has immunity under customary international law. The
ICC, NGOs and everybody else can keep repeating that this is unjust, and it is hard not to be sympathetic. Most reasonable people agree Bashir has blood on his hands. But this alone is not much of a legal argument. The
ICC's judges have made two attempts to explain away Bashir's immunities, both of which have been criticised (see: http://www.ejiltalk.org/
icc-issues-detailed-decision-on-bashir%E2%80%99s-immunity-at-long-last-but-gets-the-law-wrong/; https://opiniojuris.org/2014/04/23/guest-post-
icc-changes-mind-immunity-arrest-president-al-bashir-wrong/; http://www.ejiltalk.org/
icc-issues-new-decision-on-al-bashirs-immunities-%E2%80%92-but-gets-the-law-wrong-again/; http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/467.abstract; http://dovjacobs.com/2015/06/14/does-south-africa-have-an-obligation-to-arrest-and-surrender-bashir-to-the-
icc-no/). That said, many scholars agree with the
ICC (at least its more recent decision, 2014 against DRC; almost everyone,...