Source: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-african-unions-response-to-the-iccs-decisions-on-bashirs-immunity-will-the-icj-get-another-immunity-case/?pfstyle=wp
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 10:37:51
Document Index: 589697419

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 98', 'Art. 27', 'art. 98', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 98', 'Art. 98', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 98', 'Art. 98', 'Art. 27']

EJIL: Talk! – The African Union’s Response to the ICC’s Decisions on Bashir’s Immunity: Will the ICJ Get Another Immunity Case?
Home EJIL Analysis The African Union’s Response to the ICC’s Decisions on Bashir’s Immunity: Will the ICJ Get Another Immunity Case?
« Exploiting A ‘Dynamic’ Int...
US Drone Strikes in Pakistan: ... »
February 9, 2012 at 2:55
Prof. Akande,
While I like your line of argument, after re-reading all your posts on the topic there is just one thing I can’t seem to fully grasp: why would articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Rome Statute have to be though as contradictory? In my opinion, they address two different things. Art. 98(1) tells States “you cannot arrest and send to the ICC a foreign official protected by immunity unless you have permission from his State”. Art. 27(2) says “if you are already at trial in the Court, claiming immunity is not permitted”. They don’t have to contradict each other.
Lets imagine for sake of argument that 27(2) just never got included in the Statute. Under that situation, State A could have send say its incumbent Foreign Minister to face trial at the ICC. Once at the ICC however, the Foreign Minister could have claimed immunity and avoided trial. Also, State B could have asked State A to waive immunity in order to allow State B to send the Foreign Minister to the ICC (thus satisfying art. 98(1)) but once the Foreign Minister got to the ICC he would have still been able to claim immunity with regards to the ICC and walk away.
The inclusion of 27(2) thus functions to prevent that scenario: Once State A sends his Foreign Minister to the ICC, he can no longer claim immunity. Also once State A waives immunity with regards to State B and State B sends the Foreign Minister to the ICC, he can no longer claim immunity with regards to the Court.
Thus Art. 27(2) would only serve to prevent that specific strategic use of the ICC. And seen in that way, that doesn’t have to be in contradiction to Art. 98(1). It does restrict the ICC’s powers but my guess is that since Art. 98 was included to satisfy the US, well then perhaps that’s exactly what its supposed to do…
February 12, 2012 at 0:22
As you note, one way of thinking about the relationship between Arts. 27(2) and 98(1) is to say that the former removes immunity with respect to the Court while the latter preserves immunities with respect to national authorities. Although this may seem attractive, the problem is that such a view renders part of Art. 27(2) practically meaningless. First of all, recall that Art. 27(2) speaks not only of international law immunities but also national law immunities. If the provision only applies with regard to the ICC, why mention immunities under national law? Secondly, if Art. 27(2) only applied when the person was before the ICC then it would almost never apply. This is because the Court is going to gain custody of suspects in most cases by States surrendering them (or through voluntary appearance). In cases of State surrender (the scenarios you contemplate in your question), the State is implicitly waiving immunity. Remember, the immunity is a right of the State, and it is the State that can waive it. The individual cannot claim an immunity that the State has waived. To say that Art. 27 is confined to immunity before the ICC is to suggest that it was only designed for cases of voluntary surrender, which seems most unlikely.
I have argued that Art. 27 also waives immunity not just before the ICC but also waives international law immunity with respect to national authorities acting at the behest of the ICC. This then means that States parties are entitled to arrest and surrender officials of another State even if the official would (absent Art. 27) have had immunity. This is where the interaction with Art. 98 comes in. Art. 98 would preserve immunity for non parties to the ICC Statute while Art. 27 would remove that immunity both before the ICC and with respect to foreign national authorities.
Case Watch: Access to Justice Thwarted in The Hague | Open Society Foundations Blog - OSF
[…] to meet the needs of justice.” Although this case did not deal with the point, the recent prompting of the African Union might land the ICJ with the vexing issue of the immunities of state officials at international law. […]