Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The ICC and the Netanyahu Arrest Warrant: Revisiting Articles 27 and 98

Wemlert, Oliver LU (2025) LAGF03 20251
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen behandlar den rättsliga spänningen mellan artiklarna 27(2) och 98(1) i Romstadgan för Internationella brottmålsdomstolen (ICC). Särskilt i fall där arresteringsorder riktas mot sittande statschefer från icke-fördragsanslutna stater. Med utgångspunkt i ICC:s rättsfall i liknande fall mot Omar al-Bashir är tanken att detta ska kunna ge svar framåt. Hur ICC har tol-kat och tillämpat relevanta bestämmelser kan vara avgörande för hur situation-en hanteras i framtiden och i fallet med Netanyahu.
Analysen identifierar tre olika rättsliga tillvägagångssätt i ICC:s praxis: (1) Malawi-beslutet, som bygger på en omstridd sedvanerättslig norm som un-danröjer immunitet inför internationella domstolar, och där stater vid verkstäl-lande av en... (More)
Uppsatsen behandlar den rättsliga spänningen mellan artiklarna 27(2) och 98(1) i Romstadgan för Internationella brottmålsdomstolen (ICC). Särskilt i fall där arresteringsorder riktas mot sittande statschefer från icke-fördragsanslutna stater. Med utgångspunkt i ICC:s rättsfall i liknande fall mot Omar al-Bashir är tanken att detta ska kunna ge svar framåt. Hur ICC har tol-kat och tillämpat relevanta bestämmelser kan vara avgörande för hur situation-en hanteras i framtiden och i fallet med Netanyahu.
Analysen identifierar tre olika rättsliga tillvägagångssätt i ICC:s praxis: (1) Malawi-beslutet, som bygger på en omstridd sedvanerättslig norm som un-danröjer immunitet inför internationella domstolar, och där stater vid verkstäl-lande av en arresteringsorder anses agera inom ICC:s jurisdiktion; (2) Kongo-beslutet, där en resolution från FN:s säkerhetsråd tolkas som ett implicit av-stående från immunitet, vilket innebär att immunitet upphävs både inför dom-stolen och i relationen mellan stater; samt (3) Jordanien-fallet, som hävdar att artikel 27(2) speglar en sedvanerättslig norm som undanröjer immunitet både inför domstolen och mellan stater, men där domstolens argument delvis tycks vara grundad på en säkerhetsrådsresolution.
Uppsatsen drar slutsatsen att ICC:s rättspraxis är splittrad och inkonsekvent. Utan en tydlig rättslig ram förblir staters skyldighet att arrestera personer som Netanyahu lagligt osäker, vilket riskerar att undergräva domstolens auktoritet och internationell rättssäkerhet. (Less)
Abstract
This essay addresses the legal tension between Articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in cases involving arrest warrants against sitting heads of state from non-State Parties. Drawing on the ICC’s jurisprudence in comparable cases involving Omar al-Bashir, the aim is to explore whether past rulings can provide guidance going forward. The ICC’s interpretation and application of these provisions may offer important guidance for how similar issues should be addressed in the future, including the Netanyahu case.
The analysis identifies three distinct legal approaches in the Court’s case law: (1) the Malawi Decision, which relies on a contested customary international norm that... (More)
This essay addresses the legal tension between Articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in cases involving arrest warrants against sitting heads of state from non-State Parties. Drawing on the ICC’s jurisprudence in comparable cases involving Omar al-Bashir, the aim is to explore whether past rulings can provide guidance going forward. The ICC’s interpretation and application of these provisions may offer important guidance for how similar issues should be addressed in the future, including the Netanyahu case.
The analysis identifies three distinct legal approaches in the Court’s case law: (1) the Malawi Decision, which relies on a contested customary international norm that removes immunity before international courts, and where states executing arrest warrants are considered to be acting within the ICC’s juris-diction; (2) the DRC Decision, where a United Nations Security Council reso-lution is interpreted as an implicit waiver of immunity, thereby lifting immuni-ty both before the Court and between states; and (3) the Jordan Appeal, which holds that Article 27(2) reflects a customary norm that removes immunity both before the Court and in inter-state relations, though the Court’s reasoning appears in part to be based on the authority of a Security Council resolution.
The essay concludes that the ICC’s jurisprudence remains fragmented and inconsistent. In the absence of a clear legal framework, States Parties’ obliga-tion to arrest individuals such as Netanyahu remains legally uncertain, posing a risk to the Court’s authority and to the coherence of international legal order. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wemlert, Oliver LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20251
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
International criminal law
language
English
id
9190976
date added to LUP
2025-06-23 13:39:02
date last changed
2025-06-23 13:39:02
@misc{9190976,
  abstract     = {{This essay addresses the legal tension between Articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in cases involving arrest warrants against sitting heads of state from non-State Parties. Drawing on the ICC’s jurisprudence in comparable cases involving Omar al-Bashir, the aim is to explore whether past rulings can provide guidance going forward. The ICC’s interpretation and application of these provisions may offer important guidance for how similar issues should be addressed in the future, including the Netanyahu case.
The analysis identifies three distinct legal approaches in the Court’s case law: (1) the Malawi Decision, which relies on a contested customary international norm that removes immunity before international courts, and where states executing arrest warrants are considered to be acting within the ICC’s juris-diction; (2) the DRC Decision, where a United Nations Security Council reso-lution is interpreted as an implicit waiver of immunity, thereby lifting immuni-ty both before the Court and between states; and (3) the Jordan Appeal, which holds that Article 27(2) reflects a customary norm that removes immunity both before the Court and in inter-state relations, though the Court’s reasoning appears in part to be based on the authority of a Security Council resolution.
The essay concludes that the ICC’s jurisprudence remains fragmented and inconsistent. In the absence of a clear legal framework, States Parties’ obliga-tion to arrest individuals such as Netanyahu remains legally uncertain, posing a risk to the Court’s authority and to the coherence of international legal order.}},
  author       = {{Wemlert, Oliver}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{The ICC and the Netanyahu Arrest Warrant: Revisiting Articles 27 and 98}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}