Immunity of Heads of State and Government: Implicationsand Challenges for the Proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan
| dc.contributor.advisor | Kassa, Getahun (PhD) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alemtsehay, Behtelhem | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-10-13T08:26:31Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-08T11:42:10Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-10-13T08:26:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-08T11:42:10Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The paper discusses immunity of Head of States and Governments both under international law and in Africa particularly in the AU system. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate whether immunity of Head of States and Government,who violate International Human Rights and Humanitarian laws,are immune from criminal prosecution.Furthermore, the aim of this study is to show the legal framework of AU and the stands of African states mainly South Sudan on Immunity of Head of States and Governments and how it will pose a challenge to the proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan. The paper illustrates how the proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan will enforce its mandate on Heads of States and Governments and address accountability. The paper will unveil how individual criminal responsibility could be addressed if the proposed Hybrid Court remains in a paper. The research questions have been answered by using interviews, literature, conventions, cases, and various articles reviews and triangulations of those data collected. The result shows that the issue of immunity of Head of States and Governments under international law does not hold a settled ground, and a major debate subsists one which contends that there is sufficient state practice that removes immunityof Head of States and Governments under international law and one that contends otherwise. The paper recommends the establishment of an institution that conducts thorough study and analysis of the state practice and opinio juris to come up with a hard law which is codified that weighs all the evidence to settle the debate. The paper also addressed the question of accountability in South Sudan and whether the Hybrid Court for South Sudan enforces its mandate on Head of States and Governments who are allegedly responsible for International Human Right violations given the principle of immunity of Head of States and Governments from criminal jurisdiction. Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan has been analyzed to assess the mandate of the Hybrid Court on addressing accountability which outlaw’s immunity as a defense, however, the existence of immunity in South Sudan and the normative framework of AU will pose possible challenge on the functionality of the Hybrid Court. Finally, the paper also unveilsthere is no contingency plan to entertain transitional justice if the Hybrid Court remains on paper. Hence, the paper recommends the UNSC to enact the text of the peace agreement by way of Chapter VII resolution to enforce the provisions of the agreement as an alternative plan if the Hybrid Court remains in vain. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/12638 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababa University | en_US |
| dc.subject | Heads of State and Government | en_US |
| dc.title | Immunity of Heads of State and Government: Implicationsand Challenges for the Proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |