scholarly journals Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute” (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Freuden
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) issued its “Decision on the ‘Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute.’” The decision is notable both for the procedural posture—the Prosecution submitted its request prior to opening a preliminary examination—and the majority's conclusion that the Court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged deportation from Myanmar, a nonstate party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute or Statute), to a state party, Bangladesh.

Case No. ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michail Vagias
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Personality

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) ruled by a majority—Judge Perrin de Brichambaut dissenting—that it has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning crimes that occurred only in part within the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute. In so ruling, the Court granted the ICC prosecutor's request to rule on jurisdiction and confirmed its territorial jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of Rohingya people from the territory of Myanmar (a state not party to the Rome Statute) to Bangladesh (a state party). The Court also affirmed unequivocally its objective international legal personality vis-à-vis non-party states and hinted strongly that the prosecutor should consider the possible prosecution of at least two additional crimes in connection with this situation.

“Situation in Palestine” (Int'l Crim. Ct. Pre-Trial Chamber)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-74
Author(s):  
Anne Bayefsky
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction

On February 5, 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its decision on territorial jurisdiction in the “Situation in Palestine.” The result reflects the controversy surrounding the process and the merits: a divided bench, with a Minority decision three times the length of that of the Majority. The outcome marked the culmination of sustained attempts by Palestinians and their supporters over more than two decades to engage the ICC, beginning with contentious negotiations preceding the vote on the Rome Statute at the Rome Conference and including three preliminary examinations, the third of which concluded with this decision. The Rome Statute, adopted by vote on July 17, 1998, included elements that negotiators acknowledged had never appeared before in international law, and were directed at an Israeli target. For this reason, in large part Israel, which had long supported the principle of an international criminal court, chose not to become a state party to the Statute or to participate in the proceedings.

State of Exception

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Occupied Palestinian Territory ◽  
Palestinian Territory

Abstract In December 2019, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concluded her preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine, determining there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation into the situation. Instead of doing so, she first decided to seek a ruling from the Pre-Trial Chamber on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, specifically aimed at confirming her view that the ‘territory’ over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This article focuses on the amici curiae observations and other communications made by eight states parties in the proceedings — Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Uganda. A critical examination of these observations and communications reveals that they did not answer the question posed by the OTP, but rather advanced a number of strained arguments aimed, inter alia, at impugning the very notion that the Court has any jurisdiction at all on the basis that Palestine is not a state. When juxtaposed against the ostensible commitment of these states parties to the object and purpose of the Statute, their observations and other communications reveal a conspicuous hypocrisy. If accepted by the Court, these observations and communications would operate to not only affirm the continued contingency of the state of Palestine on the international plane, but, even worse, to shield persons known to have committed or be committing crimes of the gravest concern to the international community with impunity.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Towards The Deportation Issues In Myanmar

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 306
Author(s):  
Bugivia Maharani Setiadji Putri ◽  
Sefriani Sefriani
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Government ◽  
Party State

<p><em>This research aims to comprehensively analyze the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating gross violations of human rights involving a non-party state of the 1998 Rome Statute and its application to the perpetrators of deportation against the Rohingya with Myanmar as the non-party state. The results showed that this jurisdiction can be implemented under three conditions, first, the crime is committed by nationals of a non-party state on the territory of a state party to the Statute. Second, the UN Security Council refers a situation to the International Criminal Court in its resolution. Third, through an ad hoc declaration that a non-party state of the Rome Statute accepts the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Since the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court covers crimes that occur wholly or partly on the territory of a state party, it can be applied to the deportation against the Rohingya in Myanmar. This involved the fleeing of this ethnic group from attacks by the Government of Myanmar to Bangladesh, a state party to the 1998 Rome Statute</em></p>

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.18 Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility/Décision préliminaire sur la recevabilité

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law

This chapter comments on Article 18 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 18 applies when a situation has been referred to the Court by a State Party and the Prosecutor has deemed that there is reasonable basis to commence an investigation. The Prosecutor is required to notify both States Parties and ‘those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned’. Within one month of receiving notification, a State may inform the Court that it is investigating or has investigated its nationals or others within its jurisdiction with respect to criminal acts relating to the information provided in the notification to States. At the request of that State, the Prosecutor shall defer to the State's investigation of those persons unless the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, decides to authorize the investigation.

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.

Sexual Slavery and Members of a Terrorist Group – What is the Future of the 'Boko Haram' Trial at the International Criminal Court?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-253
Author(s):  
Michala Chadimova
Keyword(s):  
Human Trafficking ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Boko Haram ◽  
Sexual Slavery ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

Crimes committed by the members of Boko Haram in Nigeria are not only the subject of national trials but also of preliminary examination at the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article focuses on the sexual slavery perpetrated by Boko Haram, describes how the crimes are viewed within the national Nigerian criminal process and addresses the possibility of prosecution of the crimes at the ICC.<br/> This article analyses the legal terminology used to describe the crimes connected to Boko Haram – enslavement, sexual slavery, human trafficking and terrorism – and their interaction. While providing an overview of the ICC's current preliminary examination into the situation in Nigeria, this article discusses how the principle of complementarity is potentially holding the OTP back from the formal investigation.<br/> Furthermore, an overview of cases at the ICC that have involved charges of sexual slavery or enslavement will be provided. By analysing the Court's findings in relation to elements of sexual slavery, this article provides an insightful view into the Court's rhetoric on this crime. Similarly, this article discusses modes of liability that have been employed in the Katanga/Chui and Ntaganda cases and provides a learning opportunity for future cases of sexual slavery as both a crime against humanity (Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute) and a war crime (Article 8(2)(e)(vi) of the Rome Statute; 8(2)(b)(xxii) of the Rome Statute).

Theory and practice of mixing procedural models in the Pre-trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court mechanism of functioning

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 100-111
Author(s):  
Denis Pechegin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Honorary Doctor

The increasing interpenetration of the main models of the process and the approval of international standards for the production of criminal cases raise the question of the development and improvement of the form of legal proceedings in the category of the most relevant in modern science. On the one hand, the attention of many scientists is focused on strengthening the competitive core of the process and ensuring, as far as possible, a balance of power between the parties. On the other hand, it is stated that legal proceedings that do not pursue the goal of achieving material truth, especially due to the absolute nature of the principle of competition, lead to excessive formalism that has nothing to do with fair trial. The solution to the problem of combining trial models (the balance of adversarial and investigative cores) is seen in the International Criminal Court. The procedure of criminal proceedings in the International Criminal Court is the result of special scientific modeling taking into account the indicated doctrinal trends, and the degree of generalization of approaches of leading legal families in the structure of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is so high that it allows us to speak about the universality of this procedural system. If the predecessors of the International Criminal Court preference were really given only one started (so, the ICTY was based on the example of the Anglo-Saxon adversarial procedure model with the “American accent”), the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reflected the trend to the initial formation of a balanced trial procedures designed to overcome the deviations in the balance of power by introducing an adversarial process with “inquisitorial” elements: for example, the Pre-trial Chamber, duties of the Prosecutor fully and objectively investigate the circumstances of the case, the duties of the court of first instance to establish the truth in the case. However, this does not mean any disregard for the adversarial core at the pre-trial stage. The article is devoted to theoretical and practical aspects of the combination of adversarial and investigative cores in the activities of the pre-trial Chamber of the International criminal court and reflects the results of a study led by professor Anita Ušacka, honorary doctor of law, in the preparation of a Commentary to the Rome Statute in Russian.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.8bis Crime of aggression/Crime d’agression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
One Year

This chapter comments on Article 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8bis defines the crime of aggression, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The provision is part of a package of amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. It entered into force in accordance with article 121(5) one year after ratification of the amendments by the first State Party. Liechtenstein was the first State Party to ratify the amendments, on May 8, 2012. Consequently, the amendment entered into force on May 8, 2013. On that date, the amendment was registered by the depository, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. However, exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over article 8bis is subject to article 15bis and article 15ter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document