Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 International Wrong There was some discussion surrounding which act by the Belgian authorities constituted the illegal act. The DRC claimed that the mere issuance of the arrest warrant against Mr. Yerodia supported the finding of a breach of international law, as a consequential moral injury was incurred by the DRC. Belgium rejected this argument because the warrant did not impose any obligations on other states to execute it and therefore the illegal act would not take place until a third country arrested Mr. Yerodia. The Court disagreed, determining that the violation occurred, due to the nature and purpose of the circulation when the warrant was issued, because Belgium failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability of a foreign minister under international law at that time. The circulation of the warrant potentially caused Mr. Yerodia to refrain from undertaking his responsibilities as a foreign minister, including the need to travel internationally. Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal agreed, adding that the warrant was directly enforceable in Belgium, obliging the authorities to arrest Mr. Yerodia. Judge Oda, in his dissent, held that the DRC's position that the Belgian law violated international law does not prove that a legal dispute existed in this case, as required under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.14 The moral injury asserted by the DRC was insufficient to elevate the case to a legal dispute, transforming the dispute into a request for a legal opinion on the lawfulness of the Belgian legislation. The moral injury was based on an international unlawful act that had yet to happen since the impugned jurisdiction had not been exercised and no action was taken against Mr. Yerodia. The issuance and circulation of the warrant was not unlawful because no legal impact can be incurred until the request is validated by the third state. The DRC was asking for damages for reparation for the injury caused. In order to effect restitution or reparation for the injury to the rights of the DRC, the Court ordered Belgium to withdraw and cancel the warrant, as well as inform the authorities who received the notice of arrest of its non-effect. Since the Court ruled that the circulation of the warrant violated international law, this was an adequate form of satisfaction making good the moral injury sustained by the DRC. The cancellation of the warrant would cure the violations of international law and repair the moral injury as well as restoring the situation to what existed prior to when the warrant was issued and circulated pursuant to the principles declared in the Chozow Factory case.15 Judge Van den Wygaert, in his Dissenting Opinion, raised the distinction between the issuing of the warrant, which was not in violation of international law, and its enforcement that might attract international liability. The former cannot be considered of any effect since there would be no violation of the alleged immunity. Enforcement of the warrant would likely infringe the minister's inviolability but the issuance of a summons only violates the immunity. This did not prevent the minister from exercising his functions since it was not automatically enforced in Interpol member states. The reasoning of the remedy granted by the majority was questioned by Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal. Restitution was considered impossible in the circumstances of the case because Mr. Yerodia was no longer the minister for foreign affairs. Under the premise that the immunity was lost once Mr. Yerodia no longer served the DRC as the foreign affairs minister, the illegal consequences of the warrant no longer existed. 14 (1945) 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. No. 993. 15 Factory at Chozrow, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928 PCIJ, Series A. No. 17, at 47.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:36AM