scholarly journals The “International Crime” Exception in the ILC Draft Articles on the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: Two Steps Back?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 27-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanne van Alebeek
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
The Real ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Functional Immunity ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

In addressing the topic of the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the International Law Commission (ILC) took on one of the most contentious issues in contemporary international law. The question whether functional immunity applies when officials are accused of having committed international crimes has divided courts and scholars alike, and the ILC was deeply split. The “international crimes” exception set forth in Draft Article 7 was, exceptionally, put up for a vote, with twenty-one votes cast in favor of provisional adoption, one abstention, and eight negative votes. Because the ILC has a mandate to both codify and progressively develop international law, these figures do not help resolve what was arguably the real bone of contention: whether or not the exception is already part of customary international law—that is, whether it is lex lata.

scholarly journals Foreign Official Immunity in the International Law Commission: The Meanings of “Official Capacity”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 156-160
Author(s):  
William S. Dodge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

Of all the issues facing the International Law Commission (ILC) in its work on the topic of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction,” how to define “act performed in an official capacity” is certainly one of the most difficult and important. If serious international crimes, like torture, are considered acts performed in an official capacity, then foreign officials responsible for such crimes may (unless an exception applies) be immune from criminal jurisdiction in other states for such acts even after they leave office.

scholarly journals Methodological Flaws in the ILC's Study on Exceptions to Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinmin Shen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
International Law Commission

In July 2017, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted Draft Article 7 on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, by a recorded vote of twenty-one votes in favor, eight votes against, and one abstention. In the view of the majority of ILC members, immunity ratione materiae does not apply to the six international crimes listed in the draft article—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance—either because of a limitation or because of an exception. The unusual practice of adopting a draft article by recorded vote demonstrated the deep controversy among the ILC members themselves. After all, exceptions to official immunity lie at the core of the project of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” that was started a decade ago by the ILC. This divisive Draft Article 7 naturally garnered criticism and equally deep controversy among states in discussions on the ILC's work report at UN General Assembly Sixth Committee in late October 2017.

scholarly journals Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: Where is the State Practice in Support of Exceptions?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The State ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
State Practice ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

In the summer of 2017, the UN International Law Commission adopted Draft Article 7 and an associated draft annex for its project on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The draft article identifies six “crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply”: genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; crime of apartheid; torture; and enforced disappearance. Given the divergences within the Commission when considering and adopting Draft Article 7 (as evidenced by the plenary debate in 2016 and 2017, the unusual recorded vote on whether to refer the matter to the Commission's drafting committee, and the Commentary), it is difficult to conclude that the Commission is expressing a view that Draft Article 7 reflects lex lata.

scholarly journals How far does the Systemic Approach to Immunities take us?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Systemic Approach ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Systemic Nature ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission (ILC) explains in its 2017 Commentary to Draft Article 7 of its Draft Articles on the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction that the draft articles are “intended to apply within an international legal order whose unity and systemic nature cannot be ignored.” The quest for coherence is admirable. It enhances legal certainty and predictability in an evolving area of the law. But a systemic approach can also go too far—stretching analogies and ignoring differences, seeing a trend where there is none. The trajectory of the ILC's work on Draft Article 7 illustrates certain dangers.

Customary International Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Marie Dupuy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
The World ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

International custom “as evidence of a general practice accepted as law”, is considered one of the two main sources of international law as it primarily derives from the conduct of sovereign States, but is also closely connected with the role of the international judge when identifying the applicable customary rule, a function it shares with the bodies in charge of its codification (and progressive development), starting with the International Law Commission. Though mainly considered to be general international law, international custom has a complex relationship with many specific fields of law and specific regions of the world. The editor provides comprehensive research published in the last seven decades, invaluable to everyone interested in the field of customary international law.

The Arbitral Award in the Enrica Lexie Case and its Questionable Recognition of Functional Immunity to the Italian Marines Under Customary International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-225
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nigro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
The State ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Majority Judgment ◽  
Functional Immunity ◽  
The Military

The dispute between Italy and India on the Enrica Lexie incident has finally been decided by the Award handed down on 21 May 2020 by the Arbitral Tribunal to which the Parties had referred the case. After having concluded that it had jurisdiction on the issue of the immunity of the two Italian marines involved in the case at hand, the majority judgment (by three votes to two) affirmed that under customary international law the latter enjoyed functional immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of India. This article will argue that the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusions are unconvincing, first and foremost, considering that, based on State practice, it is not possible to affirm without reservations that a settled customary rule exists under international law conferring immunity to all State officials, and regardless of the type of functions they perform. In fact, immunity has often been recognized as applying only to certain categories of State officials, and on the basis of the governmental nature of the functions they perform on behalf of the State. Given the doubtful existence under customary international law of a clear rule establishing the functional immunity of all State officials, for all the acts performed in the exercise of their functions, this article argues that the Arbitral Tribunal should have firstly ascertained the existence of a specific customary rule on the immunity of the military abroad, together with the exact content of such rule and, secondly, whether this was applicable in the case of the Enrica Lexie. As current practice stands, military forces abroad are entitled to immunity only under specific circumstances, which do not seem to occur in the present case. In particular, this article maintains that the Italian marines were not entitled to functional immunity. While the acts they performed did indeed fall within their typical functions, they were exercised on behalf of a private subject and not on behalf of the Italian State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document