The lack of a demarcation between international criminal law (icl) and public international law (pil) creates a set of complex issues resulting from their overlap. A prime example of this situation is the tension between the state duties under icl, to investigate and prosecute ius cogens crimes, even if they are committed by the highest representatives of foreign states, and the pil customary rules on the latter’s personal and functional immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Attempts by the icj and the ilc Special Rapporteur to limit this tension have been met with strong criticism. The various arguments against both approaches show the significant difficulties to overcome the tensions caused by the overlap between icl and pil. In light of this situation, a stricto sensu definition of icl should be adopted as a way to establish a clearer demarcation between icl and pil and to limit the scope of their overlap.

国际刑法（icl）与国际公法（pil）之间缺乏界线，这造成了一系列相互重叠的复杂问题。这种情况的一个很好的例子是，在icl之下的国家职责，即调查和起诉余兴的犯罪，即使这些犯罪是由外国最高代表实施的，也与pil习惯规则有关，后者对后者的人身和功能豁免享有豁免权之间的张力外国刑事管辖权。在尝试国际法院和国际法委员会限制这种紧张局势的特别报告员遭到了强烈的批评。反对这两种方法的各种论点都显示出克服icl和pil重叠引起的张力的巨大困难。鉴于这种情况，应采用icl的严格定义，以在icl和pil之间建立更清晰的分界并限制它们重叠的范围。