The ICC's Al Bashir jurisprudence over the last decade: enforcer of the will of States Parties or of a global jus puniendi?

Over the course of the past decade, the question of whether States Parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) could rely on Al Bashir's Head of State immunity when refusing to execute the Court's arrest warrants has occupied the Court through five different cases, finally reaching an Appeals Chamber decision in May 2019. Although Al Bashir has been deposed from power and the controversy around the case has diminished, there are still valuable lessons to be learned from the case law produced. This article poses the question of what kind of court the ICC really is: is it merely enforcing the will of its States Parties or does it develop an independent existence following its own agenda? In the process, the article will shine a light on how the Appeals Chamber is moving the ICC towards a path of judicial independence: it is willing to stretch the limits of the Rome Statute and to possibly disregard the interests of its States Parties. By pronouncing on the absence of a customary rule of Head of State immunity before international courts, the Appeals Chamber aims to broaden the ICC's jurisdiction and to sharpen its profile as an international court acting on behalf of the international community and enforcing a global jus puniendi. Examining the decade of Al Bashir jurisprudence, it becomes clear where these findings originate and why they were by no means unavoidable. Finally, the article will indicate how the distilled features of the Court's character might be put to the test – or how the result of a decade of case law will silently evaporate.