International Law Keyed to Damrosche
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The Belgian law provides for universal jurisdiction in the case of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, crimes against humanity and other serious offenses. Relying on this law, a Belgian judge issued an international arrest warrant for the foreign minister of the D.R.C (P) on the premise of grave violations of humanitarian laws to be tried in Belgium. The Belgium law also denotes that any immunity which is conferred by an individual’s official capacity does not curtail the application of universal jurisdiction.The arrest warrant was circulated internationally and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) was also notified. This action of Belgium was therefore the basis of D.R.C. (P) suit against it at the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.). The D.R.C. (P) asserted that the warrant against its foreign minister was a clear violation of international law because Belgium purported by this act to exercise jurisdiction over its foreign minister.D.R.C. (P) also claimed that its minister should also enjoy immunity equivalent to that enjoyed by diplomats and heads of states. In addition to this, the plaintiff also sought an order of provisional measures of protection on the ground that the warrant effectively curtailed the foreign minister from leaving the D.R.C. (p). The I.C.J. thus gave its judgment on this case.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.