Universal jurisdiction unrevisited: The international court of justice decision in case concerning the arrest warrant of 11 april 2000 (Democratic Republic Of The Congo V. Belgium)

Palestine Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 12, Issue , 2005, Pages 27-48

  Bassiouni, M Cherif ^a,b,c  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b International Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences   (Italy)

^c International Association of Penal Law

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927042950     PISSN: 13861972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/9789047407393_006     Document Type: Chapter

References (22)

1. 1 Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 121 (Feb. 14), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536 (2002).
2. 2 See M. Cherif Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice, 42 VA. J. INT’L L. 81 (2001) [hereinafter Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction].
3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 [hereinafter Vienna Diplomatic Convention]. See also Optional Protocol to the Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 23 U.S.T. 3374, 500 U.N.T.S. 241.
4. See M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION IN U.S. LAW AND PRACTICE ch. 6 (4th rev. ed., 2002); Christopher Blakesley, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, in 2 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 43 (M. Cherif Bassiouni ed., 2d rev. ed. 1999).
5. Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Aug. 8, 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 284, 59 Stat. 1546 [hereinafter Nuremberg Charter], annexed to Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8, 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, 59 Stat. 1544.
6. Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Jan. 19, 1946, T.I.A.S. No. 1589 at 3, amended Apr. 26, 1946, art. 6., T.I.A.S. No. 1589 at 11 [hereinafter IMTFE Amended Charter].
7. 11 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, art. 7(2), S.C. Res. 808, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3217th mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/808 (1993), annexed to Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/2-5704 & Add. 1 (1993) [hereinafter ICTY Statute]. See M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI & PETER MANIKAS, THE LAW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (1996).
8. 12 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, art. 6(2), S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, 49th Sess., 3453d mtg., Annex, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994) [hereinafter ICTR Statute]. See VIRGINIA MORRIS & MICHAEL P. SCHARF, THE INTENATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA (2 vols. 1998).
9. 13 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Jul. 17, 1998, art. 27, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 [hereinafter ICC Statute], reprinted in 37 I.L.M. 999 (1998).
10. 24 Act of 16 June1993 on the Punishment of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 18 June 1977, art. 7, MONITEUR BELGE, Aug. 5, 1993 (Belgium) [hereinafter Belgian 1993 Universal Jurisdiction Law].
11. 25 See, e.g., Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (Princeton University Program in Law and Public Affairs, 2001), reprinted in Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 2, at 157.
12. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 [hereinafter Vienna Consular Convention].
13. As stated in the ICJ’s Press Release 2002/04bis, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2002/ipresscom2002-04bis_cobe_20020214.htm [hereinafter ICJ Press Release].
14. See Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 2, at 84. Such immunity is not available under Article 27 of the ICC Statute; see supra note 13. However, the ICC statute is part of a treaty, and states may thereby alter customary international law.
15. 38 Regina v. Bartle & Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International et al. intervening) (No. 3), 2 All E.R. 97 (H.L. 1999).
16. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 35763/97 (Nov. 21, 2001), available at .
17. Id. para. 53. Unfortunately, the ICJ decision here may have the unintended consequence of encouraging states to invent various cabinet positions, functional or fictitious, in order to shelter alleged human rights violators from being prosecuted in other states.
18. See M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Need for International Accountability, in 3 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 11 (M. Cherif Bassiouni ed., 2d rev. ed. 1999) [hereinafter Bassiouni, The Need for Accountability].
19. 47 But see the International Law Commission’s Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), 51 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 10) at 14, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.532, corr.1, corr.3 (1996) (commentary to article 7 noting that “[t]he absence of any procedural immunity … is an essential corollary of the absence of any substantive immunity or defence.”).
20. Id. at 142, para. 58. See also M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY (1998); M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Court Ratification and National Implementing Legislation, 71 REV. INT’L DE DROIT PÉNAL (2000).
21. In other words, if judgments only apply to the parties and to the facts of a given case, they can have no precedential effect. However, the reference to prior ICJ judgments creates de facto jurisprudential case law.
22. Actio popularis means to act on behalf of the community; in this case, the community would be the international community. See, e.g., MARC HENZELIN, LE PRINCIPE DE L’UNIVERSALITÉ EN DROIT PÉNAL INTERNATIONAL: DROIT ET OBLIGATION POUR LES ETATS DE POURSUIVRE ET JUGER SELON LE PRINCIPE DE L’UNIVERSALITÉ (2000).