magistrsko delo
Admir Muratović (Author), Matjaž Tratnik (Mentor), Petra Weingerl (Co-mentor)

Abstract

The present thesis is devoted to the immunity of Heads of State and high-ranking State officials, generally meaning the Heads of Government, and the Foreign Ministers, before the national and international courts, for international crimes as codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, with partial touch upon the crime of torture as well. The introductory part lays out the prosecution of State officials throughout the history all the way to the World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, and the developments in the decades post-World War II, with the eventual establishment of the ICC. Afterwards, the definitions and list of international crimes are discussed. Following the arguments for the rationale behind immunity and the correlation between immunity and jurisdiction, I elaborate on the various types of immunity, such as State immunity - and its subcategories personal and functional immunities - and diplomatic immunity. Thereby, I discuss at length the range of seemingly outstanding questions relating to, e.g., the scope of State officials entitled to immunity ratione personae, whether the commission of international crimes constitute officials acts, whether the immunity of State precludes a lawsuit towards State for breaches of jus cogens norms by acts that qualify as acta jure imperii, whether the diplomatic immunity pertains to high-ranking State officials other than ambassadors and diplomatic agents, etc. The explanations of other, less debatable questions, such as the distinction between personal and functional immunities for international crimes before national courts, is also provided. In the following part, I analyse the immunity of the incumbent high-ranking State officials before international courts, with a particular focus set on the ICC and Article 27 of the Rome Statute. Emphasizing provisions concerning international cooperation and judicial assistance to the ICC, I bring up Article 98 of the Rome Statute as a counterweight to the rejection of immunity before the ICC, and consider the interplay between both, Articles 27 and 98. Another point of divergence here is the question of which States fall under the scope of the term "third State" in Article 98 of the Rome Statute. Furthermore, the analysis of the Al-Bashir case is provided through the application of the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005), as well as Articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter. Additionally, I intend to provide a method of resolving some of the ambiguities stemming out of the seemingly contradicting Rome Statute provisions by applying the rules of treaty interpretation, in particular its subsidiary means, discerning the object and purpose of the Rome Statute through the lenses of its Preamble. In the final part, I have sought out various other concepts that could supersede the immunity of high-ranking State officials for international crimes, including the jus cogens international crime exception to immunity, the obligation aut dedere aut judicare, and the universal jurisdiction.

Keywords

state immunity;immunity ratione personae;immunity ratione materiae;heads of state;high-ranking State officials;international crimes;international courts;International Criminal Court (ICC);Rome Statute;Al-Bashir case;UN Security Council;

Data

Language: English
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [A. Muratović]
UDC: 342.511.6(043.3)
COBISS: 71306499 Link will open in a new window
Views: 547
Downloads: 79
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: Slovenian
Secondary title: Imuniteta voditeljev držav in visokih državnih funkcionarjev za mednarodne zločine
Secondary abstract: V magistrskem delu obravnavam vprašanje imunitete voditeljev držav in visokih državnih funkcionarjev/predstavnikov, to so v prvi vrsti predsedniki vlad in zunanji ministri, pred nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi sodišči, za mednarodne zločine/hudodelstva, ki so kodificirani v Rimskem statutu Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča (MKS), t. j. genocid, hudodelstva zoper človečnost, vojna hudodelstva in agresija, medtem ko se mestoma dotaknem tudi kaznivega dejanja mučenja. V uvodnem delu je opisan pregon državnih funkcionarjev skozi zgodovino vse do 2. svetovne vojne, procesi pred Nuremberškim in Tokijskim sodiščem, kot tudi razvoj na tem področju v desetletjih po 2. svetovni vojni, vse do ustanovitve MKS. Za tem sledi opis različnih definicij in seznamov mednarodnih hudodelstev. Po predstavitvi razlogov in namenov imunitete ter povezave med imuniteto in jurisdikcijo, v nadaljevanju opišem različne vrste imunitet, kot je državna imuniteta - s svojima podkategorijama personalne (ratione personae) in materialne (ratione materiae) imunitete - in diplomatska imuniteta. V tem delu analiziram še nekatera neustaljena vprašanja, kot je npr. obseg državnih funkcionarjev, ki uživajo personalno imuniteto, ali so mednarodna hudodelstva del uradnih dejanj državnih funkcionarjev, ali imuniteta ščiti državo pred tožbo s strani druge države za kršitev kogentnih norm (jus cogens) z opravljanjem suverenih ravnanj (acta jure imperii), ali diplomatsko imuniteto uživajo tudi drugi visoki državni funkcionarji razen veleposlanikov in diplomatskih uslužbencev, itd. Obravnavana so tudi nekatera druga, manj sporna vprašanja, kot je razlika med personalno in materialno imuniteto za mednarodna hudodelstva pred nacionalnimi sodišči. V nadaljevanju analiziram imuniteto sedanjih visokih državnih funkcionarjev pred mednarodnimi sodišči, s posebnim ozirom na MKS in člen 27 Rimskega statuta, ki določa zavrnitev imunitete pred MKS. S poudarkom na določbah o mednarodnem sodelovanju in zagotavljanju pomoči MKS pri aretiranju in predaji obtožencev, je v ospredju člen 98 Rimskega statuta, ki priznava imuniteto državljanov tretjih držav, kot protiutež določbi o zavrnitvi imunitete pred MKS. Tako soočim člena 27 in 98 Rimskega statuta. Naslednja točka razhajanja je tudi vprašanje katere države sodijo v obseg fraze "third State" (tretje države) v členu 98 Rimskega Statuta. Navedena vprašanja, skupaj z Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov (ZN) 1593 (2005) ter členov 25 in 103 Ustanovne listine (ZN), nato apliciram pri analizi zadeve Al-Bashir (bivši predsednik Sudana) pred MKS. Poskušal sem tudi ponuditi metodo razreševanja dvomov pri razlagi nasprotujočih si določb Rimskega statuta s sklicevanjem na pravila o interpretaciji pogodb, predvsem na predmet in namen preambule Rimskega statuta. V zadnjem delu sem predstavil še razne druge koncepte, ki lahko presežejo in zavrnejo pravilo o imuniteti visokih državnih funkcionarjev za mednarodna hudodelstva. Mednje se uvrščajo izjema o upoštevanju imunitete zaradi izvršitve mednarodnega hudodelstva, katerega prepoved je del kogentne norme, obveznost izročiti ali soditi (aut dedere aut judicare), in univerzalna kazenska jurisdikcija.
Secondary keywords: državna imuniteta;personalna imuniteta (ratione personae);materialna imuniteta (ratione materiae);voditelji držav;visoki državni funkcionarji/predstavniki;mednarodni zločini/hudodelstva;mednarodna sodišča;Mednarodno kazensko sodišče (MKS);Rimski statut;zadeva Al-Bashir;Varnostni svet ZN;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 77 str.
ID: 13082285