Comment On Belgium V. Senegal Or The Obligation To Extradite Or Prosecute

On February 19,2009,Belgium filed a lawsuit against Senegal in the International Court of Justice,requesting the International Court of Justice to determine that Senegal's conduct violated article 6 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.2 and the provisions of Article 7,paragraph 1.The International Court of Justice heard the case from March 12 to 21,2012.On July 20,2012,the final judgment was made on the case,and most of the claims in Belgium were supported by the International Court of Justice.This is the case of Belgium v.Senegal or the obligation to extradite or prosecute.The Belgian v.Senegal or extradition or prosecution case has important value and guiding significance for studying the issue of universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of State officials,universal jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.The jurisdictional immunity of state officials refers to the protection of a country's state officials from the criminal jurisdiction of another country's courts based on the principle of sovereign equality of States.However,with the development of international criminal law and human rights law,the international community has deeply hated the serious international crimes that violate international law,and calls for punishment of criminals are high.The international community has concluded many international conventions requiring States parties to establish universal jurisdiction and hold criminals accountable,even national officials of a country cannot escape punishment.This trend has limited the application of jurisdictional immunity for traditional state officials.This article focuses on the controversial focus and judgment of the Belgian v.Senegal or the extradition or prosecution case,which further leads to the issue of universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of state officials and the comparison of universal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.In view of the issue of universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of state officials,firstly,the basis of international law on universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of state officials,combined with the latest study of jurisdictional immunity of state officials by the International Law Commission,analyzes the theoretical conflict between universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of state officials.Conflicts with practice,through the judgment results of this case and the judgment results of typical cases in international practice,the coordination path between universal jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity of state officials is proposed.In view of the comparison between the jurisdiction of the universal jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,first of all,the basis of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is introduced.Secondly,the focus is on the theoretical level and the applicable level to compare the jurisdiction of the universal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,and draw conclusions that apply the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to combat international crimes.On the basis of analysis and research,it proposes the enlightenment of Belgium v.Senegal or the case of extradition or prosecution to China,and sorts out China's attitude towards the application of universal jurisdiction and the jurisdictional immunity of applicable state officials,and proposes ways to improve China's domestic laws and regulations.Finally,based on the superiority of the application of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and China's positive attitude towards the fight against international crimes,we will consider China's accession to the International Criminal Court.