During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law.
There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU)
The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.
Anotace v angličtině
During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law.
There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU)
The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.
Klíčová slova
immunity, immunity of head of states, ICC, Africa
Klíčová slova v angličtině
immunity, immunity of head of states, ICC, Africa
Rozsah průvodní práce
-
Jazyk
AN
Anotace
During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law.
There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU)
The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.
Anotace v angličtině
During a long period of time, many states have failed to investigate and prosecute their own officials and agents accused to be the perpetrators of a serious international crimes.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in July 2002, it was an important moment in international criminal justice and the African region was one of the main actors of the realization of this court. The Court's mandate is to try those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
With the establishment of a permanent international criminal court the possibility has given to hold perpetrators of serious violations of human rights rather crimes under international law. With the creation of the international criminal court, the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty has been the subject of a very heated debate on whether states officials should be held responsible before an international court for international crimes committed while in office. This debate concerns the contradiction between two branches of international law. The first one is concerning the importance of immunity in international relations; it comes from notions of sovereign equality between states, and it is one of the main principles of the international law. On the second hand, we have those newer principles that focused on humanitarian values and consider certain kind of conduct as crimes under international law.
There is a real conflict between the different legal rules, which does not facilitate to understand the legal position, and this leads some authors to assert that the court while dealing with the issues of immunities ignores the fundamental rules of international law. Surprisingly all those accused by the ICC came from Africa, this fact has created a lot of speculation and particularly the court endeavors to prosecute African heads of states has created a real tension between the ICC and the African Union (AU)
The result of this paper shows that the ICC has dealt the issue of immunity in a manner that has strained its relationship with African states, and African Union. The argument provided by the court concerning immunity of heads of state who are not signatories of the Rome Statute was not convincing and as a result, the court has lost its authority in Africa. This fact continues to threaten states to ratify the Rome statute and it gives an opportunity to some member states to withdraw from the organization.
Klíčová slova
immunity, immunity of head of states, ICC, Africa
Klíčová slova v angličtině
immunity, immunity of head of states, ICC, Africa
Zásady pro vypracování
The main purpose of this thesis is to examine the application of international immunities in criminal proceedings, to provide a detailed explanation of the general rules of international law concerning immunity to clarify and simplify the controversies. From this perspective, it should be noted that only the parties to the ICC Statute have waived the immunities under international law (ratione personae) of their senior officials.
Although the Court can also exercise jurisdiction over nationals and officials of non-parties but in the current statute, there is no clear provision that can waive the immunities of those officials of non-parties. Particularly, article 98 of the Statute constitutes a clear message to the court and to parties to the ICC not to interfere with officials of non-parties who generally enjoy immunity under international law.
Zásady pro vypracování
The main purpose of this thesis is to examine the application of international immunities in criminal proceedings, to provide a detailed explanation of the general rules of international law concerning immunity to clarify and simplify the controversies. From this perspective, it should be noted that only the parties to the ICC Statute have waived the immunities under international law (ratione personae) of their senior officials.
Although the Court can also exercise jurisdiction over nationals and officials of non-parties but in the current statute, there is no clear provision that can waive the immunities of those officials of non-parties. Particularly, article 98 of the Statute constitutes a clear message to the court and to parties to the ICC not to interfere with officials of non-parties who generally enjoy immunity under international law.
Seznam doporučené literatury
Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces, June 19,1951, [hereinafter NATO SOFA].
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Jan. 19 & Apr. 26, 1946.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946.
European Convention on Extradition, Dec. 13, 1957.
International Criminal Court Act, 2002.
Military Technical Agreement Between the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Interim Administration of Afghanistan, Jan. 4, 2002.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oct. 24, 1945.
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, (1994).
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, (1993).
United Nations Convention on Special Missions, Dec. 8,1969.
United Nations, Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), 24 October 1945.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, [hereinafter VCCR].
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, [hereinafter VCDR].
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, [hereinafter VCLT].
Books
BROOMHALL , BRUCE, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: BETWEEN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RULE OF LAW (2003).
BYERS ,MICHAEL, CUSTOM, POWER AND THE POWER OF RULES: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW 19 (1999).
Cassese ,Antonio , International Criminal Law, in International Law 720 (Malcolm D.Evans ed., 2003).
Crawford , James, International Law Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions, 1983 BRIT. Y.B INT' LL 75.
CRAWFORD ,JAMES, SANDS, PHILIPPE, & WILDE, RALPH, IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND IN THE MATTER OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS SOUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 98(2) OF THE STATUTE (June 5, 2003).
DENZA, EILEEN , DIPLOMATIC LAW (1998).
FOX, HAZEL, THE LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY (2002).
MALANCZUK AKEHURST'S ,PETER, MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 118 (7th ed. 1997).
Salvatore Zappala, The Reaction of the US to the Entry into Force of the ICC Statute: Comments on UNSC Resolution 1422 (2002) and Article 98 Agreements, 1 J. INT'L CRIM.JUST. 114 (2003).
Sarooshi, Danesh, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the UN Security Council of its Chapter VII Powers (2000).
SCHABAS, A.WILLIAM, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 92 (2001).
Tomonori , Mizushima, The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct, 29 DENV.J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 261 (2001).
Watts, Arthur, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers, 247 RECUEIL DES COURS 13 (1994 III); C. A.
Wirth ,Steffen, Immunities, Related Problems, and Article 98 of the Rome Statute, 12 CRIM. L.F. 429, 452-54 (2001).
Journal Articles
Akande, Dapo ,The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits, 1J. INT'L CRIM.JUST. 618, 628-31 (2003).
Akande, Dapo, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court ,The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Jul., 2004).
Asad G. Kiyani, Al-Bashir & the ICC: The Problem of Head of State Immunity, 2013 Published by Oxford University.
Tunks, A.Michael ,Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity, 52 DUKE LJ. 651, 656 (2002).
CASES
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.).
Asylum Case (Colom. v. Peru), 1950 I.C.J. 266, 276-77 (Nov. 20).
Case Concerning Armed Activities on The Territory of The Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Decision of 19 December 2005.
Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation, 12 EUR.J. INT'L L. 595 (2001).
Lockerbie case (Libya v UK), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 1992.
Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicar. v. U.S.)
Seznam doporučené literatury
Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces, June 19,1951, [hereinafter NATO SOFA].
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Jan. 19 & Apr. 26, 1946.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946.
European Convention on Extradition, Dec. 13, 1957.
International Criminal Court Act, 2002.
Military Technical Agreement Between the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Interim Administration of Afghanistan, Jan. 4, 2002.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oct. 24, 1945.
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, (1994).
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, (1993).
United Nations Convention on Special Missions, Dec. 8,1969.
United Nations, Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), 24 October 1945.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, [hereinafter VCCR].
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, [hereinafter VCDR].
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, [hereinafter VCLT].
Books
BROOMHALL , BRUCE, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: BETWEEN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RULE OF LAW (2003).
BYERS ,MICHAEL, CUSTOM, POWER AND THE POWER OF RULES: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW 19 (1999).
Cassese ,Antonio , International Criminal Law, in International Law 720 (Malcolm D.Evans ed., 2003).
Crawford , James, International Law Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions, 1983 BRIT. Y.B INT' LL 75.
CRAWFORD ,JAMES, SANDS, PHILIPPE, & WILDE, RALPH, IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND IN THE MATTER OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS SOUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 98(2) OF THE STATUTE (June 5, 2003).
DENZA, EILEEN , DIPLOMATIC LAW (1998).
FOX, HAZEL, THE LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY (2002).
MALANCZUK AKEHURST'S ,PETER, MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 118 (7th ed. 1997).
Salvatore Zappala, The Reaction of the US to the Entry into Force of the ICC Statute: Comments on UNSC Resolution 1422 (2002) and Article 98 Agreements, 1 J. INT'L CRIM.JUST. 114 (2003).
Sarooshi, Danesh, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the UN Security Council of its Chapter VII Powers (2000).
SCHABAS, A.WILLIAM, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 92 (2001).
Tomonori , Mizushima, The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct, 29 DENV.J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 261 (2001).
Watts, Arthur, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers, 247 RECUEIL DES COURS 13 (1994 III); C. A.
Wirth ,Steffen, Immunities, Related Problems, and Article 98 of the Rome Statute, 12 CRIM. L.F. 429, 452-54 (2001).
Journal Articles
Akande, Dapo ,The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits, 1J. INT'L CRIM.JUST. 618, 628-31 (2003).
Akande, Dapo, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court ,The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Jul., 2004).
Asad G. Kiyani, Al-Bashir & the ICC: The Problem of Head of State Immunity, 2013 Published by Oxford University.
Tunks, A.Michael ,Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity, 52 DUKE LJ. 651, 656 (2002).
CASES
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.).
Asylum Case (Colom. v. Peru), 1950 I.C.J. 266, 276-77 (Nov. 20).
Case Concerning Armed Activities on The Territory of The Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Decision of 19 December 2005.
Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation, 12 EUR.J. INT'L L. 595 (2001).
Lockerbie case (Libya v UK), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 1992.
Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicar. v. U.S.)