THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE PROJECTED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Gowlland-Debbas
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals The African Union, the United Nations Security Council and the Politicisation of International Justice in Africa

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benson Chinedu Olugbuo
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
African Union ◽  
African Countries ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

There are two questions with multiple answers regarding the relationship between Africa and the International Criminal Court. The first is whether the International Criminal Court is targeting Africa and the second is if politics plays any role in the decision to investigate and prosecute crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. For the African Union, the International Criminal Court has become a western court targeting weak African countries and ignoring the atrocities committed by big powers including permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The accusation by the African Union against the International Criminal Court leads to the argument that the International Criminal Court is currently politised. This is a charge consistently denied by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The aim of this paper is to discuss the relationship between the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court and the African Union. It articulates the role of the three institutions in the fight against impunity and the maintenance of international peace and security with reference to the African continent. The paper argues that complementarity should be applied to regional organisations and that the relationship between the African Union and the International Criminal Court should be guided by the application of positive complementarity and a nuanced approach to the interests of justice. This offers the International Criminal Court and the African Union an opportunity to develop mutual trust and result-oriented strategies to confront the impunity on the continent. The paper further argues that the power of the United Nations Security Council to refer situations to the International Criminal Court and defer cases before the Court is a primary source of the disagreement between the prosecutor and the African Union and recommends a division of labour between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council.

A Tale of Two Institutions: The United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Aloisi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a judicial body that has been created as a politically independent judicial institution to prosecute the most serious international crimes. However, the political independence of the Court has been questioned considerably in the past decade because of the relationship between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which has the power to refer or defer situations to the Court, and the ICC. In this work, I argue that in analyzing the relationship between the UNSC and ICC it is evident that clashing political and judicial interests have done a disservice to the implementation of international justice. I will focus on the two instances of referrals so far approved by the UNSC and highlight some of the political aspects that seem to be hindering and delaying, in spite of international pressures for UNSC attention, a referral of the situation in Syria.

سلطات مجلس الأمن تجاه المحكمة الدولية الجنائية

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abd Alghafoor Saleh Mohammed ◽  
Yahya Salih Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Political Group ◽  
The Relationship

The Security Council is one of the main organs of the United Nations, and according to its convention, this organ has been authorized with many main tasks, so as to maintain peace and international security, out of which the establishment of International Private Courts or what is called Temporary Courts to prosecute those accused of committing international crimes. With the absence of international judiciary at that time, and after the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the relationship between the two was under consideration, especially with regard to the role of the Security Council and its authority in the referral of international crimes to the Criminal Courts and the extent to which this condition is mandatory, where a lot of discussion were held among the delegations participating in the Rome Conference that established the International Criminal Courts system in 1998, in supporting the inclusion of the role of a political organ represented by the Security Council in the procedures of an international judicial organ represented by the International Criminal Court, where the court is supposed to be independent in doing its judicial function away from politicization. The study aims to clarify the relationship between these two organs and the extent of the obligation to refer crimes by the Security Counsel to the International Criminal Court. The methodology used in this research are descriptive analysis to extrapolate the texts and legal materials related to the subject of the research, and analyse all that in order to reach results of the research. The results of the study showed that the Security Council - based on chapter VII of the convention- consists of many deterrent sanctions, starting with economic sanctions and ending with military deterrence. Although, the separation between them achieves the independence of the international judiciary and ensures that no foreign political group interferes or controls the court, which is intended to be independent and free to ensure the application of the international law.

scholarly journals Coexistent but Uncoordinated: Asset Freezing Measures at the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 983-1025
Author(s):  
Daley J. Birkett
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Parallel Implementation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Effective Discharge ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Close Cooperation ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Two Bodies

Abstract Both the International Criminal Court (icc) and the UN Security Council (unsc) are vested with the capacity to request States to freeze individuals’ assets. The two bodies are also bound to cooperate closely under the terms of their relationship agreement ‘with a view to facilitating the effective discharge of their respective responsibilities’. This article examines whether this obligation extends to the unsc coordinating its targeted sanctions regime to support the icc in respect of the enforcement powers with which the latter is equipped. It does so by analysing eight cases where unsc action (could) have coincided with icc operations, with a particular focus on the (non-)parallel implementation of the two bodies’ asset freezing procedures. The article demonstrates that, though the activities of the unsc and the icc in this sphere of their respective operations might have overlapped on a number of occasions, they have rarely been deliberately coordinated. This leads the author to conclude that close cooperation as envisaged in the relationship agreement between the two bodies is unlikely on this front.

The International Criminal Court in the System of States and International Organizations

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH S. GALLANT
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Internal Operations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Party State

The International Criminal Court has a different mandate – exercise of criminal jurisdiction over individuals – from most international organizations. It may help to develop the law of international organizations concerning structure and internal operations, relationships with states, and relationships with other international organizations, as well as concerning relationships with individuals. The ICC assigns its judicial and quasi-political functions appropriately. Notably, the power to make agreements is divided functionally among the judicial and prosecutorial Organs and the Assembly of States Parties. The relationship between the ICC and states that are not parties to its Statute is far more important to the ICC than to most international organizations. Where situations are referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council, such states may be required to cooperate with the Court because of their duties under the UN Charter. Other situations require agreement to cooperate by the non-party state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document