2026 IBA ICC Moot Court Competition

International humanitarian law has long protected medical assistance to civilians in armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols I and II oblige parties to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief, including medical supplies, to civilians in need. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalises 'intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare' (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)) and, following the 2019 Kampala-era amendment, extended this provision to non-international armed conflicts. Willful impediment of relief supplies, including medical aid, has been increasingly recognised as a serious violation, particularly in the wake of sieges and blockades in Syria, Yemen, Tigray, Sudan, and Gaza. The legal questions are sharpened by the difficulty of distinguishing lawful military measures (such as inspecting convoys for diverted dual-use items) from unlawful obstruction. Prosecutors must demonstrate intent, the essential character of the impeded aid, and a nexus to armed conflict. The ICC's 2024 arrest warrants in the Situation in Palestine, which include charges related to obstruction of humanitarian relief, mark the most prominent application of these provisions to date. Litigation continues to clarify whether bureaucratic delay, denial of visas, attacks on health workers, and destruction of hospitals can amount to the actus reus of impeding medical aid, and what evidentiary thresholds apply. The topic invites mooters to weigh competing principles: military necessity, sovereign control over borders, the protection of medical personnel under the Geneva regime, and the autonomous criminal liability arising under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.

The tension between Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which renders official capacity irrelevant to criminal responsibility, and Article 98, which preserves obligations under international law concerning state or diplomatic immunity, lies at the heart of one of the Court's most contested doctrinal questions. Customary international law has traditionally afforded sitting Heads of State absolute personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from foreign criminal jurisdiction, as reaffirmed by the ICJ in the 2002 Arrest Warrant (DRC v. Belgium) case. The ICC's vertical relationship with states parties, and its reliance on Security Council referrals for non-parties, complicates the application of this rule. The issue crystallised in proceedings against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, referred by UN Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005). Successive ICC decisions, culminating in the Appeals Chamber's 2019 Jordan Referral judgment, held that no Head of State immunity exists vis-à-vis an international court exercising jurisdiction, and that Security Council referrals place non-party states in an analogous position to parties. The 2023 arrest warrant against President Vladimir Putin and the 2024 warrants in the Palestine situation have reignited debate, with states divided on whether the Court's reasoning reflects customary law or overstates it. Mongolia's failure to arrest President Putin during his 2024 visit triggered a non-compliance finding. Mooters must engage with the interplay of Articles 27 and 98, the legal effect of Security Council referrals, the customary status of the 'international court exception,' and the practical consequences for cooperation regimes when states parties host sitting Heads of State subject to ICC warrants.

The doctrine of male captus, bene detentus — that the manner of a defendant's apprehension does not vitiate jurisdiction — has long contended with the competing principle of abuse of process, under which courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a person brought before them through serious illegality. National courts (notably in Toscanino in the US, and Bennett in the UK) and ad hoc tribunals (Nikolić at the ICTY, Barayagwiza at the ICTR) have produced divergent approaches, generally accepting jurisdiction unless the irregularity reaches the level of egregious human rights violations, torture, or violation of state sovereignty without subsequent waiver. At the ICC, the question arises principally under Articles 21(3) and 59 of the Rome Statute, which require that the Court's application of law be consistent with internationally recognised human rights, and that arrest and surrender comply with national procedure and the rights of the person. The Lubanga jurisprudence affirmed that proceedings could be stayed where their fairness has been irremediably compromised. Cases such as Ntaganda, Ongwen, and the surrender of suspects from third states have raised questions about cross-border transfers, the role of intermediaries, cooperation with non-party states, and whether breaches of the suspect's rights during pre-surrender detention should bar prosecution. Mooters must analyse the threshold at which irregularity rises to abuse of process, the relevance of state sovereignty objections when the affected state does not protest, the remedy spectrum (dismissal, stay, exclusion of evidence, sentencing mitigation), and the balance between accountability for atrocity crimes and the integrity of international criminal procedure.