scholarly journals The International Criminal Court and Israel’s Acts in the Occupied Territories: Progress and Prospects

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Summer 2021) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Yücel Acer
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
The Status ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
Party State

Following the request of Palestine as a Party-State to the Status of the International Criminal Court, the Prosecutor decided to start a preliminary investigation into the situation of Palestine. The preliminary investigation resulted in a request from the Prosecutor to the Pre-Trial Chamber I for clarification of the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the occupied territories of Palestine. Many significant issues concerning the status of Palestine as a State and its legal borders were raised during the preliminary investigation, both by the Prosecutor and during the examination of the Chamber. Although both the Prosecutor and the Chamber have approved that the Court has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories, including those occupied by Israel, the prospect for the success of the trials by the Court depends on the cooperation of the international community as a whole and the State-parties to the ICC Status.

The Principle of Complementarity in the Cases of the Sudanese Nationals Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb before the International Criminal Court

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 185-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Pichon
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Status ◽  
National Constitution ◽  
Ability And Willingness ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

AbstractIn April 2007, the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first arrest warrants with regard to the situation in Darfur. Addressees of these measures are the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs and former Minister for the Interior Ahmad Harun and the alleged Janjaweed leader Ali Kushayb, who both at the time of writing have not yet been surrendered to the ICC. On the contrary: Sudan consistently invokes its national sovereignty and its ability to prosecute its nationals itself. However, with regard to Harun and Kushayb, there is reason to hold strong doubts as to Sudan's ability and willingness to seriously prosecute them. Therefore, this article assesses the admissibility of these two cases before the ICC, focusing on the principle of complementarity. For this the article starts with an overview of those aspects of the principle of complementarity which are relevant for the situation in Darfur. A thorough analysis of the status of the Sudanese judicial system both before and after the adoption of the Interim National Constitution of Sudan in 2005 follows, before, finally, the application of the principle of complementarity to the two cases is assessed against the results found.

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.

scholarly journals The Trump Administration Revokes the ICC Prosecutor's U.S. Visa Shortly Before the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Declines to Authorize an Investigation into War Crimes in Afghanistan

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-630
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Trump Administration

On April 4, 2019, the United States revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This action occurred less than a month after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that, except to the extent otherwise required by the UN Headquarters Agreement, the United States would impose visa restrictions on “those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel.” In her preliminary investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, Bensouda had specifically listed war crimes by U.S. military and intelligence agencies as one of several categories of crimes that her office found reason to believe had occurred. Approximately one week after Bensouda's visa revocation, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denied her request to move forward with an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan.

Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Nadya Sadat
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Considerable Confusion

On June 8, 2018, in a surprising turn, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed the conviction of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and acquitted him of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The four separate opinions, raising questions about Pre-Trial and Trial Chamber procedures, the standard of Appellate Chamber review, and the scope of command responsibility, have revealed sharp disagreements between ICC judges and created considerable confusion over the state of ICC law and procedure.

State of Exception

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Occupied Palestinian Territory ◽  
Palestinian Territory

Abstract In December 2019, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concluded her preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine, determining there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation into the situation. Instead of doing so, she first decided to seek a ruling from the Pre-Trial Chamber on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, specifically aimed at confirming her view that the ‘territory’ over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This article focuses on the amici curiae observations and other communications made by eight states parties in the proceedings — Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Uganda. A critical examination of these observations and communications reveals that they did not answer the question posed by the OTP, but rather advanced a number of strained arguments aimed, inter alia, at impugning the very notion that the Court has any jurisdiction at all on the basis that Palestine is not a state. When juxtaposed against the ostensible commitment of these states parties to the object and purpose of the Statute, their observations and other communications reveal a conspicuous hypocrisy. If accepted by the Court, these observations and communications would operate to not only affirm the continued contingency of the state of Palestine on the international plane, but, even worse, to shield persons known to have committed or be committing crimes of the gravest concern to the international community with impunity.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

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.

The Activity of Lawyers in the International Criminal Court: Theoretical and Practical Aspects

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-72
Author(s):  
Daria A. Sedova
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Order ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Status ◽  
Entire History

In the entire history of mankind, a large number of acts of violence and aggression have been committed. Over the past 50 years alone, there have been more than 400 interstate and intrastate conflicts that have claimed the lives of millions of people. Increasingly, there has been an urgent need to protect the violated rights of individuals. The idea of creating a single international body for the protection of human rights has been discussed more than once. For the first time, the idea of creating an international judicial body was expressed in 1948 by the UN General Assembly after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials at the end of World War II, which issue has been discussed at the United Nations ever since. However, efforts to create such a mechanism have not been successful, despite the need for a permanent criminal court to prosecute and punish those who commit the most serious crimes. In 1998, this idea was realized. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has sought ways to establish a world order with a fair resolution of conflicts. It has long been recognized, the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal noted, that international law imposes duties and obligations on specific individuals as well as on the state. [] Crimes against international law are committed by people, not by abstract categories, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be respected. To date, the ICC is successfully coping with the task of punishing those persons or groups of persons who have committed the international crimes listed in the Rome Statute. It would seem that the balance between good and evil has been found. The crime has been committed and the criminal punished. But it is important to note that the procedural issues have not been resolved as well as that of punishing criminals. An urgent matter today is the status of defenders of the accused in international criminal proceedings. This question requires not only a doctrinal, but also a practical understanding.

The International Criminal Court’s Authority Crisis and Kant’s Political Ethics

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-215
Author(s):  
Antonio Franceschet
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Moral Problem ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Political Ethics ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Legal Actor

The International Criminal Court (icc) faces a profound authority crisis. This article explores the underlying conditions and ethical implications of this crisis in light of Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) political theory. The icc’s authority crisis is twofold: First, having been constructed as a purely legal actor, the Court’s inevitable role in politics has undermined perceptions of its legitimacy. Second, having been constructed as a supranational substitute for domestic legal authority, the icc has been subverted by other, political branches of the state, such as the executive. These problems have been particularly salient in Africa where states have vociferously challenged the Court’s investigations and prosecutions. Kantian political ethics show that the icc’s authority crisis is an intractable moral problem that must be addressed collectively and coercively by sovereign states acting upon a larger, cosmopolitan duty to enforce universal rights.

scholarly journals Encroachment on Cultural Values in the Occupied Territories of Ukraine in the Context of International Crimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 313-319
Author(s):  
Nataliia PLYSIUK ◽  
Anna GOLUB
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
Occupied Territories

The article examines the essence and nature of war crimes through the prism of encroachments on cultural property in the context of the conflict in eastern Ukraine and illegal actions on the Crimean peninsula. The state of protection of cultural property in the occupied territories, the main problems of prosecution for export, damage, destruction of cultural property in the conditions of military conflict are considered. It is analyzed that the issue of protection of cultural values is currently on the table, but Ukrainian domestic science does not contain research on the process of bringing perpetrators to justice. The article highlights the main decisions of the International Criminal Court in cases of encroachment on cultural property during the armed conflict, the decisions of tribunals, analyzes their main aspects that may be useful for Ukraine. It is established that the case law of tribunals and the International Criminal Court is heterogeneous; there is no established and clearly defined list of criteria for determining the grounds for bringing perpetrators to justice, the degree and form of their guilt. There is a heterogeneous understanding of the object of the encroachment and the form of guilt, which can lead to the impossibility of bringing the perpetrators to justice. From the analysis of the essence of war crimes, it was concluded that the relevant acts may be qualified under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as war crimes. The composition of a war crime under the Rome Statute has also been studied, and possible obstacles to Ukraine’s future trials within the framework of the International Criminal Court have been outlined. The situation with the Bakhchisaray Palace in Crimea is highlighted as an object on which trilateral negotiations have already been initiated, which has the prospect of filing lawsuits in international courts. At present, Ukraine’s actions are aimed only at condemning the international community against the enemy for his illegal actions with cultural property, but the issue of initiating legal proceedings remains open.

Better Late than Never: Reparations for Sexual Violence in the Ntaganda case before the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-47
Author(s):  
Sunneva Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Child Soldiers ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Medical Background ◽  
Modest Contribution ◽  
First Time

The Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the long awaited first reparation order for sexual violence at the court. This will hopefully see the implementation of reparations for the war crimes and crimes against humanity of rape and sexual slavery among civilians and former child soldiers, after previous cases such as against Jean-Pierre Bembe and Laurent Gbagbo were acquitted of rape. This article drawing from the author's role as a reparation expert in the case, is a reflection on the challenges of designing and providing reparations at the ICC against convicted individuals, as well as amidst insecurity and the COVID-19 infectious disease pandemic. It begins by discussing how the Ntaganda reparation order expanded reparation principles for the first time since the Lubanga case, in particular for crimes of a sexual nature. This is followed by an outline of some of the harms as a result of sexual violence from the perspective of an expert with a medical background. The analysis then turns to the appropriate reparations in this case and the details contained within the chamber's reparation order. Final conclusions consider how the procedural and substantive elements of reparations in this case will be instructive to future cases that address sexual violence. Ultimately, key insights are offered on the modest contribution an appointed reparation expert can do in assisting a trial chamber in the reparation process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document