We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2021
INTRODUCTION
The position of state immunities since the Pinochet case is one of the most confusing issues of customary international law. In recent times, two developments have thrown the law on state immunities into confusion and now threaten to turn the law on its head. These are the developments in international law on universal jurisdiction for crimes of international concern and the proliferation of regional and international judicial bodies with extensive jurisdiction over individuals.
It is well known now that the African Union (AU) has been on a collision course with the European Union (EU) over the use of universal jurisdiction by EU member states to bring to justice in their domestic courts African state officials accused of atrocity crimes in their home states. It is also well known now that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, in 2009, the AU has raised concerns with the ICC over the perceived targeting of African state officials for prosecution. The AU has cited the immunity of an incumbent head of state as a possible bar to the prosecution of President al-Bashir by the ICC.
Mixing up perceived abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction by European states to harass African leaders with the perceived targeting of African leaders by the ICC, the AU issued several resolutions, first asking the EU states to reconsider their employment of universal jurisdiction and the United Nations (UN) Security Council to exercise its powers under Article 16 of the Rome Statute to defer the prosecution of President al-Bashir (Jalloh 2010). The EU pointed out that the exercise of universal jurisdiction was a matter for its individual Member States and not for the regional body. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, seems to have waved away the AU's request for a deferral of the case against President al-Bashir in a manner that the AU regarded as rather contemptuous.
The UN Security Council seems to have taken the same view with respect to the request for the deferral of the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Samoei Ruto.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
