Accountability of Heads of State before International Criminal Court

Abstract

International Criminal Court (ICC), an established permanent forum, imposes accountability for anyone commit international crimes based on international criminal law. Anyone means the court is expected to procced all actor without disntiction not to mention someone with high status e.g. Heads of State. Other than personally engaged, as a superior, someone must be responsible for the commission of crime by subordinates including as civilian superior. By the time this research conducted, there have been three examples of heads of state proceeded before international criminal court. Laurent Gbagbo, Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta are the only presidents who have been brought to ICC because their involvement in international crimes. Discussing accountability needs first and foremost, applicable law in international criminal court covering issues of accountability such as general principles, offence, knowledge, and jurisdiction. Aside from the general concept, this includes special feature of liability for civilian superior and its application while considering relevant issues of head of state. Lastly, there will be a completion theory of leadership and accountability by another dimension, Islamic Law. As the second chapter use statutory and history approach, subsequent chapter conceive case approach with specific legal and non-legal issues in the case of Laurent Gbagbo, Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta. At the end of discussion, in fact ICC had shown unwavering commitment to even bring heads of state before the court yet with upcoming challenges, the court could take a step forward to impose accountability against heads of state. Starting with comprehensive legal statute and legacy from other international tribunals, the court also gave advancement in the creation of non-immunity rule. Despite being unclear in some instances, ICC brought a new understanding of immunity for third party of Rome Statute which was enlightened in Omar Al-Bashir decison. In Uhuru Kenyatta, ICC ruled about admissibility and complementary issue even though well written in the Statute, the court invested in demanding interpretation that the state must establish progressive domestic proceeding. Finally, still eventhough superior responsibility is possible to be attached at heads of state, the court decided to put it aside after direct responsibility in Laurent Gbagbo decision. Thereafter, the court could be more refined in study and collaboration with other international body in making interpretation for Rome statute. Other than that, state party is the only element who can be relied upon for the betterment of the court’s law enforcement in upholding international criminal justice. Keywords: Accoutability, International Criminal Court, Heads of State, Superior responsibility