Introductory Remarks by Priya Pillai

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 201-203
Author(s):  
Priya Pillai
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Selection Of

2020 is a significant year for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Nearly two decades have passed since the entry into force of the Rome Statute and the establishment of the ICC, and there are valid questions being asked about the efficacy and value of the court. This is impelled in part by the track-record of the ICC. There are currently nine open preliminary examinations, thirteen examinations that have been granted the authorization to proceed to the investigation stage, and four investigations that have been closed without any further proceedings. Of the few cases that have eventually gone to trial, there have been four convictions and three acquittals. There have also been allegations of bias in the selection of situations and cases, and the politicization of justice. However, the complexities that need to be navigated by the court also must not be overlooked. These include the lack of cooperation by states, difficulties in accessing information and evidence, as well as mismatched expectations from the court and what it can achieve.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court and Sexual Violence: Between Aspirations and Reality

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 878-893
Author(s):  
Tanja Altunjan
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Sexual Crimes ◽  
Track Record

AbstractThe adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was widely lauded as a success with regard to the recognition and potential prosecution of conflict-related sexual violence. More than twenty years later, however, many observers are disillusioned with the ICC’s dire track record concerning the implementation of its progressive legal framework. In many cases, the Court and particularly its Prosecutor have been criticized for failing to adequately address and prioritize sexual violence, culminating in only a single final conviction since 2002. Nevertheless, the ICC’s emerging practice shows progress with regard to the conceptual understanding of conflict-related sexual violence and the realization of the Statute’s full potential in ensuring accountability for sexual crimes. Taking into account the evolving jurisprudence, the Article explores the persisting challenges and the perceived gap between aspirations and reality regarding the prosecution of sexual violence at the ICC.

National Security Evidence: Enhancing Fairness in View of the Non-Disclosure Regime of the Rome Statute

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-359
Author(s):  
Ariel Zemach
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Selection Of

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court completely divests the Court of the power to compel a state to disclose evidence in its possession if the state opposes such disclosure on grounds of national security. If a state refuses to disclose information essential to the adjudication of a case on national security grounds, the ICC may settle fair trial concerns either by drawing factual inferences favourable to the defendant or by staying the proceedings. I argue, however, that in practice such judicial powers do not provide a sufficient guarantee of a fair trial. I propose to allay fair trial concerns arising from the refusal of states to allow the ICC access to evidence in their possession by introducing a reform in the exercise of the ICC's prosecutorial discretion. According to my proposal, the requirement of a fair trial, which entails the disclosure of material essential for the defence, would be incorporated into the criteria that guide the ICC Prosecutor in the selection of cases for prosecution. Although the present article focuses on the issue of national security evidence, the reach of the proposed reform extends to all cases of state refusal to allow the ICC access to evidence, regardless of the grounds for refusal.

Part 5 Investigation and Prosecution: Enquête Et Poursuites, Art.53 Initiation of an investigation/Ouverture d’une enquête

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter comments on Article 53 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 53 takes effect once a ‘situation’ has been triggered, whether it be the result of a Security Council referral, a State Party referral, or exercise of the proprio motu authority of the Prosecutor. It requires the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation, unless he determines that there is no ‘reasonable basis’ to proceed. It sits at the junction between prosecutorial discretion and judicial review, governing, but in only a partial manner, the selection of cases before the Court by the Prosecutor. Article 53 is closely related to article 15. Together, these two provisions define the exercise of discretion by the Prosecutor. They are the key to his independent role in the selection of situations for prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

scholarly journals Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomas Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Core ◽  
Future Challenges

The existing jurisprudence of the icc establishes a two-step test for determining challenges to the admissibility of a case under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, now further solidified by an Appeals Chamber judgment in Simone Gbagbo. Notably, this is an area of the jurisprudence that does not suffer from excessive fragmentation. The Court has consistently required “substantially the same conduct” for a finding of parity between its own case and the case under investigation or prosecution by domestic authorities. Different outcomes in Al-Senussi and Gaddafi are attributable to factual differences, leaving intact the fundamental approach of the Court to the “inability” and “unwillingness” aspects of complementarity. Although novel fact patterns may pose future challenges to the coherence of this approach, the core principles of case admissibility are now well established, increasing legal certainty for States and individuals who seek to challenge the admissibility of cases before the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document