Alexander, thanks for your interesting post. Your point that international law exists, in part, to protect international institutions is well taken. To this end, nations are asked to compromise the protections afforded their citizens by ordinary criminal law. Such protections are the essence and purpose of national sovereignty. So the first question here is whether or not the business of the IMF and similar organizations is so transcendently important, and so vulnerable, that nations should allow their citizens to be raped without recourse for it. (I know that sounds like an inflammatory way to frame it, but it seems to be accurate.) And the second question is, who gets to determine whether immunity will be granted: each nation independently, or some kind of consensus arrived at when a large majority of nations agrees?
As to the first question, I cannot help being skeptical. Plenty of important, powerful bodies are able to operate without such carte blanche immunity. If the head of the CIA, or the CEO of Microsoft, or the Prime Minister of Great Britain, were caught committing rape, they would all be (at least theoretically) subject to eventual criminal prosecution. Bringing them to justice would be a complicated process, but they are not granted irrevocable immunity for anything they do.
This vulnerability could certainly be used to interfere with an organization, either by discovering a real crime or by fabricating one. But the prosecution would not permanently cripple the CIA, Microsoft, or Parliament. I cannot see how the IMF would be in any more danger than these bodies. DSK has, in fact, been discredited and removed from his position as a consequence of his alleged crime. If the state of New York were able to prosecute him now, what further harm would be done to the IMF? Why must he be free to assault innocent people?
As for the second question, I don’t mean to be trite, but the answer seems simple. The United States legally gained its independence in 1783, and has full jurisdiction to enforce its criminal laws within its borders. How a majority of other nations agreeing to treaties, which the US pointedly refused to agree to, can change that, is beyond me. Only parties to treaties are subject to their terms.
I’m not a lawyer, which is probably why my views lack nuance. But there is something to be said for pursuing justice and simplicity in law, especially in a country like the US that was originally founded by the people, for the people, with laws founded on broad principles that can be understood without years of training. How are the ideals we hold dear promoted by letting DSK walk free? That is the question Americans should ask when thinking about granting immunity to the heads of international organizations. Other nations might do well to ask themselves a similar question.
International law should not be used as an excuse to set up a dictatorship of the global elite.
