The case of Pinochet has aroused enormous interest, both political and legal. The spectacle of the General, whose regime sent so many to their deaths, himself under arrest and standing trial has stirred the hopes of the oppressed. His reversal of fortune, loss of liberty with a policeman, on the door, has been heralded by organisations for the protection of human rights as one small step on the long road to justice. For lawyers generally, the House of Lords' majority decision of 1998 that General Pinochet enjoyed no immunity signalled a shift from a State-centred order of things.1 It suggested that the process of restriction of State immunity, so effectively begun with the removal of commercial transactions from its protection, might now extend some way into the field of criminal proceedings. And it further posed the intriguing question whether an act categorised as within the exercise of sovereign power, so as to relieve the individual official of liability in civil proceedings, may at the same time, as well as subsequent to his retirement, attract parallel personal criminal liability.

The Convention on State Immunity adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2004 represents in treaty form a finished product of some 22 years of work 1 It indicates a consensus of State support for the restrictive doctrine of State immunity in its application to civil proceedings relating to commercial matters in national courts. It is a considerable achievement from the view point of the specialist lawyers and diplomats who have steered the project to UN endorsement.

In a previous issue of this Quarterly Colin Warbrick gave an exposition of the British Order in Council (The United Nations (International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) Order 1996) which implements Security Council Resolution 827. This note gives an alternative view of the scope and legality of that Order.

Why. it may be said, should anyone want to raise objection to the Order in Council implementing Resolution 827 when it merely introduced a procedure which ensures war criminals (whether Serb, Croat, or Bosnian) seeking refuge in Britain are promptly handed over to face justice?

The answer is that, whilst the immediate purpose of the Order in Council may be unobjectionable, the means by which it has been achieved are out of proportion to that purpose, and open the door to further unconsidered transfers of national powers.

The decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, given on 24 March 1999,1 confirms, by the impressive vote of 6 to 1, the earlier majority ruling that a former head of state enjoys no immunity in extradition or criminal proceedings brought in the United Kingdom in respect of the international crime of torture.

A pressing issue of the day requiring authoritative resolution is whether public officials when in office carrying out their official functions may be prosecuted by the courts of other countries for alleged international crimes. Objection has been made, though not by the Danish Government, to a new ambassador appointed by the State of Israel, taking up his appointment as head of the Israeli diplomatic mission in Copenhagen, on the ground of his implication in war crimes. Recently, criminal proceedings were brought in the French courts against Colonel Ghadaffi as the serving Head of the State of Libya for complicity in acts of terrorism resulting in the destruction of a French civil aircraft and death of all its passengers. Writing critically of the Lords' decision in the Pinochet case, Henry Kissinger talks of the tyranny of judges replacing that of government, of prosecutorial discretion without accountability and warns that ‘historically the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and witch hunts’.