Talk:Immunity from prosecution (international law)

General

"Recent developments in international law show that this type of immunity, whilst it may be available as a defence to prosecution for local or domestic crimes or civil liability, is not a defence to an international crime. (International crimes include crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide). This has developed in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, particularly in the Karadzic, Milosevic, and Furundzija cases. This was also the agreed position as between the parties in their pleadings in the Arrest Warrant Case of the International Court of Justice, (Congo v Belgium) (2002) ICJ Rep"

Given the subsequent ICJ ruling on the case, surely this issue is not as clear cut as it is made out to be, and it is questionable whether such a customary rule lifting functional immunities can truly be said to exist under current customary international law.

Undoubtedly it should be correct, however I think the statement above reflects more the hopeful view of academics rather than the law itself. --Simonclamb 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix up the functional immunity section but haven't really been able to properly. I actually think the whole article needs rewriting, and perhaps linking with the state immunity page. I'd personally do it and take the time to fix the citations/sources etc but I don't have the time at the moment. Hopefully somebody else has? :( --Simonclamb 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)