Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.18 Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility/Décision préliminaire sur la recevabilité

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law

This chapter comments on Article 18 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 18 applies when a situation has been referred to the Court by a State Party and the Prosecutor has deemed that there is reasonable basis to commence an investigation. The Prosecutor is required to notify both States Parties and ‘those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned’. Within one month of receiving notification, a State may inform the Court that it is investigating or has investigated its nationals or others within its jurisdiction with respect to criminal acts relating to the information provided in the notification to States. At the request of that State, the Prosecutor shall defer to the State's investigation of those persons unless the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, decides to authorize the investigation.

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

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
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.15 Prosecutor/Le Procureur

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Applicable Law

This chapter comments on Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 15 sets out the rules applicable to the exercise of proprio motu (that is, on the Prosecutor's own initiative) triggering of the jurisdiction of the Court. It is closely associated with article 53, dealing with the ‘[i]nitiation of an investigation’. Article 53 confirms that the Prosecutor has the discretion to decide to proceed with an investigation. This issue is partly addressed by article 15 because it contemplates the ‘triggering’ of an investigation by the Prosecutor and the mechanism by which authorization for this is provided by a Pre-Trial Chamber.

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

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
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.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.6 Genocide/Crime de génocide

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter comments on Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 6 defines the crime of genocide, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The first important ruling on genocide by one of the ad hoc tribunals — the September 2, 1998 judgment of a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Prosecutor v. Akayesu — was issued several weeks after the adoption of the Rome Statute. Since then there have been several important judicial pronouncements by the Appeals Chambers of the ad hoc tribunals addressing a range of issues relevant to the interpretation of article 6 as well as two judgments of the International Court of Justice. The Court has indicated that the definition of genocide in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (and therefore article 6 of the Rome Statute) reflects customary law.

Case No. ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michail Vagias
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Personality

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) ruled by a majority—Judge Perrin de Brichambaut dissenting—that it has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning crimes that occurred only in part within the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute. In so ruling, the Court granted the ICC prosecutor's request to rule on jurisdiction and confirmed its territorial jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of Rohingya people from the territory of Myanmar (a state not party to the Rome Statute) to Bangladesh (a state party). The Court also affirmed unequivocally its objective international legal personality vis-à-vis non-party states and hinted strongly that the prosecutor should consider the possible prosecution of at least two additional crimes in connection with this situation.

scholarly journals Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute” (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Freuden
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) issued its “Decision on the ‘Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute.’” The decision is notable both for the procedural posture—the Prosecution submitted its request prior to opening a preliminary examination—and the majority's conclusion that the Court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged deportation from Myanmar, a nonstate party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute or Statute), to a state party, Bangladesh.

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

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
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.12 Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction/Conditions préalables à l’exercice de la compétence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Party State

This chapter comments on Article 12 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 12 was ‘[p]erhaps the most difficult compromise in the entire negotiations’. At the Rome Conference, there was a range of views on the ‘preconditions’ for jurisdiction, ranging from the narrow proposals of the United States restricting the Court's jurisdiction to nationals of States Parties, to a form of universal jurisdiction by which the Court would be able to prosecute any crime committed anywhere, providing that it could obtain custody over the offender. Article 12 establishes a general rule by which the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party and, furthermore, over crimes committed by its nationals anywhere. The Court may also exercise jurisdiction if a non-party State has made a declaration pursuant to article 12(3).

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)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
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.

“Situation in Palestine” (Int'l Crim. Ct. Pre-Trial Chamber)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-74
Author(s):  
Anne Bayefsky
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction

On February 5, 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its decision on territorial jurisdiction in the “Situation in Palestine.” The result reflects the controversy surrounding the process and the merits: a divided bench, with a Minority decision three times the length of that of the Majority. The outcome marked the culmination of sustained attempts by Palestinians and their supporters over more than two decades to engage the ICC, beginning with contentious negotiations preceding the vote on the Rome Statute at the Rome Conference and including three preliminary examinations, the third of which concluded with this decision. The Rome Statute, adopted by vote on July 17, 1998, included elements that negotiators acknowledged had never appeared before in international law, and were directed at an Israeli target. For this reason, in large part Israel, which had long supported the principle of an international criminal court, chose not to become a state party to the Statute or to participate in the proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document