Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.13 Exercise of jurisdiction/Exercice de la compétence

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Party ◽

Applicable Law ◽

The Law

This chapter comments on Article 13 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 13 is the first of three provisions in the Rome Statute on the ‘triggering’ of the jurisdiction. Once it is established that the Court has jurisdiction, a ‘situation’ must be triggered by one of the three mechanisms set out in article 13. The law applicable to referral by a State Party, which is authorized by article 13(a), is thoroughly addressed in article 14 of the Rome Statute. Similarly, the law concerning proprio motu initiation of proceedings by the Prosecutor is dealt with in article 15. As a result, the present analysis focuses on article 13(b), which establishes the authority of the United Nations Security Council to refer a ‘situation’ to the Court.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.8bis Crime of aggression/Crime d’agression

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0011 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Secretary General ◽

State Party ◽

Applicable Law ◽

The Subject ◽

One Year

This chapter comments on Article 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8bis defines the crime of aggression, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The provision is part of a package of amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. It entered into force in accordance with article 121(5) one year after ratification of the amendments by the first State Party. Liechtenstein was the first State Party to ratify the amendments, on May 8, 2012. Consequently, the amendment entered into force on May 8, 2013. On that date, the amendment was registered by the depository, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. However, exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over article 8bis is subject to article 15bis and article 15ter.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.14 Referral of a situation by a State Party/Renvoi d’une situation par un état partie

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0017 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Party ◽

Applicable Law

This chapter comments on Article 14 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 14 is really the completion of article 13(a). Article 13 lists three sources of ‘triggering’ or authorization for exercise of jurisdiction: the Security Council, a State Party, and the propriomotu initiative of the Prosecutor. Article 14 contrasts with the brief text governing Security Council referral found in article 13(b). Arguably, the two processes are similar, and the different formulations of the concept of referral in articles 13(b) and 14 are puzzling. It would have been preferable to use equivalent language and terminology, given the substantive similarities. The differences can be explained by the complex drafting process, and the fact that the two concepts originate in different provisions within the early versions of the Statute.

10 Years of the International Criminal Court (ICC): The Court, Africa, The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and Article 16 of the Rome Statute

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.2169819 ◽

2012 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Phoebe Murungi

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The International Criminal Court and Non-Party States

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice ◽

10.22329/wyaj.v28i1.4488 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The World ◽

Although more than half of the States in the world are parties tothe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, morethan eighty have yet to ratify. The article considers the relationshipof the Court with these non-party States. It examines theexercise of jurisdiction over their nationals, arguing that internationallaw immunities continue in force despite the terms ofthe Statute. Declarations of jurisdiction by non-party States arealso studied, including the declaration formulated by the PalestinianAuthority with respect to Gaza in January 2009. NonpartyStates may be asked to cooperate with the Court and, whereso ordered by the United Nations Security Council, they may berequired to do this.Quoique plus de la moitié des États du monde soient Partiesau Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale, plus dequatre-vingt d’entre eux ne l’ont pas encore ratifié. Cet articleconsidère le rapport de la Cour avec ces États qui n’y sont pasParties. Il examine l’exercice de sa compétence à l’égard de leursressortissants, soutenant que les immunités du droit internationaldemeurent en vigueur malgré la teneur du Statut. L’article étudieaussi les déclarations de compétence d’États qui ne sont pas Partiesau Statut, y compris la déclaration formulée par l’Autorité palestinienneen rapport à Gaza en janvier 2009. On peut demanderaux États qui ne sont pas Parties au Statut de coopérer avec laCour, et, lorsque cela est ordonné par le Conseil de Sécurité desNations Unies, il peut être exigé qu’ils le fassent.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.15bis Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu )/Exercice de la compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression (Renvoi par un État, de sa propre initiative)

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0019 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Party ◽

Applicable Law ◽

Opposite Order

This chapter comments on Article 15bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 15bis along with article 15ter govern the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime of aggression. They are part of a package of amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. Article 15bis governs prosecution for the crime of aggression based upon referral by a State Party or at the initiative proprio motu of the Prosecutor. Its counterpart, article 15ter, deals with referral of a situation involving the crime of aggression by the Security Council. Although article 15bis precedes article 15ter within the architecture of the Rome Statute, in reality the process operates in the opposite order. That is because action under article 15bis is dependent on either action or inaction by the Security Council. If the Security Council determines that an act of aggression has taken place, then either a State Party or the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)/Exercice de la compétence à l’égard du crime d’agression (Renvoi par le Conseil de sécurité)

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0020 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Applicable Law ◽

This chapter comments on Article 15ter of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 15ter is part of a package of amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. Under article 13(b), the Security Council may trigger the jurisdiction of the Court with respect ‘over the crime of aggression’. Article 13(b) entitles the Security Council to trigger the Court's jurisdiction, pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 15ter(1) makes clear that the Security Council may only trigger jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with the provisions of article 15ter. Essentially, this is about the temporal limits of the exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

The Amendments to the Regulations of the Court

Journal of International Criminal Justice ◽

10.1093/jicj/mqz035 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 495-505

Author(s):

Eleni Chaitidou

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

International Criminal ◽

Trial Chamber ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Party ◽

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.

Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.127 Withdrawal/Retrait

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0132 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The State ◽

Secretary General ◽

State Party ◽

The United Nations ◽

One Year

This chapter comments on Article 127 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 127 addresses the withdrawal of a State Party from this Statute. A State may withdraw from the Rome Statute by providing a written notification to the depositary, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The withdrawal takes effect one year after receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General, unless a later date is specified. There have been no notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The Statute does not indicate whether a notice of withdrawal can itself be withdrawn, thereby returning the State to ordinary status as a Party. Withdrawal does not affect the continuation of the Statute with respect to other States Parties, even if the number of them falls below the threshold of sixty.

Canada, the International Criminal Court, and the intersection of international politics and finances

International Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis ◽

10.1177/0020702019852700 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 74 (2) ◽

pp. 206-224

Author(s):

Kirsten J. Fisher ◽

Laszlo Sarkany

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Public Relations ◽

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

International Criminal ◽

Prime Minister ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Financial Resources

In 2018, Prime Minister Trudeau made two announcements regarding the International Criminal Court, both, it seems, aimed at reinforcing Canada’s claim of human rights promotion and multilateralism: Canada declared Myanmar’s actions against the Rohingya people genocide and urged the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court, and it joined a collective referral of the Venezuela situation to the Court. As public measures of support, these are positive developments for the International Criminal Court, which has been suffering poor public relations and challenges to its legitimacy. However, Canada could do more by better supporting the financial viability of the Court. Currently, it aims to increase the Court’s workload without supporting an increased budget, as reflected in Canada’s involvement at the December 2018 Assembly of States Parties meeting. A seemingly sure way to undermine the International Criminal Court would be to add to its workload without ensuring it has the financial resources to do the work.

Developments at the International Criminal Court

The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals ◽

10.1163/15718034-12341235 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 365-448

Author(s):

Julieta Solano McCausland ◽

Enrique Carnero Rojo

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Central African Republic ◽

International Criminal ◽

Democratic Republic ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Republic Of The Congo ◽

Victim Participation

Abstract This column covers the activity of the International Criminal Court during the last third of 2010 through mid-May 2011. The Court has continued investigating situations in five countries (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Sudan, the Central African Republic and Kenya) and opened a new investigation following a referral by the United Nations Security Council (Libya). The judicial activity of the Court continued with four accused persons undergoing trial, two more waiting for their trial to start, and six more awaiting the confirmation of charges hearing. The Chambers of the Court continued to develop the rules applicable to pre-trial and trial proceedings. In the period covered by this column they confirmed the law on the admissibility of a case, ruled on the proceedings concerning the first challenge by a State to the admissibility of a case and on stay of proceedings, and brought consistency on the issue of victim participation across cases.