The Failure to Control and the Failure to Prevent, Repress and Submit: The Structure of Superior Responsibility under Article 28 icc Statute

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuya Yokohama

In Article 28 of the statute of the International Criminal Court (icc), there appear to be two kinds of omission, namely, a failure to control on the one hand, and a failure to prevent, repress and submit on the other. However, the relationship between both omissions remains unclear so far. This is a controversial topic not only in the scholarly debate but also in the recent jurisprudence of the icc. The core question is whether both omissions need to be proved separately (twofold-failures approach), or whether only the proof of the latter omission could suffice for the superior to be held responsible (single-failure approach). These two approaches could lead to different conclusions as to several aspects of superior responsibility: the ‘number’ of omissions that must be proved and the requirement of causality, for example. This article addresses the difference between these two approaches and demonstrates which approach should be adopted.

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
KERSTIN LUKNER

AbstractThis article deals with the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a point of contention in US relations with Germany and Japan. Both countries rank among America's closest allies, but – quite contrary to the US – they have also been supporting the establishment and operation of the ICC, although each to a different extent. The article analyzes the reasons for the three countries’ diverging attitudes and policies towards the establishment and operation of the Court, and contrasts Germany's and Japan's handling of the ICC issuevis-à-visthe US. It suggests that Berlin's idealistic position and full ICC support on the one hand, as well as Japan's cautious and pragmatic approach on the other, are both rooted not only in their individual evaluations of the ICC's institutional design, but also the varying degrees of their bi/multilateral orientation and the extent of their ‘dependence’ on US security commitments.


Author(s):  
James Pattison

This chapter considers measures that often aim to tackle mass atrocities and external aggression as a secondary aim. It focuses on three measures: actions by the International Criminal Court (ICC), (2) accepting refugees, and (3) humanitarian assistance. The chapter examines the question of whether we should frame these measures as major policy options to tackle mass atrocities and serious external aggression. On the one hand, it argues that international criminal prosecutions by the ICC should be seen as a central part of the toolkit for responses to mass atrocities. This is despite worries about its politicization and linking it to R2P. On the other hand, it argues that we should not view accepting refugees and humanitarian aid as part of the R2P toolkit, in large part due to worries about buck-passing.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL NSEREKO

AbstractSince the start of its operations 10 years ago, the International Criminal Court has dealt with a number of challenges to the admissibility of cases before it. Some of the challenges were mounted by territorial states that had jurisdiction over the cases. Others were mounted by accused persons. The Court, acting on its own initiative, has, on a number of occasions, also considered issues of the admissibility of cases before it. It has done this, in the main, at the pre-trial stages of proceedings. Some of the cases arose out of state or Security Council referrals. Others arose out of the Prosecutor's initiated investigations. In the course of dealing with these matters the Court has endeavoured to strike a balance between the states’ right to exercise their sovereignty through national proceedings, on the one hand, and the interests of the international community to ensure that ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished’, on the other. In the process of doing so the Court has also developed some practices and generated an impressive body of jurisprudence, the subject of this article. The jurisprudence evinces the Court's readiness to assume jurisdiction over a case in situations where there is clear inaction on the part of the national authorities. The article, which is a critical exposé of that jurisprudence, endorses this stance as a veritable antidote to impunity for atrocity crimes.


Author(s):  
Annika Jones

Abstract Amid pressure to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC), work has progressed on the development of a set of performance indicators for the ICC. This article argues that performance indicators play into tensions that underpin the international criminal justice process at the ICC, in particular between expeditiousness, on the one hand, and fairness and victim satisfaction, on the other. It argues that while the ICC’s performance indicators extend assessment of the ICC beyond the speedy completion of cases and embrace goals of fairness and victim access to justice, they inevitably support the former to the detriment of the latter, with implications for the Court’s identity. While acknowledging the benefits of performance indicators for the ICC, the article outlines several measures to counter the risks that they pose for the balance between these goals.


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

This chapter discusses the author’s transition from being a teacher to being an international criminal Judge. The life of a Judge is much more circumscribed by rules and traditions than the life of a teacher. Both national and international courts have typically adopted codes of professional and ethical conduct, which often include or are accompanied by disciplinary rules to ensure compliance and accountability. It is important to understand that the core mandate of an international criminal court is to try individuals within a governing legal framework and to determine whether—given the specific evidence presented and admitted by the court—the responsibility of an individual accused of international crimes has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The chapter then recounts the author’s experience as an international criminal Judge and assesses whether academics make good criminal Judges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document