"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (II)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 17, No. 1 (September 2018), pp. 37-48.

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Territorial Jurisdiction ◽

Concurrent Exercise ◽

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 2 is as follows: Chapter 2 Existing Theories (Section 1 Exercise of State Jurisdiction through the ICC (1. Arguments for the Exercise of Territorial Jurisdiction through the ICC / 2. Arguments for the Concurrent Exercise of Territorial and Universal Jurisdictions through the ICC / 3. Arguments for the Exercise of Territorial or Active Personality Jurisdiction through the ICC depending on the Accepted State / 4. Arguments for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction through the ICC in All Cases / 5. Arguments against the Exercise of State Jurisdiction through the ICC / 6. Summary of Section 1)).

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (I)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 16, No. 2 (March 2018), pp. 67-74.

10.31228/osf.io/gx3ae ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Yoshiaki Kitano

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (IV)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 18, No. 1 (September 2019), pp. 59-64.

10.31228/osf.io/6vszq ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Yoshiaki Kitano

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

State Consent ◽

The Creation ◽

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 4 is as follows: Chapter 3 Examination of the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Section 1 Outline of the Preparatory Work of the Statute (1. Work prior to the Rome Conference / 2. Work at the Rome Conference, in particular on the State-Consent Requirements for the Proposed ICC’s Exercise of Jurisdiction) / Section 2 Analysis of the Relevant Discussions Conducted in the Preparatory Work of the Statute (1. Discussions over the Rules of the Law of Treaties on the Creation of Obligations for Non-Party States)).

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (VI)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1 (September 2020), pp. 41-52.

10.31228/osf.io/m9cag ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yoshiaki Kitano

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

State Consent ◽

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 6 is as follows: Chapter 3 Examination of the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (Section 2 Analysis of the Relevant Discussions Conducted in the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (2. Discussions on the State-Consent Requirements and Legal Basis for the Proposed ICC’s Exercise of Jurisdiction (Continued) ((B) Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Cases of the Security Council’s Referral))).

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (V)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March 2020), pp. 37-48.

10.31228/osf.io/bhjm7 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yoshiaki Kitano

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The State ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

State Consent ◽

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 5 is as follows: Chapter 3 Examination of the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (Section 2 Analysis of the Relevant Discussions Conducted in the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (2. Discussions on the State-Consent Requirements and Legal Basis for the Proposed ICC’s Exercise of Jurisdiction ((A) Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Cases of the State Parties’ Referral or Prosecutor’s Initiative))).

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (III)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 17, No. 2 (March 2019), pp. 55-64.

10.31228/osf.io/8w347 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Yoshiaki Kitano

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Current Status ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Customary International Law ◽

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 3 is as follows: Chapter 2 Existing Theories (Continued) (Section 2 Creation of the Nationality State's Obligation to Acquiesce (1. Consent Given in Accordance with Article 12 of the Statute / 2. Consent Given in Accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter / 3. Formation of Customary International Law) / Section 3 Three Crucial Issues Relating to Existing Theories and the Necessity of Examining the Preparatory Work of the Statute).

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

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2021.28 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-74

Author(s):

Anne Bayefsky

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

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.

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

Journal of International Criminal Justice ◽

10.1093/jicj/mqaa053 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Micheal G Kearney

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

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.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.27 Irrelevance of official capacity/Défaut de pertinence de la qualité officielle

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0032 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Head Of State

This chapter comments on Article 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 27 consists two paragraphs that are often confounded but fulfil different functions. Paragraph 1 denies a defence of official capacity, i.e. official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall not exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the Statute. Paragraph 2 amounts to a renunciation, by States Parties to the Rome Statute, of the immunity of their own Head of State to which they are entitled by virtue of customary international law. In contrast with paragraph 1, it is without precedent in international criminal law instruments.