الحصانة الدبلوماسية في مواجهة العدالة أمام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية

This research aims to deconstruct the legal dialectic between the traditional system of diplomatic immunities and the imperatives of international criminal justice under the Rome Statute. The study addresses the problematic "normative conflict" arising from the tension between Article 27, This includes Article 98, which removes immunity from all officials, and Article 98, which obligates respect for the immunities of non-party states. Using analytical and deductive methodologies, the research identifies a hierarchy of priorities for peremptory norms (jus cogens) at the expense of customary and treaty-based immunities. The study concludes that diplomatic immunity is no longer a substantive bar to accountability for international crimes, as the concept of "absolute sovereignty" has receded in favor of the principle of ending impunity. The findings demonstrate that Security Council resolutions, acting under Chapter VII, serve as the most effective legal instrument for "dissolving" the personal immunities of officials from non-party states, thereby granting the Court's jurisdiction a universal character. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the necessity of closing procedural loopholes within the Rome Statute to ensure that immunity does not transform from a tool for protecting diplomatic functions into a safe haven for perpetrators.