86 QIL 60 (2019) 69-97 ZOOM IN a limited duty to exercise diplomatic protection where the fundamental rights of their nationals are violated abroad was rejected by the ILC in 2000,86 conveying the powerful message that ‘the golden rule of State discretion is alive and well’. 87 This, however, does not remove from the equation the human rights dimension of diplomatic protection and the rise of the individual as a subject of, or rather a participant in, international law.88 In fact, an examination of the relevant domestic, and in some cases constitutional, provisions and their interpretation by national courts suggests that States’ discretion in deciding the exercise or not of diplomatic protection is not absolute.89 In interpreting and applying municipal laws the national courts of States such as South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany over the years have confirmed a general trend towards the affirmation of the justiciability of executive decisions to exercise diplomatic protection in light of the fact that every citizen has a ‘legitimate expectation’ that he/she will be afforded diplomatic protection, especially when his/her fundamental rights are violated abroad, and that refusals are not exempt from judicial scrutiny.90 Notably, the standard for claiming that a Government has failed to respond appropriately to a request for diplomatic protection would be, in the words of, respectively, the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the 86 YB Intl L Commission, 2000, vol II, 215, para 32. See Pergantis (n 82) 371-378; D Russo, ‘The Injured Individual’s Right to Compensation in the Law on Diplomatic Protection’ (2016) 99 Rivista Diritto Internazionale 725, 728-730; J Dugard, ‘Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights: The Draft Articles of the International Law Commission’ (2005) 24 Australian YB Intl L 75, 76-79. 87 N Karazivan, ‘Diplomatic Protection: Taking Human Rights Extraterritorially’ (2007) 44 Canadian YB Intl L 299, 301. 88 Milano (n 82) 137. 89 Karazivan (n 87) 300. 90 For example, in the famous case of Abbasi v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department, the English Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no enforceable right to protection under UK law, but found that the discretion of the UK Government might be judicially reviewed if it could be shown that it had been exercised irrationally or without regard for legitimate expectation. R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598. See Denza (n 83) 467.