Implications of Stripping Immunities of Heads of States on State Cooperation and the Effectiveness of Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-93
Author(s):  
Patrick Kimani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Invisibility Cloak ◽  
The Hague ◽  
State Cooperation

The development of international criminal law in the last seven decades has seen a gradual erosion of the integrity of immunities for heads of states. The journey from Nuremberg to The Hague has resulted in a permanent international criminal court. Article 27(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute) disregards immunities as an effective bar to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Heads of states have been stripped of their ‘invisibility cloak’ from international criminal prosecutions. The Rome Statute places its reliance on the situation state’s authorities to cooperate with the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes. A special tension is noticeable in circumstances where an incumbent head of state is accused at ICC while his or her state is placed under the general cooperation obligation. This tension is clearly manifest in the two criminal processes against Uhuru Kenyatta and Al Bashir. Bearing in mind the significant political muscle a sitting head of state wields in their state, it is quite likely that their state’s authorities will be very reluctant to discharge their cooperation obligations. The prosecution of sitting heads of states remains a challenge. Is it time to rethink the structure of the ICC or the implementation of the Statute?

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

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The Legacy of the ICTY and ICTR in China

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 245-250
Author(s):  
Bing Bing Jia
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Tribunal

Legacy is a matter that may become topical when its creator finally stops producing. Normally, the silent years would be many before the thought of legacy enters into open, formal discourse among lawyers and decision-makers. This comment treats the meaning of the word as relative to the circumstances in which it is invoked. The more closely it is used in relation to the present, the more distant it drifts from its literal meaning, to the extent that it denotes what the word “impact” signifies. This essay questions whether the word “legacy” is apt in describing the footprint of the work of the two ad hoctribunals in China, where its influence has, as a matter of fact, been waning ever since the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 (“Rome Statute” ). The Chinese example suggests that the work of the tribunals is (at least so far) no more significant to international criminal law than the illustrious Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials of the 1940s. The most major impact (a more apposite term than legacy) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) for China may be that China’s policy with regard to the tribunals, manifested mostly in the United Nations, has determined its approach to the International Criminal Court (“ICC” ). For that, the work of the tribunals could be considered as having left China something in the nature of an indirect legacy.

scholarly journals Sexual Exploitation and Beyond: Using the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to Prosecute UN Peacekeepers for Gender-based Crimes

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 803-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Sexual Exploitation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Gender Based

AbstractAllegations and confirmed cases of misconduct by peacekeeping personnel have been revealed by non-governmental organisations, the press and UN investigations. The majority of misconduct has fallen under the term 'sexual exploitation and abuse'. Sexual exploitation and abuse has encompassed rape, sex with minors, trafficking, prostitution-related conduct, sexual exploitation, and other sexual abuse. This article discusses accountability in international criminal law for such conduct, first exploring the development of gender-based crime in international criminal law. The core of this article consists of an examination of the applicable law under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to determine whether or not the provisions could be used to prosecute peacekeepers for the crimes of rape, sexual slavery, sexual exploitation, prostitution-related conduct, and trafficking. Real life examples of criminal conduct by peacekeeping personnel will be given to test the applicability of the Rome Statute provisions.

scholarly journals India’s Tryst with International Criminal Law: Why Delhi Cannot Digest the Roman Pasta?

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-109
Author(s):  
Arjun Bhagi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Member Nation ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Nuclear Warfare

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998 (the statute) establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks to provide an international criminal law regime to deal with crimes against humanity. Despite the path breaking structure of this statute, India has refrained from being a signatory to it. This paper deals extensively with India’s unhappiness over a universally important and well drafted law like the Rome Statute. This paper debates two major concerns of India with respect to the statute: abuse of referrals by the Security Council and the challenge to its sovereignty. It also features an exhaustive discussion of India’s eagerness to include terrorism and ‘use of nuclear warfare’ as crimes under the statute. Based on an extensive legal research, the author concludes that India must make no further delay in becoming a member nation of thestatute.

International criminal court as an international judical body acting on a complementary basis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-101
Author(s):  
Nihad Fərhad oğlu Qəyayev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Policy Paper ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

The functioning of the International Criminal Court is carried out on the basis of the principle of complementarity. Thus, in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly states that “the International Criminal Court….complements the national criminal justice authorities”. The principle of complementarity is revealed in Art. 17-20 of the Statute. This article discusses the algorithm and the criteria for evaluating the performance of the complementarity based on the analysis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Statute), the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2000), the Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisations of 2016, the Policy Paper Preliminary Examinations of 2013. Key words: International Criminal Court, principle of complementarity, Rome Statute, international crime, state sovereignty, criminal law jurisdiction, international criminal law, principles of criminal procedure

Preliminary Proceedings of the International Criminal Court functions and powers

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (04) ◽  
pp. 249-262
Author(s):  
Nihad Fərhad oğlu Qəyayev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Court Of Appeals

The Preliminary Division is a court unit that has important functions and powers within the structural links of the International Criminal Court and provides a link between criminal investigation, prosecution and trial procedures. In fact, this Department filters out whether the criminal act that took place during the period before the criminal case reached the Judicial Department falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, and such important nuances, and transfers the so-called "finished product" to the Judicial Department. The BCM stage of the proceedings has a very important role to play in the termination of the proceedings and in the issuance of the relevant decision (sentence). This stage involves an inseparable process, with the Prosecutor referring the case to the Preliminary Chamber, referring it to the Court of Appeals, and finally appealing to the Chamber of Appeals against the decisions and proceedings of those chambers. Key words: International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, international crime, state sovereignty, criminal law jurisdiction, principles of criminal procedure, international criminal law

scholarly journals I. THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: BACKING INTO THE FUTURE?

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

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.

Julius Stone, Aggression, and the Future of the International Criminal Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-330
Author(s):  
Alexis Galán
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Current Regulation ◽  
The Future ◽  
Controversial Topic

The article is concerned with the crime of aggression, the long and contested history behind its regulation, the final incorporation in the Rome Statute, and the implication of the regulation for the standing of the international criminal court. In order to explain and understand the struggle over aggression, the article recovers the writings of Julius Stone. It is contended that his writings can not only help us in understanding the key elements that have made aggression a highly controversial topic in international criminal law but also in comprehending the underlying features of the current regulation. Drawing on Stone’s account of justice, the article further suggests that, in light of the position in which the court finds itself, it should approach the crime of aggression with modesty and self-restrain.

The Institution of the International Criminal Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 671-681
Author(s):  
Gerard Strijards
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Host State ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Domestic Law

This article discusses certain key aspects arising from the negotiations leading up to the adoption of a Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC), to have its seat in The Hague. These aspects include individual criminal responsibility regardless of status as Head of State or constitutional organ and the transformation of international criminal law into domestic law. Also discussed are the two appendices to be added to the Statute pertaining to substantive criminal law and rules of criminal evidence and procedure to be used by the Court. The author argues that the appendix on the law of criminal procedure will be of particular importance to the Netherlands as the host state. The obligations regarding legal assistance of the host state will be dependent on this.

International Criminal Responsibility Concerning ‘Control over an Organization’ and Command Responsibility Lato Sensu

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiromi Satō
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law

The International Criminal Court recently presented its arguments concerning criminal responsibility arising pursuant to the theory of ‘control over an organization’. This theory is based on the notion of ‘perpetrator-by-means’ found in the Rome Statute, Article 25(3)a. The court appears to have utilized this theory to establish principal responsibility for ordering in contrast to accessorial responsibility prescribed in Article 25(3)b of the said Statute. However, it should be noted that customary international law has long established the notion of command responsibility lato sensu, recognizing the serious and primary nature of superiors’ responsibility for ordering. This article argues that there should be some conscious sequence between the discussions of ‘control over an organization’ and command responsibility lato sensu for the sake of the integrity of the discourse in international criminal law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document