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>

Case No. ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michail Vagias
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Personality

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) ruled by a majority—Judge Perrin de Brichambaut dissenting—that it has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning crimes that occurred only in part within the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute. In so ruling, the Court granted the ICC prosecutor's request to rule on jurisdiction and confirmed its territorial jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of Rohingya people from the territory of Myanmar (a state not party to the Rome Statute) to Bangladesh (a state party). The Court also affirmed unequivocally its objective international legal personality vis-à-vis non-party states and hinted strongly that the prosecutor should consider the possible prosecution of at least two additional crimes in connection with this situation.

scholarly journals Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute” (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Freuden
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) issued its “Decision on the ‘Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute.’” The decision is notable both for the procedural posture—the Prosecution submitted its request prior to opening a preliminary examination—and the majority's conclusion that the Court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged deportation from Myanmar, a nonstate party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute or Statute), to a state party, Bangladesh.

Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo: Judgment on the Appeal Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on Jurisdiction and Stay of the Proceedings (Int’l. Crim. CT.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-501
Author(s):  
Inbal Djalovski
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
First Time ◽  
Party State

On December 12, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (Court) in the case of Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo unanimously confirmed the Pre-Trial Chamber I decision to dismiss Mr. Gbagbo’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Judgment, the Appeals Chamber, for the first time, was called to interpret Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute (Statute), which allows a non-party State to accept the jurisdiction of the Court on an ad hoc basis without acceding to the Statute. The Judgment further includes two procedural issues. Firstly, the Appeals Chamber found that although the Pre-Trial Chamber erred by not rendering a separate decision on Côte d’Ivoire’s request for leave to submit its observations, this error did not materially affect the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision. Secondly, the Appeals Chamber dismissed, in limine, Mr. Gbagbo’s request for a stay of proceedings based on allegations of violations of his fundamental rights, since it was not jurisdictional in nature and thus fell outside the scope of the appealable matter.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.12 Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction/Conditions préalables à l’exercice de la compétence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Party State

This chapter comments on Article 12 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 12 was ‘[p]erhaps the most difficult compromise in the entire negotiations’. At the Rome Conference, there was a range of views on the ‘preconditions’ for jurisdiction, ranging from the narrow proposals of the United States restricting the Court's jurisdiction to nationals of States Parties, to a form of universal jurisdiction by which the Court would be able to prosecute any crime committed anywhere, providing that it could obtain custody over the offender. Article 12 establishes a general rule by which the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party and, furthermore, over crimes committed by its nationals anywhere. The Court may also exercise jurisdiction if a non-party State has made a declaration pursuant to article 12(3).

“Situation in Palestine” (Int'l Crim. Ct. Pre-Trial Chamber)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-74
Author(s):  
Anne Bayefsky
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction

On February 5, 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its decision on territorial jurisdiction in the “Situation in Palestine.” The result reflects the controversy surrounding the process and the merits: a divided bench, with a Minority decision three times the length of that of the Majority. The outcome marked the culmination of sustained attempts by Palestinians and their supporters over more than two decades to engage the ICC, beginning with contentious negotiations preceding the vote on the Rome Statute at the Rome Conference and including three preliminary examinations, the third of which concluded with this decision. The Rome Statute, adopted by vote on July 17, 1998, included elements that negotiators acknowledged had never appeared before in international law, and were directed at an Israeli target. For this reason, in large part Israel, which had long supported the principle of an international criminal court, chose not to become a state party to the Statute or to participate in the proceedings.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.29 Non-applicability of statute of limitations/Imprescriptibilité

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Military Tribunal ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
International Instruments

This chapter comments on Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 29 declares that crimes within the Court's jurisdiction are not subject to a statute of limitations. None of the preceding international instruments concerned with international prosecution of atrocities, from the Charter of the International Military Tribunal to the statutes of the ad hoc tribunals, have contained anything similar. This is only logical, because in the absence of texts within the instruments creating a time bar, silence was all that was required. There is also ample precedent for States refusing to extradite offenders where crimes are time barred under their own legislation. At the very least article 29 operates as an answer to any argument from a State Party whereby extradition might be refused because of a statutory limitation in its own domestic penal code.

s.II Spaces, Ch.6 Legitimacy in War and Punishment: The Security Council and the ICC

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dannenbaum Tom
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Core Function ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
And Function

UN Security Council referrals are a legally sufficient basis for International Criminal Court (ICC) action under the Rome Statute and the United Nations (UN) Charter. However, the fact that each permanent member of the Security Council can veto any such referral and that three of those states have declined to ratify the Statute poses a legitimacy problem for the Court. Specifically, it undermines the Court’s moral standing to judge and thus its capacity to deliver on its core function. Because of both the structure and function of the Court, the privileged position of the Council’s permanent members is more undermining of ICC legitimacy than it is of Council-authorized military action in response to atrocity, and even than it was of the ad hoc tribunals created by the Council. One way to remedy this situation would be to vest the ICC with universal jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Court’s legitimacy would be enhanced if Security Council referrals were removed from the Statute. Those, however, are unlikely amendments. More modestly, the Prosecutor should decline all Security Council referrals under the ‘interests of justice’ test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document