A New African Pluralism in International Criminal Law: Sovereign Immunity and the Trial of Hissène Habré, Kerstin Bree Carlson

There is an ongoing disagreement in international criminal law (ICL) regarding sovereign immunity. International humanitarian law takes the possibility of challenging impunity as a central element of its mandate, in part because a fundamental norm of rule of law practice is that no one is above the law, and in part because leaders are those who arguably bear the greatest responsibility for the types of collective harms international humanitarian law would criminalize. This norm does not distinguish between sitting and former heads of state. Across Africa, however, there has been significant pushback regarding prosecuting sitting leaders for atrocity crimes. This has led to what is perhaps the central conflict defining ICL discourse today: a plurality of opinions regarding how sovereignty comports with state-sponsored atrocity crimes. The chapter examines the recent trial of deposed Chadian head of state Hissène Habré to consider questions of pluralism under ICL regarding sovereign immunity. Through a detailed analysis of the work and doctrinal content of the Habré trial, the chapter shows that while the Habré trial is celebrated as an example of bringing a former head of state to justice, the experience of the Habré trial does not change the balance as regards an African pluralism on the question of sovereign immunity.