scholarly journals SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE ROME STATUTE AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY: AN APPRAISAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-145
Author(s):  
Abdul Ghafur Hamid ◽  
Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal ◽  
Muhannad Munir Lallmahamood ◽  
Areej Torla

The doctrine of superior responsibility has been embedded in Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which enunciates the responsibility of both military commanders and civilian superiors. Although constitutional monarchs are civilians entrusted with the position of commanders in chief, there are States that opposed accession to the Rome Statute on the simple ground that their respective monarchs could be indicted and punished under the Rome Statute. The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to examine whether constitutional monarchs could be responsible under the doctrine of superior responsibility. The paper focuses on the analysis of the elements of superior responsibility by referring to the authoritative commentaries of Article 28 and constitutional practices of three selected constitutional monarchies: the United Kingdom, Japan, and Malaysia. The paper finds that constitutional monarchs could not be held responsible because they have to act on the advice of the government and do not possess the effective and operational control over the armed forces as required under the Rome statute.

Author(s):  
Schabas William A

This chapter comments on Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 28 consists of two paragraphs; the first addressing superior responsibility in a military context, the second dealing with the issue with respect to civilians. Unlike the superior responsibility liability that attaches to military commanders, which was well accepted, application of the concept to civilians proved to be very controversial. Some Trial Chambers at the ad hoc tribunals have referred to article 28 as a basis for the view that the ‘distinction between military commanders and other superiors embodied in the Rome Statute is an instructive one’, although this is a rather isolated opinion. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has acknowledged that whether the liability of civilian superiors ‘contains identical elements to that of military commanders is not clear in customary law’.


1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahnoush H. Arsanjani

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) took place in Rome at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The participants numbered 160 states, thirty-three intergovernmental organizations and a coalition of 236 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The conference concluded by adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a nonrecorded vote of 120 in favor, 7 against and 21 abstentions. The United States elected to indicate publicly that it had voted against the statute. France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation supported the statute.


2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra Lekha Sriram ◽  
Stephen Brown

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-700
Author(s):  
Alexandre Skander Galand

Never has the doctrine of command responsibility been shaken as when the Appeal Chamber of the International Criminal Court issued the Bemba Appeal Judgment. The latter solely addresses whether the defendant – Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Commander-in-chief of the Mouvement de libération du Congo – took reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish his subordinates’ crimes perpetrated in the Central African Republic. Yet, the various dissenting, separate and concurring opinions advocate opposing positions on the scope, elements and nature of this notorious doctrine. This paper relocates the ‘sharp disagreements’ that surfaced during the Bemba Appeal Judgment within the broader phenomena of the individualisation of war. Through an in-depth examination of the interpretation offered by the appellate judges, it designs a model of command responsibility that properly individualises Article 28 Rome Statute, and, by the same token, respect the fundamental rights of military commanders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 306
Author(s):  
Bugivia Maharani Setiadji Putri ◽  
Sefriani Sefriani

<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>


2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
David Křivánek

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-201
Author(s):  
Dino Panji Pananjung ◽  
Sigar Aji Poerana

AbstractIn armed conflicts, children are often kidnapped and forced to become child soldiers, they are also given forced indoctrination (by violence and threats) and are taught to commit crimes, such as looting and murder. Disobeyed children and those who try to escape will be punished in the form of torture or even being executed in front of other children's soldiers as a lesson so others will not follow their step. When they did not serve the armed forces anymore or they grew up and no longer held child status, they were given the title of "former child soldiers". These former child soldiers might still live in rebellious environments and commit serious crimes including international crimes under jurisdiction of International Criminal Court when they grow up. This research argues whether the International Criminal Court considers the historical status of the perpetrators who are former child soldiers as mitigating factor of their punishment. The research method used is the juridical normative approach. The result of this research shows the International Criminal Court has never considered the history of international criminals as child soldiers. However, the International Criminal Court may use the consideration beside what has been regulated in Rome Statute, such as Article 21(3). This is also based on the Judge's right for discretion in the Rome Statute to adjudicate, as what we can see in the Case of Omar Khadr. Keywords: Child Soldier, Criminal responsibility, International Criminal Court, Judgment and Sentencing, Rome Statute. AbstrakDalam konflik bersenjata, anak seringkali diculik dan dipaksa menjadi tantara anak, mereka juga didoktrin paksa (melalui kekerasan atau ancaman) serta diajakan untuk melakukan kejahatan seperti menjarah dan membunuh. Mereka yang tidak menurut dan yang mencoba melarikan diri akan dihukum dengan disiksa di hadapan para tantara anak lainnya sebagai contoh agar tidak ditiru oleh anak lainnya. Mereka disebut “mantan tantara anak” setelah tidak lagi menjadi teantara atau telah dewasa. Tidak menutup kemungkinan ketika dewasa mereka hidup dengan jiwa pemberontak dan melakukan kejahatan serius bahkan kejahatan internasional yang menjadi jurisdiksi Mahkamah Pidana Internasional. Penelitian ini membahas apakah Mahkamah Pidana Internasional mempertimbangkan riwayat seorang pelaku kejahatan internasional yang menjadi seorang mantan tentara anak untuk meringankan hukuman mereka. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa praktik Mahkamah Pidana Internasional tidak pernah mempertimbangkan latar belakang pelaku kejahatan internasional sebagai mantan tentara anak. Namun, Hakim Mahkamah Pidana Internasional dapat menggunakan ketentuan diluar Statuta Roma berdasarkan pasal 21(3). Hal ini juga didasari pada adanya diskresi Hakim untuk memutus dan mengadili diluar yang diatur di dalam Statuta Roma, seperti halnya Kasus Omar Khadr. Kata Kunci: Mahkamah Pidana Internasional, Pemidanaan, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana, Statuta Roma, Tentara Anak.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayub Torry Satrio K

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