Trying sitting heads of state: The African Union versus the ICC in the Al Bashir and Kenyatta cases

Paola Gaeta, Patryk I. Labuda

Research output: Contribution to Book/Report typesChapterpeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

The issue of the exercise of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over sitting heads of state is one of the major bones of contention in the tense relationship between the ICC and Africa. Legally, the disagreement revolves around the interpretation of the two rules of the Rome Statute, that is, article 27(2) and article 98(1), concerning the personal immunities. The Al Bashir and Kenyatta cases constitute the litmus test with which the analysis of these rules of the Rome Statute can be carried out to clarify the scope and purport of these two provisions. The Al Bashir case raises two different issues: (i) whether the same immunities preclude the ICC from exercising its adjudicatory jurisdiction over a sitting head of state of a non-member state; (ii) if this is not the case, whether the ICC member states are obliged under the Rome Statute to execute the request by the ICC to arrest and surrender him.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe International Criminal Court and Africa
EditorsCharles Chernor Jalloh, Ilias Bantekas
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages138-162
Number of pages25
ISBN (Electronic)9780191847837
ISBN (Print)9780198810568
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Al Bashir
  • International criminal court (ICC)
  • Jurisdiction
  • Kenyatta
  • Rome statute

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Trying sitting heads of state: The African Union versus the ICC in the Al Bashir and Kenyatta cases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this