Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007-1013
Author(s):  
Manuel J. Ventura
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Sensitive Issue ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
First Time

On July 6, 2017, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (the Court or ICC)—composed of Judges Tarfusser, Perrin de Brichambaut, and Chung—held that South Africa violated the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) by failing to arrest and surrender to the Court President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan when he visited the country in June 2015. However, the Court did not refer the matter to the ICC Assembly of States Parties (ASP) or the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute. The decision added South Africa to a list of ICC state parties that have failed in their Rome Statute obligations with respect to the incumbent head of state of Sudan. It also marked the first time that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), all ICC states parties, and the United Nations (UN) were invited to present their views and argue fully what is perhaps the most legally contentious and politically sensitive issue that the ICC has faced in its history.

Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir: Decision Under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Non-Compliance by South Africa with the Request by the Court for the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Al-Bashir (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1061-1090
Author(s):  
Max du Plessis
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South African ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The United Nations

The ICC considered two central questions: First, whether South Africa failed to comply with its obligations under the statute by not arresting and surrendering Al-Bashir to the Court while he was in South African territory despite having received a request from the ICC under Articles 87 and 89 of the Statute for his arrest and surrender. Second, whether a formal finding of noncompliance by South Africa in this respect and referral of the matter to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute or to the United Nations Security Council are warranted.

scholarly journals Referrals to the International Criminal Court Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and the Immunity of Foreign State Officials

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Government ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
To Receive

This contribution explores the implications of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referrals under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the immunity ratione personae of officials of states that are not party to the ICC Statute. While Article 13(b) of the ICC Statute allows the ICC to receive referrals of situations by the UNSC, disagreement remains among authors as to when such a referral removes the customary immunity attached to a head of state of a nonstate party to the ICC Statute. In particular, it remains disputed whether the broad obligation placed on Sudan by UNSC Resolution 1593 (2005) had the implicit effect of doing so. In referring the situation in Darfur (Sudan) to the ICC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UNSC determined that “the government of Sudan, and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur, shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the prosecutor pursuant to this resolution.”

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court and Non-Party States

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations

Although more than half of the States in the world are parties tothe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, morethan eighty have yet to ratify. The article considers the relationshipof the Court with these non-party States. It examines theexercise of jurisdiction over their nationals, arguing that internationallaw immunities continue in force despite the terms ofthe Statute. Declarations of jurisdiction by non-party States arealso studied, including the declaration formulated by the PalestinianAuthority with respect to Gaza in January 2009. NonpartyStates may be asked to cooperate with the Court and, whereso ordered by the United Nations Security Council, they may berequired to do this.Quoique plus de la moitié des États du monde soient Partiesau Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale, plus dequatre-vingt d’entre eux ne l’ont pas encore ratifié. Cet articleconsidère le rapport de la Cour avec ces États qui n’y sont pasParties. Il examine l’exercice de sa compétence à l’égard de leursressortissants, soutenant que les immunités du droit internationaldemeurent en vigueur malgré la teneur du Statut. L’article étudieaussi les déclarations de compétence d’États qui ne sont pas Partiesau Statut, y compris la déclaration formulée par l’Autorité palestinienneen rapport à Gaza en janvier 2009. On peut demanderaux États qui ne sont pas Parties au Statut de coopérer avec laCour, et, lorsque cela est ordonné par le Conseil de Sécurité desNations Unies, il peut être exigé qu’ils le fassent.

The Amendments to the Regulations of the Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-505
Author(s):  
Eleni Chaitidou
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
State Party ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract This article presents and critically discusses the amendments to the Regulations of the International Criminal Court that entered into force in November 2018. The amendments concern the procedural requirements to start an investigation regarding the crime of aggression when a situation has been referred to the Court by a State Party or when the Prosecutor intends to open an investigation proprio motu. In these cases, the Prosecutor must notify the United Nations Security Council and enquire whether it intends to make a determination of an act of aggression. If the Security Council does not make such a determination, the Prosecutor must request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the commencement of the investigation. The amended Regulations aim to ensure that the judges are prepared to entertain such a request relating to the crime of aggression.

Political Change in Rhodesia: The South Africa Factor

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Philip E. Chartrand
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Political Change ◽  
The South ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Liberation Movements ◽  
Minority Regime ◽  
Near Future ◽  
First Time

In December 1974, Ian Smith, the leader of the white minority regime in Rhodesia, announced for the first time since declaring his country’s independence from Britain in 1965 that his government was willing to begin direct negotiations with the African liberation movements seeking to achieve majority rule in Rhodesia. The prospect of such talks leading to an end to guerrilla fighting in Rhodesia and a termination of the United Nations authorized sanctions against the illegal Smith regime is dimmed by the fact that the Africans demand African rule for Rhodesia in the near future if not immediately, while Smith and his supporters have refused to consider such a development “in his lifetime.” Still the announcement constituted a step forward which few informed observers would have deemed likely even a few weeks before.

Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.126 Entry into force/Entrée en vigueur

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter comments on Article 126 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 126 deals with the entry into force of the Rome Statute. The Statute entered into force on the first day of the month after the sixtieth day following the date of the deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that is, on July 1, 2002. For States that ratify, accept, approve, or accede after the entry into force of the Statute, it will enter into force for them on the first day of the month after the sixtieth day following the deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession.

Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.127 Withdrawal/Retrait

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
State Party ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
One Year

This chapter comments on Article 127 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 127 addresses the withdrawal of a State Party from this Statute. A State may withdraw from the Rome Statute by providing a written notification to the depositary, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The withdrawal takes effect one year after receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General, unless a later date is specified. There have been no notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The Statute does not indicate whether a notice of withdrawal can itself be withdrawn, thereby returning the State to ordinary status as a Party. Withdrawal does not affect the continuation of the Statute with respect to other States Parties, even if the number of them falls below the threshold of sixty.

Cooperation Between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-246
Author(s):  
Tamara Cummings-John
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Judicial Assistance ◽  
The Relationship

As contemplated by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), the United Nations and the Court entered into a Relationship Agreement in 2004. The Relationship Agreement provides a framework for cooperation between the United Nations and the Court, including through logistical or administrative support to the Court, in particular in countries where the Prosecutor has opened investigations or is conducting preliminary examinations. The United Nations also provides substantive support and judicial assistance to the Court’s organs, in particular to the Prosecutor, but also increasingly now to the Defence, by making available documents and information generated or obtained by the United Nations and its various field presences. United Nations staff and experts have also been made available to the Court for interview and some have testified before the Court, for which the United Nations Secretary-General has to waive their immunity. This commentary provides an update on recent developments in two areas of cooperation between the United Nations and the court: information sharing, and contact with persons subject to warrants or summonses.

The International Criminal Court and the Warrant of Arrest for Sudan's President Al-Bashir: A Crucial Step Towards Challenging Impunity or a Political Decision?

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

AbstractOn 4 March 2009 the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the president of Sudan, is criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute as an indirect (co)perpetrator for war crimes and crimes against humanity (but not for genocide). The Chamber issued a warrant for the arrest of Al Bashir making him the third sitting head of state to be charged by an international court following Liberia's Charles Taylor and Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milošević. Since then the ICC has been accused of making a "political decision" and that it is "part of a new mechanism of neo-colonialism". This article examines the ICC's decision against the background of the situation in Darfur. The article concludes that although the ICC decision and warrant cannot be considered political and neo-colonial in nature, the decision and warrant can be criticised as selective. It calls on the ICC to broaden its scope of investigations and for the international community to affirm its support for the ICC and insist that Sudan and other states cooperate fully as required by the United Nations Security Council.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document