Public International Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 1

Public International Law - Essay Example Sovereign countries have well structure court systems, which adjudicates on the offenses as committed and presented. However, individual states are sovereign and cannot be sued by the virtual of independence. The domestic court systems therefore cannot adjudicate against another country, as before the law, independent countries are not sued. However, the domestic legal systems often meet the challenge of adjudicating against state persons such as the heads of government and diplomats for the reason that these persons enjoy immunity from law as provided for by the domestic laws. This has been the background upon which the establishment and running of the international and regional court system is based1. International law has provisions of covering accused persons to avoid prosecution over criminal acts though under specific conditions. Whereas functional immunity covers individuals who perform specific duties in a country, personal immunity is a privilege enjoyed by persons based on the office they hold within a state. Foreign officials usually charged with specific functions of a state often enjoy immunity from the treaty law as well as customary international law. The provision has it that as the persons perform the duties assigned; they are covered against prosecution for any instance of any criminal offense committed. The coverage prevails even after the official stops performing the state duty. It would only cease to apply in the event that the sovereign country ceases to exist and is therefore said to ride on the sovereignty and dignity of a country. Heads of government, states senior ministers as well as cabinet members are example of official responsibilities to which the immunity covers2. The individual occupying the positions would not be prosecuted for any criminal offense committed while in office. Nevertheless, the persons are liable to prosecution only after their term of office is over only for criminal offenses committed before as well as after their occupancy of the specific office. Moreover, the prosecution may cover offenses committed at personal discretion while in office though this often raise concern of the clarity of the provisions. However, emerging concerns in the international legal procedures are that the provisions should only apply to domestic or local civil liabilities and should not apply to international crimes. The essence of the international legal framework would be compromised in the instances where persons and states stand covered against the course of justice by such immunity. On the other hand, customary international law confers such an immunity against prosecution to individuals holding certain offices in the civil, administrative as well as criminal jurisdictions. Agents on diplomatic assignments abroad together with their families are such examples of persons enjoying such privileges of coverage against prosecutions for criminal offenses committed during their tenure in office. Under this type o f immunity, some privileges are inviolable and includes private residence, correspondence, property of an official enjoyments and papers3. The privileges covered on the personal immunity include the cover against arrests as well as detention, civil and administrative jurisdiction, as well as criminal jurisdiction and other such crimes committed over the period. This provisions is based on the needs for sovereign