International Law Rejects Immunity for International Crimes — Full Stop

Abstract

Abstract As far back as 1994, Sir Arthur Watts QC, a pre-eminent international jurist of his time, put the matter of head of state immunity for international crimes in these unequivocal terms: ‘It can no longer be doubted that as a matter of general customary international law a Head of State will personally be liable to be called to account if there is sufficient evidence that he authorized or perpetrated such serious international crimes.’ Most senior jurists of Watt’s ilk who opined on the matter came to a similar conclusion. Yet, some concerning recent academic commentary wrongly suggests that there remains doubt around the question. For example, the Advisory Committee on Public International Law (CAVV), an academic thinktank that advises the Dutch government, suggested in its report on the accountability of President Putin that ‘in international legal practice, there is no clear-cut answer to the question of whether there is an exception to functional immunity for international crimes, including the crime of aggression’. This article uses the CAVV recommendation as a case study in certain mistakes and confusions that have long plagued the discourse on the immunity of state officials, especially heads of state, accused or suspected of international crimes.