Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

International Crimes Exception to the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: The Russian Perspective on the Work of the International Law Commission

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Throughout the last decade, while the International Law Commission was considering the topic ‘Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction’, representatives of the Russian Federation in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly repeatedly emphasized its importance and topicality. In 2016, the ILC Special Rapporteur Concepción Escobar Hernández presented her fifth report, devoted to undoubtedly the central and most controversial question of the entire topic, namely potential limitations and exceptions to the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. According to the newly proposed draft Article 7, immunity ratione materiae shall not apply, inter alia, to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances. The discussion of the ILC Report on the work of its sixty-eighth session in the GA Sixth Committee in 2016 demonstrated that Russia, as well as many other countries, does not support the Special Rapporteur’s argumentation and conclusions. This article examines the legal and practical rationales behind States’ criticism of the fifth report by Ms. Escobar Hernández and presents the Russian perspective on the issue of potential exceptions to foreign official immunity under international law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), House of Lords (UK), [2000] 1 AC 147.

  2. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, ICJ Reports (2002), pp. 21–22, para. 51 (hereinafter the ‘Arrest Warrant case’).

  3. Ibid., p. 26, para. 61 (emphasis added).

  4. C. Escobar Hernández, Special Rapporteur, Fifth report on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, UN Doc. A/CN.4/701, 14 June 2016.

  5. According to para. 2 of the draft Art. 7 proposed by Ms. Escobar Hernández, para. 1 (enumerating crimes in respect of which immunity does not apply) shall not apply to persons who enjoy immunity ratione personae during their term in office (Escobar Hernández, supra n. 4, p. 95).

  6. Escobar Hernández, supra n. 4, pp. 53–54, para. 121.

  7. Ibid., p. 95, para. 248.

  8. R.A. Kolodkin, Special Rapporteur, Second report on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, UN Doc. A/CN.4/631, 10 June 2010, p. 56, para. 90.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Ibid., pp. 56–57, paras. 91–92.

  11. Escobar Hernández, supra n. 4, p. 62, para. 142.

  12. Commission du droit international, Compte rendu analytique provisoire de la 3330e séance, tenue le 28 juillet 2016, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.3330, 26 September 2016, pp. 8–9.

  13. Ibid., p. 9.

  14. Ibid., p. 10.

  15. International Law Commission, Provisional summary record of the 3329th meeting held on 27 July 2016, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.3329, 19 September 2016, p. 7.

  16. Ibid., p. 8.

  17. International Law Commission, Provisional summary record of the 3331st meeting held on 29 July 2016, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.3331, 21 September 2016, pp. 5, 8.

  18. Ibid., p. 5.

  19. Ibid., p. 6.

  20. Statement by the United States (Stephen Townley, Counsellor), 71st General Assembly Sixth Committee, 1 November 2016, available at: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7663603/us.pdf, p. 3 (visited 12 February 2017).

  21. Statement by Mr. Christopher Stephen, representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 71st General Assembly Sixth Committee, 28 October–2 November 2016, available at: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7663556/united-kingdom.pdf, pp. 3–4 (visited 12 February 2017).

  22. Ibid.

  23. Statement by Mrs Kerstin Pürschel, Legal Adviser of the Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN, on the occasion of the 71st session of the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee, available at: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7663589/germany.pdf, p. 3 (visited 12 February 2017).

  24. Ibid., p. 4.

  25. Statement by Prof. Dr. Liesbeth Lijnzaad, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands, UN General Assembly 71st session, Sixth Committee, available at: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7663583/netherlands.pdf, p. 5 (visited 12 February 2017).

  26. Chatham House, Meeting Summary: International Law Programme, Prosecuting Former Heads of State for International Crimes, 24 November 2011, available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Law/241111prosecuting.pdf, p. 8 (visited 12 February 2017).

  27. See Summary record of the 25th meeting, Sixth Committee, Sixty-third session of General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/63/SR.25, 19 November 2008, p. 2; Summary record of the 27th meeting, Sixth Committee, Sixty-third session of General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/66/SR.27, 8 December 2011, pp. 9–10.

  28. Statement by the representative of the Russian Federation in the Sixth Committee of the 71st UN General Assembly session, 1 November 2016, available at: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7663870/russia-ilc-item-78.pdf, pp. 2–3 (visited 12 February 2017).

  29. Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment of 12 October 1984 given by the Chamber, ICJ Reports (1984), p. 299, para. 111.

  30. La loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des infractions graves aux conventions internationales de Genève du 12 août 1949 et aux protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels à ces conventions (Moniteur belge, 5 août 1993).

  31. Wet Internationale Misdrijven, 19 June 2003, Staatsblad 2003, No. 270.

  32. Ley Orgánica 16/2015, de 27 de octubre, sobre privilegios e inmunidades de los Estados extranjeros, las Organizaciones Internacionales con sede u oficina en España y las Conferencias y Reuniones internacionales celebradas en España.

  33. See supra n. 1.

  34. Prosecutor-General v. Bouterse, the Netherlands, Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, judgment of 20 November 2000, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2000:AA8395.

  35. A. contre Ministère public de la Confédération, Tribunal pénal federal, Num. de dossier: BB.2011.140, Décision du 25 juillet 2012, para. 5.4.3.

  36. Fujimori, Supreme Court of Chile, judge of first instance, judgment of 11 July 2007, case No. 5646-05.

  37. A. contre Ministère public de la Confédération, supra n. 35, para. E. Another example of such divergence in views on the availability of immunity between the executive and judicial branches of government is the famous Caroline case (People v. McLeod, 25 Wend. 483 (NY Sup. Ct 1841)), though it did not really concern international crimes.

  38. Matar v. Dichter, US Court of Appeals, 2d Cir., 16 April 2009, 563 F.3d 9.

  39. Huncax v. Gramajo, US District Court, D. Massachusetts, 12 April 1995, 886 F. Supp. 162.

  40. Krieger (2014), pp. 188–189.

  41. International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion by Judge Read, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 165.

  42. Wuerth (2012), p. 733.

  43. In the case concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), the ICJ did not recognize the entitlement of Djibouti’s procureur de la République and Head of National Security to functional immunity from French criminal jurisdiction, noting that Djibouti had never invoked immunity on their behalf. According to the ICJ judgment, ‘[t]he State which seeks to claim immunity for one of its State organs is expected to notify the authorities of the other State concerned’ (ICJ Reports 2008, p. 244, para. 196).

  44. Wuerth (2012), p. 733.

  45. Wuerth (2012), p. 752.

  46. Thus, the Aquino administration in the Philippines not only waived any immunity, which former President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife might have enjoyed from criminal prosecution in the US (Ire Cour de droit public, Ferdinand et Imelda Marcos c. Office fédéral de la police, Arrêt du 2 novembre 1989, BGE 115 Ib 496), but also brought a civil suit against its former president in a US court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

  47. Such was apparently the position of Germany after its defeat in the WWII, which opened the possibility for multiple trials of the Nazis and their accomplices in Israel, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United States and the United Kingdom (for a list of such cases see Cassese (2002), pp. 870–871).

  48. The Chadian Government waived the immunity of former President Hissène Habré from the criminal prosecution in Belgium. According to the letter sent by Chadian Justice Minister Djimnain Koudj-Gaou to the Belgian investigating judge, ‘Mr Hissène Habré can not claim to enjoy any form of immunity from the Chadian authorities’. See Human Rights Watch (2002).

  49. Finn (2009).

  50. United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010).

  51. Talmon (2015), p. 432.

  52. MacAskill and Hirsch (2011).

  53. Gallagher (2015).

  54. Ridley (2012).

  55. Falk (2011).

  56. http://www.brussellstribunal.org/KL.htm (visited 30 April 2017).

  57. Centre for Constitutional Rights (2007). The letter received by the NGO from Paris Prosecutor Jean Claude Marin read as follows: ‘The services of the [French] Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that in application of the rules of customary international law established by the International Court of Justice, immunity from criminal jurisdiction for Heads of State and Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs continues to apply after termination of their functions, for acts carried out during their time of office and hence, as former Secretary of Defense, Mr Rumsfeld, by extension should benefit from this same immunity for acts carried out in the exercise of his functions’.

  58. Bachmann (2008), pp. 262–264; Totten (2010–2011), pp. 367–368.

  59. Revesz (2016).

  60. ‘U.S. bars Kissinger in Pinochet probe’, BBC news, 29 May 2001, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1357632.stm (visited 12 February 2017).

  61. Roht-Arriaza (2005), p. 167.

  62. Kaleck (2009), pp. 944–945.

  63. Sherwood (2014).

  64. Jiang Zemin, Germany, Decision of the Federal Prosecutor General of 24 June 2005, 3 ARP 654/03-2. See also Kaleck et al. (2007), pp. 106–107.

  65. TASS Russian News Agency (2014).

  66. R. v. Mafart and Prieur, New Zealand, High Court, Auckland Registry, Judgment of 22 November 1985 (two members of the French secret forces were convicted in New Zealand for having sunk the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, which led to the death of several people).

  67. General Prosecutor at the Court of Appeals of Milan v. Adler and others, Italy, Supreme Court of Cassation, 5th Criminal Section, Final appeal judgment, 29 November 2012, No. 46340/2012, ILDC 1960 (IT 2012) (22 CIA agents and one US military official were convicted in Italy for their participation in the 2003 kidnapping in Milan and transfer to Egypt of an Egyptian cleric Osama Mostafà Hassan Nasr).

  68. Khurts Bat v. Investigating Judge of the German Federal Court, England, [2011] EWHC2029 (Admin) (Germany requested the extradition of the Head of the Mongolian Office of National Security in order to try him for his personal participation in the abduction in France and transfer to Mongolia via Berlin of the Mongolian national Enkhbat Damiran).

  69. According to the ICJ ruling in the Arrest Warrant case, ‘[…] immunity from criminal jurisdiction and individual criminal responsibility are quite separate concepts. While jurisdictional immunity is procedural in nature, criminal responsibility is a question of substantive law’ (supra n. 2, para. 60).

  70. Escobar Hernández, supra n. 4, para. 33.

  71. Ibid., p. 34.

  72. The Arrest Warrant case, supra n. 2, p. 25, para. 59.

  73. Evgeny Adamov v. Federal Office of Justice, Federal Tribunal, Switzerland, Judgment of 22 December 2005, ATF 132 Il 81.

  74. Allen et al. v. Russian Federation et al., US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil action No. 05-2077 (CKK), Memorandum opinion of 26 November 2007.

  75. In re matter of the Application of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky for an order seeking discovery under 28 USC § 1782, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Misc. No. 09-205 (RWR/AK), Suggestion of Immunity by the United States.

  76. Kaleck et al. (2007), p. 107.

  77. Redress (2006), p. 8.

  78. R.A. Kolodkin, Special Rapporteur, Preliminary report on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, UN Doc. А/CN.4/601 (2008), para. 88.

  79. Kelsen (1944), p. 82.

  80. Rivkin and Casey (2007).

  81. Ku (2014).

  82. Rivkin and Casey (2007).

  83. Moreover, in November 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed a decree declaring Russia’s intention not to become a member of the International Criminal Court. According to the statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘the Court has unfortunately failed to match the hopes one had and did not become a truly independent and respected body of international justice’.

  84. Real Russia Today (2016).

  85. TASS Russian News Agency (2016).

  86. http://sledcom.ru/news/item/1099508/ (official website of the Investigative Committee of Russia, press release of 7 February 2017, visited 28 April 2017).

  87. Ibid.

  88. Bahler (2017) and Ferrada de Noli (2017).

  89. ‘Syria: 20 links that prove regime change agenda’, https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/04/18/syria-20-links-that-prove-regime-change-plans/ (visited 28 April 2017).

  90. Sengupta and Simons (2016); Oakford (2016).

  91. American Society of International Law.

  92. O’Keefe (2015), p. 167.

  93. The Arrest Warrant case, supra n. 2, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, p. 86, para. 75.

  94. Such reasoning was applied by US Magistrate Judge E.M. Chen in the cases Jane Doe v. Liu Qi, Plaintiff v. Xia Deren. See Amended Report and Recommendation re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, 28 October 2004, p. 32.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Law, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia

    Aslan Abashidze (Professor, Head)

  2. Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Moscow, Russia

    Svetlana Shatalova (PhD student)

Authors
  1. Aslan Abashidze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svetlana Shatalova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svetlana Shatalova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abashidze, A., Shatalova, S. International Crimes Exception to the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: The Russian Perspective on the Work of the International Law Commission. Neth Int Law Rev 64, 213–236 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-017-0090-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-017-0090-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation