Transcript International Law - Carolina Academic Press

International Law
4th Edition (2009)
Carolina Academic Press
Professor Valerie Epps
Copyright: Valerie Epps 2009
All Rights Reserved
Copyright (c) 2009 Valerie Epps.
All Rights Reserved.
Arrest Warrant Case
(Congo v. Belgium) 2002 I.C.J. 3
 What crimes did the arrest warrant issued by
Belgium accuse Yerodia of committing?
 What was the basis for Belgium’s assertion of
jurisdiction over Yerodia?
 Who was Yerodia and where did his alleged
crimes take place? Against whom were the
alleged crimes committed?
 The ICJ upheld the right of immunity for Yerodia
(see the ICJ immunity decision at pp. 164ff.) so it
did not discuss the basis of Belgium’s jurisdiction,
although several separate opinions did so.
Copyright (c) 2009 Valerie Epps.
All Rights Reserved.
Arrest Warrant Case: Joint Separate Opinion
of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Buergenthal
These judges thought the Court should have ruled on the legitimacy of
Belgium’s jurisdiction before considering the issue of immunity and
noted that the arrest warrant must have been based on universal
jurisdiction as the Belgian legislation permits the assertion of universal
jurisdiction for serious violations of international humanitarian law (the
laws of war) without any connection to Belgium. Other states’
legislation for prosecuting war crimes requires some connection with
the forum or indicates which treaty must have been violated. Case law
also requires a connection with the forum or a treaty violation. The
Geneva Conventions require prosecution or extradition of persons
found within their territory accused of grave violations of the
Conventions.
 Q: Must the accused be in the territory of the state asserting jurisdiction
to validate universal jurisdiction? Had Belgium actually asserted
jurisdiction by issuing an arrest warrant or was it simply preparing to
assert jurisdiction?
Copyright (c) 2009 Valerie Epps.
All Rights Reserved.
Arrest Warrant Case: Joint Separate Opinion of
Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Buergenthal continued
 Q: Are these judges endorsing universal jurisdiction or not?
If so, in what circumstances?
 Note: In 2003, Belgium restricted its jurisdictional statute
after some members of NATO threatened to call for moving
the HQ of NATO out of Brussels.
 Q: What does this hostility to, or reluctance to address the
legitimacy of, universal jurisdiction teach us about that basis
for jurisdiction?
Copyright (c) 2009 Valerie Epps.
All Rights Reserved.