Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:02:33.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congov v. Belgium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alexander Orakhelashvili
Alexander Orakhelashvili*
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , July 2002 , pp. 677 - 684
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The law is reproduced in translation at 38 ILM 918 (1999).

2 ArrestWarrantof 11 April 2000 (Dem.Congov.Belg.) (Int’lCt. Justice Feb. 14, 2002) [hereinafter Judgment]. The decisions, pleadings, and basic documents of the International Court of Justice are available online at <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

3 The Congo requested the Court to indicate provisional measures ordering Belgium to cancel the warrant on the ground that Belgium had irreparably infringed upon the Congo’s capacity to conduct foreign relations. But the Court rejected the request because of the lack of urgency; at the time of the request, Yerodia was no longer the Congo’s foreign minister.

4 See Judgment, supra note 2, paras. 41-43.

5 Id., paras. 23, 29, 33-34, 37.

6 Id., para. 26; see id., paras. 24-25. Judge Oda considered that there was no legal dispute between the Congo and Belgium. Id., Sep. Op. Oda, J., paras. 1-7, 11-14.

7 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 32.

8 Id., para. 36.

9 Id., para. 40.

10 Id., para. 43.

11 Id., para. 46.

12 Id., Sep. Op. Guillaume, P., para. 1.

13 Id., Joint Sep. Op. Higgins, Kooijmans, & Buergenthal, JJ., para. 3 [hereinafter Joint Separate Opinion].

14 Id., paras. 2-3, 71.

15 Id., para. 6.

16 Id., para. 10.

17 Id., Sep. Op. Koroma, J., para. 9.

18 Id., Sep. Op. Guillaume, J., para. 9.

19 Id., paras. 9, 16-17.

20 Joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, paras. 45-52. Judge Van den Wyngaert expressed a similar view, Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Van den Wyngaert, J., paras. 52-58.

21 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 47.

22 Id., para. 48.

23 Id., para. 56.

24 Id., para. 52.

25 Id., paras. 53-56.

26 Id, para. 58.

27 Id., paras. 70-71.

28 Judgment, para. 61. According to the Joint Separate Opinion and the dissenting opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh, the original concept of absolute immunity, based on status (as expressed by the maxim pare in parem non habet imperium), is now replaced by that of functional immunity. The scope of acts for which immunity is granted has varied over time, reflecting the changing priorities of society, joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, para. 72; Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Al-Khasawneh, J., para. 7. The Court did not advert to the finding of the House of Lords that torture does not constitute an official act under the Torture Convention, see Christine, M. Chinkin, Case Report: Regina v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), 93 AJIL 703, 708 (1999)Google Scholar.

29 Joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, paras. 71, 78, 85.

30 Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Van den Wyngaert, J., para. 10.

31 Id., paras. 12-23.

32 Id., para. 28; id., Diss. Op. Al-Khasawneh, J., para. 7.

33 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 75.

34 Id.

35 Id., para. 76. Thejoint Separate Opinion and the dissenting opinion of Judge Van den Wyngaert argued that the warrant was illegal because Yerodia was foreign minister at the time. As soon as he ceased being foreign minister, the illegal consequences attaching to the warrant also ceased. Joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, para. 89; Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Van den Wyngaert, J., paras. 1,84. Judge Van den Wyngaert also argued that neither the issuance of the Belgian arrest warrant nor its international distribution constituted an internationally wrongful act. Id., paras. 72-79.

36 Judgment, supra note 2, paras. 53-56; see supra text accompanying notes 24-27.

37 Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Van den Wyngaert, J., paras. 40-67.

38 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 59. This point is noted in Judge Van den Wyngaert’s dissenting opinion at paragraphs 17, 42, and 62.

39 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 59.

40 Joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, para. 75.

41 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, Art. 53,1155 UNTS 331, reprinted in 8ILM 679 (1969).

42 See International Law Commission, State Responsibility: Titles and Texts of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted by the Drafting Committee on Second Reading, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.l (2001), at <http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm>.

43 Joint Separate Opinion, supra note 13, para. 79.

44 Judgment, supra note 2, Diss. Op. Al-Khasawneh,J., para. 7.

45 Id., Diss. Op. Van den Wyngaert, J., para. 28.

46 The Court’s approach follows that of die LaGrand case, where it ordered the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of Germans nationals deprived of their rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24,1963, 21 UST 77,596 UNTS 261. See LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), para. 125, operative para. 7 (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001); William, J. Aceves, Case Report: LaGrand (Germany v. United States), 96 AJIL 210 (2002)Google Scholar.