Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

U.S. Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Exercise in the Law of Treaties

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online

This contribution offers a legal analysis of the bilateral non-surrender agreements concluded by the United States in the light of the ICC Statute and general international law. In a first step, the author examines the compatibility of the agreements with the Rome Statute, in particular Article 98(2), concluding that they do not fall under the provision as their scope of application ratione personae is too broad and an interpretation of the norm according to its object and purpose reveals that only pre-existing agreements are covered. In a second stage, the validity of the agreements is examined against the backdrop of the law concerning conflicting treaties. Article 30 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (1969) not being applicable to obligations erga omnes partes and thus to the Rome Statute, an analysis under customary international law reveals that obligations of States Parties to the Rome Statute under non-surrender agreements are valid regardless of their conflict with the Statute. As a consequence, these States Parties will be obliged (vis-à-vis the United States) not to follow a request for surrender by the ICC and, at the same time, to comply with the request (vis-á-vis the ICC and other States Parties). The article concludes with issues of state responsibility.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation