Prosecuting Corruption Crimes before an International Court: Whither Immunity Rules?

This article argues that an international anti-corruption court has to respect the functional and personal immunity of officials of states that are not a party to it. If an exception applies to immunity before international courts that prosecute international crimes, this exception does not extend to a court that would prosecute transnational crimes. Since personal immunity rules stand in the way of prosecution of (certain, high-level) kleptocrats in foreign national courts, these rules will also hamper the exercise of jurisdiction by an international court. The article further takes issue with the oftheard proposition that corruption is a purely private act that escapes the reach of the functional immunity rule, concluding that functional immunity considerations require closer study in the context of the plans to prosecute corruption crimes at the international level

Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of International Immunity Rules

This paper explores the role of domestic courts in the development of international immunity rules. It assesses how domestic immunity decisions take meaning in the process of law formation and law determination, and examines whether the distinct influence of domestic-court decisions (as compared to international-court decisions) in that process results in a different role, and concomitant different rules, in the process of interpretation of rules of international law. The paper argues that while domestic courts are as a matter of international law bound by the same rules of interpretation as international courts, they are particularly well placed to address access to court concerns raised by immunity rules and may play a prominent role in the development of international law in this field in the years to come