Immunities, related problems, and article 98 of the Rome Statute

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 429-458

  Wirth, Steffen ^a,b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW   (Germany)

^c Section International Criminal Law   (Germany)

^d Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645382545     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016191426741     Document Type: Article

References (143)

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9. The International Criminal Court will be established following the deposit of the sixtieth ratification, something which is expected during the year 2002.
2. Although aggression is also a core crime under article 5 of the Statute, its elements are not yet defined in the Statute. Until such definition is achieved, the International Criminal Court cannot prosecute the crime.
3. However, treaties like the European Convention on State Immunity, E.T.S. No. 74, and statutes, like the United Kingdom State Immunity Act of 1977, 18 I.L.M. 1132, and the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. ss. 1330, 1602-1611, regarding state immunity are not covered.
4. Due to restrictions of space, the history and the contentious question of the scope of Rule 195(2) of the Draft Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/ INF3/Add. 1 is not discussed. See the paper of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court - German Committee (CICC.DE), "The Legality of the Proposed 'Supplemental Document to the UN-ICC Relationship Agreement' under International Law", available at 〈http://www.iccnow. org/html/n.g.o.html〉;
5. Carsten Stahn, 60 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VÖLKERRECHT 631 (2000).
6. Bartolus, quoted in Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, UNIVERSELLES VÖLKERRECHT. THEORIE UND PRAXIS 763, §1168 (3rd edn., 1984); also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon et al., 11 U.S. 116, 137.
7. For a short overview see Rudolf Geiger, GRUNDGESETZ UND VÖLKERRECHT 338 et seq. (2nd edn., 1994);
8. see also Burkhard Heß, STAATENIMMUNITÄT BEI DISTANZDELIKTEN 29 et seq. (1992).
9. On this doctrine, see Steffen Wirth, Staatenimmunität für Internationale Verbrechen - das zweite Pinochet Urteil des House of Lords, 22 JURISTISCHE AUSBILDUNG 70, 72-73 (2000), with further references.
10. On the scope of national jurisdiction, see Ian Brownlie, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 302 (5th edn., 1998);
11. Karl Doehring, VÖLKERRECHT nos. 808-826 (1999).
12. Kai Ambos, Der Fall Pinochet und das anwendbare Recht, 54 JURISTENZEITUNG 16, 21, 23 (1999).
13. Kai Ambos, JURISTENZEITUNG Ibid., p. 23.
14. Ian Brownlie, supra note 8, p. 329; also Schooner Exchange, supra note 5, pp. 136-137.
15. Even if it is not clear that no war crimes were committed by the NATO forces during the Kosovo bombing, the war crimes trial held in Belgrade in autumn 2000 against heads of state and NATO officials remains highly questionable (SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, 19 September 2000, p. 7, 22 September 2000, p. 8).
16. On the different forms of jurisdiction, see Ian Brownlie, supra note 8, p. 301; I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE 341 et seq., §109 (Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, 9th edn., 1992); Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, supra note 5, pp. 762 et seq., §§1168 et seq.
17. Ian Brownlie, supra note 8, pp. 343-344.
18. I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE, supra note 13, p. 346, §109); Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, supra note 5, p. 773, §1177.
19. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet (1999) 2 W.L.R. 827, 38 I.L.M. 430 (H.L.), pp. 880-881, 889 (W.L.R.). See, however, the opinion of Lord Hutton, ibid., p. 899.
20. Monika Lüke, IMMUNITÄT STAATLICHER FUNKTIONSTRÄGER 91 et seq. (2000); Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, supra note 5, pp. 641-642, §1027.
21. I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE, supra note 13, pp. 1043-1044, §456.
22. See R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 921.
23. I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE, supra note 13, p. 1042, §455.
24. On the question of international tribunals charging sitting heads of state (such as Milosevic) see below.
25. Kay Hailbronner in III VÖLKERRECHT margin no. 76 (Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum, ed., 1997);
26. on the development of the law, see Sir Ian Sinclair, The Law of Sovereign Immunity. Recent Developements [1980] II RECUEIL DES COURS 113, 121 et seq.;
27. also Shobha Varughese George, Head of State Immunity in the United States Courts: Still Confused after all these Years, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1051 (1995), 1056 et seq.
28. Bundesverfassungsgericht Decision of 30 April 1963 (Iranian Embassy) - 2 BvM 1/62, 16 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 27, 33-61 (1964); Christian Tomuschat, Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property. The Draft Convention of the International Law Commission, in Law of Nations. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. WORLD'S ECONOMIC LAW. LIBER AMICORUM HONOURING IGNAZ SEIDL-HOHENVELDERN 603, 604 (Gerhard Hafner, ed., 1988);
29. Rudolf Geiger, Staatenimmunität: Grundsatz und Ausnahme, 40 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 1124 (1987), p. 1125;
30. Knut Ipsen, VÖLKERRECHT §26 margin number. 17 et seq. (3rd edn., 1990);
31. Shobha Varughese George, VÖLKERRECHT ibid., p. 1057.
32. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
33. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1950) 75 U.N.T.S. 31;
34. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (1950) 75 U.N.T.S. 85;
35. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1950) 75 U.N.T.S. 135;
36. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians (1950) 75 U.N.T.S. 287;
37. Protocol Additional I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to The Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1979) 1125 U.N.T.S. 3;
38. Protocol Additional II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Relating to The Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (1979) 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.
39. Michael Akehurst, Custom as a Source of International Law, 47 BRITISH Y. B. INT'L L. 1,10 (1974-1975).
40. See for example Lord Hutton, in R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 898; Lord Saville, ibid., p. 902; Lord Millet, ibid., p. 913; Lord Phillips, ibid., pp. 915-916.
41. The crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the Torture Convention has a greater scope than the crime against humanity of torture, because the Convention also comprises isolated acts of torture whereas crimes against humanity can be committed only in the context of a widespread and systematic attack (Rome Statute, supra note 1, art. 7).
42. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 847 (per Lord Browne-Wilkinson); Lord Saville, ibid., pp. 903-904. For a summary see Steffen Wirth, supra note 7, p. 75.
43. Ibid. Because immunity ratione personae is available only to very few state officials this argument could not be opposed to the Law Lords opinion that the Torture Convention is not incompatible with the availability of immunity ratione personae for acts of torture.
44. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1456, 37 I.L.M. 1302 (H.L.). The decision was invalidated because one of the judges was deemed to have lacked the appearance of impartiality.
45. Ibid., p. 1475 (per Lord Slynn).
46. Ibid., p. 1477.
47. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 882 (per Lord Hope).
48. Ibid., p. 887.
49. Ibid., pp. 886-887 (emphasis added).
50. He is most probably referring to war crimes and crimes against humanity which, as he states earlier in his opinion "have been separated out from the generality of conduct which customary international law has come to regard as criminal"; ibid., p. 881.
51. Ibid., pp. 895-899 (per Lord Hutton).
52. Lord Hutton cited, inter alia, article 7 of the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind of the International law Commission (available at 〈www.un.org/law/ilc/convents.htm〉) and article 27 of the Rome Statute, supra note 1.
53. Ibid., p. 897 (per Lord Hutton) (emphasis added).
54. Ibid., p. 913 (emphasis added).
55. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg in Knut Ipsen, supra note 23, §15 margin number 51; for a detailed analysis see: Lauri Hannikainen, PEREMPTORY NORMS (lus COGENS) IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, CRITERIA, PRESENT STATUS 429 et seq. (1988).
56. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 914 (per Lord Millet).
57. Ibid., p. 917 et seq. (per Lord Phillips).
58. Ibid., p. 923.
59. Ibid., p. 924.
60. Ibid., p. 925.
61. The reason why immunity for murder - a crime against humanity, if committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack - was not given much attention in the judgment can be found in the extradition law of the United Kingdom. Spain requested the extradition of Pinochet for murder on the grounds that the victims were Spanish citizens under the so called passive personality principle. However, unlike Spain, the United Kingdom does not prosecute under the passive personality principle; i.e., if Pinochet (or any other foreigner) had murdered United Kingdom citizens abroad, the courts of the United Kingdom would not have jurisdiction to prosecute. As a consequence the double criminality requirement of the United Kingdom's 1989 Extradition Act was not met with regard to the charges of murder, and the issue of immunities did not arise. Lord Hope stated: "None of the other charges which are made against him are extradition crimes for which, even if he had no immunity, he could be extradited" (ibid., p. 887, per Lord Hope). See also Jamison G. White, Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide: Augusto Pinochet, Universal Jurisdiction, the ICC and a Wake-Up Call for Former Heads of State, 50 CASE WESTERN RESERVE L. REV. 127 (1999), fn. 222 and accompanying text.
62. Albert Bleckmann, Zur Feststellung und Auslegung von Vö lkergewohnheitsrecht, 37 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VÖLKERRECHT 504 (1977), p. 505.
63. Schooner Exchange, supra note 5, Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897);
64. Reichsgericht, Judgment of 12 December 1905 - Rep. 2 193/5, 12 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen, 165;
65. Bundesverfassungsgericht (Iranian Embassy), supra note 23;
66. Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 26 September 1978 (Scotland Yard) - VI ZR 267/76, 32, 32 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1101 (1979).
67. On the Swiss practice, see: Jörg Paul Müller and Luzius Wildhaber, PRAXIS DES VÖLKERRECHTS, 447-462 (3rd edn., 2001).
68. Siderman de Blake et al. v. Republic of Argentina et al., 965 F.2d 699, 714. However, in this case Argentina was held to have waived its immunity with respect to the Sidermans' claims of torture as it previously had availed itself of United States courts in proceedings against the Sidermans, ibid., pp. 720-722); Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait et al., 103 I.L.R. 420 (1996) (England, High Court, Queen's Bench Division).
69. Underhill v. Hernandez, supra note 50, p. 252.
70. What happens if a court is aware of the matter but sees no need to pronounce on it has been demonstrated recently by a German court which left the question expressly open, Oberlandesgericht Köln, decision of 15 May 2000 - 2 Zs 1330/99, 20 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT 667 (2000).
71. The most recent is the decision of the Cour de Cassation of 13 March 2001 in the case of Ghaddafi, the current head of state of Libya (unpublished, text on file with the author). The Court held that a sitting head of state could not be charged with terrorism.
72. He was acquitted for reasons unrelated to the matter of immunity.
73. Lord Phillips did not deal with the McLeod case. For a description of the case see: Sir Robert Jennings, 32 AM. J. INT'L L. 82 (1938), p. 92 et seq.;
74. for a summary and the quotation reproduced above see; I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE, supra note 13, p. 1158, §558), note 12.
75. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 924 (per Lord Phillips).
76. Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 14 December 1984 - 2 ARs 252/84, 33 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen, 97.
77. Oberlandesgericht Köln, decision of 15 May 2000, supra note 53, p. 667.
78. Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 14 December 1984, supra note 58, p. 98;
79. Oberlandesgericht Köln, decision of 15 May 2000, supra note 53, pp. 886-868.
80. Oberlandesgericht Köln, decision of 15 May 2000, supra note 53, pp. 667-668.
81. However, the Court's opinion on the nature of the crimes under scrutiny is not correct. The crime which the head of state of Iraq allegedly committed, namely the taking of foreigners as hostages and using them as human shields in order to deter NATO strikes on Iraqi military facilities, is clearly a war crime pursuant to art. 147 of the fourth Geneva Convention; cf., Steffen Wirth, Case Note; 21 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT 665 (2000).
82. Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, supra note 5, p. 73, §1177, with further references in footnote 52.
83. Spanish courts denied immunity to Pinochet on several occasions; see Pigrau Sole, The Pinochet Case in Spain, 6 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 653 (2000), pp. 674-675.
84. Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 18 November 1998, 2 ARS 471/98 and 2 ARS 474/98, reprinted in DER FALL PINOCHET(S). AUSLIEFERUNG WEGEN STAATS VERSTÄRKTER KRIMINALITÄT? 100 (Heiko Ahlbrecht and Kai Ambos, eds., 1999).
85. Monika Luke, supra note 17, p. 99, fn. 276; Kai Ambos, supra note 8, p. 23.
86. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 20 November 2000, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (2001), 302 (No. 51), 303 (translation by the International Commission of Jurists, available at 〈www.icj.org/objectives/decision.htm〉).
87. See 〈www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/iCOBEframe.htm〉.
88. 500 U.N.T.S. 95.
89. Application instituting proceedings, 17 October 2000 (available at 〈www.icj-cij.org/ icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/iCOBEframe.htm〉), chapter IV
90. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), annex, art. 7(2);
91. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), annex, art. 6(2).
92. Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case no. IT-95-14-A), Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, para. 41.
93. Al-Adsani, supra note 51;
94. Siderman de Blake, supra note 51; R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet, supra note 31, pp. 1489-1490 (per Lord Lloyd).
95. The term "national criminal law" is used here in contrast with the term "core crimes", which belong to international criminal law.
96. "Legal value" is hereinafter used as a translation of the German term Rechtsgut (Italian bene giuridico; Spanish bien juridico).
97. R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 914 (per Lord Millet).
98. Of course, such a rule of customary international law would not apply where international treaties abrogated all immunities based on official capacity including expressly "constitutionally responsible rulers" (Genocide Convention, art. IV) or "a head of state or government" (Rome Statute, art. 27).
99. In theory, the immunity for a state as a legal entity (protecting both the functionality of the state and its dignity) would also prevail over core crimes prosecutions, but as legal entities usually cannot be defendants in criminal procedures the issue needs no further discussion.
100. Supra note 68.
101. 596 U.N.T.S. 262.
102. The German Bundesverfassungsgericht holds a different view, Decision of 10 June 1997 (Syrian Ambassador) - 2 BvR 1516/96, 16, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 96, 68 (1998). However, this decision has been subject to harsh criticism: Bardo Fassbender, Case Note, 18 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 144 (1998),
103. Karl Doehring and Georg Ress, Diplomatische Immunität und Drittstaaten. Überlegungen zur erga omnes-Wirkung der diplomatischen Immunität und deren Beachtung im Falle der Staatensukzession, 37 ARCHIV DES VÖLKERRECHTS 68 (1999).
104. This was expressly noted by Lord Millet, in R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, supra note 16, p. 913.
105. Lord Millet was of the opinion that immunity ratione personae is not abrogated by the Torture Convention. As Geneva law is similar to the Torture Convention, in that it would be incompatible with a comprehensive immunity for official acts but not necessarily with an immunity ratione personae for a very limited group of especially important officials, I consider that the House of Lords' reasoning on the Torture Convention applies also to Geneva law. The Geneva Conventions do not stipulate expressly that no immunities exist for war crimes.
106. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 68, art. 39(2);
107. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, supra note 79, art. 53(4) (emphasis added).
108. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 68, art. 3(b);
109. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, supra note 79, art. 5(a) (emphasis added);
110. also, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 68, art. 3(d);
111. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, supra note 79, art. 5(c).
112. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians, supra note 25.
113. Richard J. Erickson, Status of Forces Agreements: A Sharing of Sovereign Prerogative, 37 AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW, 137, 138 (1994).
114. Stephan Verosta, Extraterritorialität, in: I WÖRTERBUCH DES VÖLKERRECHTS 499, 501 (Karl Strupp & Hans-Jürgen Schlochauer, 1960).
115. Cf. also the McLeod case, supra note 56;
116. the case is quoted in this context in I OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE, supra note 13, p. 1155, §557 note 3.
117. International Convention Concerning the Laws and Customs of War by Land, [1910] B.T.S.9.
118. Cf. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians, supra note 25, art. 147.
119. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces, 199 U.N.T.S. 67.
120. 199 U.N.T.S. 67. Ibid., art. VII(1)(a) and (b), together with (3).
121. For example, Agreement Regarding the Status of Military Personnel and Civilian Employees of the US Department of Defense who may be Present in the Republic of South Africa in Connection with Mutually Agreed Exercises and Activities (1999), State Dept. No 99-84.
122. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 68, art. 37(2).
123. The treaty obligation to prosecute is not based on universal jurisdiction in the strict sense but rather on a treaty-wide jurisdiction.
124. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, art. 41(1)(b).
125. On this issue see Sir Ian Sinclair, THE VIENNA CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF TREATIES 108-109 (2nd edn., 1984).
126. This is the abrogation of immunity ratione personae, as, according to the position taken in the present analysis, immunities ratione materiae never existed for core crimes.
127. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 94, art. 31.
128. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Ibid., arts. 34, 35.
129. The Jurisdiction of the Court is jurisdiction transferred to it by the States parties to the Statute. According to the principle nemo dat quod non habet, these states cannot transfer a jurisdiction to the Court that was not limited by the immunities these states would have to observe in national procedures.
130. Rome Statute, supra note 1, art. 12(2)(a).
131. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 94, art. 31(3)(c).
132. If the conclusion of the agreement must be regarded as a violation of the Statute (e.g., if two States parties to the Statute conclude an agreement prohibiting the surrender of their respective nationals to the Court), the Court might not be bound to accept such an illegal agreement, in accordance with art. 98.
133. Article 27 of the Rome Statute does not concern the inviolability of the documents of foreign missions (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 68, art. 24), or any other obligations with regard to foreign property. On this issue, see Christian Tomuschat, supra note 23, pp. 623-627.
134. Hans-Peter Kaul and Claus Kress, Jurisdiction and Cooperation in the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Principles and Compromises, 2 YEARBOOK INT'L HUMANITARIAN L. 143 (1999), p. 164.
135. Supra note 4.
136. The rule speaks of "additional information", suggesting that the third state can only submit information if the requested state has already done so. However, the rule should be interpreted in such a way as to allow the third state to provide information regardless of whether the requested state has already done so or not.
137. European Convention on Extradition, E.T.S. No. 24, art. 15.
138. Because States parties to the Statute have agreed that ICC law and procedure be compatible with their own law, they should not regard a surrender of their own nationals to the Court as extradition to a foreign legal system.
139. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 94, art. 30(3).
140. Each party to a treaty (i.e., here the SOFA) is, absent other provisions, competent to interpret it. States parties to the Statute have transferred this competence to the Court for purposes of decisions under article 98. Where SOFAs provide a conflict settlement mechanism, the respective state would be under an obligation to take the view of the International Criminal Court in the proceedings.
141. Rome Statute, supra note 1, art. 17.
142. According to article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 94, every state signing a treaty must "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty prior to its entry into force".
143. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 94, art. 31(3)(c).