There is a stark regress in the development of international criminal justice, in particular the fight against impunity on the African continent. This study explores various legal aspects that have arisen between Africa and the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the indictment of President al-Bashir of Sudan by the Court. There is a presumption of conflict between some provisions of the Rome Statute, particularly Article 27 and Article 98. The indictment of President al-Bashir ICC has been the epitome of such a presumption. The African Union (AU) is among those opposed to the indictment of President al-Bashir and has requested the Security Council to defer the matter in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute. The regional body has also refused to cooperate with the ICC in the arresting and surrendering of President al-Bashir to the Court on the basis of Article 98. Therefore, this study seeks to critically analyse the indictment of President al-Bashir by the ICC and the AU’s response to the same. The study further explores the legal validity of a deferral by the UN Security Council and the challenges it would will raise. The study also attempts to reconcile article 27 and article 98 of the Rome Statute in the context of President al Bashir’s indictment. In doing so, the study endeavours to weigh the legal elements in both of the arguments offered in support and against the action taken by the ICC. The reason for such a discussion is to investigate the nature of the jurisdiction the Court has upon President al-Bashir by virtue of UN Security Council Resolution 1593(2005), which referred the al Bashir case to the court. The discussion also investigates the nature of the legal obligations on members of the international community including Sudan, to cooperate with the ICC by arresting and surrendering President al-Bashir to the Court. In an effort to garner support for the ICC’s indictment of President al-Bashir, the study also looks at the operation of the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute and various principles of International Criminal Law that affirm the ICC’s jurisdiction over the situation in Darfur and those principles that speak to the presumed liability of President al-Bashir. Although this study acknowledges the apparent competing demands of justice and peace, it challenges arguments that promote impunity and makes the case for addressing the AU’s concerns relating to the ICC. More importantly, the study suggests that the UN Security Council and the ICC should be consistent and in condemning atrocities wherever they are committed and should be impartial in referring perpetrators of atrocities to the ICC irrespective of their political status. In so doing a clear message may be sent to individuals like President al-Bashir that commission of atrocities will invite international accountability. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted

[pt] O presente trabalho realiza uma investigação da (des)igualdade soberana como um fenômeno que se manifesta nos diferentes níveis de instituições da sociedade internacional. A análise é desenvolvida a partir do estudo de caso do processo contra Omar Al Bashir, presidente em exercício do Estado do Sudão, no Tribunal Penal Internacional. Esse caso evoca uma discussão acerca da autoridade desempenhada pelo Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas nas instituições do pós-1945, em especial, no direito internacional penal. Considerando que normas e regras possuem um papel social nas múltiplas relações existentes em meio a agentes e a estrutura, ou seja, elas transformam as relações no sistema internacional, o trabalho investiga as disposições e princípios presentes tanto no âmbito do Tribunal Penal Internacional, quanto também da Organização das Nações Unidas, que autorizam uma discriminação entre os Estados. Essa distinção implica a imposição de regras internacionais para alguns atores e, ao mesmo tempo, a manutenção de certas prerrogativas soberanas para outros. Mais especificamente, a justiça internacional penal é caracterizada pela seletividade nos julgamentos, uma vez que é conferida a alguns países certa autoridade sobre o regime. Nesse sentido, defende-se que a (des)igualdade soberana que está presente no direito internacional penal é, simultaneamente, manifestação e condição de possibilidade da hierarquia na arquitetura social, e portanto normativa institucional, e política do sistema internacional. Argumenta-se, assim, que a presença dessa (des)igualdade soberana pode ser identificada nos diferentes níveis das instituições da sociedade internacional, na medida em que elas influenciam umas às outras, de sorte que as características de uma refletem-se nas demais. / [en] This work carries out an investigation of sovereign (in)equality as a phenomenon that manifests itself in the different levels of institutions of the international society. The analysis departs from the case study of the process against Omar al-Bashir, acting President of the State of Sudan, at the International Criminal Court This case evokes a discussion about the authority exercised by the United Nations Security Council over post-1945 institutions, especially international criminal law. Considering that rules and norms have a social role in the multiple relations existing between agents and the structure, that is, they transform the relations in the international system, the work investigates the dispositions and principles present both in the scope of the International Criminal Court, as well as of the United Nations, which authorize a discrimination between States. This distinction implies the imposition of international rules for some actors and, at the same time, the maintenance of certain sovereign prerogatives for others. More specifically, international criminal justice is characterized by selectivity in judgments, as some countries are given certain authority over the regime. In this sense, it is defended that the sovereign (in)equality, which is present in international criminal law is simultaneously a manifestation and condition of possibility of hierarchy in the social, and therefore institutionalnormative, and political architecture of the international system. It is argued, therefore, that the presence of this sovereign (in)equality can be identified at different levels of the institutions of international society, insofar as they influence each other, so that the characteristics of one are reflected in the others.

[pt] Esta tese analisa o processo de contestação iniciado pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no Tribunal Penal Internacional. A promulgação por esses Estados de práticas de contestação representou um momento sem precedentes na prática do direito penal internacional. Não apenas os Estados se engajaram com o Tribunal por meio de uma vasta gama de práticas, mas também essa participação gerou um nível alto de escrutínio de estudiosos e profissionais do direito internacional. Ao longo da resposta ao envolvimento africano com o TPI, esteve constantemente presente a conhecida mobilização da fronteira entre direito e política. Uma posição frequente nas reações dos praticantes foi a de que a política não deveria ocorrer no ambiente do Tribunal e a prática do direito internacional deve ser capaz de transcendê-la. A análise desta tese centra-se nestes dois elementos: as práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos e as respostas dadas pelo Tribunal. Nesta tese, questiono se a forma como o Tribunal deu sentido a essas práticas por meio da divisão do trabalho entre direito e política afetou a capacidade desses Estados contestadores de provocar mudanças no direito internacional. Por meio dessa pergunta, procuro capturar os aspectos mais significativos que estão velados não apenas nas práticas de contestação, mas na atribuição de significados em resposta a elas. Esse esforço requer um exame dos padrões de significado subjacentes a essas práticas e narrativas, pois apontam para as condições que permitem que certos atores questionem a autoridade. Argumento que a criação de uma fronteira entre o que pertence à esfera do direito e à esfera da política é em si uma postura política que tem consequências na forma como o direito internacional é praticado. A forma como o direito e a política são mobilizados nas práticas argumentativas do direito internacional criam um conjunto de barreiras para que certas práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no TPI, quando enquadradas como política, não tenham chance de provocar a mudança em primeiro lugar. / [en] This thesis works through the process of contestation embarked by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the International Criminal Court. The enactment by these States of practices of contestation represented an unprecedented moment in the practice of international criminal law. Not only were States engaging with the Court through a vast array of practices, but also this participation generated an enormous level of scrutiny from scholars and practitioners of international law. Throughout the response to the African engagement with the ICC was the familiar mobilization of the frontier between law and politics. A frequent position in the practitioners reactions was that politics should not take place in the environment of the Court, and the practice of international law should be able to transcend it. The analysis of this thesis focuses on these two features: the practices of contestation performed by African States and the responses it engendered from the Court. In this thesis, I question whether the way the Court made sense of these practices through the division of labour between law and politics affected the ability of these contesting States of engendering change in international law. Through this question, I seek to grasp the more significant aspects that are veiled not only in the practices of contestation but in the attribution of meanings in response to them. This endeavour requires an examination of the patterns of meaning underlying these practices and narratives, as they point to the conditions that allow certain actors to question authority. I argue that the creation of a boundary between what belongs to the realm of law and the sphere of politics is itself a political stance that has consequences on the way international law is enacted. The way law and politics are mobilized in the argumentative practices of international law creates a set of barriers so that certain practices of contestation being performed by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the ICC, when framed as politics, do not stand a chance to provoke change in the first place.

Magister Legum - LLM / Sitting head of state immunity for crimes under international law has been a very controversial issue in recent times. On the one hand, the debate bears that personal immunity has been renounced for crimes under international law. On the other hand, the advocates of personal immunity claim that the principle of immunity is still persisting under customary International law. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a treaty based court, it is able to extend its jurisdiction to non-state parties to the Rome Statute through a referral by the United Nations Security Council. Lacking its own enforcement body the ICC relies on the cooperation of other states for arrest and surrender of those it indicts. The extension of the court's jurisdiction to non-state parties, such as the case of Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir, has led to the reluctance of state parties to the Rome Statue to effect arrest and surrender citing a 'dilemma between two conflicting obligations'. This paper analyses the legal status of personal immunity before different fora such as International tribunals, foreign domestic courts and under customary international law. It also critically examines the legal basis for the alleged conflicting obligations of state parties. The paper at the end concludes that there is no conflicting obligation for states parties to fully co-operate with the ICC and the lack of co-operation in the arrest and surrender of a sitting head of state is inconsistent with international law particularly with United Nation Charter and the Rome Statute. / German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen; such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions. / South Africa