China, the Crime of Aggression, and the International Criminal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan ZHU

At the Kampala Review Conference in 2010, the adoption of the amendments to the Rome Statute laid the groundwork for the eventual prosecution of the crime of aggression. China, a non-State Party to the International Criminal Court, has articulated its concerns regarding the Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in legal terms. This paper examines the Chinese concerns regarding the role of the Security Council in the determination of an act of aggression and the definition of aggression primarily from a legal perspective. It argues that China has hovered back and forth between two conflicting legal positions on these issues during different periods in history according to its policy preference. This paper also considers the concerns of China from a policy perspective before concluding that the crime of aggression should not be regarded as an insurmountable barrier preventing China's accession to the ICC in years to come.

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-42
Author(s):  
Jeremy Julian Sarkin

Summary The International Criminal Court is a very controversial institution. It is extensively criticised by both its critics and its supporters. This article examines what steps have been taken to reform the Court. It considers issues such as the need for better communications and messaging by the Court. The paper takes up how and why the Court needs to engage better and in more far-reaching ways with a host of role players that affect the terrain in which the Court operates. It is argued that more reform is needed in how the Court is lead, how it operates, and who the judges and staff are. It is argued that greater diversity is needed at the Court. Also taken up are how the reach of the Court can be increased beyond only prosecutions, how the Court can assist states to prosecute more cases themselves, and how the Court can become more victim centred. A core theme is how state cooperation can be enhanced. A range of suggestions are made so as to enhance the role of the Court in the years to come.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Frances Moran

The concept of duress encapsulated in Article 31(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a novel inclusion in a statute created to allow prosecution of serious crimes against the person in international criminal law. Despite being the topic of much debate, the present state of the discourse remains at a fairly superficial level: existing studies focus on a general analysis of the defence and its conditions. This has included the way in which the defences merges necessity and duress, with only a few authors examining the conditions of ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’. This study looks at an underexplored part of the defence: the condition of imminence. The purpose of this work is to explore the idea of imminence and to review whether a clearer definition of duress could have been used, replacing the idea of imminence with the concept of the individual selecting the lesser evil.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-505
Author(s):  
Eleni Chaitidou

Abstract This article presents and critically discusses the amendments to the Regulations of the International Criminal Court that entered into force in November 2018. The amendments concern the procedural requirements to start an investigation regarding the crime of aggression when a situation has been referred to the Court by a State Party or when the Prosecutor intends to open an investigation proprio motu. In these cases, the Prosecutor must notify the United Nations Security Council and enquire whether it intends to make a determination of an act of aggression. If the Security Council does not make such a determination, the Prosecutor must request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the commencement of the investigation. The amended Regulations aim to ensure that the judges are prepared to entertain such a request relating to the crime of aggression.


Author(s):  
Andrew Wolman

Abstract The International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of states parties. However, it has never been clear whether the Court will automatically recognize a nationality that has been conferred by a state party under its domestic law, nor what criteria it would use to evaluate that nationality should it not be automatically accepted. In December 2019, the Office of the Prosecutor made its first formal pronouncement on the question, finding that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over North Koreans, despite their being South Korean nationals under South Korean law, because North Koreans are not able to exercise their rights as South Koreans until accepted as such by application, and on occasion their applications might be refused. In this article, I reject the Prosecutor’s analysis as misguided. I also reject the other main approaches to nationality recognition suggested by scholars, namely a ‘genuine link’ requirement, a deferral to municipal law, and a deferral to municipal law except where a conferral of nationality violates international law. Instead, I propose a functional approach that would respect municipal conferral of nationality unless that conferral unreasonably interferes with the sovereign interests of a non-state party.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-690
Author(s):  
Kyle Rapp

AbstractWhat is the role of rhetoric and argumentation in international relations? Some argue that it is little more than ‘cheap talk’, while others say that it may play a role in persuasion or coordination. However, why states deploy certain arguments, and why these arguments succeed or fail, is less well understood. I argue that, in international negotiations, certain types of legal frames are particularly useful for creating winning arguments. When a state bases its arguments on constitutive legal claims, opponents are more likely to become trapped by the law: unable to develop sustainable rebuttals or advance their preferred policy. To evaluate this theory, I apply qualitative discourse analysis to the US arguments on the crime of aggression at the Kampala Review Conference of the International Criminal Court – where the US advanced numerous arguments intended to reshape the crime to align with US interests. The analysis supports the theoretical propositions – arguments framed on codified legal grounds had greater success, while arguments framed on more political grounds were less sustainable, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. These findings further develop our understanding of the use of international law in rhetoric, argumentation, and negotiation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document