Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:52:20.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ICJ's Judgment in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000: Some Critical Observations1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Jan Wouters  and
Leen De Smet
Get access

Extract

On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000. In this case, the Court had the opportunity to take an authoritative stance on, and to contribute to the development of, two major questions in the field of immunities and jurisdiction of contemporary international law: do Ministers for Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity against prosecution by national courts of another state for crimes under international law, and how far can a state go in granting universal jurisdiction to its domestic courts?

Type
Current Developments
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 4 , December 2001 , pp. 373 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

4. International Court of Justice, case concerning the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/ (‘Arrest Warrant case’).

5. Law concerning the punishment of grave breaches of international humanitarian Law of 16 June 1993, as amended by Law of 10 February 1999 (Wet van 16 juni 1993 betreffende de bestraffing van ernstige schendingen van het internationaal humanitair recht zoals geamendeerd bij wet van 10 februari 1999, 38 ILM (1999) at p. 918Google Scholar (English translation by S. Smis and K. Van der Borght); Belgian Official Gazette, 5 August 1993 and 23 March 1999. Both the 1993 and 1999 Laws are also reproduced in 2 YIHL (1999) at pp. 539 and 541Google Scholar, respectively.

6. See on this law especially d'Argent, P., ‘La loi du 10 février 1999 relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire’, 118 Journal des Tribunaux (1999) pp. 549–555Google Scholar; De Smet, L. and Naert, F., ‘Making or breaking international law? An international law analysis of Belgiums Act concerning the punishment of grave breaches of international humanitarian law’, forthcoming in 35 Revue belge de Droit International (2002)Google Scholar Vol. 1–2 and the contributions in Wouters, J. and Panken, H., eds., De Genocidewet in Internationaal Perspectief (Ghent, Larcier 2002)Google Scholar.

7. Parliamentary Documents of the Senate, 1990–91, No. 1317/1, 16. See, however, the three judgments of the Brussels Court of Appeal, infra nn. 81, 82 and 83 and the discussion thereof below.

8. International Court of Justice, case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, Order of 8 December 2000, available at http://www.icj-cij.org.

9. International Court of Justice, case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 17 October 2000, available at http://www.icj-cij.org (‘The application’).

10. Application, at pp. 7–13.

11. Arrest Warrant case, at paras. 11–12.

12. Ibid., at para. 47.

13. Ibid., at para. 49.

14. Ibid., at paras. 51–55.

15. Ibid., at para. 58.

16. Ibid. Dissenting opinion, Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at paras. 11–23 and Dissenting Opinion, Judge Al-Khasawneh, at para. 8.

17. Cassese, A., ‘When may senior state officials be tried for international crimes? Some comments on the Congo v. Belgium case,’ 13 EJIL (2002) pp. 853 at 862CrossRefGoogle Scholar, F. Naert, ‘Immuniteit voor internationale misdaden?’ in Wouters and Panken, op. cit. n. 6.

18. Arrest Warrant case, at paras. 47 and 49.

19. ‘Pursuant to the general principle of fairness in judicial proceedings, immunity from enforcement must, in our view, be accorded to all State representatives welcomed as such on the territory of Belgium (on ‘official visits’). Welcoming such foreign dignitaries as official representatives of sovereign States involves not only relations between individuals but also relations between States. This implies that such welcome includes an undertaking by the host State and its various components to refrain from taking any coercive measures against its guest and the invitation cannot become a pretext for ensnaring the individual concerned in what would then have to be labelled a trap. In the contrary case, failure to respect this undertaking could give rise to the host State's international responsibility.’

20. State of Hawaii, Chong Boon Kim v. Kim Yong Shik and David Kim, Civil No. 12565, Cir. Ct., 1 st Cir., Hawaii, 1963, 81 ILR (1990) p. 604Google Scholar. Cf, Kilroy v. Windsor and Others, Civil Action No. C–78–291, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, 81 ILR (1990) pp. 605–607, granting immunity to the Prince of Wales while on an ‘official visit’. See also Cassese, A., International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2001) p. 423, n. 29Google Scholar.

21. United Nations Convention on Special Missions, New York, 16 December 1969, 1400 UNTS 23. See also Ruffert, M., 48 NILR (2001) pp. 171 at 180–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the references therein. The principle of immunity in the event of an official visit is also adhered to in legal doctrine: see e.g., A. Cassese, ibid., at p. 96; Salmon, J., Manuel de droit diplomatique (Brussels, Bruylant 1994) p. 539Google Scholar.

22. See, however, J. Verhoeven, ‘Mandat d'arrêt international et statut de ministre’, Actualité et droit international 2002 available at http://www.ridi.org/adi; also published in 435 Journal des Procès (2002) p. 20 at 20Google Scholar, who considers the Court's view ‘très classique’.

23. See Bothe, M., ‘Die strafrechtliche Immunität fremder Staatsorgane’, 31 ZaöRV (1971) pp. 246 at 264Google Scholar (mentioning a French case against the Moroccan Minister for Internal Affairs). In Germany, an arrest warrant was issued against an Iranian Minister (See Naert, op. cit. n. 17, at n. 116).

24. See on this Arrest Warrant case, Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at para. 13.

25. Bothe, loc. cit. n. 23, at pp. 264–265; Folz, H.-E. and Soppe, M., ‘Zur Frage der Völkerrechtmäßigkeit von Haftbefehlen gegen Regierungsmitglieder anderer Staaten’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1996) pp. 576 at 577Google Scholar; Ruffert, loc. cit. n. 21, at pp. 180–181; Watts, A., ‘The legal position in international law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers’, Recueil Cours 1994/III, pp. 9 at 109Google Scholar. See also Naert, op. cit. n. 17.

26. Ruffert, loc. cit. n. 21, at p. 180; Watts, ibid., at pp. 102–103. One should also note in this regard that whereas the draft Resolution on the immunities of Heads of State and Government of the Institut de droit international did assimilate the position of Ministers for Foreign Affairs with that of Heads of State, this can no longer be found in the final text: see on this Resolution Fox, Lady Hazel, ‘The Resolution of the Institute of International Law on the Immunities of Heads of State and Government,’ 51 ICLQ (2002) pp. 119 at 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at paras. 20–21.

28. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge Al-Khasawneh, at paras. 1–2.

29. Ibid., Joint Opinion, at paras. 81–83.

30. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge Al-Khasawneh, at para. 4.

31. Ibid., at para. 54.

32. Ibid., Separate Opinion Judge Koroma, at para. 6.

33. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge Oda, at para. 14.

34. See Nollkaemper, A., ‘The legitimacy of international law in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in Vandamme, T. and Reestman, J.-H., eds., Ambiguity in the Rule of Law. The Interface between National and International Legal Systems (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing 2001) pp. 13–23Google Scholar.

35. Arrest Warrant case, at para. 54.

36. Ibid., para. 70.

37. Ibid., para. 71.

38. Amnesty International, ‘Universal Jurisdiction: Belgian Court has jurisdiction in Sharon case to investigate 1982 Sabra and Chatila killings’, AI Index: IOR 53/001/2002; E. David, ‘La loi belge de 1993/1999: conforme ou contraire au droit international?’ in Wouters and Panken, op. cit. n. 6; Vandeginste, S., ‘Uitspraak van het Internationaal Gerechtshof in de zaak Yerodia: veel vragen, weinig antwoorden’, 11 Zoeklicht (2002) pp. 26 at 27Google Scholar; A. Winants, ‘Kanttekeningen bij de toepassing van de wet in de praktijk’, in Wouters and Panken, op. cit. n. 6. See on this also d'Aspremont Lynden, J. and Dopagne, F., ‘Cour Internationale de Justice, 14 février 2002, Observations’, 121 Journal des Tribunaux (2002) pp. 282 at 286Google Scholar.

39. Arrest Warrant case, Joint opinion, at para. 84.

40. Ibid., Joint opinion, at para. 59.

41. Ibid., Dissenting opinion Judge Al-Khasawneh, at para. 4.

42. See on this d'Aspremont Lynden and Dopagne, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 286.

43. Arrest Warrant case, Dissenting opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at para. 75.

44. See further with regard to persons enjoying diplomatic immunity, Salmon, op. cit. n. 21, at p. 303.

45. Arrest Warrant case, at para. 56.

46. De Smet and Naert, op. cit. n. 6. See also Amnesty International, supra n. 38, at pp. 5–11.

47. Art. 7 juncto 8, International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes against the peace and security of mankind, Yb ILC (1996) Vol. II: ‘The official position of an individual who commits a crime against the peace and security of mankind, even if he acted as head of State or Government, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment’, juncto ‘Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court, each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes […] irrespective of where or by whom those crimes were committed …’

48. Art. 6(2) Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, available at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/letters/2002/ (246): ‘The official position of any accused persons, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment’.

49. Art. 29 draft Law on the establishment of extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia for the prosecution of crimes committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea, available at http://www.diplomatiejudiciaire.com/Cambodge/LoiCambodge.htm: ‘Any Suspect who planned, instigated, ordered, aided and abetted, or committed the crimes referred to in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this law shall be individually responsible for the crime. The position or rank of any Suspect shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment’.

50. Prosecutor v. Furundžija, case No. ICTY–95–17/1, 10 December 1998, at para. 140, 38 ILM (1999) at p. 346Google Scholar.

51. International Law Association, ‘Final Report on the exercise of universal jurisdiction in respect of gross human rights offences’ (2000) at p. 13.

52. Arrest Warrant case, at para. 53.

53. See on this De Smet and Naert, loc. cit. n. 6; see also Ongena, and Van Daele, , ‘De zaak COBE voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof: gaat onze Wet Oorlogsmisdaden te ver?’, 2 Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht (2001) pp. 178 at 191Google Scholar.

54. See David, loc. cit. n. 38, and Ongena and Van Daele, ibid., at pp. 191–192.

55. Arrest Warrant case, Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at para. 27; Arrest Warrant case, Joint Opinion, at para. 75.

56. Cassese, loc. cit. n. 17, at pp. 874–875.

57. Lobe, J., ‘International Court ruling seen as major setback on impunity’, Inter Press Service, 15 02 2002Google Scholar (available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0215-04.htm).

58. Arrest Warrant case, at para. 60.

59. Arrest Warrant case, Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at para. 35.

60. Ibid., Judgement, at para. 61.

61. See e.g., Bianchi, A., ‘State immunity to violations of human rights’, 46 Austrian JPIL (1994) at p. 229Google Scholar, cited in Arrest Warrant case, Joint Opinion, at para. 85; Sarooshi, D., ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court’, 48 ICLQ (1999) pp. 387 at 392CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Browne-Wilkinson, Lord and Hutton, Lord in Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner for the Metropolis and others, ex parte Pinochet, 38 ILM (1999) [Pinochet III]Google Scholar.

63. Bothe, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 262; Lord Goff of Chievely in Pinochet III, ibid., and Naert, op. cit. n. 17.

64. Compare the resolution of the Institut de droit international on the immunities of Heads of State and Government, drawing a distinction between serving Heads of State and Government and former Heads of State and Government in respect of immunities for international crimes (Lady Hazel Fox, loc. cit. n. 26, at p. 120).

65. Arrest Warrant case, Joint opinion, at para. 78; ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge Al-Khasawneh, at paras. 5–8; and ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at paras. 34–38.

66. Ibid., at para. 46.

67. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at paras. 48–67.

68. Ibid., Joint Opinion, at para. 59.

69. Ibid., Separate Opinion Judge Koroma, at paras. 7–9.

70. Ibid., Individual Opinion Judge Rezek, at paras. 4–10.

71. Ibid., Declaration Judge Ranjeva, at paras. 5–11.

72. Ibid., Individual Opinion Judge ad hoc Bula Bula, at para. 74.

73. Ibid., Separate Opinion President Guillaume, at paras. 4–17.

74. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion Judge Oda, at para. 12.

75. Belga, (Official Belgian Press Agency), ‘Yerodia: KI oordeelt klacht onontvankelijk’, 16 04 2002Google Scholar, available at http://www.belga.be/.

76. As to the latter, some guidance can be found in the Court's 1999 Opinion on Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/.

77. See Arrest Warrant case, at paras. 51 and 53–55. See also D'Aspremont Lynden and Dopagne, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 285; J. Verhoeven, loc. cit. n. 22, at p. 21.

78. Arrest Warrant case, Dissenting Opinion Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, at para. 87.

79. Legislative proposal amending the Law of 16 June 1993 concerning the grave breaches of international humanitarian law, 18 July 2002, Senate, 2–1256/1.

80. See on this proposal Wouters, J. and Panken, H., ‘Waar naartoe met de genocidewet?’, Rechtskundig Weekblad (2002–2003) pp. 241, at 253–255Google Scholar.

81. See on this De Smet and Naert, loc. cit. n. 6.

82. Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, 16 April 2002, reproduced in Wouters and Panken, op. cit. n. 6, p. 317. In this case the Brussels Court of Appeal decided on the admissibility of the prosecution in Belgium of Yerodia for violations of international humanitarian law that he allegedly committed in 1998 (see also supra). The Brussels Court of Appeal declared the prosecution inadmissable because Yerodia was not present on Belgian territory. See also Spriet, B., ‘Genocidewet vereist aanwezigheid verdachte niet’, 50 Juristenkrant (2002) p. 15Google Scholar. See the critical consideration of this judgment in Wouters, J. and Panken, H., “Waar naartoe met de Genocidewet?”, Rechtskundig Weekblad (2002) pp. 241, at 249–250Google Scholar. The judgment has meanwhile been quashed, on procedural grounds, by the Belgian Supreme Court in a judgment of 20 November 2002, not yet published.

83. Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, 26 June 2002, reproduced in Wouters and Panken, op. cit. n. 6, p. 323. This case dealt with the admissibility of the prosecution in Belgium of the present Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that he allegedly committed during to the 1982 killings in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps (see on this case Amnesty International, supra n. 38).

84. Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 26 June 2002, not yet published. This case dealt with the admissibility of the prosecution against Laurent Gbagbo, president of the Ivory Coast for crimes against humanity that he allegedly committed in October and December 2000. Again, the prosecution was declared inadmissible because the alleged perpetrator could not be found on Belgian territory.

85. The Court of Appeal based its decision on Art. 12 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procdedure of 1878. This article states that the crimes envisaged in the article can only be prosecuted in Belgium when the accused is present in Belgium (with the exception of those cases specifically mentioned in the article). According to the recent judgments, this article, as a common rule of criminal procedure, also applies to the crimes envisaged in the Act since the Act does not expressly deviate from it.

86. Openbaar Ministerie roept immuniteit Sharon in, De Standaard online, 15 May 2002, available at http://www.destandaard.be.

87. International Court of Justice, ICJ Rep. (1996) pp. 595 at 616, para. 31.

88. Amnesty International, supra n. 38, at p. 14.

89. So the prosecution against Amos Yaron, an ex-general who was not entitled to any immunities, was declared inadmissible because he could not be found in Belgium.

90. Legislative proposal amending the Law of 16 June 1993 concerning the grave breaches of international humanitarian law, 18 July 2002, Senate, 2–1256/1 and Legislative proposal interpreting Art. 7 paragraph of the Law of 16 June 1993 concerning the grave breaches of international humanitarian law, 18 July 2002, Senate, 2–1255/1, both available at http://www.senaat.be/home/home.html.