Sexual Slavery and Members of a Terrorist Group – What is the Future of the 'Boko Haram' Trial at the International Criminal Court?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-253
Author(s):  
Michala Chadimova
Keyword(s):  
Human Trafficking ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Boko Haram ◽  
Sexual Slavery ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity

Crimes committed by the members of Boko Haram in Nigeria are not only the subject of national trials but also of preliminary examination at the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article focuses on the sexual slavery perpetrated by Boko Haram, describes how the crimes are viewed within the national Nigerian criminal process and addresses the possibility of prosecution of the crimes at the ICC.<br/> This article analyses the legal terminology used to describe the crimes connected to Boko Haram – enslavement, sexual slavery, human trafficking and terrorism – and their interaction. While providing an overview of the ICC's current preliminary examination into the situation in Nigeria, this article discusses how the principle of complementarity is potentially holding the OTP back from the formal investigation.<br/> Furthermore, an overview of cases at the ICC that have involved charges of sexual slavery or enslavement will be provided. By analysing the Court's findings in relation to elements of sexual slavery, this article provides an insightful view into the Court's rhetoric on this crime. Similarly, this article discusses modes of liability that have been employed in the Katanga/Chui and Ntaganda cases and provides a learning opportunity for future cases of sexual slavery as both a crime against humanity (Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute) and a war crime (Article 8(2)(e)(vi) of the Rome Statute; 8(2)(b)(xxii) of the Rome Statute).

Physical and Legal Inability under Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-123
Author(s):  
Ahmed Samir Hassanein
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Physical Factors ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The Subject

While the complementary regime of the International Criminal Court (icc) has been the subject of extensive examination in the literature, this article offers a new reading of the inability scenario that establishes a clear distinction between two different forms of inability under Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute. An in-depth analysis of this article as this review suggests, would show that the reason behind the inability of a national judicial system is attributed to one of two factors or even the two together; first, physical factors, in the case of ‘total or substantial collapse’, and second, legal factors, in the case of ‘unavailability of national judicial system’. Significantly, the aforementioned distinction is not limited to theoretical debate, but it has pivotal legal ramifications as the emerging practice of the icc shows, or rather does not show, as it seems that the icc confuses the two forms of inability.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.24 Non-retroactivity ratione personae /Non-rétroactivité ratione personae

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Simple Manner ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This chapter comments on Article 24 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Preceded by two provisions that entrench two Latin maxims described collectively as the principle of legality, article 24 completes the treatment of the subject in Part 3 of the Rome Statute. Article 24 promises the accused that if there is a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgment, ‘the law more favourable shall apply’. However, this rule giving the defendant the benefit of the ‘more favourable’ provision is not without difficulties. It is not always a simple manner to determine which rule is in fact more favourable. Moreover, there may be an important element of subjectivity, in that individuals may differ in their assessment.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.8bis Crime of aggression/Crime d’agression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
State Party ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
One Year

This chapter comments on Article 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8bis defines the crime of aggression, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The provision is part of a package of amendments adopted at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. It entered into force in accordance with article 121(5) one year after ratification of the amendments by the first State Party. Liechtenstein was the first State Party to ratify the amendments, on May 8, 2012. Consequently, the amendment entered into force on May 8, 2013. On that date, the amendment was registered by the depository, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. However, exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over article 8bis is subject to article 15bis and article 15ter.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.7 Crimes against humanity/Crimes contre l’humanité

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Organizational Policy ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Contextual Elements ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual

This chapter comments on Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 7 defines crimes against humanity, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The classic definitions of crimes against humanity, in such instruments as the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, are vague and open-ended, leaving courts to interpret the scope of such expressions as ‘persecution’ and ‘inhumane acts’. Out of concern with the uncertain parameters of the crime, the drafters of the Rome Statute included extra language designed to restrain efforts at generous or liberal interpretation. The five distinct ‘contextual elements’ of crimes against humanity are: (i) an attack directed against any civilian population; (ii) a State or organizational policy; (iii) an attack of a widespread or systematic nature; (iv) a nexus between the individual act and the attack; and (v) knowledge of the attack.

Preamble: Préambule, Preamble/Préambule

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
General Philosophy ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Underlying Principle ◽  
The Subject

This chapter comments on the Preamble to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Preamble consists of eleven paragraphs and some 305 words. It addresses several of the important principles that underpin the Statute, such as complementarity and gravity, the commitment to address impunity, and the obligations of States with respect to international justice in general. The Preamble also provides an appropriate place for the Statute to make reference to such instruments as the Charter of the United Nations. Although the final version of the Preamble provides indications as to the general philosophy animating the Statute, the earlier versions actually influenced the drafting process, most notably in the debate as to whether complementarity was merely an underlying principle or whether it required specific provisions and mechanisms for its implementation, and as regards the importance of gravity or seriousness in establishing the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.

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.

Why Is The Hague Sitting on the Fence in Prosecuting Boko Haram Terrorism in Nigeria?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Chijioke Egwu Ekumaoko ◽  
Kenneth Igbo Nwokike ◽  
Ozioma Victoria Uchime ◽  
Ikenna Ukpabi Unya ◽  
Emmanuel Obiahu Agha
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Boko Haram ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Legal Barriers

Abstract On 18 November, 2010 a preliminary examination of the situation in Nigeria was announced and for almost a decade, investigation has not yet begun. Ten potential cases have been identified, seven for Boko Haram and three for Nigerian Security Forces (NSF). This article investigates whether issues of complementarity and admissibility provide any legal barriers capable of withholding investigation; and whether granting national amnesty to Boko Haram can hinder investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court. It employs a qualitative methodological approach for investigation and evaluation regarding the issues discussed. It argues that the situation in Nigeria has met the entire legal framework for investigation and prosecution to proceed and that the arrest of Abubakar Shekau, Abu Musab AlBarnawi, and Abu Abdullahi Ibn Umar al-Barnawi, the Boko Haram leaders will weaken the group, and provide the needed external help and intervention desired to end the terrorism.

Procedural Haze: The ICC’s Jurisdiction over the Situation in Palestine

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-147
Author(s):  
Yassir Al-Khudayri
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
The Past ◽  
Preliminary Examination

Abstract Palestine’s ratification of the Rome Statute, and limited retroactive acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC, or the Court), constitutes one of the major legal developments of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past decade. But such a milestone does not come without contentious legal and political challenges. Several procedural obstacles are likely to arise, especially relating to jurisdiction and admissibility, which will determine whether the ICC even gets to substantive questions of accountability. No matter which cases might ultimately be prosecuted, any ICC investigation – and perhaps even the preliminary examination – is thus likely to confront the antagonisms surrounding Palestinian statehood, bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, border disputes, and domestic criminal proceedings.

The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction: A Fraught Relationship?

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Territorial State ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Principle Of Complementarity ◽  
Do So

This article deals with the relationship between the principle of universal jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the ICC. Voices have been raised to expand the jurisdictional basis of the ICC's Rome Statute to include the universality principle. The author does not support this expansion, however, mainly on practical grounds. At the same time, however, he does support, albeit cautiously, taking into account the universality principle for purposes of the admissibility analysis under Article 17 of the Statute. The ICC's principle of complementarity indeed requires that the ICC defer to any state that might have jurisdiction, including a state having universal jurisdiction over serious crimes. It is proposed that the ICC Prosecutor encourage certain "bystander" states that can provide an effective forum to investigate and prosecute atrocity cases, at least if the territorial state, or the state of nationality, proves unable and unwilling to do so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document