Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: The Obligation To Prosecute Heads Of State Under The Rome Statute Of The Internatonal Criminal Court (Icc) And Customary International Law: The African And U.S. Perspectives
Authors: Fareed Mohd Hassanand
Noor Dzuhaidah Osman
Keywords: Rome Statute
Head of State
International Criminal Court
African countries
United States
Issue Date: Jun-2019
Publisher: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Abstract: The United States (U.S.), a Signatory, but not a State Party to the Rome Statute, entered into various Bilateral Agreements (BIAs) with almost all State Parties to the Rome Statute prohibiting the arrest, surrender, or prosecution of the US Head of State before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Similarly, the African Union (AU) Members, being the majority State Parties to the Rome Statute have decided in the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government not to cooperate with the ICC and to grant immunity to African Heads of State after the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued two arrest warrants against the Sudanese President for allegedly committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This paper examines the tension between States’ obligations under the Rome Statute to prosecute, surrender and arrest a head of State, including when referred to by the UN Security Council on the one hand, and the AU decision, the U.S. BIAs and customary international law which grants immunity to a sitting head of State from criminal prosecution by either an international or a foreign court on the other hand. It argues that States are bound by the obligations enshrined under the Rome Statute and both the AU decision and the BIAs are inconsistent with the duty of states to uphold jus cogens norms including those proscribed under the Rome Statute.
Description: MJSL - Volume 7, No.1 June, 2019
Appears in Collections:MJSL, Vol. 7, No.1, June 2019

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.