The international law commission’s recent work on exceptions to immunity: Charting the course for a brave new world in international law?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 169-187
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Brave New World ◽  
Main Criticism ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Mixed Reaction

AbstractIn the summer of 2017, the International Law Commission adopted a draft article on exceptions to immunity. The Draft Article adopted provides that immunityratione materiaedoes not apply with respect to certain international crimes, namely crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearances. These exceptions do not apply to immunityratione personae. The Draft Article was adopted after a vote and was severely criticized by some members of the Commission. It has also received mixed reaction from states, with some supporting its content while others have opposed it. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Draft Article, there has also been academic commentary, some of which has been critical. The (main) criticism levelled against the Draft Article is that it does not represent existing law and has no basis in the practice of states. This article seeks to evaluate the criticism by considering whether there is any state practice in support of the Draft Article proposed by the Commission.

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.

The Agreement on the Establishment of the Extraordinary African Chambers within the Senegalese Judicial System Between the Government of the Republic Of Senegal and the African Union and the Statute of the Chambers

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1020-1036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Adjovi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
African Union ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

On August 22, 2012, the Republic of Senegal and the African Union (AU) signed an agreement to create a tribunal within the Senegalese judicial system to prosecute the perpetrators of international law violations in Chad between 1982 and 1990. To be called the Extraordinary African Chambers (Chambers), the tribunal is the result of years of political and judicial bargaining around Hissein Habré, the former President of Chad. The Chambers were inaugurated in February 2013, following the agreement upon a Statute of the Chambers in January 2013. On July 2, 2013, Hissein Habré was charged with crimes against humanity, torture, and war crimes, and placed in pre-trial detention. To date, Habré is the only indictee, but the Prosecutor reportedly intends to seek the indictment of five officials of Habré’s administration suspected of having committed international crimes.

Immunities of State Officials and the Responsibility for the International Crimes: International and National Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Светлана Глотова ◽  
Svetlana Glotova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The immunities of high-rank officials regarding to the responsibility of serious crimes of international community concern are analysed in the present paper. Relevance of the topic is maintained in its consideration of the International Law Commission. Principle of the irrelevance of official capacity (Art. 7 IMT, Principle III of the Nuremberg principles, art. 27 Rome Statute of ICC) is universally recognized and has the character of jus cogens. We critically examine the state practice (Pinochet case, Georgia case). The international documents, Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and doctrine are analyzed. By virtue of the constitutional priority of universally recognized principles and norms of International law (Art. 15.4 Constitution), the provisions of the Criminal Code must be fixed in accordance with the Nuremberg principles. This concerns especially principle of irrelevance of official capacity. In case of conflict, the principle of interpretation in accordance with international law should be applied.

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

scholarly journals TERMINOLOGI KEJAHATAN DALAM HUKUM PIDANA INTERNASIONAL

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Dewi Bunga ◽  
Dewi Bunga
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The People ◽  
International Conventions

The globalization of crime incised a social reality where crimes can be committed across national borders and have an impact not only on the people of a country, but on the international community. Theoretically, there are several terms that are known to describe acts which are called crimes under international law, namely international crimes, transnational crimes, and national crimes with international dimensions. International crimes are crimes that threaten both directly and indirectly to international peace and security, affect many countries and have universal jurisdiction. The qualification of international crimes refers to crimes regulated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute circulated as document A / CONF.183 / 9 of 17 July 1998), namely crimes of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and crime of aggression. Transnational crimes are transnational crimes regulated in international conventions.

scholarly journals The Development of Individual Criminal Responsibility Under International Law: Lessons from Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (39) ◽  
pp. 69-97
Author(s):  
William Edward Adjei
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
New Era ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Abstract Entities ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
Nuremberg Trials

AbstractOne of the most significant developments in international law was the establishment of Special Tribunals that could bring to justice individuals allegedly responsible for “grave breaches” and violations of the law against humanity. This is, undoubtedly, a recent global development that has challenged the issues of impunity and sovereignty. Since the Nazis’ atrocities and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes law has broadened its scope and has recognized a number of offenses considered as “international crimes” and which have also come to be described as “genocide”. However, although intended to put an end to the politics of impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes, a number of signatory states are reluctant to bring to justice those responsible for these defined international crimes. Indeed, the jurisprudence developed in these Special Tribunals provided an impetus for the development of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). More specifically, it has been argued that war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such heinous crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced and realized. However, a perfectly reasonable case can be made that the creation of these tribunals does represent a new era in international law.

‘Humanitarian Intervention’

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel S. Rodley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Human Rights Violation

This chapter examines whether so-called humanitarian intervention is a lawful exception to the international law prohibiting use of force when rescuing populations from widespread grave human rights violations, without UN Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. It considers what type or level of human rights violation or abuse justifies ‘humanitarian intervention’ if it were permitted, with reference to the R2P categories of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It discusses the UN Charter provisions and state practice on the prohibition on use of force, and criteria used to determine the legality of action deemed humanitarian intervention. The chapter describes tests that an intervention would have to pass and would be applicable to mitigate culpability, including gravity of the situation, political neutrality, the circumstances of the Security Council’s inability to act, and principles of necessity and proportionality. It argues that there is no humanitarian exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international law.

The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máximo Langer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Under universal jurisdiction, any state in the world may prosecute and try the core international crimes— crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—without any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to the crime in question whenit was committed.The jurisdictional claim is predicated on the atrocious nature of the crime and legally based on treaties or customary international law. Unlike the regime of international criminal tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council and the enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the regime of universal jurisdiction is completely decentralized.

scholarly journals And then Two Came Along at Once: Inter-State Cooperation on Core Crimes, the ilc and the Group of Core States

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-586
Author(s):  
Alison Bisset
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
Multilateral Cooperation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Cooperation ◽  
Inter State

Despite their fundamental importance in the effective prosecution of international crimes, inter-state judicial cooperation regimes have long been overlooked. However, two new initiatives have recently emerged. The first is the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity (Draft Articles), which aims to create a global convention on prevention, punishment and inter-State cooperation with respect to crimes against humanity. The second initiative, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty for core crimes (mla Treaty), is wider in scope. It encompasses genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and seeks the conclusion of a multilateral cooperation treaty to enable the effective provision of mutual legal assistance and extradition of suspects in relation to these crimes. The aim of this article is to critically assess the merits and shortcomings of these two initiatives in the effort to enhance inter-state cooperation in the prosecution of international crimes and their abilities to remedy current problems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document