Judicial Review under Article 15 of the Rome Statute and the ‘Interests of Justice’

Author(s):  
Parv Kaushik

Abstract The Office of the Prosecutor’s preliminary examination into the Situation in Afghanistan came to an end with the Appeals Chamber approving its request for authorization of an investigation. In doing so it overturned the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber, which for the first time in the International Criminal Court’s history had invoked the criterion of ‘interests of justice’ to deny the request. Both decisions raised questions as to the scope of review of the Pre-Trial Chamber under Article 15 and its relationship with Article 53 of the Rome Statute. This article delves into some of these questions. First, it looks into whether the Appeals Chamber was correct to hold that the Pre-Trial Chamber is not supposed to review the factors under Article 53(1). It answers this question in the negative, arguing that the Appeals Chamber’s decision goes against the text of the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court’s past practice. Secondly, it analyses whether the Pre-Trial Chamber can assess whether or not an investigation serves the ‘interests of justice’, even if the Prosecutor has not made an explicit finding in this regard. It argues that the context and purpose of Article 15 envisages a genuine and meaningful examination of the Prosecutor’s request, which includes the ability to evaluate, suo motu, the applicability of the ‘interests of justice’ criterion. Lastly, the article addresses whether the factors that were considered by the Pre-Trial Chamber in its Afghanistan Article 15 Decision were suited to its judicial role. It proposes a methodology for the Pre-Trial Chambers to adopt while exercising their powers under Article 15, which allows for both prosecutorial discretion and a meaningful judicial review. The article attempts to put forth a renewed understanding of the Rome Statute and argues that the Pre-Trial Chamber has a wider power of review under Article 15 than has been hitherto exercised, which, if exercised reasonably, can further the cause of international criminal justice.

Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

Today’s elaborate system of international criminal justice originates in proposals at the end of the First World War to try Kaiser Wilhelm II before an international criminal tribunal. In the weeks following 11 November 1918, the British, French, and Italian Governments agreed on a trial. Lloyd George campaigned for re-election on the slogan ‘Hang the Kaiser’. The Kaiser had fled to the Netherlands, possibly after receiving signals from the Dutch Queen that he would be welcome. Renegade US soldiers led by a former Senator failed in a bizarre attempt to take him prisoner and bring him to Paris. During the Peace Conference, the Commission on Responsibilities brought international lawyers together for the first time to debate international criminal justice. They recommended trial of the Kaiser by an international tribunal for war crimes, but not for starting the war or violating Belgian neutrality. The Americans were opposed to any prosecution. However, President Wilson changed his mind and agreed to trial for a ‘supreme offence against international morality’. This became a clause in the Treaty of Versailles, one of the few that the Germans tried to resist. Although the Allies threatened a range of measures if the former Emperor was not surrendered, the Dutch refused and the demands were dropped in March 1920. The Kaiser lived out his life in a castle near Utrecht, dying of natural causes in June 1941. Hitler sent a wreath to the funeral.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Balta ◽  
Manon Bax ◽  
Rianne Letschert

Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC or the Court) was established holding the aim of placing victims at the heart of international criminal justice proceedings and delivering justice to them through, among others, reparations. Article 75 of the Rome Statute lays out the reparations regime, and, in practice, court-ordered reparations are a means of delivering such justice. Focusing on Court decisions on reparations, our analysis takes stock of all developments before the ICC and attempts to highlight the mismatch between characteristics inherent to the objectives of international criminal trials such as providing accountability and punishment of the accused and delivering justice for victims of mass crimes—the so-called procedural challenges. We also submit that the Court is facing conceptual challenges, related to an apparent misunderstanding of the various concepts at stake: reparations as such and the various modalities and channels of enforcing them. We conclude that although the ICC’s reparation regime may not be the best reparative response to provide justice to victims in conflict situations affected by mass victimization, we suggest that improving the ICC’s approach includes, at a minimum, tackling these challenges.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 958-987
Author(s):  
Emma Lauren Palmer

Scholars have suggested that ratifying international treaties and implementing them within national legal systems can lead to the acceptance and (eventually) internalisation of international norms. Likewise, failing to ratify might suggest that states reject such norms. Similarly, ratifying the Rome Statute can be promoted as the primary measure to give effect to the norms protected by international criminal law. This perspective of the diffusion of international criminal justice involves at least three characteristics. First, a temporal aspect, in that states are expected to progress from rejecting international criminal justice toward acceptance over time. Second, it reveals a spatial awareness, including by distinguishing between international and ‘local’ norms and actors. Third, this approach includes assumptions about the movement of ideas across both time and space, or directionality. This article challenges temporal, spatial, and directional assumptions about how states engage with international criminal justice with reference to experiences in Southeast Asia.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sperfeldt

This article examines the negotiations that led to the incorporation of reparations provisions into the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (icc). Building upon a review of the travaux préparatoires and interviews, it traces the actors and main debates during the lead-up to the Rome Conference and the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, explaining how and why reparations were included into the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article shows how the reparations mandate was produced at the intersection of a set of different agendas and actors. From this account, it identifies a number of key themes that were at the centre of the negotiations and often galvanised contestations among delegations or with ngos. The article concludes with a fresh perspective on the origin of victim reparations in the Rome Statute and its relevance for understanding many of today’s debates around reparations in international criminal justice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 979-1013
Author(s):  
Triestino Mariniello

This article places into question the scope of judicial control over the Prosecutor’s decision whether or not to investigate a situation. It addresses the on-going tensions between the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Prosecutor for the control of the procedure which will determine the stage of the initiation of an investigation. It commences with an examination of the Chambers’ approach to the authorisation of the Prosecutor’s request to commence a proprio motu investigation. Then, it critically analyses the lack of judicial mechanisms of control over the Prosecutor’s decision not to commence an investigation under Article 15. The second part investigates the judicial oversight of the Prosecutor’s decision not investigate referred situation. It analyses whether the Pre-Trial Chamber may reassess the factual allegations used by the Prosecutor not to start the investigation, and whether the Prosecutor has to comply with (strict) instructions provided by the judicial review.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Max du Plessis

Abstract In a foreword to a special issue of this Journal on the proposed Crimes Against Humanity Convention (CAHC), important questions were raised, including whether such a convention is truly needed, whether such a convention is politically feasible and whether any provisions in the draft articles should be modified. In this piece, the author considers the questions raised, and poses answers from an African and realist perspective, having litigated some of the international criminal justice cases before South African courts. The author contends that the drafters of the Convention would do well to take meaningful account of the domestication of international criminal justice, and the lessons to be learned from national systems that have found themselves at the forefront of the very debates that have animated the drafters of the CAHC, and the Rome Statute before it. If those lessons are to be taken seriously — including the lessons generated by African states and their courts — then the draft Convention might well be improved and some of its most animating provisions sharpened.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-132
Author(s):  
Uzma S. Bishop-Burney

On September 27, 2016, the Trial Chamber (Chamber) of the International Criminal Court (ICC or tribunal) rendered its judgment in Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, wherein the defendant was convicted of the war crime of intentionally directing attacks on protected cultural objects. It is the ICC's first such conviction and the first time that an accused has entered a guilty plea at the tribunal pursuant to Article 65 of the Rome Statute (Statute). Al Mahdi pled guilty to co-perpetrating attacks on protected objects pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Statute for his role in the attack on, and destruction of, ten mosques and mausoleums in Timbuktu. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to nine years in prison.


Author(s):  
Mark Findlay

Despite political interference and jurisdictional partiality, the formal institutions of international criminal justice are positive development for global governance in their existence alone. The unique aims for global justice enunciated in the Preamble to the Rome Statute are a manifesto for how humanity expects to be protected from atrocity, and where responsibility should lie. As the example of rape in war demonstrates, translating these noble aspirations into trial practice and justice outcomes is often sullied by discriminatory externalities common in domestic criminal justice and exacerbated as the degree of victimization escalates. The lasting measure of the courts and tribunals is not successful prosecutions but rather the satisfaction of legitimate victim interests.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document