International Law Rejects Immunity for International Crimes — Full Stop.

This article examines the legal principle of head of state immunity in relation to international crimes, arguing that customary international law no longer recognizes such immunity for heads of state accused or suspected of serious international crimes. It critiques recent academic commentary, notably the Advisory Committee on Public International Law (CAVV) report on President Putin, which suggested uncertainty about exceptions to functional immunity, and instead highlights consistent judicial decisions from international tribunals—including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and others—that reject immunity for international crimes. The article further reviews state practice and scholarly consensus, emphasizing that since the post-World War II era, international legal instruments and the writings of eminent jurists have firmly established the norm that official capacity does not exempt individuals from criminal responsibility before international courts. It also clarifies the distinction between immunity and jurisdiction, noting that the absence of immunity does not automatically confer jurisdiction on international tribunals, which must be established by treaty or other legal instruments. The conclusion stresses the importance of definitively closing the debate on head of state immunity to ensure accountability for international crimes.