The Role of UN Documentation in Shaping Narratives at the International Criminal Court and the Implications for the Rights of the Accused

The International Criminal Court (icc) is an independent treaty-based international organisation acting in close cooperation with the United Nations (UN). To that end, organs of the Court have extensively relied on UN documentation in proceedings. These materials have been used to support grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction, demonstrate legal elements of crimes, and prove matters of fact. In recent practice, including in the situations of Palestine, Bangladesh/Myanmar, and Mali, UN materials have been used to establish legal and factual matters on the primary basis that they represent the ‘views of the international community’. This paper examines the ways in which Court organs rely on UN documentation in icc proceedings. It assesses the interplay of such information with rights of the accused. The paper concludes that in order to safeguard its credibility and the fairness of the proceedings, the Court should adopt specific guidelines relating to the evaluation of and admissibility of UN materials.

The International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Towards The Deportation Issues In Myanmar

<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>

The measures against the International Criminal Court (USA v. ICC): the perspective of International Law

Since its creation, the International Criminal Court has faced the refusal of the United States to cooperate, which, in addition to staying outside the Rome Statute, has undertaken a real strategy of weakening the Criminal Code. The argument put forward by the US Government against the Rome Statute is that an international treaty cannot create obligations for a non-party state and therefore the United States denies any jurisdiction of that jurisdiction over its nationals. As early as 2000, that country had unsuccessfully introduced a proposal before the Preparatory Commission to prevent bringing American military personnel to the Court. The American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA), bilateral immunity agreements and Security Council resolutions constitute the arsenal used by States at that time to neutralize the ICC. Recently, the United States signed an order authorizing the United States to prevent and penalize employees of the International Criminal Court from entering the country. The US administration, which has been critical of the ICC for months, is opposed to launching investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Is not that a sign of difficulty with the US Legal Justifications? In other words, does this weakness open up the possibility of prosecution in the event of a violation of international law by US?

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

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.

The Genesis of the International Criminal Court

This work analyzes the practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as the most ambitious project aimed at combating and preventing mass violations of human rights in inter-and intrastate conflicts. Sure thing, such an institution has not emerged from anywhere, but it is the culmination in the progress of international criminal law evolution. That is why the progress that was made over the centuries and historical conditions forcing its establishment cannot be ignored. This article studies the formation of the International Criminal Court through the prism of the history of previous models of judicial bodies bringing to justice war criminals. Moreover, it analyses the historical conditions and international debates around the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. Conclusions focus on the problems that arose during the establishment of the ICC, and the ways in which they affect ICC activities nowadays.