A2. International Criminal Court, Response to the Government of Palestine's Request to Become a Party to the Rome Statute, The Hague, 3 April 2012.

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-192 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Government

Construction Site for More Justice: The International Criminal Court After Two Years

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Kaul
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Construction Site ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Kofi Annan

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was officially opened in The Hague on March 11, 2003, in a special ceremony attended by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan. Less than four years after the historic breakthrough by the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Rome on July 17, 1998, the Statute of the ICC had entered into force on July 1, 2002. The required number of sixty ratifications, which is laid down in Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute, was reached much faster than for other comparable multilateral treaties and faster than had been expected by the global public. Secretary-General Annan attracted widespread attention when he observed that July 1, 2002, was a decisive landmark in breaking with the cynical worldview of people like Joseph Stalin, who is alleged to have remarked that while “a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

Implications of Stripping Immunities of Heads of States on State Cooperation and the Effectiveness of Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-93
Author(s):  
Patrick Kimani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Invisibility Cloak ◽  
The Hague ◽  
State Cooperation

The development of international criminal law in the last seven decades has seen a gradual erosion of the integrity of immunities for heads of states. The journey from Nuremberg to The Hague has resulted in a permanent international criminal court. Article 27(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute) disregards immunities as an effective bar to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Heads of states have been stripped of their ‘invisibility cloak’ from international criminal prosecutions. The Rome Statute places its reliance on the situation state’s authorities to cooperate with the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes. A special tension is noticeable in circumstances where an incumbent head of state is accused at ICC while his or her state is placed under the general cooperation obligation. This tension is clearly manifest in the two criminal processes against Uhuru Kenyatta and Al Bashir. Bearing in mind the significant political muscle a sitting head of state wields in their state, it is quite likely that their state’s authorities will be very reluctant to discharge their cooperation obligations. The prosecution of sitting heads of states remains a challenge. Is it time to rethink the structure of the ICC or the implementation of the Statute?

scholarly journals I. THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: BACKING INTO THE FUTURE?

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

As a precursor to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2001, the respective Parliaments in the UK adopted two Acts to implement the obligations that treaty imposed on the UK, and to implement the international crimes, as defined in that treaty, into the law of the UK. When the International Criminal Court Act (ICC Act) was being debated in 2001, Baroness Scotland, speaking for the Government, explained that part of the raison d'etre of the Act was that the UK ought not to be seen as a safe haven for international criminals. However, in line with article 11 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of UK courts over such offences, insofar as they were not already covered by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969 (the latter of which was repealed by the ICC Act) only applied prospectively.

Kenya in the Shadow of the ICC: Complementarity, Gravity and Impact

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra Lekha Sriram ◽  
Stephen Brown
Keyword(s):  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
International Pressure ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Government

Following contested elections in late 2007, Kenya experienced brief but significant violence. International pressure and diplomacy led to a coalition government, and a commission of inquiry recommended the creation of an internationalized criminal tribunal or International Criminal Court (ICC) involvement, should a tribunal not be created. The government of Kenya both promised to create a hybrid tribunal and to cooperate with the ICC, yet has arguably done neither, engaging in delaying tactics for about a year before the prosecutor requested approval to open an investigation. The specific situation presented by Kenya requires careful analysis of two key principles of admissibility in the Rome Statute, gravity and complementarity. This article, based on fieldwork and interviews in Kenya and in The Hague and on judicial decisions and prosecutorial policy documents, examines the treatment of these to date, emphasizing the use and abuse of the concept of positive complementarity.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Towards The Deportation Issues In Myanmar

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 306
Author(s):  
Bugivia Maharani Setiadji Putri ◽  
Sefriani Sefriani
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Government ◽  
Party State

<p><em>This research aims to comprehensively analyze the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating gross violations of human rights involving a non-party state of the 1998 Rome Statute and its application to the perpetrators of deportation against the Rohingya with Myanmar as the non-party state. The results showed that this jurisdiction can be implemented under three conditions, first, the crime is committed by nationals of a non-party state on the territory of a state party to the Statute. Second, the UN Security Council refers a situation to the International Criminal Court in its resolution. Third, through an ad hoc declaration that a non-party state of the Rome Statute accepts the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Since the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court covers crimes that occur wholly or partly on the territory of a state party, it can be applied to the deportation against the Rohingya in Myanmar. This involved the fleeing of this ethnic group from attacks by the Government of Myanmar to Bangladesh, a state party to the 1998 Rome Statute</em></p>

Part 5 Investigation and Prosecution: Enquête Et Poursuites, Art.60 Initial proceedings before the Court/Procédure initiale devant la cour

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Article 59 ◽  
Initial Appearance ◽  
The Hague

This chapter comments on Article 60 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 60 governs the initial appearance of the suspect before the Court. It mainly concerns the issue of interim release once the suspect is in the Court's custody. The title of article 60, ‘Initial proceedings before the Court’, is only partially accurate because a great deal of judicial activity occurs between the issuance of an arrest warrant or a summons to appear, governed by article 58, the arrest in the custodial State pursuant to article 59, and the confirmation hearing held in accordance with article 61. This process typically takes about a year. With some exceptions, the suspect will spend this period in the Court's Detention Unit in The Hague.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.62 Place of trial/Lieu du procès

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Post Trial

This chapter comments on Article 62 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 62 establishes the seat of the Court as the place of the trial. International courts have a ‘seat’. It is where they ‘sit’. Article 3, entitled ‘Seat of the Court’, specifies that the seat ‘shall be established at The Hague in the Netherlands’. It does not state clearly that the Court is to sit, as a general rule, in The Hague, but this is implied by paragraph 3 of article 3. Article 62 seems somewhat redundant and even confusing. Taken literally, its placement in Part 6 of the Statute (‘The Trial’) might be taken to indicate, a contrario, that other proceedings, both pre- and post-trial, must be held in The Hague at the seat of the Court. But that seems to be an absurd result.

Prospects for Ratification and Implementation of the Rome Statute by the Czech Republic

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
David Křivánek
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Union Member ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
European Union Member State ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Government

AbstractThe Czech Republic is the only European Union member state not to have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Although the Czech Republic is a like-minded state and the government can generally be said to support the ratification, there are several reasons why this has not yet happened. This paper elucidates these reasons. It gives an overview of the relevant provisions of Czech constitutional law as well as both material and procedural criminal law and shows current Czech procedures regarding international cooperation. In this evaluation, it is highlighted that most existing provisions or those currently undergoing revision would soon enable the Czech Republic to ratify and implement the Rome Statute. The reasons why this has not yet happened are shown to be not as much legal as they are political.

scholarly journals OPTIMALISASI PERAN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DAN APLIKASI AKSI KEMANUSIAAN SEBAGAI INISIASI PENYELESAIAN KASUS ETNIS ROHINGYA

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayub Torry Satrio K
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
Government Failure ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Optimal Action ◽  
The Government ◽  
Human Rights Violation

Rohingya is an ethnic in Myanmar which becomes victim of human rights violation by the un-recognition of the ethnic citizenship. They also undergo several treatments which lead to genocide trials. The government of Myanmar did not take any optimal action in order to bring this problem to an end. There are three action proposed in this writings to initiate a problem solving, i.e.: a case settlement with the act of International Criminal Court based on Rome Statute 1998; a humanitarian action as a step regarding the government failure in overcoming the humanitarian crisis on the ethnic of Rohingya; and an application of hu-man security concept in order to bring back the security of Rohingya people. Those actions can be carried out through the mechanism of international organization such as UN and its derivative bodies; or through the mechanism of regional bodies where Myanmar is one of the member, ASEAN. Keywords : Rohingya ethnic, International Criminal Court, Humanitarian Action

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document