1 / 8

ICJ Case: DRC v. Belgium Arrest Warrant (2000)

This case concerns the issuance of an arrest warrant against a former DRC minister by Belgium, violating principles of sovereign equality among states and diplomatic immunity. The ICJ concluded that Belgium must cancel the warrant and inform foreign authorities.

jbrady
Download Presentation

ICJ Case: DRC v. Belgium Arrest Warrant (2000)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case concerningthe arrest warrant of 11 april 2000(democraticrepublik of thecongo v. Belgium) By Eva de smit

  2. Facts • Public internationallaw case beforethe ICJ • 14 February 2002 • Belgium investigationmagistrate Abdoulaye YerodiaNdombasi (AY) • Crimes againsthumanity • 17 October 2000 Congo filedproceedings

  3. Application of congo • Belgium violatedtheprinciple of sovereign equalityamongall Members of the UN • Belgium violateddiplomaticimmunity of the Minister forForeignAffairs

  4. Belgianlaw • “The Belgian court shall have jurisdiction in respect of theoffencesprovidedfor in the present Law, wheresoevertheymay have been committed.”

  5. Objections of belgium: • Jurisdiction of the Court no legaldisputebetweenthePartiessince AY is not a minister anymore • Ifthe Court has jurisdiction on the date the case is referred, itcontinuesto do so • Mootness no object since AY is not a minister anymore  Changes in this case has not put an end tothedispute Rejected Rejected

  6. Objections of belgium: So by rejecting all the objections of Belgium, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction, that the Application is not without object, that the case is not moot and that the Application is admissible. • Admissability case is materially different, sothe Court lacksjurisdiction • Dispute is nottransformedintoanotherwith a different character • Admissability action of diplomaticprotection, but thelocal remedies are notexhausted • Case is stillaboutthelawfulness of the arrest warrant +Subsidiary argument non ultra petitarule  “notbeyondtherequest”  Non ultra petitarulecannotprecludethe Court fromaddressingcertainlegal points in itsreasoning Rejected Rejected Rejected

  7. Merits of the case: • Immunitycannotprotectagainstbeingprosecutedfor crimes againsthumanity • Thereexcists no exceptiontoimmunity • Legal effectswerenational Issuance of the arrest warrant effectivelyinfringedAY’simmunity

  8. Conclusion: • “Byissuingandinternationallycirculatingthe arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 against Mr. AbdulayeYerodiaNdombasi, Belgium committed a violation in regardtotheDemocraticRepublic of the Congo of therule of customaryinternationallawconcerningthe absolute immunityfromcriminalprocess of incumbentforeign ministers; in doingso, itviolatedtheprinciple of sovereign equalityamongStates.”  Belgium is required by means of its own choosing to cancel the warrant and to inform the foreign authorities to whom the warrant was circulated.

More Related