Defining the Crime of Aggression Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Kaye Müller-Schieke
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Past ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Decisive Test ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court verifies the four most serious crimes to the international community as a whole upon which the Court shall have jurisdiction. Though it includes the crime of aggression the Statute lacks a definition of that crime. The purpose of the article is to offer a sustainable definition. It discusses the constitutive elements of the crime, focussing on the crucial points in a debate that has been actively engaged in for the past 50 years. Certainly, the crux of the matter lies in the role the Security Council should play in this regard. […] there has been a persistent undercurrent of opinion expressive of the view that there is no fixed limit to the possibilities of judicial settlement; that all conflicts in the sphere of international politics can be reduced to contests of a legal nature; that the only decisive test of justiciability of the dispute is the willingness of the disputants to submit the conflict to the arbitrament of law.H. Lauterpacht

A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Barriga ◽  
Leena Grover
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Consent ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

At 12:20 in the morning on Saturday, June 12, 2010, the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda, adopted by consensus a comprehensive package of amendments on the crime of aggression. States parties to the Rome Statute thereby delivered on their promise, reflected in Article 5 (2) of the Statute, to define the crime of aggression and to agree on the conditions for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over that crime. Despite a thorough and more than decadelong preparatory process, few, if any, had predicted such a substantive outcome on the crime of aggression in light of the serious disagreements on major questions, which persisted until the last days of the conference. The key elements of the final package are a definition of the crime of aggression, which limits criminal responsibility to leaders who are responsible for the most serious forms of the illegal use of force between states, and a complicated set of conditions for exercising jurisdiction. Investigations would be based on either a Security Council referral or state consent.

The ICC and Complementarity in Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL NSEREKO
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Territorial States

AbstractSince the start of its operations 10 years ago, the International Criminal Court has dealt with a number of challenges to the admissibility of cases before it. Some of the challenges were mounted by territorial states that had jurisdiction over the cases. Others were mounted by accused persons. The Court, acting on its own initiative, has, on a number of occasions, also considered issues of the admissibility of cases before it. It has done this, in the main, at the pre-trial stages of proceedings. Some of the cases arose out of state or Security Council referrals. Others arose out of the Prosecutor's initiated investigations. In the course of dealing with these matters the Court has endeavoured to strike a balance between the states’ right to exercise their sovereignty through national proceedings, on the one hand, and the interests of the international community to ensure that ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished’, on the other. In the process of doing so the Court has also developed some practices and generated an impressive body of jurisprudence, the subject of this article. The jurisprudence evinces the Court's readiness to assume jurisdiction over a case in situations where there is clear inaction on the part of the national authorities. The article, which is a critical exposé of that jurisprudence, endorses this stance as a veritable antidote to impunity for atrocity crimes.

Security Council Referrals to the International Criminal Court as Quasi-Legislative Acts

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-175
Author(s):  
Alexandre Skander Galand
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

In 1998, the international community decided to establish the first permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in the Rome Statute. As noted by many observers, some of the specific crimes within the Rome Statute are not grounded on customary international law but are more germane to treaty-based crimes. Thus, the exercise of treaty-based jurisdiction over non-party States would conflict with the principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt. While the ICC jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed in the territory or by nationals of its States Parties, the Court may, where a situation is referred by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory and by nationals of States not party to the Statute. Since the Rome Statute may go beyond existing applicable law, the referrals to the ICC are thus normative in their character. They impose new rules to be observed by any actors in the situations referred. This paper argues that this feature of a Security Council referral fits the definition of an international legislative act. The paper also inquires whether the obligation to cooperate fully with the Court arising from the Security Council resolution and the principle of complementarity require the State to modify its domestic law.

The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ademola Abass
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction

AbstractThis article examines whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise universal jurisdiction. In particular, the author responds to the argument that the ICC can exercise universal jurisdiction on the basis of delegated criminal jurisdiction and the aut dedere aut judicare principle, and challenges the view that the trial of nationals of non-parties by the ICC neither creates obligations for such states nor contravenes the Monetary Gold principle. The author argues that although some Rome Statute crimes have universal character, this does not automatically entitle the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over non-party nationals outside such limited universal jurisdiction as may be conferred on the Court through the Security Council referral.

The Role of UN Documentation in Shaping Narratives at the International Criminal Court and the Implications for the Rights of the Accused

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Anne Herzberg
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Close Cooperation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Primary Basis

Abstract The International Criminal Court (icc) is an independent treaty-based international organisation acting in close cooperation with the United Nations (UN). To that end, organs of the Court have extensively relied on UN documentation in proceedings. These materials have been used to support grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction, demonstrate legal elements of crimes, and prove matters of fact. In recent practice, including in the situations of Palestine, Bangladesh/Myanmar, and Mali, UN materials have been used to establish legal and factual matters on the primary basis that they represent the ‘views of the international community’. This paper examines the ways in which Court organs rely on UN documentation in icc proceedings. It assesses the interplay of such information with rights of the accused. The paper concludes that in order to safeguard its credibility and the fairness of the proceedings, the Court should adopt specific guidelines relating to the evaluation of and admissibility of UN materials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document