A Single Comment — Permalink
© ICCforum.com, 2010–2024. All rights reserved. Policies | Guidelines
Featured Comments
- danterzian: The Peace and Justice Initiative argues that customary international law lifts Head of State immunity in cases of international crimes before international tribunals. I disagree. I do not believe they make a persuasive argument for the existence of this customary international law. Establishing a customary international law requires a widespread state practice that is undertaken out of a sense of legal obligation. Thus, since customary international law is based on state practice, the... (more)
- Scott McDonald: I agree with the argument that the nexus between U.N.S.C. 1593 and membership in the Genocide Convention means that Sudan and other Contracting Parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC in this instance. However, this argument only utilizes half of the rationale present in the Bosnia Genocide case. By focusing solely on the obligation to punish created by the Convention, you are ignoring the obligation to prevent genocide that was also highlighted by the ICJ. While there are... (more)
- Peace and Justice... Introduction The current Sudanese President, Omar Al-Bashir, is subject to two outstanding arrest warrants issued by the ICC. The first warrant includes charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, arising from the atrocities that have occurred in Darfur over recent years. The second warrant includes charges of genocide, also in relation to Darfur.1 The issuance of these warrants raises the question of whether States are obliged to arrest... (more)
- Cecilia: Although Ivory Coast is not a state party to the Rome Statute, the ICC may establish its jurisdiction to investigate the alleged human rights violation that occurred after the 2010 presidential election. Article 12.3 of the Rome Statute provides in relevant part: “If the acceptance of a State in which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph the State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of... (more)
- Cardon: Without grappling with the whole of your comment, I’ll just address your contention that the Prosecutor must maintain a presumption of innocence pursuant to Article 66 (not Article 64) of the ICC Statute. That’s a novel idea! Prosecutors are tasked with building a case against a suspect/defendant. A prosecutor has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused. It’s hard to see how they could do so while maintaining a presumption of innocence.... (more)
- alk1668: Important facts about the situation in Cote D’ Ivoire. “Some lawyers close to the International Criminal Court (ICC) rebelled against the words of the Prosecutor at the ICC.” We are a group of lawyers near the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), based in Arusha, Tanzania, and also near the International Criminal Court based in The Hague in the Netherlands... (more)
- davidlee211: The AU decision to not arrest or surrender Al Bashir in accordance with an ICC order does not override or suspend existing obligations of ICC States Parties under the Rome Statute. Therefore, ICC States Parties are obligated to cooperate with the ICC. The African Union (“AU”) has the legal competence to require AU members to not cooperate with the International Criminal Court (“ICC... (more)
- JJ Paust: With respect to non-immunity of sitting or former heads of state or officials under international law, our casebook notes the prosecution of Conradin von Hohenstafen in 1268, Peter von Hagenbach in 1474, the “trial” by an int’l congress of Napoleon in 1818 (punishment = exile), the indictment in absentia of Kaiser Wilhelm in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the 1919 Responsibilities Commission Report recognizing head of state responsibility, the dicta in the U.S.... (more)
- G. L.: I. Introduction: Currently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against President Omar Al Bashir faces the reality that no incumbent head of state has ever been arrested and prosecuted by an international tribunal, at least in part due to the well-established principle of head of state immunity. In analyzing the justifications and development of immunities under international law, I will argue that immunity does not protect Al Bashir... (more)
- JJ Paust: Under Article IV of the Genocide Convention, there is absolutely no immunity for any person of any present or past status—especially a sitting ruler or official—and the same holds true with respect to any other international criminal instrument. For example, there is absolutely no immunity for a head of state or official under Article 27 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Clearly, the preamble to the Rome Statute is also relevant when it... (more)
Comment on the Darfur Question: “What are the obligations of Contracting Parties to the Genocide Convention to implement arrest warrants for genocide issued by the ICC, and of African Union State Parties to implement ICC arrest warrants generally?”
With respect to non-immunity of sitting or former heads of state or officials under international law, our casebook notes the prosecution of Conradin von Hohenstafen in 1268, Peter von Hagenbach in 1474, the “trial” by an int’l congress of Napoleon in 1818 (punishment = exile), the indictment in absentia of Kaiser Wilhelm in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the 1919 Responsibilities Commission Report recognizing head of state responsibility, the dicta in the U.S. Supreme Court case The Santissima Trinidad about a prince who violates the law of nations being amenable to trial (as well as Berg v. British and African Steam Navigation Co. and U.S. v. Eisentrager [no form of immunity exists for violations of Geneva law]), the Opinion and Judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg recognizing that immunity of diplomats and others for ordinary crimes does not pertain with respect to crimes under international law and that the state cannot delegate an authority that it does not posses to violate international law, the French case of Abetz (prosecution of a diplomat for international crime (and the ultra vires rationale behind it), the 1950 Nuremberg Principles adopted by the U.N. G.A. and which reflect customary international law, the decision in The Prosecutor v. Milosevic that customary international law denies immunity of a head of state for international crime, the U.S. civil trial against Marcos, the U.S. prosecution for international drug trafficking of a sitting (or crouching) head of state Noriega, the sensible recognitions of some of the Lords in the UK decision in Pinochet (and those that were simply made up, citing nothing, sometimes using Latin phrases that appear in no international criminal instruments), the many international criminal law instruments that expressly reach any person (some of which also expressly deny any limitation of responsibility to heads of state or public officials—including the Rome Statute of the ICC), and so forth.
What international criminal law instrument grants immunity to a sitting head of state or official for international crimes (as opposed to ordinary offenses under domestic law as in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity)? What international criminal tribunal from 1474 onwards has ruled that a head of state or official is immune from prosecution for violations of international criminal law?
A large number of U.S. cases have also recognized that there is no immunity from civil suit with respect to international crimes—see, e.g., here & here.
A French court responded to a British adage that the King can do no wrong (the Brits and some British trained have seemingly always had trouble with such) by noting that not only can a King do wrong but a King has power to do more wrong than others!