Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.121 Amendments/Amendements

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Provision

This chapter comments on Article 121 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 121 is the general provision on amendment of the Rome Statute. After the expiry of seven years from the entry into force of the Statute, any State Party may propose amendments. The proposed amendment is voted upon at the next session of the Assembly of States Parties. An amendment only enters into force when seven-eighths of the States Parties have deposited instruments of accession or ratification. A State that does not agree may withdraw from the Statute with immediate effect. A special regime is established for changes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.

Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.120 Reservations/Réserves

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
State Party ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
The Subject

This chapter comments on Article 120 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 120 prohibits reservations to the Statute. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines reservation as a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State. Although prohibiting reservations as such, the Statute authorizes certain declarations. Specifically, States may declare the language of correspondence and other details for purposes of legal assistance, and that they agree to accept prisoners from the Court. Two declarations expressly provided by the Rome Statute are, in reality, reservations. Both exclude the State Party from the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court with respect to certain categories of crime.

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.8 War crimes/Crimes de guerre

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Child Soldiers ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Subject

This chapter comments on Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8 defines war crimes, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Much more than a codification of earlier law and practice, the Rome Statute's provisions on war crimes provide a relatively comprehensive codification of war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict. They also recognize new crimes, such as the recruitment of child soldiers and attacks on peacekeepers. However, they also fall short in some important respects, failing to provide adequate criminalization of prohibited weapons, the result of a nuclear impasse.

Sexual Slavery and Members of a Terrorist Group – What is the Future of the 'Boko Haram' Trial at the International Criminal Court?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-253
Author(s):  
Michala Chadimova
Keyword(s):  
Human Trafficking ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Boko Haram ◽  
Sexual Slavery ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

Crimes committed by the members of Boko Haram in Nigeria are not only the subject of national trials but also of preliminary examination at the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article focuses on the sexual slavery perpetrated by Boko Haram, describes how the crimes are viewed within the national Nigerian criminal process and addresses the possibility of prosecution of the crimes at the ICC.<br/> This article analyses the legal terminology used to describe the crimes connected to Boko Haram – enslavement, sexual slavery, human trafficking and terrorism – and their interaction. While providing an overview of the ICC's current preliminary examination into the situation in Nigeria, this article discusses how the principle of complementarity is potentially holding the OTP back from the formal investigation.<br/> Furthermore, an overview of cases at the ICC that have involved charges of sexual slavery or enslavement will be provided. By analysing the Court's findings in relation to elements of sexual slavery, this article provides an insightful view into the Court's rhetoric on this crime. Similarly, this article discusses modes of liability that have been employed in the Katanga/Chui and Ntaganda cases and provides a learning opportunity for future cases of sexual slavery as both a crime against humanity (Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute) and a war crime (Article 8(2)(e)(vi) of the Rome Statute; 8(2)(b)(xxii) of the Rome Statute).

The Complexities of the Gravity Threshold in the International Criminal Court: A Practical Necessity or an Insidious Pitfall?

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-169
Author(s):  
Ghazia Popalzai ◽  
Hiba Thobani
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Practical Necessity

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent the gravity thres-hold in the Rome Statute serves its purpose in determining case admissibility to the ICC. To answer this question, the article analyses the problems and pitfalls inherent in the concept and drafting of the threshold. These problems include, (1) the lack of a definition for the term ‘gravity’ and the difficulty of drafting a definition, (2) the problems associated with using the threshold as a justification for choosing some cases over others, (3) the overlap with the ICC’S subject matter jurisdiction and (4) the loose justiciability of the Prosecutor’s discretion in case selection.

Physical and Legal Inability under Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-123
Author(s):  
Ahmed Samir Hassanein
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Physical Factors ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The Subject

While the complementary regime of the International Criminal Court (icc) has been the subject of extensive examination in the literature, this article offers a new reading of the inability scenario that establishes a clear distinction between two different forms of inability under Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute. An in-depth analysis of this article as this review suggests, would show that the reason behind the inability of a national judicial system is attributed to one of two factors or even the two together; first, physical factors, in the case of ‘total or substantial collapse’, and second, legal factors, in the case of ‘unavailability of national judicial system’. Significantly, the aforementioned distinction is not limited to theoretical debate, but it has pivotal legal ramifications as the emerging practice of the icc shows, or rather does not show, as it seems that the icc confuses the two forms of inability.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.24 Non-retroactivity ratione personae /Non-rétroactivité ratione personae

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Simple Manner ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This chapter comments on Article 24 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Preceded by two provisions that entrench two Latin maxims described collectively as the principle of legality, article 24 completes the treatment of the subject in Part 3 of the Rome Statute. Article 24 promises the accused that if there is a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgment, ‘the law more favourable shall apply’. However, this rule giving the defendant the benefit of the ‘more favourable’ provision is not without difficulties. It is not always a simple manner to determine which rule is in fact more favourable. Moreover, there may be an important element of subjectivity, in that individuals may differ in their assessment.

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

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
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.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.69 Evidence/Preuve

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
The One ◽  
Assessment Of Evidence ◽  
General Provision

This chapter comments on Article 69 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 69 deals with specific evidentiary issues but lacks a general provision like the one in the Nuremberg Charter. This is addressed in article 64, stating that the Trial Chamber has the power to rule on the admissibility or reliability of evidence. According to a Trial Chamber, ‘the drafters of the Statute framework have clearly and deliberately avoided proscribing certain categories or types of evidence, a step which would have limited — at the outset — the ability of the Chamber to assess evidence “freely”’. Chambers enjoy ‘a significant degree of discretion in considering all types of evidence’. Another judge has said that article 69 provides for ‘the principle of free assessment of evidence. Hence, it is up to the competent Chamber to decide on the probative value of any piece of evidence introduced for the purpose of the confirmation hearing or the trial’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document