Immunities of Heads of State in the International Criminal Court - Particularly in the Case against Omar Al Bashir

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terhi Anneli Jyrkkiö
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Heads Of State

scholarly journals Reflections on the Indictment of Sitting Heads of State and Government and Its Consequences for Peace and Stability and Reconciliation in Africa

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Current Concerns

Abstract In these remarks, the author considers the most recent challenge to the application of international criminal justice in Africa: Kenya’s controversial November 2013 proposal to amend the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to temporarily exempt from prosecution sitting presidents accused of involvement with international crimes. He examines several legal and practical reasons why such a proposal is untenable. Instead, citing the principle of complementarity and urging the principled use of judicial and prosecutorial discretion, he contends that much of the African Union’s current concerns about the Kenya Situation can be addressed within the confines of existing Rome Law. This is important because, even if it is possible for African countries to secure amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, African States Parties are unlikely able to secure the global consensus required to effect substantive amendments to the 1998 treaty. On the other hand, the author suggests that the International Criminal Court officials, especially the judges and the chief prosecutor, can help bridge the apparent gap between the Court and its African supporters. Towards that end, they should consider taking a more flexible and more nuanced approach to their interpretations and application of several important provisions contained in their founding statute. Eschewing a one-size fits all approach, it is submitted that each African situation is unique – both in the scope of the problem, and in the solution required in the necessary fight against impunity in Africa.

Burundi crisis will pose risks for the wider region

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Heads Of State

Subject Regional risks posed by the crisis in Burundi. Significance On January 31, the African Union (AU) heads of state voted against deploying a proposed 5,000-strong peacekeeping force to Burundi to quell violence triggered by President Pierre Nkurunziza's successful bid for a third term in office. The decision indicates tacit support by many leaders, some of whom are planning similar bids. Yet they remain concerned for the wider security implications should a full civil war erupt. Impacts Tanzania's new president, John Magufuli, is best placed to lead future peace talks given his strong standing regionally and internationally. If the crisis becomes genocidal, the UNSC may consider extending its DRC peacekeeping mission's mandate to include Burundi. AU opposition to the International Criminal Court means that Nkurunziza is unlikely to face charges if he steps down or is removed.

scholarly journals PROSECUTING PRESIDENT AL BASHIR, AND THE SHORT ARM OF JUSTICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-209
Author(s):  
Suzanne Bullock
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Heads Of State

Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al BashirIn this decision the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) condemned Malawi, as a member state of the ICC, for the failure to comply with the request to arrest and surrender the President of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir. Significantly, the Chamber determined that the traditionally sacrosanct concept of immunity of Heads of State no longer applied before an international court or tribunal. Whilst the intention to create universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity is extremely laudable, the legal reasoning by the Chamber is regrettably unsound. If the decision remains unchallenged, the implication is that no Head of State, whether or not they are a signatory to the ICC, is immune from prosecution on the mere basis of the ICC’s status as an international court.

Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral Re Al-Bashir Appeal (Int'L Crim. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1177-1233
Author(s):  
Thomas Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Third ◽  
Heads Of State

On May 6, 2019, the Appeals Chamber (AC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its judgment in Jordan's appeal of the December 11, 2017 decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) in Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir. The first and second grounds of appeal concerned whether Jordan had complied with its duty to cooperate with the request of the Court to arrest and surrender Al-Bashir. The third ground of appeal concerned whether the PTC abused its discretion in referring Jordan's noncompliance to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Prior to the judgment, ICC PTCs had created divergent jurisprudence regarding the immunity of incumbent heads of state before international courts.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh ◽  
Ilias Bantekas
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship

Africa has been at the forefront of contemporary global efforts towards ensuring greater accountability for international crimes. 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. Topics examined include Africa, the ICC, and universal jurisdiction; the controversial use of the Prosecutor’s proprio motu power to initiate investigations in Africa; national implementation of the ICC statute in Africa; the complementarity principle; the sequencing of justice and peace; the question of immunity of sitting heads of state; the controversial role of the UN Security Council in referring and deferring situations under ICC investigation; the role of African domestic and traditional courts in the fight against impunity; and the recent withdrawal of some African states parties from the ICC.

Claiming Equality: The African Union's Contestation of the Anti-Impunity Norm

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuna Han ◽  
Sophie T Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Normative Significance ◽  
Droit International ◽  
Heads Of State

Abstract By examining the African Union (AU)’s contestation of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s cases against former or sitting Heads of State (HoS), this article analyzes how the AU's contestation of the anti-impunity norm varies in its normative significance, despite its unified focus on the issue of sovereign immunity. It presents a novel conceptualization of the norm, showing how it is comprised of three principles of equality: individual legal equality under international criminal law; sovereign state equality under international law; and equality of accountability in international criminal justice. Applying this analytical framework to the cases against Al Bashir, Kenyatta, and Gbagbo, the article argues that the norm inherently entails negotiation between divergent claims of equality. Highlighting how the balance between the equality principles results in different normative significance of sovereign immunity, the article shows how contestation of the anti-impunity norm should be seen as contestation among different meanings of the norm itself. Mediante la revisión de la contestación por parte de la Unión Africana (UA) de los casos contra ex jefes de estado o jefes de estado en ejercicio del Tribunal Penal Internacional (International Criminal Court, ICC), en este artículo se analiza cómo la contestación de la norma contra la impunidad por parte de la UA varía en cuanto a sus significados normativos, a pesar de su énfasis unificado en el problema de la inmunidad soberana. Presenta una conceptualización innovadora de la norma, que demuestra la forma en la que está compuesta por tres principios de igualdad: igualdad individual ante la ley, conforme al derecho penal internacional; igualdad soberana de los estados conforme al derecho internacional; e igualdad de responsabilidad en la justicia penal internacional. Mediante la aplicación de este marco analítico a los casos en contra de Al Bashir, Kenyatta y Gbagbo, en el artículo se sostiene que la norma supone intrínsecamente la negociación entre demandas divergentes de igualdad. En el artículo se muestra cómo la contestación de la norma contra la impunidad debería verse como la contestación en contra de diferentes significados de la norma propia destacando cómo el equilibrio entre los principios de igualdad dan como resultado distintos significados normativos de inmunidad soberana. Cet article étudie la contestation par l'Union africaine (UA) des poursuites engagées par la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) contre d'anciens chefs d’État ou des chefs d’État encore au pouvoir afin d'analyser la manière dont la signification normative de la contestation de la norme de lutte contre l'impunité de l'UA varie malgré l'accent unifié porté sur la question de l'immunité souveraine. Il présente une conceptualisation inédite de la norme en montrant qu'elle est composée de trois principes d’égalité: Égalité juridique individuelle en vertu du droit pénal international, Égalité des États souverains en vertu du droit international, et Égalité de responsabilité devant la justice pénale internationale. Cet article applique ce cadre analytique aux cas d'Al Bashir, de Kenyatta et de Gbagbo pour soutenir que la norme implique intrinsèquement une négociation entre des revendications d’égalité divergentes. Il souligne la façon dont l’équilibre entre les principes d’égalité entraîne une signification normative différente de l'immunité souveraine pour montrer en quoi la contestation de la norme de lutte contre l'impunité doit être considérée comme une contestation des différentes significations de la norme en elle-même.

The Concept of Hybrid Courts Revisited: The Case of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Heads Of State

The article analyses and criticizes the concept of hybrid courts. The main proposition is that the concept of hybrid courts is unclear and that there are no clear criteria which would provide guidance for establishing if a judicial body is a hybrid court or not. The idea of hybrid courts is conceptually misleading because it creates the perception that hybrid courts are a separate institutional category different from international and domestic criminal courts. The author argues that the concept of hybrid courts should therefore be abandoned in favour of clearer criteria which distinguish between international and domestic courts. Analysing the Kosovo Specialist Chambers from this perspective, the author argues that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are an international criminal court and not a domestic court which has legal implications, such as concerning immunity of heads of state.

New AU chair shows regional dynamics will persist

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Body ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Political Crises ◽  
Regional Dynamics ◽  
Regional Competition ◽  
Heads Of State

Significance The AU Commission is effectively the secretariat of the AU. It has significantly less influence than the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, which determines AU policy and is currently headed by Guinean President Alpha Conde. However, the AU Commission plays an important role in shaping the rhetorical focus of the body and has the potential to draw attention to continental challenges. The position is also symbolically important -- competition for the post is fierce -- and highlights the ongoing battle for supremacy between different regional blocs. Impacts Regional competition will obstruct the cohesiveness of the AU. Multiple political crises on the continent will persist this year, challenging the AU’s efficacy. Statements of collective animosity toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) will not prompt a mass withdrawal. Faki will try to re-build bridges with Kenya and Senegal, whose candidates failed in bids for the Chair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document