This chapter discusses the immunities of individuals in relation to criminal prosecution for international crimes. It introduces the main two types of immunity: functional immunity and personal immunity. It discusses diplomatic immunity as a particular illustration. The chapter then discusses limits on functional immunity, with the Pinochet decision and other precedents. It then discusses the harder situation of personal immunity, as explained by the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Decision. It reviews various ways that states have relinquished immunity, including through Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or through ratification of the ICC Statute. The chapter surveys the many issues about whether Security Council referrals to the ICC, coupled with a duty to cooperate fully, have the same effect of removing immunity. The chapter then discusses the legal position advanced by the Sierra Leone Special Court in the Taylor case, and endorsed by the ICC Appeals Chamber in the Al Bashir case, that there are no immunities before international courts, by virtue of their special nature. The chapter canvasses criticism of the theory as well arguments in favour of it.

International law on immunities consists of a body of procedural rules that limit when a state may exercise jurisdiction within its territory. These procedural rules could prevent a domestic court from exercising jurisdiction in a case involving a foreign state, a foreign state official, or an international organization. These rules could also prevent a police officer from exercising jurisdiction by arresting and detaining a foreign diplomat or a minister of foreign affairs. International law bars the exercise of jurisdiction in such situations, either because the exercise of jurisdiction would threaten the equality of sovereign states or because the capacity of the individual or organization to carry out their functions would be compromised. This chapter begins with the law on state immunity, which has evolved over the centuries from an absolute doctrine to a more restrictive one, which permits exceptions, in particular when states engage in commercial activities. The chapter introduces the immunities that apply to all individuals who serve as state officials, whether they serve as relatively low-level civil servants or as the president or prime minister. The chapter also deals with two special regimes, one governing diplomatic and consular agents who serve abroad, and the other governing international organizations.

International law on immunities consists of a body of procedural rules that limit when a state may exercise jurisdiction within its territory. These procedural rules could prevent a domestic court from exercising jurisdiction in a case involving a foreign state, a foreign state official, or an international organization. These rules could also prevent a police officer from exercising jurisdiction by arresting and detaining a foreign diplomat or a minister of foreign affairs. International law bars the exercise of jurisdiction in such situations, either because the exercise of jurisdiction would threaten the equality of sovereign states or because the capacity of the individual or organization to carry out their functions would be compromised. This chapter begins with the law on state immunity, which has evolved over the centuries from an absolute doctrine to a more restrictive one, which permits exceptions, in particular when states engage in commercial activities. The chapter introduces the immunities that apply to all individuals who serve as state officials, whether they serve as relatively low-level civil servants or as the president or prime minister. The chapter also deals with two special regimes, one governing diplomatic and consular agents who serve abroad, and the other governing international organizations.