Part 13 Final Clauses: Clauses Finales, Art.122 Amendments to provisions of an institutional nature/Amendements aux dispositions de caractère institutionnel

Author(s):  
Schabas William A

This chapter comments on Article 122 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 122 provides full and exhaustive list of provisions of the Statute ‘which are of an exclusively institutional nature’. These consist of the service of judges (art. 35), criteria for the section of judges (art. 36(8)), terms of judges (art. 36(9)), judicial vacancies (art. 37), the Presidency (art. 38), organization of Chambers, with the exception of the requirement that Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers be composed predominantly of judges with criminal trial experience (art. 39(1), first two sentences), composition of Chambers (art. 39(2), (4)), election of the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutors (art. 42(4)), independence and recusal of the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutors (art. 42(5)-(8)), advisers to the Prosecutor (art. 42(9)), appointment and qualifications of the Registrar (art. 43(2), (3)), Staff (art. 44), removal from office (art. 46), disciplinary measures (art. 47), and salaries, allowances, and expenses (art. 49).

Author(s):  
Schabas William A

This chapter comments on Article 57 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 57 sets out the functions and powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber. Article 39 of the Rome Statute established the existence of the Pre-Trial Chamber. It required the creation of a Pre-Trial Division of not less than six judges, and was to be composed predominantly of judges with criminal trial experience. The Pre-Trial Chamber is ‘responsible for any matter, request or information arising out of the situation assigned to it’, subject to the authority of the President of the Pre-Trial Division to assign a matter, request, or information to another Pre-Trial Chamber ‘in the interests of the administration of justice’.


Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 878-893
Author(s):  
Tanja Altunjan

AbstractThe adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was widely lauded as a success with regard to the recognition and potential prosecution of conflict-related sexual violence. More than twenty years later, however, many observers are disillusioned with the ICC’s dire track record concerning the implementation of its progressive legal framework. In many cases, the Court and particularly its Prosecutor have been criticized for failing to adequately address and prioritize sexual violence, culminating in only a single final conviction since 2002. Nevertheless, the ICC’s emerging practice shows progress with regard to the conceptual understanding of conflict-related sexual violence and the realization of the Statute’s full potential in ensuring accountability for sexual crimes. Taking into account the evolving jurisprudence, the Article explores the persisting challenges and the perceived gap between aspirations and reality regarding the prosecution of sexual violence at the ICC.


Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomas Hamilton

The existing jurisprudence of the icc establishes a two-step test for determining challenges to the admissibility of a case under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, now further solidified by an Appeals Chamber judgment in Simone Gbagbo. Notably, this is an area of the jurisprudence that does not suffer from excessive fragmentation. The Court has consistently required “substantially the same conduct” for a finding of parity between its own case and the case under investigation or prosecution by domestic authorities. Different outcomes in Al-Senussi and Gaddafi are attributable to factual differences, leaving intact the fundamental approach of the Court to the “inability” and “unwillingness” aspects of complementarity. Although novel fact patterns may pose future challenges to the coherence of this approach, the core principles of case admissibility are now well established, increasing legal certainty for States and individuals who seek to challenge the admissibility of cases before the Court.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-375
Author(s):  
Fatou Bensouda

Abstract In this contribution, the author reflects on the Forum topic ‘R2P 15 Years after the World Summit: Progress, Problems and Prospects’, and provides her perspective as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (icc) on the correlation between R2P and the principles and goals of the icc Rome Statute, against the backdrop of increasing pressures on multilateralism and multilateral institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document