights, their concrete application and the ultimate outcome are heavily influenced by the prevailing domestic political dynamics within the home country and the nature of the bilateral relationship with the host state. South Africa's approach of "non-interference" in the Lungu family's decision, despite initial plans for repatriation, highlights this dynamic. This suggests that diplomatic pragmatism and a desire to avoid entanglement in another state's internal affairs often take precedence over strict legal interpretation, allowing the family's wishes, if aligned with host country law, to prevail.
This report aims to meticulously dissect the pertinent legal principles, encompassing both international and domestic law, that govern such complex situations. It will analyze the extent to which a state can legitimately assert control over the funeral arrangements of a former head of state, particularly when these assertions conflict with the express wishes of the deceased and their family. Furthermore, the report will explore the broader implications of such disputes on international relations and domestic political stability, offering insights and recommendations for future policy and legal clarity.
III. International Legal Frameworks: Dignity, Repatriation, and Status of the Deceased
A. Human Rights and the Deceased
International law unequivocally recognizes the inherent dignity of the deceased and their human remains. States bear a fundamental duty to "protect and respect the dead". This obligation is not merely a legal construct but is deeply ingrained in diverse societal, religious, and cultural traditions across the globe, where families and communities honor and mourn their dead through elaborate final rites. This foundational principle is often derived from Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". While legal scholars and jurisdictions may debate whether a deceased person retains residual rights, the consensus is that the obligation to protect and respect the dead primarily arises from the human rights of their living relatives. Furthermore, it is recognized that disrespectful treatment of human remains can, in itself, amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment inflicted upon the family of the deceased.
Within the broader framework of international human rights law, several interconnected rights—including the rights to life, to be free from torture and ill-treatment, to be protected from enforced disappearance, to a remedy, to privacy, to religion, and to culture—all encompass obligations to protect the dead. The process of searching for, identifying, and returning human remains to relatives for dignified burials, conducted in accordance with the family's customs and beliefs, is explicitly recognized as a means to advance the right to a remedy for those affected.
The concept of privacy, while historically understood in some jurisdictions to terminate with a person's death, is undergoing a significant re-evaluation. Modern legal discourse increasingly recognizes post-mortem privacy, not as an inherent right of the deceased, but rather as stemming from the interests of the living (categorized as "future-decedents" and "relational-living") and society's collective interest in the dignified treatment of human remains. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to respect for private and family life, a right that can extend to the ability to attend and control aspects of a funeral. While public authorities may interfere with this right, such interference must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to a legitimate aim, such as protecting public safety or preventing disorder. This evolving understanding provides a stronger legal and ethical basis for families to assert control over funeral arrangements, even for public figures. Their fundamental human rights to mourn and practice cultural/religious rites are directly impacted by the treatment and disposition of the deceased's remains. Consequently, states, when contemplating state funerals, must increasingly balance national interest with these recognized family rights, moving away from an assumption of absolute state prerogative.
B. Repatriation of Human Remains in International Law
Both customary international humanitarian law (IHL) and various international treaties, notably the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, contain explicit provisions that oblige parties to an armed conflict to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon the request of their next of kin. While these specific provisions are primarily applicable in situations of armed conflict, the underlying humanitarian principle of respecting family life and the right of families to know the fate and whereabouts of their relatives is considered broadly applicable and informs general international practice. As stated in customary IHL, "Parties to the conflict must endeavour to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon request of the party to which they belong or upon the request of their next of kin". Specifically, Article 34 of Additional Protocol I further elaborates on this, addressing agreements for the return of remains to the home country "upon its request or, unless that country objects, upon the request of the next of kin".
However, the death of a former head of state in a foreign country during peacetime falls outside the direct operational scope of IHL. While general human rights principles, such as the dignity of the dead and the rights of relatives, do apply , the specific and detailed obligations for repatriation are less codified for peacetime scenarios involving non-diplomatic personnel. This legal gap means that repatriation in peacetime often relies more heavily on bilateral cooperation, consular agreements, and established customary practices rather than strict, universally enforceable treaty obligations.
Consular officers play a critical and established role in assisting with the disposition of human remains when a national dies abroad. Their responsibilities typically include providing essential guidance on local procedures and required documentation, as well as facilitating the return of remains to the home country or arranging for local burial, all in strict compliance with the laws of the host state. It is a recognized principle that the law of the place where the death occurred governs the timeline and immediate procedures for the disposition of human remains. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) specifically mandates that host nations must notify consular officers "without delay" if one of their nationals dies within their territory. While there are no explicit, universally binding treaties governing the repatriation of former heads of state in peacetime, such arrangements commonly rely on general international cooperation, bilateral agreements, or ad-hoc diplomatic arrangements. This is exemplified by the South African government's "respectful support" for the Lungu family's decision to bury him in South Africa, indicating a policy of non-interference in the family's wishes. South Africa, for instance, has a national policy for the repatriation and restitution of human remains, particularly those of liberation struggle figures, which explicitly involves consultation with families and regional governments. This reliance on cooperation and respect for family wishes in the absence of a direct, legally enforceable international mandate for state control highlights the flexibility and potential for disputes in such situations.
Table 1: Key International Legal Instruments and Principles on Disposition of Human Remains
| Instrument/Principle | Relevant Provision/Article | Brief Description of Obligation/Right | Source ID |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Article 1 | Inherent dignity of all human beings, foundational for respecting the dead. | |
| International Human Rights Law (General) | Rights to life, privacy, religion, culture, remedy, freedom from ill-treatment | Obligations to protect the dead arise from these rights of relatives; dignified burials according to family customs. | |
| International Humanitarian Law (IHL) / Geneva Conventions | GC I, Article 15(1); GC II, Article 18(1); GC IV, Article 16(2) and 130(2); AP I, Article 34(2)(c); CIHL Rule 114 | Obligation to search for, collect, evacuate, and facilitate return of remains to next of kin, especially in armed conflict. | |
| Vienna Convention on Consular Relations | Article 37 | Host state must notify consular officers without delay if a national dies. | |
| Customary International Law | General practice of states | Respect for dignity of the dead and family wishes, often leading to bilateral cooperation for repatriation. | |
C. Legal Status and Immunities of Former Heads of State Abroad
Heads of State, by virtue of their office, enjoy significant protections under international law. This includes personal immunity (ratione personae) while in office, which grants almost total protection from local lawsuits and criminal prosecution, and functional immunity (ratione materiae) for acts performed in their official capacity. The purpose of these immunities is not to benefit individuals personally but to ensure the efficient and effective performance of their official missions and the proper functioning of states.
Upon relinquishing office, an individual's personal immunity generally ceases. However, functional immunity for acts performed in an official capacity typically persists, meaning they cannot be prosecuted for official acts committed while in office. It is crucial to note that this functional immunity does not typically extend to private acts or to serious international crimes (such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide), even if allegedly committed while in office. Indeed, a legal precedent confirms that the private acts of a deceased head of state are not protected by state immunity.
While former heads of state are typically honored with state funerals in their home country , their legal status abroad is primarily that of a private citizen, unless they hold a specific, recognized diplomatic role. Their previous office does not confer inherent, ongoing diplomatic immunity for personal acts or after death. This means that while host nations may extend courtesies based on diplomatic protocol and respect (e.g., condolences from head of state) , they are not legally obligated to enforce the home country's specific funeral protocols if those protocols conflict with the deceased's or family's wishes, especially if those wishes align with the host country's domestic laws regarding the disposition of remains. The host country's primary legal obligation is to adhere to its own laws and the general principles of dignified treatment of remains, which often prioritize the next-of-kin's wishes. The domestic decision by Zambia to strip Mr. Lungu of his retirement benefits and privileges due to his return to active politics further underscores this shift in his official status from a domestic perspective. The status of a former head of state abroad is therefore more symbolic, based on respect and courtesy, rather than legally binding in terms of dictating funeral arrangements.
IV. Zambian Domestic Law: State Prerogative vs. Family Autonomy in Funeral Arrangements
A. State Funerals and National Protocol in Zambia
In Zambia, a former president is generally regarded as a national figure, and their passing is typically managed according to established state rules and protocols, which are often perceived to take precedence over personal preferences. The current Zambian government's position, as articulated by President Hichilema, is that a former president "belongs to the nation of Zambia" and, as such, "should be buried in Zambia with full honours, and not in any other nation". This stance underscores the government's view of the matter as one of national dignity and principle.
State funerals are public ceremonies characterized by strict adherence to protocol, frequently incorporating military honors, periods of national mourning, and opportunities for public viewing. In the case of Mr. Lungu, the Zambian government had meticulously planned for full military honors, public viewing events in Lusaka, and burial at Embassy Park, which is the official presidential burial ground. National mourning periods are officially declared by presidential proclamation, during which flags are flown at half-mast and solemn music is broadcast.
Zambian statutory law explicitly provides for the state to cover funeral expenses for former presidents. The "Benefits of Former Presidents Act" (Chapter 15 of the Laws of Zambia) stipulates that a former President is entitled to "Funeral Expenses on his death". This legal provision clearly indicates the state's recognized role and financial responsibility in the post-mortem arrangements for its former leaders, reinforcing the concept of a state funeral as a national obligation. The Act states: "Where a former President who is entitled to the pension and other benefits conferred by this Act dies while in or after having left office, his spouse and any children of the family who have not attained the age of twenty-one years shall be entitled jointly to-... Funeral Expenses on his death".
B. Authority over Disposition of Remains under Zambian Law
Under general Zambian law, the "next of kin" is legally defined as a widower or widow of the deceased, or any other person who would be entitled to letters of administration in preference to a creditor or legatee. In practice, this typically refers to the spouse, followed by children, parents, siblings, or any other adult considered a close relative. The surviving spouse generally holds the paramount right to the custody of the remains and control over burial arrangements. In the absence of a surviving spouse, this right devolves to the next of kin in a specified order of relation.
A properly executed Will can include the deceased's wishes regarding the disposition of their remains, and the Executor of the estate is empowered to deal with the body. Courts generally strive to honor the wishes of the deceased, even in the face of opposition from surviving next of kin, particularly if these wishes are clearly expressed. However, it is important to note that funeral wishes expressed in a Will are not legally binding in some jurisdictions, including potentially Zambia, serving instead as non-binding guidance for the executor.
In the specific context of former presidents, there is a distinct legal contention regarding ultimate authority. Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa asserts that "there's no such concept at law" that a former president is "state property," arguing that "there's no law that dictates how a former president's funeral should be, which leaves the family with the final say over what should happen". This position directly contrasts with the government's argument, supported by judicial precedent, that "national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences" for former presidents. This creates a fundamental tension between established judicial interpretation and the absence of explicit statutory law that grants the state absolute control over all aspects of a former president's funeral. The "Benefits of Former Presidents Act" only addresses "Funeral Expenses," not the authority to dictate the entire funeral process or burial location. This suggests that while the state asserts a strong claim based on precedent, the underlying legal foundation for overriding all family wishes (beyond financial support and official honors) might be less robust in statutory law, thereby contributing to recurring disputes.
While the wishes of the deceased regarding their burial are generally accorded respect in many legal systems (often articulated through wills or advance directives), their precise legal enforceability can vary significantly. In the Lungu case, the family lawyer, Makebi Zulu, explicitly stated that it was Mr. Lungu's fervent wish that President Hichilema "should not be anywhere near" his body when he is buried. However, the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) has publicly asserted that for former presidents, "state protocols, set by the Zambian people, take precedence" over personal wishes. This highlights a significant legal ambiguity or, more accurately, a direct conflict between the general principles of individual autonomy and the specific, elevated status of a former head of state within the national framework.
Zambian law mandates that all deaths must be registered with the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The Public Health Act (CAP 295) and the Local Government Act (CAP 281) provide the legal framework governing funeral services, including the issuance of burial permits and the maintenance of cemeteries. The Inquests Act (CAP 295) outlines the procedures for conducting inquests, particularly for deaths requiring investigation (e.g., unnatural or unknown causes), and grants coroners the authority to postpone burial or cremation until an inquest is concluded. Customary law is recognized in Zambia, provided it is not "repugnant to justice, equity or good conscience and is not incompatible, either in terms or by necessary implication with, any written law in force". Under customary traditions, family members are typically responsible for performing funeral rites, and some tribes maintain family graveyards or utilize private cemeteries for burials. The family traditionally holds a central role in funeral decisions within these cultural contexts. This complex interplay indicates that while formal law might theoretically grant the state considerable power, political and social realities often necessitate negotiation and compromise with families, especially given the profound cultural significance of family involvement in funeral rites in Zambia. The "national interest" argument, while legally upheld in precedent, may be politically difficult to enforce without the cooperation of the family, particularly when the deceased is a popular or influential figure.
C. Judicial Precedent: The Kenneth Kaunda Funeral Dispute
The legal dispute surrounding the burial of Zambia's first President, Kenneth Kaunda, provides a direct and highly relevant judicial precedent. In 2021, Kaunda's family challenged the Zambian government's plan to bury him at Embassy Park, a site specifically reserved for former presidents. The family argued that Kaunda's explicit wish was to be interred at his private residence, alongside his late wife.
The Lusaka High Court ultimately dismissed the family's application. In its ruling, the court asserted that "national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences because there is a designated burial place for former presidents, and there is a designated set of protocol to handle those proceedings that are conducted by the state, not a political party". Judge Wilfred Kopa Muma, in his judgment, emphasized that "The late Dr. Kenneth Kaunda was not an ordinary person" , thereby elevating the state's prerogative in this context. This ruling established a significant legal precedent in Zambia, affirming the state's authority to determine the burial site and protocol for former heads of state, even when such decisions directly conflict with the express wishes of the deceased and their immediate family.
This outcome, however, vividly illustrates that even a domestically binding and strong legal precedent can be circumvented or rendered practically ineffective when the deceased dies abroad and the family maintains physical control over the remains in the host country, particularly if the host country's laws or policies prioritize family autonomy. The Lungu case, where the family ultimately chose to bury him in South Africa despite the Zambian government's insistence on a state funeral in Zambia, demonstrates this practical limitation. This situation can lead to a "race" to secure the body in future high-profile deaths abroad, highlighting the critical importance of physical control over the remains in such political disputes.
Table 2: Comparison of State vs. Family Control over Funerals in Zambia
| Aspect of Funeral | State's Position/Prerogative | Family's Rights/Wishes | Legal Basis/Precedent (Zambia) | Source ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Control | State protocol takes precedence; former president "belongs to the nation." | Family has final say; right to determine mourning. | Kaunda ruling: "national interest takes precedence"; John Sangwa: "no law that dictates" state control. | |
| Funeral Type | State funeral with full honors. | Private ceremony, as per deceased's wishes. | State provides "Funeral Expenses" (Benefits of Former Presidents Act). | |
| Burial Location | Embassy Park (official presidential burial grounds). | Private residence or host country. | Kaunda ruling: designated burial place for former presidents. | |
| Funeral Program/Attendance | State-led program; Hichilema to preside. | Family control over program; exclusion of Hichilema. | Family claims Lungu's dying wish; government initially agreed, then reneged. | |
| Repatriation | Body to be repatriated to Zambia. | Family halted repatriation. | Government prepared for repatriation; family cited reneged agreements. | |
V. The Edgar Chagwa Lungu Case: A Detailed Legal and Political Analysis
A. Factual Background of the Dispute
Former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu passed away in a South African hospital on June 5, 2025, due to an undisclosed illness. Following his death, the Zambian government promptly announced plans for a state funeral, which were to include full military honors, a period of public viewing in Lusaka, and ultimately, burial at Embassy Park, the designated official presidential burial grounds. A national mourning period was declared by the government, and subsequently extended, to allow citizens to pay their respects.
The relationship between Mr. Lungu and the current President, Hakainde Hichilema, was characterized by a "bitter political rivalry". This animosity stemmed from a contentious 2016 election, Hichilema's subsequent imprisonment for treason under Lungu's government in 2017, and their continued political clashes, culminating in Hichilema's victory in the 2021 presidential election. Mr. Lungu remained actively involved in politics post-presidency, despite being stripped of his retirement benefits and privileges by the state for this reason. He had also faced accusations of police harassment and restrictions on his movements, which his family claimed included initially preventing him from traveling to South Africa for medical treatment. This history created an explosive mix of personal and political animosity that profoundly impacted the funeral arrangements.
B. Evolution of the Dispute and Resolution
The family of Mr. Lungu expressed a clear desire to take charge of the funeral arrangements, asserting that one of the deceased's dying wishes was that President Hichilema "should not be anywhere near his dead body or funeral". This directive led to a standoff, with the family initially delaying the repatriation of Mr. Lungu's body from South Africa. Despite initial reports of a compromise being reached, which would have seen Hichilema preside over a state funeral , the family later blocked the repatriation, accusing the Zambian government of reneging on the agreed plans. Specific concerns raised by the family included the government's unilateral release of a funeral program without consultation and restrictions on public participation in receiving the body.
In response to the impasse, President Hichilema abruptly ended the extended national mourning period, stating that "Our country cannot afford a state of indefinite mourning". He reiterated the government's position that Mr. Lungu, as a former president, "belongs to the nation of Zambia" and "should therefore be buried in Zambia with full honours, and not in any other nation". President Hichilema also extended an apology to the South African government and military for the inconvenience caused by the failed repatriation efforts.
Ultimately, the Lungu family resolved to hold a private funeral and burial ceremony for the former president in Johannesburg, South Africa. The family spokesperson, Makebi Zulu, expressed gratitude to the South African government "for their respectful support and for honoring the family's decision to hold a private funeral and burial here in South Africa". This decision marked a historic and unusual event, as it would be the first time a former head of state from another country is buried on South African soil.
C. Legal and Diplomatic Implications
The Edgar Chagwa Lungu case exemplifies the profound tensions that can arise between state prerogative and family rights in the context of a former head of state's death. While the Zambian government asserted its right to conduct a state funeral based on national interest and the precedent set by the Kenneth Kaunda case , the family's insistence on private arrangements and the deceased's wishes ultimately prevailed due to the circumstances of his death abroad.
The role of the host country, South Africa, proved pivotal. Despite initial preparations for repatriation and military honors at Lanseria Airport , the South African government respected the family's decision not to repatriate the body. This "non-interference" approach, as acknowledged by the Lungu family , highlights the practical limitations of a state's domestic law when the deceased's remains are outside its direct jurisdiction and the host country adheres to principles of family autonomy in disposition of remains. This situation underscores that while international law outlines general principles of dignity and family rights, the absence of specific, universally binding treaties for peacetime repatriation of prominent figures allows for greater deference to the wishes of the next of kin, especially when aligned with the host country's domestic legal framework.
The dispute had significant implications for diplomatic relations between Zambia and South Africa, necessitating an apology from President Hichilema for the inconvenience caused. Domestically, the standoff created a distressing rift, denying many Zambians the opportunity to mourn and pay respects to their former leader in a national capacity. It also exposed the ambiguities in Zambian law regarding the precise extent of state control over former presidents' funerals, particularly when conflicting with family wishes and customary practices. The case serves as a stark reminder that even after death, the legacies and rivalries of political figures can continue to shape national discourse and international relations.
VI. Conclusions
The case of former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu's death in South Africa and the subsequent dispute over his funeral arrangements illuminate the complex intersection of national sovereignty, international legal norms, and deeply personal family rights. The analysis demonstrates that:
* International Law Emphasizes Dignity and Family Rights: International human rights law, though not always providing explicit rules for peacetime repatriation of former heads of state, consistently upholds the inherent dignity of human remains and derives obligations to protect the dead from the human rights of their relatives, including rights to privacy, family life, and cultural practices. This evolving understanding of post-mortem rights provides a strong ethical and increasingly legal basis for families to assert control over funeral arrangements.
* Zambian Law Prioritizes National Interest, but with Ambiguity: Zambian domestic law and judicial precedent, particularly the Kenneth Kaunda case, assert that "national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences" for former presidents, justifying state-led funerals and designated burial sites. The "Benefits of Former Presidents Act" also mandates state coverage of funeral expenses. However, the absence of explicit statutory law comprehensively dictating all aspects of a former president's funeral, beyond financial support and official honors, creates legal ambiguity and leaves room for contention with family wishes.
* Host Country's Stance is Critical for Deaths Abroad: When a former head of state dies in a foreign country, the host nation's domestic laws and its diplomatic approach become paramount. South Africa's decision to respect the Lungu family's wishes for a private burial and its policy of "non-interference" allowed the family to override the Zambian government's initial plans for a state funeral and repatriation. This demonstrates that a home state's domestic legal precedents can be practically circumvented if the deceased's remains are physically controlled by the family in a jurisdiction that prioritizes family autonomy.
* Political Realities Shape Legal Outcomes: The deep-seated political rivalry between Mr. Lungu and President Hichilema transformed the funeral into a highly politicized event, highlighting how personal animosity can complicate national protocols and diplomatic relations. Despite legal assertions of state prerogative, political and social pressures often necessitate negotiation and compromise with families, especially given the profound cultural significance of family involvement in funeral rites in Zambia.
In conclusion, the Lungu case underscores the need for greater clarity in domestic legislation regarding the funeral protocols for former heads of state, particularly concerning the interplay between state prerogative and family autonomy. While states have a legitimate interest in honoring national figures, respecting the dignity of the deceased and the human rights of their families remains a fundamental principle, often influencing the practical outcomes of such disputes, especially when death occurs on foreign soil.
No comments:
Post a Comment