IMF chief Dominique Strauss Kahn arrested in New York

[Nin]

On sunday, the head of the International Moetary Fond, Dominique Strauss Kahn was arrested in New York over alleged sex attack.

Article about the arrestation

Being one of the most powerful men in the world - the FMI is behind the rescue package for Greece and other European countries - he was also number one in French inquieries as potential next president of France and most dangerous opponent to Sarkozy.

Of course, suspicions of a smear campaign have risen immediately - but also large admission that he might be guilty - he has the reputation of a man with an important sexual appetite.

I just wanted to make it known here: it might mean an aggravation of the crisis of the €, and French elections next year seem wildly open all of a sudden.

I don't know yet if DSK is guilty or not (and I don't care a lot), but I think that even if he would be cleared, his political career is over.

[axordil]

I find it strange that he was denied bail as a flight risk. How can someone with that public a profile be a flight risk? Unless the belief is that he would somehow use his influence to stay away from the US...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Considering that he was arrested on the plane, I think it is reasonable to assume that he would leave the U.S. as soon as he could. Extraditing him back would be a nightmare.

The woman he is alleged to have sexually assaulted is an immigrant from Guinea, by the way.

[Alatar]

I heard today that he may be entitled to diplomatic immunity? A ridiculous concept that I've never understood.

[River]

I think IMF officials only have diplomatic immunity for things they do in their official capacity.

[nerdanel]

Here's a brief explanation of international criminal law and immunities, with the disclaimer that this assessment of international law is worth every penny that you paid for it and no more. Possibly the first thing that I learned while on my current course is that I am not now, nor will I ever be, called to be an international criminal lawyer.

Immunities are procedural bars to criminal prosecution. The underlying alleged act committed (here, sexual assault) is still a crime; it is just not legally actionable.

There are two types: the first, state immunity (or immunity ratione materiae), which applies to acts committed by state officials in their official capacity. This is what River is thinking of. Relevant acts are viewed as "acts of state" (e.g., ordering troops into war) and criminal prosecution is not possible even after the actor has left public office. A hotly disputed issue in international criminal law is whether high-end international crimes (e.g. crimes against humanity) can ever be deemed "acts of state." So this type of immunity attaches to a particular type of act, which is distinctive to the sovereign. I don't believe that it is relevant here.

The second type of immunity is personal immunity (immunity ratione personae), which attaches to the individual in question. This extends to diplomats such as DSK. It applies regardless of the offence committed, whether drunk driving or genocide.

Even personal immunity belongs to, and may be waived by, the relevant organisation or state. Theoretically, the individual himself cannot waive it. However, I agree with a BBC article I saw today which says that if DSK practically waives it and decides to proceed, the IMF would probably just go along with that. If he wants to assert immunity, it's effectively their call whether to assert it on his behalf or not. They have not formally signaled what they will do. Note that immunity applies only to the judicial process. It doesn't bind the police, meaning that law enforcement hasn't done anything wrong in detaining him even assuming that immunity applies.

Immunities always outrage people whenever they are asserted, because usually the allegations are more egregious than shoplifting or marijuana possession. The pragmatic justification is to allow states and international organisations to maintain normal relations with each other: if serving high-level officials can be arrested and placed into local criminal proceedings while abroad, it will jeopardize the functioning of the international order. I personally tentatively don't find that rationale fully satisfactory, but I can see the pragmatic appeal. It is of particular interest to various third-world dictators, Israel, and (particularly under the Bush Administration) was relevant to the US.

A key takeaway point: personal immunity does not automatically mean impunity. First, it applies only when the person is in office; once he steps down, he loses the protection and may be prosecuted. Second, as above, the immunity may be waived by his state or parent organisation, allowing the foreign state to proceed with prosecution. Third, his home state may prosecute him; personal immunity applies only abroad (note: I'm not *entirely* clear on how this might apply to someone serving with an international organisation. If he was representing the government of France, it would be true that France could prosecute him - and as a civil law jurisdiction, my understanding is that France is willing to prosecute its nationals broadly for extraterritorial crimes.)

Hope this is of some use. This is just a general overview of immunity under customary international law; if any relevant treaties are in effect between the relevant states, the scope of immunity could vary.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One of the most notorious immunity cases recently (and one that I kept meaning to start a thread on, though I never got around to it) was the case of CIA agent Raymond Davis, who killed two men in Lamore, Pakistan and was arrested by Pakistani authorities for murder. The U.S. tried to assert diplomatic immunity, and Pakistan refused to release him on that grounds, arguing that he was not really a diplomat. Eventually, someone (the U.S. government claims that it was not them) paid the victim's family a bunch of money, and he was released on their request, consistent with Sharia law.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The case that sticks in every Briton's minds is that of a policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher who was attending a low key anti Qaddafi demonstration outside the Libyan embassy in the mid Thatcher years. One of the embassy staff opened fire on the demonstration and hit the policewoman and killed her. I still remember the TV footage of her writhing on the ground as she died.One more image I wish I'd never seen.
We had to let that embassy staff leave the country unchallenged and it hurt.

[Infidel]

Here's a brief explanation of international criminal law and immunities, with the disclaimer that this assessment of international law is worth every penny that you paid for it and no more.

So you are saying it is worth as much as I paid for my computer, monitor, keyboard and mouse, modem and the monthly fee for my internet service?
That starts to add up.

[River]

You might want to throw in a scaling factor as well. Assuming, of course, you didn't buy your computer, the peripherals, and pay for the internet service just so you could post on the HoF...