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

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.

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 ICC’s Appeals Chamber Judgments in the Jordan Case Regarding Al Bashir and Ntaganda Case: Victories for the Fights against Impunity and Immunity for Serious Crimes

The creation of the ICC was a turning point in the fights against impunity for serious international crimes affecting mankind. Accordingly, the ICC does not recognise any form of immunities before its jurisdiction. Consequently, individuals and senior state officials cannot rely on any form of immunities if accused of any of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Jordan case regarding Al Bashir’s immunity, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber held that by ratifying the Rome Statute, states parties have consented to waive the immunity of their officials regarding proceedings before the Court. As a result of this, there is no immunity between the Court and states parties and between states parties themselves, and Sudan was bound by the Statute of the Court based on the United Nations Resolution 1593. In the Ntaganda case, the Court held there is no impunity for serious international crimes before its jurisdiction. This article examines both cases and concludes that while in the Jordan case there is victory for serious international crimes and the fights against human rights violations over immunity before the ICC, there is also victory for serious international crimes over impunity before the Court as seen in the Ntaganda case.

Man Made Famines: an International Crime. A Critique to the Current Gaps in the International Legal Framework

There is a gap in the current legal framework that might result in the infringement of the human right to food and it is given by the lack of criminalisation of intentionally caused famines. Man-made famines should be recognised as crimes against humanity because after analysing the APs and the Rome Statute, we observe that they only mention starvation episodes, and several other behaviours and situations that would end with a famine are not considered at all. We are referring here to cases when a state has the capacity to predict a famine-related disaster and the resources to minimize its impact but it fails to mitigate the effects and to mobilize a response.Compared with starvation, famines are events that have much more severe repercussions for larger areas, larger social groups or even whole countries. Furthermore, they usually cover a much longer period of time such as seasons or even years. Moreover, the perpetrators have to be major players such as governments, organisations or groups with sufficient economic or military power.Finally, famines may be achieved through military actions, policies and other political actions influencing and altering the normal social processes connected to the production of food.

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?

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

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.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Early Release in International Criminal Law: The Sui Generis Nature of the Reduction of Sentence Under the Rome Statute

Early release has been regularly granted by the ad hoc tribunals for over 20 years. However, it could be argued that some issues still remain contentious. In fact, in May 2020, the Practice Direction ruling early release in the Mechanism of the International Criminal Tribunals was amended. This was intended to clarify key matters, such as the time needed to be served before early release, the possibility of imposing conditions upon those released, and the unappealable character of the resulting decision. At a glance, it could be argued that the International Criminal Court is better equipped to confront the many challenges posed by early release. This is owing to its detailed regulation, which may consequently lead to a more reasoned and solid case law. After comparatively examining ten features key to the application of early release, however, this paper argues that the ultimate problem lies within the nature generally conferred to early release in the Rome Statute.