In October 2016, South Africa formally notified the United Nations Secretary-General of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute (‘RS’) pursuant to article 127(1) thereof. In its reasons for so doing, the fact that it was placed under ‘conflicting international law obligations’ during President Al-Bashir’s visit to the country was particularly relevant. The importance of distinguishing ‘well-founded concerns’ from other reasons for withdrawal has been subsequently noted; this helps draw the appropriate lessons therefrom. In a previous post, it was argued that there is no such conflict. However, varying views on the matter should be duly considered, particularly since the cause, consequences or mere existence of conflicting obligations may constitute a well-founded concern. This will ensure that the focus remains on resolving the relevant issues. Consequently, the present contribution offers a divergent conclusion.
The Court’s Request for Arrest and Surrender: Conflicting Obligations(?)
Sudan is not a party to the RS, but the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’ or ‘the Court’) has jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed therein by virtue of article 13(b) and the referral of the situation in Sudan by the Security Council (‘SC’) (SC Res 1593). An investigation and the issuance of two arrest warrants for President Al-Bashir in 2009 and 2010 followed (see here and here), each accompanied by a request to states parties for his arrest and surrender (see here and here). However, many states parties considered their compliance with the Court’s requests – as required by article 89(1) of the Rome Statute – problematic.
As a non-party, all states are obliged under customary international law to refrain from arresting Al-Bashir by virtue of his immunities ratione personae (South Africa was also allegedly obliged to do so as a result of other international law obligations, but these need not be discussed for present purposes). State parties have waived their officials’ immunities insofar as these otherwise ‘bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person’ (article 27(2)), but the RS cannot bind non-party states. Thus, although this has at times been questioned, article 98(1) seems applicable: Read the rest of this entry…