Al-bashir

Al-bashir. For this reason, Article 27 was the object of virtually no discussion during the Diplomatic Conference, as States understood it to be consistent with the practice of the international community since the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945, as well as the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Beginning with the issuance of arrest warrants against al-Bashir in 2009 and 2010, however, a campaign was launched arguing that as a head of state, and particularly a head of state of a non-State party to the Rome Statute, al-Bashir was immune from prosecution before the ICC. This short post is not the place to address the complicated issue of , nor the use of Article 98 by the United States to negotiate bilateral immunity agreements, and the invocation of Article 98 by States as a basis for noncooperation regarding the arrest of al-Bashir —.

Third , in taking up the question of head of State immunity under customary international law, rather than relying upon the effect of U. Many have argued that it would have been possible to , and conclude that there was an obligation on the part of Jordan as an ICC State Party to arrest and surrender al-Bashir. Certainly, courts should be circumspect and hesitate to decide more than the case and the question presented before them.