The
lack of imputation of criminal responsibility itself cannot preclude the
development of international criminal responsibility. Nor in any sense it is
accepted for a head of state to commit any act in his personal capacity for personal
gain or/and, as per orders received by the sending state, which leads to crime.
Parallel to other perpetrators, head of states also liable under the
international criminal responsibility without any defence when they face any
tribunals of war against humanity.[1]
For
example, In the Rainbow Warrior case, it was concluded that if an action
performed by a diplomatic agent in a functional capacity; and at the same time
is a serious crime which breaches both, the receiving state’s national laws and
the public international law. Then the diplomatic agent can be held personally
liable for the actions regardless of whether they were ordered to do so by his sovereign state.[2]
The
official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible
officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or
mitigating punishment.[3]
In considering, whether any exception exists to immunity for head
of states, serving or former? There are two approaches in international law adopted
by national courts to proceed. The first denies any exception to immunity against
any serving or former head of state in proceeding brought before a national
court, except for the acts done in his personal capacity. Whereas, the second is
such of kind, which grants immunity in order to accommodate the development of
general international law.[4]
In general, an official status is no defence to the commission of
an international crime; that is a well-established rule. However, still there
is confusion when we compare the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the
current international treaties. Such as,
what nature of acts in criminal capacity to be charged against the diplomat or
head of state, and which of those to be considered to be waived off because of
immunity they enjoy?
[1] Hazel Fox QC, The Law Of
State Immunity (2nd edn, OUP 2008) 686-694
[2] Rainbow Warrior Case, Ruling of the UN Secretary-General,
6th July 1986 in RIAA, XIX 197-221
[3] Article 7 of International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg
<http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art7>;
similar approach is taken by legislatures in Article 7(2) of International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia <http://www.icls.de/dokumente/icty_statut.pdf>
and Article 6(2) of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatuteInternationalCriminalTribunalForRwanda.aspx>
all accessed 25 March 2015
[4] Fox (n1) 695
Comments
Post a Comment