scholarly journals Reflections on the Indictment of Sitting Heads of State and Government and Its Consequences for Peace and Stability and Reconciliation in Africa

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Current Concerns

Abstract In these remarks, the author considers the most recent challenge to the application of international criminal justice in Africa: Kenya’s controversial November 2013 proposal to amend the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to temporarily exempt from prosecution sitting presidents accused of involvement with international crimes. He examines several legal and practical reasons why such a proposal is untenable. Instead, citing the principle of complementarity and urging the principled use of judicial and prosecutorial discretion, he contends that much of the African Union’s current concerns about the Kenya Situation can be addressed within the confines of existing Rome Law. This is important because, even if it is possible for African countries to secure amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, African States Parties are unlikely able to secure the global consensus required to effect substantive amendments to the 1998 treaty. On the other hand, the author suggests that the International Criminal Court officials, especially the judges and the chief prosecutor, can help bridge the apparent gap between the Court and its African supporters. Towards that end, they should consider taking a more flexible and more nuanced approach to their interpretations and application of several important provisions contained in their founding statute. Eschewing a one-size fits all approach, it is submitted that each African situation is unique – both in the scope of the problem, and in the solution required in the necessary fight against impunity in Africa.

The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan: The Rupturing of Mutual Accommodation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1107
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Robb ◽  
Shan Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In September 2018, then U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered a speech that ushered in a new, more aggressive era of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (icc). Washington’s disapprobation over the icc’s interest in the alleged crimes of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan has been seen as the cause for this change. While this is certainly partly true, little attention has been paid to Fatou Bensouda’s prosecutorial behaviour as an explanatory factor. Using the framework from David Bosco’s Rough Justice, this article demonstrates that a distinct shift in prosecutorial behaviour occurred when Fatou Bensouda took over as Chief Prosecutor. In contrast to Luis Moreno Ocampo’s strategic approach, avoidant of U.S. interests, Bensouda’s apolitical approach directly challenged the U.S. This shift in prosecutorial behaviour ruptured the ‘mutual accommodation’ that previously characterised the icc-U.S. relationship and, in turn, produced the shift in U.S. policy that now marginalises the Court.

Rome’s Legacy: Negotiating the Reparations Mandate of the International Criminal Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sperfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Fresh Perspective ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Victim Reparations

This article examines the negotiations that led to the incorporation of reparations provisions into the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (icc). Building upon a review of the travaux préparatoires and interviews, it traces the actors and main debates during the lead-up to the Rome Conference and the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, explaining how and why reparations were included into the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article shows how the reparations mandate was produced at the intersection of a set of different agendas and actors. From this account, it identifies a number of key themes that were at the centre of the negotiations and often galvanised contestations among delegations or with ngos. The article concludes with a fresh perspective on the origin of victim reparations in the Rome Statute and its relevance for understanding many of today’s debates around reparations in international criminal justice.

Part 10 Enforcement: Exécution, Art.103 Role of States in enforcement of sentences of imprisonment/Rôle des États dans l’exécution des peines d’emprisonnement

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

This chapter comments on Article 103 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 103 deals with State enforcement of sentences. The enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court is premised on three broad principles: sentences are served in the prison facilities of States and are subject to their laws; enforcement of the sentence is subject to the supervision of the Court; and the sentence imposed by the Court is binding upon the State of enforcement. The provisions of the Statute governing enforcement are quite succinct, and much of the detail on the issue appears in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Part 4 Composition and Administration of the Court: Composition et Administration de la Cour, Art.41 Excusing and disqualification of judges/Décharge et récusation des juges

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

This chapter comments on Article 41 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 41 provides the mechanism to ensure the protection of judicial independence and impartiality that is affirmed in article 40. It distinguishes between ‘excusing’, which refers to a request by the judge to the Presidency, and ‘disqualification’, which describes an application by the Prosecutor or the accused person. The Presidency is without authority to raise issues of impartiality proprio motu, given that‘[n]either the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure and Evidence make provision for the pre-emptive control by the Presidency of the impartiality of the judges’.

Part 7 Penalties: Les Peines, Art.77 Applicable penalties/Peines applicables

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Individual

This chapter comments on Article 77 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 77 sets out the penalties the Court may impose on a person convicted of a crime. These include imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; a term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person; a fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; and a forfeiture of proceeds, property, and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.70 Offences against the administration of justice/Atteintes à l’administration de la justice

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

This chapter comments on Article 70 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 70 deals with acts punishable by the Court as offences against the administration of justice. These acts may be divided into three categories: those involving perjury or false testimony; obstruction of the activities of the Court; and solicitation of bribes. The principles and procedures governing the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over offences under this article shall be those provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The maximum penalty for article 70 offences is five years imprisonment; a fine is an alternative as well as the possibility of both being imposed. Fines may be set for each individual offence or count, but cannot exceed in total 50 per cent of the convicted person's assets, ‘after deduction of an appropriate amount that would satisfy the financial needs of the convicted person and his or her dependants’.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.64 Functions and powers of the Trial Chamber/Fonctions et pouvoirs de la chambre de première instance

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

This chapter comments on Article 64 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 64 sets out the functions and powers of the Trial Chamber. It confirms that ‘[t]he functions and powers of the Trial Chamber set out in this article shall be exercised in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’. The general duties of the Trial Chamber include ensuring a ‘fair and expeditious’ trial, conducted with ‘full respect for the rights of the accused’ and ‘due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses’.

Victim and Witness Measures of the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-220
Author(s):  
Colin Mclaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
National Court ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Standards ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

AbstractThe protections of victims and witnesses have evolved from the inception of the ICTY and continue through to the creation of the ICC. The ICTY set the benchmark on victim and witness protection through reliance on varying national court systems as well as on international standards. The ICTY's approach has been followed by the ICTR and the SCSL, though each tribunal made important advances in victim and witness protection.Today, ICC continues to follow the lead of the other tribunals. Although it is still unknown how well the ICC will protect victims and witnesses, if the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are any indication, the ICC will provide proper protection measures for victims and witnesses in the international tribunal arena.After comparing the different victim and witness measures implemented by the ICC to similar measures of the other Tribunals, as well as various national court systems, it is apparent that the ICC has developed extensive victim and witness measures that mirror those established by the other tribunals. Understanding both the benefits as well as possible shortcomings of each measure, the ICC will be better equipped to implement the measures deemed necessary for the victims and witnesses whose lives have been impacted by the crimes that come before the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document