Digital Freedom of Expression of International Criminal Judges and the Impact of Online Conduct on the Presumption of Judicial Impartiality: A Study in Light of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and International Judicial Ethics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37375/bsj.v8i21.4046Keywords:
Judicial Impartiality, Judicial Ethics, Social Media, Digital Conduct of Judges, International Criminal CourtAbstract
This research examines the impact of judges’ digital conduct on the standard of judicial impartiality in light of the rapid expansion of social media and digital communication technologies. The study aims to analyze the relationship between judges’ freedom of expression and the requirements of judicial impartiality, with particular reference to the legal framework governing judicial independence and recusal under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The research adopts an analytical approach through the examination of international legal instruments regulating judicial conduct and independence, as well as a comparative approach by reviewing selected judicial practices from different legal systems concerning judges’ use of social media.
The study further explores the emerging challenges posed by digital platforms and assesses whether online interactions by judges may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. It concludes that while judges retain their fundamental right to freedom of expression, the exercise of this right in digital environments must be balanced with the obligation to preserve both the reality and the appearance of judicial impartiality.
The research recommends the development of clearer international guidelines regulating judges’ digital behavior, particularly within international judicial institutions such as the International Criminal Court.
References
أولاً: المراجع الفقهية والدراسات:
Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., & Jones, J. R. W. D. (2002). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 723–725.
Geyh, C. G., Shaman, J. M., Lubet, S., & Alfini, J. J. (2013). Judicial conduct and ethics (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.
Schabas, W. A. (2017). The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 723–725
بسيوني، محمود شريف (2002)، المحكمة الجنائية الدولية- نشأتها ونظامها الأساسي مع دراسة لتاريخ لجان التحقيق الدولية والمحاكم الجنائية الدولية السابقة، ط 3، مطابع روز اليوسف الجديدة.
سلامة، مأمون محمد (1971) الإجراءات الجنائية الليبي- الكتاب الثاني- المحاكمة والحُكم والعيوب الإجرائية طرق الطعن في الأحكام، ط 1، دار الكتب بيروت لبنان.
ثانياً: الاتفاقيات والصكوك الدولية:
United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. Rome: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
United Nations. (1985). Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2002). Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Vienna: UNODC. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/ji/training/19-03888_A_ebook.pdf
International Criminal Court. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: ICC. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2025-05/Rome-Statute-EN-2025.pdf
Assembly of States Parties. (2026). Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Hague: International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2026-02/RulesProcedureEvidenceEng-2026.pdf
ثالثاً: الوثاق التنظيمية والمعايير المهنية:
Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). (2002). Opinion No. 3 (2002) on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Paragraph 26. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16807473a3
International Criminal Court. (2022). Code of Judicial Ethics (Version 3). The Hague: ICC. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2022-10/A5-09.Code%20of%20Judicial%20Ethics-EN-v.3.pdf
رابعاً: الأحكام القضائية الدولية والوطنية:
European Court of Human Rights. (1982). Case of Piersack v. Belgium (Application no. 8692/79), Judgment of 1 October 1982. Strasbourg: ECHR. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57424
European Court of Human Rights. (2016, June 23). Case of Baka v. Hungary (Application no. 20261/12), Judgment. Strasbourg: ECHR. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng
International Criminal Court. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (ICC-01/04-01/06-2842). The Hague, 14 March 2012. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2012_03947.PDF
International Criminal Court. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment (ICC-01/05-01/08). The Hague, 21 March 2016. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2016_02238.PDF
International Criminal Court. Situation in the Republic of Kenya (ICC-01/09). The Hague, 2010–2023. https://www.icc-cpi.int/kenya
Supreme Court of the United States. (2009). Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868.
High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division (1924). R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, 1 KB 256.
Cour de cassation, deuxième chambre civile. (2017, 5 janvier). Arrêt du 5 janvier 2017, n°16-12.394. Paris: Cour de cassation.
Musk, E., & Tesla, Inc. (2026, March 24). Defendants’ motion for recusal and random re-assignment (Consolidated & Coordinated C.A. No. 2024-0631-KSJM). Delaware Court of Chancery.
خامساً: التشريعات الوطنية
قانون المرافعات المدنية والتجارية الليبي، الرسمية (1954) العدد الخاص 2.
قانون الإجراءات الجنائية الليبي، الجريدة الرسمية (1954) العدد الخاص 3.
قرار المجلس الأعلى للهيئات القضائية رقم (3) لسنة 2008 بشأن اعتماد مدونة أخلاقيات وسلوك أعضاء الهيئات القضائية في ليبيا.
