IMMUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: A REAFFIRMATION OF TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Yang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Head Of Government

InArrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), decided on 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs was immune from criminal proceedings before a foreign domestic court, even if the charges involved crimes against humanity. Human rights advocates might well regard this decision as a serious setback. Decided against a widespread euphoria brought forth by, and largely due to a neglect of an important dictum in, the historic holding in Pinochet No. 3 [2000] 1 A.C. 147, the case serves further to clarify a crucial point of State immunity in current international law. The Pinochet case dealt with the immunity of a former, as opposed to a serving, Head of State. While the majority of the Law Lords only mentioned in passing that the immunity enjoyed by a serving Head of State ratione personae was absolute, the International Court of Justice stated, in unambiguous language, that: … in international law it is firmly established that, as also diplomatic and consular agents, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal.

How to Limit Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

2019 ◽  
pp. 146-170
Author(s):  
Pavel Šturma
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Head Of Government

This contribution aims to shed more light on the question whether international law on immunities is in crisis and, if so, how to overcome the crisis. It will not deal with all kinds of immunities under international law but will focus only on immunity of state officials. Immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction is governed by customary international law whose exact scope is often debatable both in theory and in practice, particularly in connection with the international effort to end impunity for the most serious crimes under international law, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including torture and enforced disappearances. Although state practice and case law of the International Court of Justice supports the absolute immunity ratione personae of the highest officials, such as head of state, head of government, and minister of foreign affairs, as long as they are in office, the situation of immunity ratione materiae that protects the official acts of other state officials seems to be less clear. There are good arguments in favour of exceptions to such immunity, at least in respect of crimes under international law.

Certain Criminal Proceedings in France; (Republic of the Congo v. France)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 172-218
Keyword(s):  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Investigation

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Criteria — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Forum prorogatum — State consent to jurisdiction of International Court of Justice — Rules of the Court, Article 38 — Risk of irreparable prejudice — Link between risk of prejudice and rights claimed in the Application — Relevance of full extent of possible harm — Relevance of wider political consequences — Urgency — Non-extension and non-aggravation of dispute — Whether provisional measures required to prevent aggravation or extension of dispute — Removal of case from List State immunity — Head of State — Senior officials — Sovereign equality of States — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials violating principle of sovereign equality — Whether risk of irreparable prejudice to immunities Diplomatic relations — Risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials constituting risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations between States Relationship of international law and municipal law — Head of State immunity — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with principle of head of State immunity — Sovereign equality — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with the principle of sovereign equality

The Immunity of Heads of States in US Courts after the Decision of the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon de Smet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The U.S

AbstractThis article investigates the law of Head of State immunity in the United States in light of the recent decision by the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium). It does so by analyzing the U.S. law and comparing it with the customary international law on Head of State immunity as laid out by the world court. The article demonstrates that there are two competing strands in the recent jurisprudence of U.S. courts, neither of which is in conformity with international law. The reasons for this discrepancy are examined and explained in light of the underlying debate about the role of customary international law in the U.S. constitutional system. In conclusion, the author suggests that the best solution to the current dilemma is for the U.S. courts to apply the rules on Head of State immunity as explained by the world court and avoid as much as possible interference by the executive.

scholarly journals Criminal Proceedings Against Albers

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-638
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In August 2012, the First Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court or Court), the highest Italian domestic court, issued a judgment upholding Germany’s sovereign immunity from civil claims brought by Italian war crime victims against Paul Albers and eight others in the Italian courts (Albers). In so doing, the Court overruled its own earlier decisions and also reversed the judgment of April 20, 2011, by the Italian Military Court of Appeal (Military Court), which had upheld such claims relating to war crimes committed by German forces in Italy during World War II. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation put an end to its decade long effort to find an exception to the well-known rule of customary international law providing for sovereign immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction for actsjure imperii. Thisrevirementresulted from the Court’s decision to give effect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inGermany v. Italy.

The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Boundary Issues

During 2002, countries from all regions, especially Africa, resorted to the International Court of Justice; only one of the Court's 2002 judgments involved an OECD countiy. The Court's work during the year also shows the continued importance of boundary issues for states and for the Court.The Court again completed a substantial program of work, resolving three cases with final judgments. In February, it triggered substantial controversy by finding that a Belgian court's warrant for the arrest of the then foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“Congo”) violated international law. In October, it resolved a complex of boundary disputes between Cameroon and Nigeria, although by year-end Nigeria had not yet implemented the Court's key requirement—withdrawal from the Bakassi Peninsula. In December, comparing sparse effectivités, it concluded that Malaysia, and not Indonesia, had sovereignty over two small disputed islands.

Kosovo Crisis Inquiry: Memorandum On The International Law Aspects

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Brownlie ◽  
C. J. Apperley
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Adviser

1. This Memorandum has been prepared in accordance with the request of the Foreign Affairs Committee (letter dated 28 July 1999), which request referred to a written memorandum “on the area of international law“.1 In the course of his career as a member of the English Bar, specialising in international disputes, the writer has worked as legal adviser and/or advocate for at least 35 States. In this context it is necessary to point to the fact that, as a part of his professional involvements, he has acted as Counsel and Advocate in the recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice on behalf of Yugoslavia. It is also necessary to stress that the Memorandum represents his own views and that there has been no input from any Government or Government-related organisation.

II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, CASE CONCERNING AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO (REPUBLIC OF GUINEA V DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO) JUDGEMENT OF 30 NOVEMBER 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 810-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Opening Paragraph

This is the first time in its history, to the best of my knowledge, that the International Court of Justice has established violations of the two human rights treaties at issue, together, namely, at universal level, the 1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, at regional level, the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, both in the framework of the universality of human rights.This is the opening paragraph of Judge Cançado Trindade's Separate Opinion in the Diallo case. The ICJ's judgment is a remarkable decision contributing to the widening and deepening of international law and has consequences for several fundamental questions, including the role of the ICJ and international law in making human rights effective, erga omnes and jus cogens rules, customary law, evidence, and several substantive rules. In bringing the transformation of international law one step further, the Diallo judgment develops the ICJ as ‘the principal judicial organ of the United Nations’1 at the top of an open international law system. To achieve this, the Court had to overcome a series of jurisdictional and procedural hurdles.2 All the permanent judges of the ICJ agreed that Congo had violated the prohibition on arbitrary detention and expulsion and that the violations gave rise to a right of compensation. The ICJ's use of sources from other international and regional bodies as sources of authority, indicates solutions to fragmentation problems.

The ICJ's Judgment in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000: Some Critical Observations

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 373-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Leen De Smet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts

On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000. In this case, the Court had the opportunity to take an authoritative stance on, and to contribute to the development of, two major questions in the field of immunities and jurisdiction of contemporary international law: do Ministers for Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity against prosecution by national courts of another state for crimes under international law, and how far can a state go in granting universal jurisdiction to its domestic courts?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document