The International Criminal Court’s Decision on its Territorial Jurisdiction over Palestine: Between Power Dynamics and Political Legitimacy

2021 ◽  
Vol N° 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-159
Author(s):  
Juliette Rémond-Tiedrez
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction

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.

scholarly journals "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.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Kitano
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Concurrent Exercise ◽  
Preparatory Work

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)).

scholarly journals s.VII Anxieties, Ch.29 Inequality of Arms Reversed?: Defendants in the Battle for Political Legitimacy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glasius Marlies ◽  
Meijers Tim
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Reverse Inequality ◽  
Political Dimension ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Set Up ◽  
International Criminal Trials

This chapter discusses a communicative advantage for ‘defiant defendants’, otherwise known as the ‘inequality of arms reversed’. A common critique of international criminal justice is that international criminal trials, when faced with high-profile and charismatic defendants, are basically doomed: either they silence the defendant’s political rhetoric and become show trials, or they let the defendant speak of the bias and inconsistencies in their institutional set-up, thus equally imperilling their legitimacy. This chapter argues that international criminal courts are not doomed by the reverse inequality: the communicative outcomes of international criminal trials remain contingent. For instance, prosecutors can make arguments that are politically and culturally attuned to local audiences. Moreover, the procedure of the trial can influence the defendant’s attitude. This chapter contends that it is possible for prosecutors and judges to acknowledge the political dimension of international criminal processes without turning them into show trials. Indeed, it is desirable for judges and prosecutors to confront the politics of the defendant head on.

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.

Journeys to the West: Travelogues and Discursive Power in the Making of the Mongol Empire

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-86
Author(s):  
Ming Tak Ted Hui
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
The West ◽  
Narrative Strategy ◽  
Southern Song ◽  
Xiyou Ji ◽  
Mongol Empire ◽  
Cultural Dominance ◽  
Discursive Power

Abstract Before the Mongol conquest in 1279, numerous envoys were sent from the Southern Song court to its neighboring states. Their purpose was to evaluate and tame foreign territories and alien peoples and thereby reduce their threat to Song culture, and the travelogues resulting from these journeys were often “utilitarian” in style. The Record of the Perfected Master Changchun's Journey to the West (Changchun zhenren xiyou ji 長春真人西遊記), however, deserves special attention for its nuanced handling of a complex cultural-political power dynamics. Its compiler, Li Zhichang, was a leader in the Quanzhen sect, and his travelogue documents the journey of his master, Qiu Chuji, at the invitation of Chinggis (Genghis) Khan. Li's text illustrates the tension of competing political and cultural authorities: while the Mongols were becoming the source of political authority, the Taoists still owned the discursive power. The author argues that Li deliberately adopted a narrative strategy that conceded the Mongol claim to political legitimacy while simultaneously asserting Taoism's cultural dominance over the Mongols. The article also juxtaposes Li's work with the travel record by Yelü Chucai, a Khitan adviser to the Mongols who traveled with Chinggis Khan during his western military expeditions. Although Yelü's travelogue is often read as a rebuttal to Li Zhichang's work, a closer look reveals how Yelü appropriated Li's strategy for his own agenda: to justify Mongols' invasion of Central Asia while highlighting the cultural values shared between the Mongols and the Han Chinese. Both works employ rhetorical strategies that laid the foundation for political discourse affirming the Mongol-Yuan dynastic legitimacy.

Preventing the Forcibly Displaced from Returning as Persecution and Inhumane Act under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Elena Katselli Proukaki
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Jurisprudence ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Preventing the forcibly displaced from returning to the territory from which they were unlawfully expelled has not received adequate attention under international criminal law. This article addresses this gap by focusing on denial of return as a crime against humanity. It evaluates international criminal jurisprudence including the proceedings concerning the Rohingya and evolving human rights standards to show that prevention from returning is a serious and continuing denial of fundamental human rights which inflicts great suffering. As such, it may qualify as persecution and/or an inhumane act under the Rome Statute. The ramifications of this on the temporal and territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the principle of legality are important especially in situations of protracted displacement. The article demonstrates that although criminalisation of denial of return is not a panacea, it is instrumental in tackling forced displacement which affects millions across the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document