{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011940298507462687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.462809917355372, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Criminal immunity of state officials in international law

The paper analyzes the practice of the states and international courts regarding the recognition, non - recognition or withdrawal of immunity in cases which are in accordance with international criminal law and against state officials, including highlevel officials. This paper offers an analysis of the historical role of World War II in recognizing individual criminal responsibilities in international law, enabling the criminal process and prosecuting officers for violating jus cogens norms. In this sense, we should distinguish the immunity ratione personae (personal immunity) from the immunity ratione materiae (functional immunity). High state officials such as the Head of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have the immunity ratione personae. On the other hand, the immunity ratione materiae is enjoyed by other officials. While personal immunity derives from the function performed by high-rank officials and should ensure unhindered performance of their duties, functional immunity is the immunity of the state and should primarily protect the state, not the official, because the official acts only on behalf of the state. Based on this, the paper points out that the practice of domestic courts, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in recognizing or withdrawing immunity of state officials is inconsistent. The paper analyzes the Seventh Report on Immunity of State Officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction by the Commission on International Law and indicates the areas in which the articles of a potential document on the criminal immunity of state officials in international law should be elaborated. In addition to contradictory judgments of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, the impossibility of defining uniform rules arises because the states have different understanding and believe that the dignity of the state will be endangered if their high officials are prosecuted by courts of other states. The paper concludes that further monitoring of the work of relevant international and domestic courts is needed in order to uniform rules and produce a draft document on criminal immunity of state representatives in international law based on uniform practice.