Category Archives: ICC

Immunities and the ICC: my two-cents on three points

Today and the next few days, the Appeals Chamber is hearing oral submissions on the question of whether Bashir, from Sudan, has immunity from arrest and surrender to the ICC, as the sitting head of State of a non-State party. This promises to be a interesting debate, with contributions from Jordan, the AU and a handful of international law professors who are for the most part recognised experts on this question. To move the debate along, the Appeals Chamber has issued a list of questions to be addressed by the participants.

I will obviously not take the time to give my take on all the questions. My views are well know on this issue, as I’ve developed many times in the past (see here and here for example).

I just wanted to react quickly on three particular aspects of the question.

  • Is the “international” character of the ICC relevant ?

A number of the questions put to the participants relate to the question of whether the fact that the ICC is an “international court” can affect the rules that apply in relation to immunities. This argument was put forward explicitly at the Special Court for Sierra Leone to justify the absence of immunities for Taylor and is regularly considered in the litterature, relying on an obiter from the ICJ Immunities where it was said that: “Fourthly, an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction” (par. 61).

I’ve never been convinced by this argument. Ascribing an “international court” label to an institutional does not magically displace all rules of international law, allowing such an institution to suddenly do things that the individual States that created it could not do.

Moreover, the ICJ was simply acknowledging the fact that certain international institutions did not provide for head of State immunity. It certainly did not provide a normative view on the matter. interestingly, in its lists of questions, the Appeals Chamber claims that “The International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant case refers to a potential exception to Head of State immunity under customary international law”. However, the ICJ does no such thing, and does not even use the word “exception” in the relevant paragraph.

  • What role for the “fight against impunity” in the interpretation of the Rome Statute?

One of the Appeals Chamber’s questions reads as follows:

According to  article  31  of  the Vienna  Convention  on  the Law of Treaties,  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  its  context,  including  the  preamble,  and  its  object  and  purpose. What  is  the  significance  of  such  a  contextual interpretation of the Statute, in the light of its object and purpose as set out in its preamble,  namely  ‘to put  an  end  to  impunity  for  the perpetrators  of  [the  most  serious  crimes  of  concern  to  the  international community  as  a  whole]  and  thus  contribute  to  the  prevention  of  such crimes’, in the determination of the appeal?

My short answer is: none. I’ve always objected to the use of the vague notion of the “end of impunity” to justify any particular interpretation of the Rome Statute. Not only is it more often than not justified to adopt interpretations of the Statute which are against the Accused, but, more importantly, I do not think the “fight against impunity” is technically an object and purpose of the Statute to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention (a minority view on this topic, I know). Saying this confuses the specific object and purpose of the Rome Statute as a legal instrument (conducting criminal trials) and the more general moral/political goal (ending impunity).

Confusing the two is like claiming that the object and purpose of a hammer is to build a house, rather than specifically to put nails in a wall. Focusing on the “build a house” aspect tells you absolutely nothing on what a hammer is actually meant to do concretely, because what is actually important to understand the hammer is the “put nails in the wall” aspect. The same is true of the ICC: relying on the “fight against impunity” gives you no indication on how the ICC is actually meant to work, and therefore is simply an excuse for Judges to put their own moral agenda in the mix. This should of course not be allowed.

  • Interpreting UNSC Resolutions

The immunities debate has involved a great deal of discussion on what the UNSC actually intended to do when it adopted UNSC Resolution 1593. Irrespective of my own interpretation of the Resolution, I’ve always found it puzzling that we need to fill pages and pages of cabbalistic linguistic intepretations of the Resolution, when all we need to do is ask the UNSC what it actually meant to say. The UNSC is just there! Just put the question to it, or at least to some of its member States. It shouldn’t have to be that complicated: “Did you intend to displace international rules of immunity, or not?”. Whether the UNSC has the power to do so is an entirely different question (I would argue that it doesn’t), but maybe is there no issue to discuss in the first place. In this sense, it would have been interesting for the Appeals Chamber to specifically invite the UNSC and /or its member States at the time of the adoption of the Resolution to provide the Judges with some clarity on the matter.

In that respect, Benjamin Durr recently reported that:

With Patryk Labuda rightly commenting that:

Indeed, the Foreign Ministry statement, although couched in diplomatic terms, could suggest that the Chinese do no agree with the removal of Bashir’s immunity. This is not definitive proof of what the Resolution actually means, especially because China does not speak for the other members of the UNSC, but it could definitely be taken into account in the decision making process.

[UPDATE: Alex Galand has kindly pointed out to me on twitter that in fact both China and Russia have recently clearly stated that Head of State immunity remains, irrespective of a UNSC Resolution:

More food for thought for the Appeals Chamber which should absolutely be taken into account!]

ICC PTC issues advisory opinion (yes, yes) on ICC jurisdiction over Rohingya deportation

Today, 6 september 2018, PTC I issued a decision finding that the ICC can have jurisdiction over the deportation of Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh, despite the fact that Myanmar is not a State party, because at least one element of the crime of deportation (the crossing of a border) took place on the territory of a State party (Bangladesh).

While I would tend to disagree with the “you put a toe on a border” theory of territorial jurisdiction, I will leave my more knowledgeable colleagues on the definition of the crime of deportation to debate whether the PTC is really convincing on this point. I wanted to briefly address a few other issues that arise from the decision and which I find interesting.

  • The procedural framework

I have been skeptical from the start on the use of Article 19(3) to allow the OTP to address a Chamber at such an early stage with a question of jurisdiction and the decision just issued does not convince me.

Article 19(3) is situated in Article 19 entitled “Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of a case” and it should be read in this context. This clearly suggests that there needs to be a “case” (or at least a “situation”, if we accept the expansive definition of “case” in the practice of the Court). Moreover, we find similar language in the second sentence of Article 19(3) itself, which refers to a State which has refered the situation.

We have neither here. If the drafters had wanted to create a possibility for the OTP to obtain a ruling on jurisdiction as early as the PE phase, it would have more likely created a distinct provision on this. As things stand, I find it unlikely that Article 19(3) can be interpreted in this way.

I am equally unconvinced by the Compétence de la Compétence argument, which seems entirely beside the point. The question here was not whether the Court can determine its own competence (which does not seem an issue) but when. In that respect, I don’t see how invoking the principle helps in any way in determining at what stage of the proceedings the Judges come into play (see the very interesting dissent of Judge Brichambaut on this point).

As for Article 119, it should not be able to create a new procedure out of thin air…

[UPDATE: I hadn’t taken the time to analyse in detail the dissent of Judge Perrin de Brichambaut earlier, but I must say that I fully agree with him on these issues.

The contextual interpretation of Article 19(3) is clearly contrary to what the Prosecutor has argued and this is clearly demonstrated by the dissenting Judge.

As for Article 119(1), the Judge is equally convincing. The Majority’s definition of a “dispute”, based on a press release by a Myanmar governement official is laughable. By that token, the Prosecutor could use Article 119(1) whenever anyone (why just a State?) expresses disagreement with a position held by the OTP. I am regularly in “dispute” with the OTP when I comment on this blog. Let’s merrily go before the Chambers to resolve it !

Moreover, Article 119(3) is in a totally different part of the Statute, the “final clauses”, which in no way relate to the powers of the Prosecutor or create a specific procedure. In this sense, while the dissenting Judge is cautious in saying that “uncertainty remains as to knowing whether the “dispute” must arise between States or from a disagreement among the parties to judicial proceedings or even third parties”, I would not show such restraint: I think it is pretty obvious Article 119(3) relates to inter-State disputes only]

I believe that the decision is merely an advisory opinion at this stage. It is only when a PTC considers jurisdiction as part of a formal request to open an investigation will the Judges truly be in a position to issue a binding decision on such matters. As an aside, if such request where filed, I would suggest that the two Judges who ruled on the issue be disqualified from sitting on a PTC constituted to deal with the matter.

From a policy perspective, I’m not entirely sure the OTP made a smart move here. I’ve often argued that there is an underlying power struggle between Judges and the OTP to take control of the procedure at the Court. The OTP has essentially let the Judges in to what was arguably the last remaining bastion of discretion it has under the Statute, allowing them to dictate the OTP’s conduct during PEs. This is apparent from the decision itself, where the Judges take the opportunity to lecture the OTP on the way it defines a PE and warn her on the fact that she should proceed swiftly (based on the Comoros decision). You would have expected the OTP to learn the lessons of the Comoros litigation, but they took the shortsighted view here in my opinion, and I believe that Judges will continue to eat into the OTP’s discretion at the PE phase…

  • The objective legal personality of the Court

In the decision, the PTC engages in a lengthy discussion on whether the ICC has an objective legal personality (while admitting that such finding is irrelevant to determine the question of jurisdiction, which begs the question of why they delved into this issue as well).

I will not bore the readers with a detailed explanation of why every example the PTC gives to justify their position is unconvincing. Ultimately, the PTC relies on the ICJ Reparations case (where the ICJ proclaimed that the UN had an objective personality solely on the fact that it had a lot of member states…) and, paraphrasing unashamedly the ICJ Judgment, declares (par. 48):

In the light of the foregoing, it is the view of the Chamber that more than 120 States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with international law, to bring into being an entity called the “International Criminal Court”, possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with the capacity to act against impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and which is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. Thus, the existence of the ICC is an objective fact. In other words, it is a legal-judicial-institutional entity which has engaged and cooperated not only with States Parties, but with a large number of States not Party to the Statute as well, whether signatories or not.

This could be called the “Bully theory” of the objective personality international organizations: “there’s a lot of us, and we think we’re Morally Superior, so you have to objectively recognise us. Sorry? the Relative effect of what? treaties? No, not important. Haven’t you been listening? we’re morally superior, and that trumps everything else” (This, for some, applies mutadis mutandis to immunities, but that will be for another time). Needless to say this is far removed from serious legal argumentation.

  • Concluding thought

Whether the PTC is correct in finding that the ICC might have jurisdiction over the deportation of Rohingya or not, I’m not sure how helpful this whole procedure is, either for the OTP (see above) or even “victims”. Even if the Judges go out of the way to try and argue that such jurisdiction over deportation would open the door for the ICC to have jurisdiction over other related crimes (persecution for example), the decision is bound to create unreasonable expectations on the part of victims in relation to the relief that the ICC can effectively bring as regards what is going on more generally in Myanmar, and over which, for the most part, the ICC will not have jurisdiction. Here, as often,  the ICC and its defenders will be quick to challenge those who criticise them, without realising that they are setting themselves up to fail…

 

 

 

Peek-A-Boo: ICC authorises investigation in Burundi, some thoughts on legality and cooperation

jack in the box

On 27 October 2017, Burundi’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court became effective, making it the first State to leave the Court. This led to a flurry of commentaries on whether the OTP would be able to open an investigation into the situation after the withdrawal (see here for my own post, here for Kevin Jon Heller at opinio juris and here and here for Sergey Vassiliev also at opinio juris).

I was quietly preparing to engage in a debate with Sergey about his arguments, when the ICC decided to make all our posts irrelevant, or at least mostly theoretical in one dramatic peek-a-boo moment: on 9 november 2017, PTC III of the ICC made public a decision that was rendered on 25 octobre 2017 (so 2 days before the withdrawal) authorising the OTP to open a formal investigation in the situation of Burundi, based on a request filed ex parte by the OTP on 5 september 2017.

This of course radically changes the situation, because we all assumed that there was little likelihood that such an ex parte request did exist, let alone did we expect that a decision had already been rendered.

There is a lot to say about the decision and I just want to share a few first thoughts. Continue reading

Burundi withdraws from the ICC: what next for a possible investigation?

On the 26 october 2017, Burundi’s withdrawal from the Rome statute became effective, making it the first State ever to leave the Court. Strangely, there has been no official declaration from either the Court or the OTP at this point.

Al Jazeera reports that : “Burundi’s withdrawal doesn’t affect the preliminary examination of the country’s situation already under way by the court’s prosecutor, ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah told The Associated Press.”.

Moreover, Benjamin Durr got the following email from the Public Affairs unit of the ICC:

ICC reaction to burundi

Despite what some have called the defeaning silence coming from the OTP, the withdrawal is widely commented upon by ICL observers and stakeholders who, for the most part, regret that Burundi has chosen the path of impunity. The withdrawal raises a certain number of legal questions that have been at the heart of discussions on the social media in the past few days and which I want to address briefly here.

  • What happens to the existing preliminary examination?

As is well known, Burundi has been under a preliminary examination by the OTP since April 2015. From a legal perspective, the withdrawal does not affect the preliminary examination. It does not put an end to it automatically, nor does it force the OTP to end it.

The real question is whether the withdrawal affects the possibility for the OTP to actually open a formal investigation at a later stage, which is my next point.

  • Does the withdrawal affect the capacity of the OTP to request the opening of a formal investigation?

The answer to this question depends on the interpretation one adopts of Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which provides that:

Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

I should note at this point that I’m assuming that no steps have indeed been taken by the OTP to obtain a decision from a Pre-Trial Chamber to be able to open a formal investigation. There has been some speculation on whether the OTP might have made such a request confidentially. However, this has not been done in the past to my knowledge (Kenya, Georgia, Côte d’Ivoire), and I wonder what would be the justification for that.

If the OTP has indeed proceeding confidentially, then one might very well consider that the pending decision could indeed be a matter under consideration by the Court for the purposes of Article 127(2).

If no steps have been taken, I refer you, for the interpretation of Article 127(2), to the excellent post done by Alex Whiting last year and my own thought on the matter which I published here at the time.

I noted in that respect that:

The key issue is what is covered by the expression “any matter already under consideration by the Court”. Alex Whiting makes the argument that this expression is broad enough to cover preliminary examinations by the OTP. Possibly, he is right from a linguistic point of view. However, I have a difficulty with the idea that such an informal phase as a preliminary examination (which might simply involve an OTP investigator sitting in front of his computer in The Hague downloading HRW and Amnesty International reports) might have such massive consequences as trumping the decision of a State to withdraw from the Rome Statute.

I also noted that:

One last point that could favour a more limited, rather than broad interpretation of Article 127(2), is the formulation used in other versions of the Rome Statute. For example, the French version of the Statute says that: “le retrait n’affecte en rien la poursuite de l’examen des affaires que la Cour avait déjà commencé à examiner avant la date à laquelle il a pris effet”. The word “affaires” (cases) seems narrower that “any matter”. This is obviously not decisive and a comparison in the other official language could be interesting.

I continue to believe that one year later. I don’t believe a PE initiated unilaterally by the OTP, with no particular applicable legal framework and no direct legal consequences can decently be considered as a “matter already under consideration by the Court”. The OTP is not the Court, it is one organ of the Court

[UPDATE: Over at opinio juris, Kevin Jon Heller provides a very useful detailed analysis of whether the “Court” in Article 127(2) refers to the judiciary, or includes the OTP as well. I think he convincingly shows that one cannot assume that Article 127(2) applies to matters under consideration by the OTP, rather than more strictly by the Judges by listing a number of provisions of the Rome Statute where the “Court” refers to the judiciary in a more narrow sense when it comes to procedural matters.]

The OTP is simply doing its basic job of looking at various events going on worldwide to see if actual formal action under the Rome Statute is required. That cannot possibly have as a consequence to negate the effect of Article 127(2). If such a broad interpretation of Article 127(2) were to be adopted, nothing would prevent the OTP from announcing that it is conducting preliminary examinations into all State parties, thus making sure that there would be no legal consequences of a withdrawal whatsoever. That seems a little far fetched.

It should also be noted that nothing prevents the OTP from technically opening an PE into a situation involving a none State party, or even only none State parties. This would arguably be a waste of time, but there is no legal impediment with that. And the reason is that PE don’t have a formal legal existence and, more importantly, do not create obligations on anyone, States included.

Delphine Carlens, of FIDH, with whom I discussed the matter briefly on twitter suggested the following supporting argument:

Article 70 of the Vienna Convention provides that:

Consequences of the termination of a treaty

1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:

(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.

2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect.

On principle, I very much like the idea of bringing the VCLT into play, because one tends to forget that the Rome Statute is after all a treaty, and does not exist, particularly when it comes to the relationship between States and the international organisation, in a legal vacuum.

My initial reaction here is to consider that the reference to the VCLT might not be very useful. Indeed, it does not help interpret Article 127 per se, because if one agrees with me that the OTP declaring that it is conducting a preliminary examination does not create any “right, obligation or legal situation” under the Rome Statute, then Article 70(1)(b) simply does not apply.

However, on second thought I wonder if I might not be framing the question in wrong terms. Indeed, if one forgets the issue of the existence of a PE for one second, one could wonder if the “legal situation” that was created through the execution of the treaty is not simply the fact that, under Article 12, the ICC would have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of Burundi or by nationals of that State because Burundi was a State party at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes. As a consequence, of this approach the ICC would still have jurisdiction even after withdrawal, irrespective of the existence of a PE or not.

I don’t know if this argument would be persuasive in front of Judges, or would have the support of other State parties. Indeed, Article 127 is a lex specialis on the consequences of withdrawal, a situation which, it could be argued, removes completely the applicability of Article 70 of the VCLT. And because Article 127 makes no mention of surviving jurisdiction, then it might be a little far-fetched to read it back into it.

[UPDATE: Another difficulty that would need to be addressed is the time when jurisdiction is to be determined. Is it determined at the time of the commission of the crimes or at the time of the judicial decision to exercise jurisdiction? This is important to establish, because if it is the latter, then the Burundi withdrawal would in fact remove the capacity for the Court to exercise jurisdiction. Despite the basic nature of the question, I’m not aware of any judicial pronouncements on the matter at the ICC (readers, feel free to point me in the right direction).

Does the wording of the Statute help in any way? To some extent.

Indeed, it should be recalled that through a weird semantic trick, Article 12 turns out to be not strictly a jurisdictional provision: it is titled “preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction”, which makes it out to be more of a procedural provision that a jurisdictional one. As a result, Article 12 does not actually say that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State party or by a national of a State party, which is what you would expect from a jurisdictional provision. Article 12 says that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction if the State of nationality or the territorial State is a Party to the Statute. This would logically suggest that the adequate time to determine whether the pre-conditions of Article 12 are met, is when the Court is considering exercising jurisdiction, not when the crimes were actually allegedly committed.

I also want to point out that I’m in no way advocating a teleological interpretation of Article 12, or jurisdiction more generally, along the lines that not interpreting it in a certain way would lead to impunity, and therefore would not be acceptable. Whatever some people may think of sovereignty as an archaic concept in international law, it is still a fundamental right of States to decide whether they want to be bound by a treaty or not and I don’t believe that the “fight against impunity” can trump that.]

Despite these difficulties, the jurisdictional approach might be worth a try, as it is somewhat more convincing that the “PE = matter under consideration” approach. Moreover, everybody I know, academics and Judges alike, does consider Article 12 as a jurisdictional clause, despite its clear wording to the contrary. So, even if I’m right, nobody might actually care. Therefore this approach might actually provide the “progressive approach” of the interpretation of the Statute that HRW is calling for.

I should note that I’m not sure this is the argument actually put forward by the FIDH, because it seems to rely, in its press release, on the existence of a PE: “Since proceedings (a preliminary examination in this case) were initiated prior to the date of Burundi’s effective withdrawal, the Prosecutor could request the opening of an investigation into international crimes committed before 27 October 2017 ( Article 127(2) of the ICC Statute)”. So FIDH is welcome to use this new argument from now on!

[UPDATE: i’ve just come accross this analysis from Amnesty International which puts forward the same idea, but still seems to link jurisdiction and the existence of a PE, which I think in fact possibly weakens the argument. And I strongly disagree with the suggestion that a PE creates an obligation to cooperate on the part of States.]

One last note on this: if the Public Affairs email reproduced above is to be believed, it seems that someone at the Court thinks this is a viable interpretation of Article 127(2), when it is said that: ” In accordance with Article 127.2 of the Rome Statute, Burundi’s withdrawal does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to crimes alleged to have been committed during the time it was a State Party, namely up until 27 October 2017″.

This is a strong position to put forward, and I’m surprised it is not shared officially by someone more “senior” at the Court. Right now, it remains unclear whether this is a shared court-wide position, more particularly if it is the official position of the OTP. Some formal declaration would be welcome in that respect.

  • What about other cooperation obligations which Burundi might have?

It should be noted as an aside that Burundi still has an obligation to cooperate in relation to criminal investigations and proceedings which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

Which means that if a matter of cooperation arises in any current case or situation at the Court, Burundi would have to cooperate with the ICC, for example in assisting a current investigation.

Arguably, this would also apply in relation to the execution of an arrest warrant, for example of Omar Al Bashir of Sudan. This is of course particularly ironic, given the fact that the withdrawal was surely in part justified on the basis of opposition to that specific arrest warrant…

The ICC and immunities, Round 326: ICC finds that South Africa had an obligation to arrest Bashir but no referral to the UNSC

Today, the International Criminal Court issued a decision on whether South Africa was under an obligation to arrest the President of Sudan when he visited South Africa in 2015 in execution of two ICC arrest warrants.

I have blogged extensively about this issue in the past (here, here and here, for example). There have been a number of decisions in relation to this saga in the past few years, 2 notable ones being the decision issued against Malawi in 2011 and the decision issued against the DRC in 2014. These two decisions, while reaching the same result, had different legal explanations to offer and everyone was awaiting eagerly to see if this new decision would follow either of the previous decisions or take a different route.

Before analysing the decision, it should be said that I find it quite pedagogic, clear and easy to follow, even if I disagree with it. I think this should be noted, as both the Malawi and the DRC decisions were, putting aside the substance, quite confused in their drafting.

One should also welcome the fact that this decision was adopted following a actual procedure where all parties were heard extensively, which is also a welcome development.

Let us now move on to the substance, first whether South Africa had an obligation to arrest Bashir and second whether its non compliance should lead to a referral to the UNSC or the ASP.

  1. Was there a duty to arrest Bashir?

It should be noted from the outset, that in my view, South Africa clearly had a duty to arrest Bashir from a purely procedural perspective. Indeed, there have been enough decisions from ICC Chambers calling on the arrest of Bashir in various situations for there to be no doubt as to the obligation of States in that respect. South Africa’s disagreement with all those decisions, while I agree with it on the substance, does not allow it to simply ignore them in the context of the Rome Statute legal framework.

This being said, how does the Chamber revisit the immunity question?

First of all, the decision affirms that there is no rule of customary international law that removes the immunity of sitting heads of State from arrest in relation to international crimes, “even when the arrest is sought on behalf of an international court” (paragraph 68). This quite clearly puts to rest the idea that somehow, using the expression “international court” suddenly magically removed the normal application of international law, an idea that many, including the judges in the Malawi decision in 2011, had defended, based on a more than unconvincing reading of, among other sources, the ICJ Arrest Warrant case.

Second of all, the decision explains at length what is mostly uncontroversial: State parties who have signed the Rome Statute have accepted the removal of immunities under Article 27, and therefore cannot claim immunities as an obstacle for cooperation under Article 98. This is a conclusion reached by everyone until now, but it’s no harm in recalling it clearly in a judicial setting.

The real question is how the immunity of a sitting head of State of a non State Party is removed, and this is where the decision enters murkier waters in my view.

Let’s start with the majority reasoning which focuses on the effect of Security Council referrals. What does the majority say? the core of the reasoning can be found in paragraph 88 of the decision:

The Chamber finds, by majority, that the necessary effect of the Security Council resolution triggering the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation in Darfur and imposing on Sudan the obligation to cooperate fully with the Court, is that, for the limited purpose of the situation in Darfur, Sudan has rights and duties analogous to those of States Parties to the Statute.

As acknowledged by the Majority in the following paragraph: “this is an expansion of the applicability of an international treaty to a State which has not voluntarily accepted it as such”.

This reasoning takes the 2014 DRC decision to the next level: in that earlier decision, while relying on the UNSC referral, the Chamber had not as far as to claim that Sudan had obligation akin to a State party. In that earlier decision, the Chamber has taken a more modest approach, that of an implicit waiver of immunity (paragraph 29):

the “cooperation of that third State [Sudan] for the waiver of the immunity”, as required under the last sentence of article 98(1) of the Statute, was already ensured by the language used in paragraph 2 of SC Resolution 1593(2005). By virtue of said paragraph, the SC implicitly waived the immunities granted to Omar Al Bashir under international law and attached to his position as a Head of State.

Here, the Majority says that once Sudan is considered by a State party through the effect of the UNSC Resolution, Article 27 applies to it, and therefore, just as with State parties, there is no longer any issue of immunity to be considered. In other words, because there is no issue of immunity in the first place, there is no need to consider an implicit or an explicit waiver of it (see paragraph 96).

I have two problems with the Majority’s approach.

First of all, and for more details on my view you can read my article on the issue, while I take issue with the whole UNSC referral mechanism itself, I have even stronger reservations with the idea that the UNSC can make a State akin to a Party to a treaty it didn’t sign. The UNSC might have exorbitant powers within the UN framework under Chapter VII (a statement which could itself be challenged), but it does not, in my view, have the power to set aside general rules of international law, such as the relative effect of treaties. Ultimately, the UNSC is simply an organ of an international organisation.

The sole argument presented by the Majority that “the finding of the majority of the Chamber in this respect is in line with the Charter of the United Nations, which permits the Security Council to impose obligations on States” (paragraph 89) falls in that respect short of a solid legal explanation. When you look at the unique reference in the footnote, it is to a paragraph of the ICJ Namibia advisory opinion recalling the binding nature of UNSC Resolutions on member states. This is not the issue here. Nobody says that the UNSC resolution is not binding, what is at stake is exactly what are the legal consequences of the Resolution. It’s quite surprising that while the decision, as I said at the beginning, is quite pedagogic and takes the time to explain its reasoning, there is no acknowledgment of any counter arguments to its position on such a fundamental issue.

Second of all, and maybe less importantly, I’m not sure the reasoning holds in relation to the first part of the decision. Indeed, the Majority can only say that the consequence of considering Sudan like a State Party is the removal the question of immunities because it said in the first part of the decision that States who sign the Rome Statute, and in particular its Article 27 on the irrelevance of official capacity necessarily agree not to invoke immunities in their original relationships with other States under Article 98(1). Any other interpretation of the Statute would make no sense. What the Majority does not say, maybe for a reason, is that this analysis obviously flows from the idea that States intended the Statute to be operational. Which means that the argument only works because States consent to the framework they themselves designed. And because Darfur did not consent to the Rome Statute, then this argument does not work because you cannot attribute to Darfur even a fictional intent for the Rome Statute to be a coherent text which would allow for the Majority’s understanding of the relationship of Article 27 and 98 in relation to State parties to apply to Sudan.

As a final note on the majority view on immunities, one can wonder how this decision reflects on Judge Tarfusser’s understanding of consistent legal reasoning. Indeed, Judge Tarfusser was on all three immunities decisions, which all have different legal reasonings. He was on the bench in the 2011 Malawi decision which took the customary law approach to the matter (approach ignored in the 2014 DRC decision and explicitly rejected in today’s South Africa decision) and he was on the bench in the 2014 DRC decision which, as mentioned above, clearly took the “implicit waiver of immunities by the UNSC” approach , an approach that is now set aside in the more comprehensive approach in the South Africa decision. This is not the first time this happens, as I’ve pointed out in the past, that Judge Tarfusser adopts (or at least approves as part of the majority) different approaches in different decisions. While one can understand that a Judge changes his mind it would have been interesting to have a clear acknowledgement of this and an explanation of the reasons why.

Moving on to the separate opinion of Judge Brichambaut. I should say that I comment based on the reading out of the decision, because the written text is not available yet. I’ll be sure to change anything here that is not exact based on the written text when it comes out.

[Update: in light of the now available written version of Judge Brichambaut’s minority opinion, I now include some edits to my original post below which are warranted out of fairness to Judge Brichambaut’s position. Out of transparency, I keep my original analysis for the record. Please also note that my more positive take on the minority opinion is in no way due to the fact that Judge Brichambaut was kind enough to quote my article on a couple of occasions… ]

Judge Brichambaut says (at the end but it would have been more logical at the beginning I think) that in light of the conflicting arguments of the Parties in the procedure, he cannot conclude that arguments based on the UNSC Referral or customary law provide an adequate answer on whether Bashir had immunity under international law. On customary law, he makes an interesting point on the fact that States are clearly uneasy in arresting a sitting head of States and that only one State (Belgium) filed submissions in the South Africa proceedings, which shows that there is no clear opinio juris (a term he doesn’t use, but it is what he means I think) for the removal of the immunity for international prosecutions under customary international law.

[Update: the minority opinion explains all of this at length. I do not have much to add. Three things: 1) it’s apparent that Judge Brichambaut has adopted a clear and transparent methodology to address these issues, which makes the reading of the opinion very easy. 2) The discussion is balanced and well documented 3) I particularly like the discussion on whether the involvment of an “international court” changes anything to the discussion, although I would have been curious to know on what side of the discussion Judge Brichambaut actually falls…] 

So what is his legal basis for concluding that South Africa should have arrested Bashir?

Judge Brichambaut’s approach is based on a combined reading of Articles 4 and 6 of the Genocide Convention. According to Article 4: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”. According to Article 6, “Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction”.

For Judge Brichambaut, article 4 means that States accept the removal of immunities and that because the ICC is an “international penal tribunal” as envisioned by Article 6, the removal of immunity also applies there. Because Sudan and South Africa are both parties to the Genocide convention, the issue of immunities is therefore moot according to him.

There are a certain number of difficulties with this reasoning. First of all, it ignores the fact that Article 6 provides for territorial jurisdiction, not anything resembling universal jurisdiction. So, I find it a slightly too rapid conclusion to say that Article 4 means removal of all immunities under international law automatically in relation to all States.

[Update: in the minority opinion, Judge Brichambaut provides at length his explanation (which is no longer “slightly too rapid”) on why Article 4 should be interpreted as removing immunities for constitutionnally responsible leaders and I must say that it is quite convincing.] 

Second of all, bringing in the “international penal tribunal” question, I think the issue would have deserved more discussion. Indeed, is any international tribunal with jurisdiction over genocide an “international penal tribunal” in the sense of Article 6? This is what the Judge seems to imply, but I’m not convinced. Mustn’t there be at least some explicit mention of Article 6 in the instrument creating a tribunal for it to fit under this Article?

[Update: the minority opinion explains, with reference to ICJ case law, why the ICC should be considered as an “international penal tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 of the genocide convention. I still believe that formally, some explicit intent to create such a tribunal with reference to Article 6 should be required, but maybe I am being too formalistic…]

Third of all, and perhaps more importantly, this does not solve the problem of Sudan’s lack of consent to be bound by the Rome Statute. There is a missing link in the reasoning of the Judge. Others, like Matthew Gillet, have adopted a similar reasoning to Judge Brichambaut, but have tried to fill this logical gap by referring to the effect of the UNSC referral. I explain here (section 4.3) why this is not entirely convincing, but at least there is an attempt to solve the consent problem. Judge Brichambaut does no such thing.

[Update: In fact, Judge Brichambaut does address the issue by referring to the effect of the UNSC Referral as conferring jurisdiction over the situation in Darfur to the ICC and Sudan’s obligation to accept that under Chapter VII (see paragraph 15 of the minority opinion). As developed elsewhere, I’m not entirely convinced by the argument. More specifically here, I’m puzzled at how Judge Brichambaut on the one hand refuses to draw a definite conclusion on the legal effects of a UNSC resolution when it comes to analysing the approach of his colleagues, but accepts simply that Sudan should be deemed to have accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction simply by reference to Chapter VII. Does that not equally apply to the duty to cooperate?] 

Fourth of all, if Judge Brichambaut were to be right, this would have some interesting procedural consequences. Indeed, if the only reason for removing the immunity of Bashir is the fact that the arrest warrant includes genocide charges, then does it mean that Bashir still benefits from immunity for the other charges (war crimes and crimes against humanity)? I do not see any other consequence of Judge Brichambaut’s approach and I wonder if this is what he had in mind.

[Update: this issue is not addressed in the minority opinion. Maybe an addendum in the future?…]

To summarise on the question of the removal of Bashir’s immunity after this decision: we now have three pre-trial chamber decisions (therefore of same legal value) providing three different legal reasonings for the removal of Bashir’s immunity, plus, as an added bonus, a separate opinion with a fourth approach. In this context, the decision’s claim that “any possible ambiguity as to the law concerning South Africa’s obligations has been removed” is somewhat a little hasty in my view…

2. Whether a referral to the UNSC or the ASP was warranted.

The second question that needed to be addressed by the Chamber was whether, having found that South Africa had not complied with its obligation to arrest and surrender Bashir, it should be referred to the UNSC or the ASP.

The Chamber, using its discretion, finds that it shouldn’t based on two arguments: 1) that South Africa displayed a positive attitude towards the Court in the procedure and 2) that a referral would be pointless in this case because South Africa has now understood and that the UNSC or the ASP would do nothing anyway.

As to the first argument, I fail to see its relevance. It is hypocritical to say that South Africa did not know for sure that it should have arrested Bashir in 2015, at least under the Rome Statute, given the numerous decisions to that effect in relation to numerous States. The slowness of the South African domestic legal processes which was also put forward and accepted by the Judges is not an excuse either, in light of an uncontroversial rule of international law: a State cannot invoke a domestic situation to explain its non compliance with an international obligation.

UPDATE: And I of course forgot to mention the most obvious point: referral to the UNSC or the ASP will indeed not help to obtain cooperation from South Africa… simply because Bashir left the country over two years ago! Which shows the slight absurdity of the whole process…

As to the second argument, While I can buy the idea that maybe South Africa has understood now (only time will tell) I find the second part, that the UNSC or the ASP will not do anything anyway, a little bit puzzling. Of course, I agree with the Chamber’s factual assessment: clearly, a referral to the UNSC or the ASP is pointless because neither body has the spine (to be polite) to take any action against a State. However, the answer as Judges should not be to decline to refer a State and therefore empty Article 87(7) of any effect forever, but to actually refer the State and call upon these bodies to do their job (just as Fatou Bensouda has done with the UNSC over lack of cooperation in relation to Darfur for the past few years).

The Chamber’s reasoning would be a little bit like saying: the ICC is clearly not meeting its expectations as an international institution, particularly in terms of deterrence, so what’s the point of prosecuting anyone anymore? wait… I think I might be onto something here…