“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.

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.

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.

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 "The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (II)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 17, No. 1 (September 2018), pp. 37-48.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Kitano
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Concurrent Exercise ◽  
Preparatory Work

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 2 is as follows: Chapter 2 Existing Theories (Section 1 Exercise of State Jurisdiction through the ICC (1. Arguments for the Exercise of Territorial Jurisdiction through the ICC / 2. Arguments for the Concurrent Exercise of Territorial and Universal Jurisdictions through the ICC / 3. Arguments for the Exercise of Territorial or Active Personality Jurisdiction through the ICC depending on the Accepted State / 4. Arguments for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction through the ICC in All Cases / 5. Arguments against the Exercise of State Jurisdiction through the ICC / 6. Summary of Section 1)).

Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral Re Al-Bashir Appeal (Int'L Crim. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1177-1233
Author(s):  
Thomas Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Third ◽  
Heads Of State

On May 6, 2019, the Appeals Chamber (AC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its judgment in Jordan's appeal of the December 11, 2017 decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) in Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir. The first and second grounds of appeal concerned whether Jordan had complied with its duty to cooperate with the request of the Court to arrest and surrender Al-Bashir. The third ground of appeal concerned whether the PTC abused its discretion in referring Jordan's noncompliance to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Prior to the judgment, ICC PTCs had created divergent jurisprudence regarding the immunity of incumbent heads of state before international courts.

scholarly journals IMPORTANCE OF THE BEMBA CASE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMANDERS AND OTHER SUPERIORS FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THEIR SUBORDINATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
B. I. Nedilko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
First Case

This article is devoted to the analysis of the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case of the International Criminal Court. He was a Congolese politician, as well as the founder and the head of non-governmental armed group, named “Movement for the Liberation of Congo”, which members committed number of crimes during armed conflict in Central African Republic. The importance of this case lies in the fact, that it was the first case of the International Criminal Court, where the accused was charged with crimes, committed by his subordinates, and not by the accused himself. This article reveals the main contradictions between the judgments of the Trial Chamber, which found Bemba guilty, and the Appeals Chamber, which acquitted him. The legal basics of the institute of personal responsibility of commanders and other superiors in international criminal law, which were formed in the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba case, are highlighted therein. The author addresses and analyzes the grounds for recognizing commanders and other superiors guilty for committing crimes by their subordinates. It was discovered, that Article 28 of the Rome Statute requires the commanders to take only necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by their subordinates, not all possible measures at the relevant time. The Trial Chamber should specify what exactly the accused had to do to prevent or punish the crimes, as well as inform the accused of it prior to the hearing. It is also necessary to take into account objective circumstances, that could prevent the commander from adequately responding to the commission of crimes by his subordinates, especially if they operated in the territory of another state. The commander's ability to take the necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by his subordinates, should be analyzed in relation to each individual crime he is charged with, and not in relation to all the actions of subordinates as a whole. At last, the Appeals Chamber provided an exhaustive list of criteria for determining whether the measures, taken by the commander, were sufficient.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.72 Protection of national security information/Protection de renseignements touchant à la sécurité nationale

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Information Protection ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Security Information

This chapter comments on Article 72 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 72 deals with three main concerns of States with respect to information that they consider to be relevant to their national security. The first is the provision of materials to the Court pursuant to the obligations of cooperation of a State Party. The second is the ability to provide the Prosecutor with confidential materials, confident that the Prosecutor is not required to disclose these materials to the defence. The third addresses the intervention of a State to prevent divulgation of such information by a third party, and amounts to a kind of privilege.

Head of State Immunity and the Rome Statute: A Critique of the ptc’s Malawi and drc Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ramsden ◽  
Isaac Yeung
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

The scope and effect of the Head of State immunity doctrine before the International Criminal Court has prompted much discussion following the 2011 decision of the first Pre-Trial Chamber concerning the immunity of serving Sudanese President, Omar Al Bashir. The ptcI held that, as a matter of customary international law, there existed an exception to Head of State immunity where such official is sought by an international court with jurisdiction, here the icc. In an apparent retreat, a differently constituted ptc in 2014 based the inapplicability of such immunity on the terms of Security Council Resolution 1593. Using the 2011 and 2014 ptc decisions as a critical lens, and drawing upon recent material, this article assesses the proper application of Head of State immunity under Article 98(1) of the Rome Statute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document