International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dapo Akande

The tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty is reflected in the debate on whether state officials should be held responsible in external fora for international crimes committed while in office. This debate involves the interplay between two branches of international law. Firstly, there is the well-established law according immunities to the state and its agents from the jurisdiction of other states (state and diplomatic immunities). This law proceeds from notions of sovereign equality and is aimed at ensuring that states do not unduly interfere with other states and their agents. On the other hand, there are those newer principles of international law that are based on humanitarian values and define certain types of conduct as crimes under international law (international criminal law). One of the challenges in this latter area has been to develop international and national mechanisms by which individuals who commit these crimes may be held responsible. Since states often fail to institute domestic prosecution of their own officials and agents alleged to have committed international crimes, renewed attention has been paid to the possibility of subjecting state agents to prosecution in foreign domestic courts or in international courts. For such prosecution in foreign domestic courts to take place, it will usually have to be shown (1) that those courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by foreigners against foreigners (i.e..universalorquasi-universal jurisdiction),and (2) that such jurisdiction extends to state agents (i.e., that international law immunities are unavailable). Recent years have seen a significant increase in attempts to institute prosecutions for alleged international crimes in the national courts of states other than that where the acts occurred. However, it has not proved easy to establish the two propositions identified above. Indeed, it has become apparent that the views that states possess universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed abroad and that incumbent and former state officials are subject to foreign domestic prosecution for such crimes are by no means universally held.

Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska

This article deals with the model for prosecuting Nazi crimes committed in Poland in the light of the model presently used in international criminal law. It tries to answer the question: should the investigation of crimes of international law be handed over to transnational tribunals? Should they be hybrid tribunals involving a national factor, or completely supra-national tribunals like the International Criminal Court? Is it legitimate to transfer jurisdiction over these matters to national courts? The case of unpunished Nazi crimes in Poland may give a partial answer to this question. Certainly, various attempts made after World War II, including procedures brought before Polish courts, have contributed to understanding the function of international criminal law, and finding the answer to the question of the best model for prosecuting crimes of international law. At present, we also have the experience of international criminal tribunals, in particular the ICC, which is an efficient machine for prosecuting crimes of international law. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from its functioning that could improve the work of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) prosecutors, and shed new light on the considerations regarding the prosecution of Nazi crimes in Poland after World War II.


Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Bazov

The article presents an analysis of the principle of universal jurisdiction as an important legal institution of international criminal justice. Analyzed the main international legal norms and judicial practice in this area. The directions of further development of universal jurisdiction have been determined. Analyzed the Princeton Principlesof the universal jurisdiction. Investigated the work of the UN International Law Commission and the UN General Assembly on this issue. Proposals for the improvement of international and national legal acts are presented. Universal jurisdiction or the principle of universality in the fight against international crime is an important legal institution in the activities of both national and international criminal courts. As with any international offense, the obligation to stop international crimes such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of international terrorism take the form of an alternative to aut dedere aut judicare or aut prosegue by Hugo Grotius, and under which any State has an obligation to search for and prosecute international criminals for these heinous acts, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and their victims, as well as the place where the crime was committed, or to extradite international criminals to any State that requires their extradition for prosecution and punishment, or to an international criminal tribunal. Thus, a state is obliged to exercise universal criminal jurisdiction over international crimes and international criminals, or to extradite them to another state or to an international criminal court under conditions determined by international law and national law. Key words: universal jurisdiction, International criminal court, international crime, state sovereignty.


Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh ◽  
Ilias Bantekas

Africa has been at the forefront of contemporary global efforts towards ensuring greater accountability for international crimes. But the continent’s early embrace of international criminal justice seems to have taken a new turn with the recent pushback from some African states claiming that the emerging system of international criminal law represents a new form of imperialism masquerading as international rule of law. This work analyses the relationship and tensions between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Africa. It traces the origins of the confrontation between African governments, acting individually or within the framework of the African Union, and the permanent Hague-based ICC. Leading commentators offer valuable insights on the core legal and political issues that have bedevilled the relationship between the two sides and expose the uneasy interaction between international law and international politics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-297
Author(s):  
Emma Charlene Lubaale

Abstract Not many states have effective national laws on prosecution of international crimes. Presently, of the 124 states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), less than half have specific national legislation incorporating international crimes. Some faith has been placed in the ordinary-crimes approach; the assumption being that states without effective laws on international crimes can prosecute on the basis of ordinary crimes. This article assesses the practicality of this approach with regard to the crime of rape in Uganda. Based on this assessment, the author draws a number of conclusions. First, that there are glaring gaps in the Ugandan definition of rape, making it impossible for it to be relied on. Secondly, although national courts have the option to interpret national laws with a view to aligning them with international law, the gaps salient in the definition of ordinary rape are too glaring; they cannot be remedied by way of interpretation without undermining the principle of legality. Thirdly, prosecuting the international crime of rape as an ordinary crime suggests that approaches applicable to the prosecution of ordinary rape will be invoked. Because these approaches were never intended to capture the reality of the international crime of rape, the ordinary-crimes approach remains illusory.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 779-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máximo Langer ◽  
Mackenzie Eason

Abstract Based on an original worldwide survey of all universal jurisdiction complaints over core international crimes presented between 1961 and 2017 and against widespread perception by international criminal law experts that universal jurisdiction is in decline, this article shows that universal jurisdiction practice has been quietly expanding as there has been a significant growth in the number of universal jurisdiction trials, in the frequency with which these trials take place year by year and in the geographical scope of universal jurisdiction litigation. This expansion is likely the result of, among other factors, the adoption of International Criminal Court implementing statutes, the creation of specialized international crimes units by states, institutional learning by states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), technological changes, new migration and refugee waves to universal jurisdiction states, criticisms of international criminal law as neo-colonial and the search of new venues by human rights NGOs. The expansion of universal jurisdiction has been quiet because most tried defendants have been low-level, universal jurisdiction states have not made an effort to publicize these trials and observers have wrongly assumed that Belgium and Spain were representative of universal jurisdiction trends. The article finally assesses positive and negative aspects of the quiet expansion of universal jurisdiction for its defenders and critics.


Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto

This chapter focuses on criminal prosecution. Traditionally, in domestic law, criminal prosecution has been regarded as a tool capable of contributing to peaceful and secure governance. Under international law, however, recourse to criminal prosecution as a safeguard for maintaining international peace and security is very recent and still limited, and in many respects disputed. This is the case both when international rules are applied by international jurisdictions and when they are directed at soliciting the exercise of criminal prosecution by domestic courts. The chapter looks at the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute), which expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the Court ‘shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, and identifies these crimes as the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Given that the ICC Statute does not merely codify customary international law, but also partially develops or restricts it, its adoption has produced some degree of fragmentation of international criminal law, which further impacts on the existing international case law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 296-316
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter looks at the purposes and principles of international criminal law. International criminal law seeks to ensure that perpetrators of certain heinous acts are criminally liable for their acts, either before national or international criminal courts or tribunals. It is a fairly recent addition to international law and it was not until after the end of the Second World War that it became accepted that international law authorizes the criminal prosecution of individual perpetrators of serious offences. The chapter begins by discussing the most important sources of international criminal law. It then examines the prosecution of international crimes before international criminal courts, including the conditions for prosecuting suspected international criminals before the International Criminal Court. It also discusses the national prosecution of international crimes and the obligation found in a number of conventions to criminalize and prosecute certain conduct.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter looks at the purposes and principles of international criminal law. International criminal law seeks to ensure that perpetrators of certain heinous acts are criminally liable for their act, either before national or international criminal courts or tribunals. It is a fairly recent addition to international law and it was not until after the end of the Second World War that it became accepted that international law authorizes the criminal prosecution of individual perpetrators of serious offences. The chapter begins by discussing the most important sources of international criminal law. It then examines the prosecution of international crimes before international criminal courts, including the conditions for prosecuting suspected international criminals before the International Criminal Court. It also discusses the national prosecution of international crimes and the obligation found in a number of conventions to criminalize and prosecute certain conduct.


Author(s):  
Hauck Pierre

At first sight, transnational organised crime (TOC) and international criminal law (ICL) are completely separate: the four ICL core crimes constitute the most heinous crimes, committed by political and military leaders of armed conflicts, whereas TOC as lower-level deviance being committed by private individuals falls short of that. This chapter takes a closer look at this relationship and discovers the lines between these two areas to be blurred: because, as international crimes, they have already been discussed in that context (e.g. while drafting the Rome Statute), and nowadays TOC can even amount to one of the four core crimes de lege lata in individual cases. Apart from that, TOC can also evolve into international crimes de lege ferenda once universal jurisdiction can be established. The chapter concludes that although TOC typically characterizes crime that is different to the four core ICL crimes, both areas approximate greatly in different ways.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document