To arrest or not to arrest the incumbent head of state

the Bashir case and the interplay between law and politics

Jadranka Petrovic, Dale Stephens, Vasko Nastevski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In 2009, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (‘President
Bashir’) was indicted by the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) on
charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the confl ict in
the western region of Darfur, Sudan. The following year the ICC charged
President Bashir with genocide over events in Darfur, where allegedly
more than 300 000 people have died and more than two million people
have been displaced since 2003. Before the ICC can prosecute President
Bashir, it has to obtain custody over him. As a judicial institution without
power to arrest those it indicts, the Court relies on national authorities.
States to which President Bashir has travelled since the warrants for
his arrest have been issued have been reluctant to arrest and surrender
President Bashir to the ICC justifying their refusal by the head of state
immunity argument. By focusing on the specifi c response of the South
African government to the ICC’s arrest warrant against President Bashir
in June 2015, this article considers the question of whether states must
cooperate with the ICC in instances of an arrest warrant against a sitting
head of state of a non-state party and observes the broader implications
of state responses similar to the South African case.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)740-782
Number of pages43
JournalMonash University Law Review
Volume42
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Keywords

  • head of state immunity; ICC; South Africa

Cite this

@article{fec5fe4075154c9abbb7fc46a7ed253d,
title = "To arrest or not to arrest the incumbent head of state: the Bashir case and the interplay between law and politics",
abstract = "In 2009, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (‘PresidentBashir’) was indicted by the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) oncharges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the confl ict inthe western region of Darfur, Sudan. The following year the ICC chargedPresident Bashir with genocide over events in Darfur, where allegedlymore than 300 000 people have died and more than two million peoplehave been displaced since 2003. Before the ICC can prosecute PresidentBashir, it has to obtain custody over him. As a judicial institution withoutpower to arrest those it indicts, the Court relies on national authorities.States to which President Bashir has travelled since the warrants forhis arrest have been issued have been reluctant to arrest and surrenderPresident Bashir to the ICC justifying their refusal by the head of stateimmunity argument. By focusing on the specifi c response of the SouthAfrican government to the ICC’s arrest warrant against President Bashirin June 2015, this article considers the question of whether states mustcooperate with the ICC in instances of an arrest warrant against a sittinghead of state of a non-state party and observes the broader implicationsof state responses similar to the South African case.",
keywords = "head of state immunity; ICC; South Africa",
author = "Jadranka Petrovic and Dale Stephens and Vasko Nastevski",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "740--782",
journal = "Monash University Law Review",
issn = "0311-3140",
number = "3",

}

To arrest or not to arrest the incumbent head of state : the Bashir case and the interplay between law and politics. / Petrovic, Jadranka; Stephens, Dale; Nastevski, Vasko.

In: Monash University Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2016, p. 740-782.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - To arrest or not to arrest the incumbent head of state

T2 - the Bashir case and the interplay between law and politics

AU - Petrovic, Jadranka

AU - Stephens, Dale

AU - Nastevski, Vasko

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - In 2009, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (‘PresidentBashir’) was indicted by the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) oncharges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the confl ict inthe western region of Darfur, Sudan. The following year the ICC chargedPresident Bashir with genocide over events in Darfur, where allegedlymore than 300 000 people have died and more than two million peoplehave been displaced since 2003. Before the ICC can prosecute PresidentBashir, it has to obtain custody over him. As a judicial institution withoutpower to arrest those it indicts, the Court relies on national authorities.States to which President Bashir has travelled since the warrants forhis arrest have been issued have been reluctant to arrest and surrenderPresident Bashir to the ICC justifying their refusal by the head of stateimmunity argument. By focusing on the specifi c response of the SouthAfrican government to the ICC’s arrest warrant against President Bashirin June 2015, this article considers the question of whether states mustcooperate with the ICC in instances of an arrest warrant against a sittinghead of state of a non-state party and observes the broader implicationsof state responses similar to the South African case.

AB - In 2009, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (‘PresidentBashir’) was indicted by the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) oncharges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the confl ict inthe western region of Darfur, Sudan. The following year the ICC chargedPresident Bashir with genocide over events in Darfur, where allegedlymore than 300 000 people have died and more than two million peoplehave been displaced since 2003. Before the ICC can prosecute PresidentBashir, it has to obtain custody over him. As a judicial institution withoutpower to arrest those it indicts, the Court relies on national authorities.States to which President Bashir has travelled since the warrants forhis arrest have been issued have been reluctant to arrest and surrenderPresident Bashir to the ICC justifying their refusal by the head of stateimmunity argument. By focusing on the specifi c response of the SouthAfrican government to the ICC’s arrest warrant against President Bashirin June 2015, this article considers the question of whether states mustcooperate with the ICC in instances of an arrest warrant against a sittinghead of state of a non-state party and observes the broader implicationsof state responses similar to the South African case.

KW - head of state immunity; ICC; South Africa

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 740

EP - 782

JO - Monash University Law Review

JF - Monash University Law Review

SN - 0311-3140

IS - 3

ER -