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?

The Judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Case: Some Critical Remarks

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAN WOUTERS
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Great Opportunity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The author critically analyzes the judgement rendered by the ICJ on 14 February 2002, in the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case. The Court's reasoning is criticized for both its poor motivation in acknowledging the existence of a rule of customary international law, providing for absolute inviolability and immunity for incumbent ministers for foreign affairs before the national courts of other states, and for the rather theoretical manner in which the Court asserts that immunity does not amount to impunity. It is also regretted that the Court did not pronounce on the issue of universal jurisdiction, thereby missing a great opportunity to clarify a controversial but increasingly important issue of international (criminal) law.

House Approves Proposal Permitting ICJ to Advise Domestic Courts

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-340
Author(s):  
Jack M. Goldklang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
National Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.

II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE (BELGIUM v SENEGAL) JUDGMENT OF 20 JULY 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas ◽  
Thomas Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Peremptory Norms

This case1 marks the first pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) in international law. It is the second contentious case in which the ICJ has held the defendant country in breach of its obligations under a human rights convention. The ICJ both added to the corpus of norms it has formally recognized as peremptory norms (jus cogens) and also reinforced the principle that former heads of state are subject to universal jurisdiction for grave violations of international law.

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.

scholarly journals The Emergence of “Universal Jurisdiction” in Response to Somali Piracy: An Empirically Informed Critique of International Law’s “Paradigmatic” Universal Jurisdiction Crime

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-643
Author(s):  
Matthew Garrod
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice

Abstract Since the 1980s, the idea that piracy is the “original” and “paradigmatic” universal jurisdiction crime in customary international law has been increasingly supported by weighty scholarship. In the wake of the unprecedented surge in Somali piracy, this view is gaining ground among various powerful actors in international law. Yet, remarkably little empirically grounded scholarship exists in support of universal jurisdiction. This Article provides the first comprehensive empirical analysis of state practice in response to Somali piracy in a ten-year period since 2006. Additionally, the data on Somali piracy are compared with the empirical findings of state practice regarding international crimes, which are more “heinous” than piracy, since the end of World War II to 2016. In so doing, this Article brings new insight and the first thorough critique of what most scholars, governments, the UN and even the International Court of Justice have said on universal jurisdiction, its purpose and the basis for it in international law. In view of inter-state tensions and conflict caused by universal jurisdiction and a move towards law codification, there is now a pressing need for a paradigm shift in the concept of universal jurisdiction for both piracy and international crimes, a step away from conventional scholarly accounts, and the grand narratives from which they proceed, to a position that has a solid basis in the actual practice of states. Empirically and historically informed, it is proposed that “universal jurisdiction” for both categories of crime provides a basis in international law permitting the exercise of national criminal jurisdiction over offences involving foreign nationals abroad that have a close nexus between the case over which jurisdiction is asserted and the state asserting jurisdiction. Common and traditionally held assumptions that universal jurisdiction is based solely on the grave nature of crimes and is applied by states absent any nexus to offences and in the interest of the international community are unfounded.

The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application

2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRZYSZTOF J. PELC
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 59 ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Network Application ◽  
Anglo American

The concept of precedent is fundamental to domestic courts, especially in Anglo-American common law systems, where judges are bound to the court’s past decisions. By contrast, precedent has no formal authority in international law. Legal scholars point to Article 59 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute in this respect, according to which international legal rulings are binding only on the parties in the dispute at hand, and have no bearing on matters outside of the case.

The Yerodia Ruling of the International Court of Justice and the 1993/1999 Belgian Law on Universal Jurisdiction

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAIN WINANTS
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
National Court ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Relationship

The 1993/1999 Belgian Law on Universal Jurisdiction allows for prosecution before Belgian domestic courts regardless of the nationality of perpetrators or victims, the place where the breaches were committed, or the presence on Belgian territory of the alleged perpetrators. Is universal jurisdiction contrary to international law? Is universal jurisdiction in absentia permitted under Belgian law and under international law? What is the relationship between universal jurisdiction, as exercised by a national court, and the Statute of the International Criminal Court? This article provides an overview of the Belgian legislation and its future with regard to international law and the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Judge Peter Kooijmans

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan G. Lammers
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Power Company ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
High Level

In a small note which Peter Kooijmans wrote to me in answer to a letter in which I congratulated him with his election as Judge in the International Court of Justice – the first Netherlands Judge in the Court after World War II apart from Professor Riphagen who only served as a Judge ad hoc in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. case – he stated that he considered himself to be a privileged man. Privileged, because the new position would allow him to continue to remain active in the field of international law considerably beyond the retirement age of 65 which applies to professors of international law and most other people in The Netherlands. Privileged, I would like to add, also in another respect. Very rarely it will be given to one person in his lifetime to fulfil so many different honourable positions in the field of international law and international relations at such a high level of responsibility as has been the case with Peter Kooijmans: Professor of public international law, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, State Secretary (Staatssecretaris) for Foreign Affairs, in particular disarmament matters (1973–1977), Minister for Foreign Affairs and, finally, Judge in the International Court of Justice.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document