Books by Giovanni Chiarini
Routledge (Routledge Studies in Law, Rights and Justice), 2024
'This book, the culmination of years of effort, provides a valuable contribution for those who se... more 'This book, the culmination of years of effort, provides a valuable contribution for those who seek to better understand international criminal law practice. Professor Chiarini’s efforts weave together various strands of historical international criminal practice to identify how binding them together provides a coherent notion of international criminal procedure. This was no easy task, as by its nature such procedure must reflect and accommodate legal traditions and principles from substantially different legal systems. Nonetheless, through extensive research and as the result of careful consideration of historical precedents, Professor Chiarini offers the reader a model to build on for the future of this important area of practice.'
Professor Geoffrey S. Corn, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy, Texas Tech University School of Law
'All at once, this book is a fascinating study of legal history, criminal procedure, and international and comparative law. By interweaving these rich conceptual strands, Giovanni Chiarini presents a compelling thesis: that international criminal procedure may have begun as a normative clash of cultures but, through hybridization, it has evolved into a global framework of fairness. Professor Chiarini has been helping us reconceptualize this understudied but vital field and this book represents the brilliant fruit of his efforts to date. It should be considered essential reading for international criminal law theorists and practitioners alike.'
Professor Gregory S. Gordon, Professor of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
'Legal procedure brings order to chaos. In this volume, Professor Chiarini builds upon the solid foundation of international criminal procedure laid down by Safferling, which brought order to the international criminal law frameworks established by Bassiouni and Cassese, by bringing that process more fully into our 21st century experiences with tribunals in The Hague and beyond. In that manner, this work not only appropriately captures the past, but points the way forward for further development in this critical field of public international law.'
Professor Michael J. Kelly, Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law, Creighton University; Board of Directors ‘Association Internationale de Droit Pénal’
'In this book, Professor Chiarini delivers a far-reaching contribution to the understanding, analysis, and evolution of international criminal law and procedure. This treatise will be of enormous benefit to academicians, legal scholars, law students and practitioners who work globally in the pursuit of justice.'
Professor Danixia Cuevas, Law Center Miami Dade College, Fulbright Scholar Alumni Ambassador
'Chiarini's groundbreaking monograph provides readers seeking a big-picture view of international criminal trials, including international judges and practitioners, with a thorough understanding of principles, legal cultures and rules that govern international criminal procedure.'
Professor Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of The Western Cape
Papers by Giovanni Chiarini
Harvard International Law Journal, 2024
Further observations will follow once the original text submitted by Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa is ... more Further observations will follow once the original text submitted by Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa is disclosed. Based on what has been seen so far, it appears the Pacific Islands’ submission takes a hybrid approach, engaging various bodies through a broader interpretation of the ICC’s legal framework. It seems that rather than request the UN Secretary General to convene an Art. 123 RS Review Conference on ecocide, the Pacific Islands opted to notify the Secretary General of the proposed amendment, likely in order to expedite its circulation and speed up the process. At the same time, the notification was also directed to the ASP Working Group on Amendments, following the formal procedure and practical guidelines.
While it is unlikely that the amendments will be formally discussed at the December 2024 ASP, there is more than a good chance that ecocide will at least be mentioned. As for ecocide’s eventual introduction into the Rome Statute, a vote on it could take place at the ASP 2025, or more likely at a dedicated Review Conference in the near future (finally, considering that discussions on the topic have been ongoing for over 50 years).
If the amendment is adopted, it will also open the door to considering further changes to enhance its effectiveness. For instance, I have previously suggested introducing an aggravating circumstance for ecocide when the commission of crime significantly impacts on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions; creating a Special Prosecutor for Ecocide with an autonomous Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC, solely competent for ecocide and mass environmental destructions; and establishing a new list of ICC judges with expertise in environmental law, animal law, law of the sea, climate change law and related areas, to bring environmental law expertise into the Court.
But for now, we should take it step by step. It is time for the ICC States Parties to seize the moment and not let the Pacific Islands' ecocide proposal slip away.
Texas Tech Law Review, 2024
In this Article, we will explore and propose our view on the main procedural challenges of the IC... more In this Article, we will explore and propose our view on the main procedural challenges of the ICC investigation into the situation of Ukraine, namely (1) the procedural issues related to the preliminary examination, which are only apparent since the preliminary examination framework itself is based on extra juridical rules; (2) the insurmountable issues related to a de facto lack of declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction and the lack of Rome Statute membership; and (3) the inherent procedural weaknesses that characterize the ICC statutory law as a whole, specifically its composition, which could negatively impact the efficiency of the entire proceeding.
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Vol. 56 (2024), 2024
This Article will propose and analyze potentially prosecutable cases of alleged global ecocide an... more This Article will propose and analyze potentially prosecutable cases of alleged global ecocide and propose targeted amendments to Articles 36(3) and (5) of the ICC Rome Statute. These proposed amendments may serve as a blueprint to procedurally ensure environmental expertise at the international judicial level. Ecocide is unfortunately not currently recognized under the Rome Statute. However, certain scholars have suggested defining it as a fifth international crime. This analysis identifies environmental crises, international criminal law expectations and examines the environmental pollution caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Japanese government’s decision to dispose of radioactive treated water from the wrecked Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear site as examples. These templates vindicate the Article’s recommendation of a need for a Special Prosecutor for Ecocide, recognizing the ICC as the proper court for ecocide prosecution.
Cambridge International Law Journal, 2022
In the early morning hours of 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Leaders from around the w... more In the early morning hours of 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Leaders from around the world have condemned this as an illegal act of aggression. The following day, Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued a statement that he has been “closely following recent developments in and around Ukraine with increasing concern.” As many know, in 2017, the ICC activated its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. So perhaps it is worth asking, in light of this apparent act of aggression and the ICC Prosecutor’s warning, whether aggression charges could be brought against Russian president Vladimir Putin and his leadership coterie, in reference to the invasion of Ukraine.
As we will explain, notwithstanding an existing Ukrainian self-referral of jurisdiction to the ICC in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity in reference to an earlier Russian incursion, as well as the opening of an investigation, the recent invasion will not allow the ICC to expand its case to include potential charges of aggression. Nevertheless, might an aggression case against Putin and his associates be brought via universal jurisdiction in a domestic court or via the jurisdiction of a specially created ad hoc international criminal tribunal? Those questions are grappled with below as well.
Gregory S. Gordon is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, where he formerly served as Associate Dean and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programs. Before joining the legal academy, Professor Gordon worked as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. From May-June 2010, he represented the International League for Human Rights (the oldest human rights NGO in the US) at the ICC Kampala Review conference and offered expert advice in negotiations that resulted in amendments related to the crime of aggression and war crimes. He was at UN Headquarters representing the ILHR in December 2017 when the ICC Assembly of States Parties activated the Court’s aggression jurisdiction, and he serves on the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression’s Council of Advisers. Professor Gordon has published scholarly works on the aggression offense and is currently writing the biography of one of the key figures in the movement to criminalize aggression, former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz.
Giovanni Chiarini is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, UCC University College (Cork, Ireland) and at the Centre for Critical Legal Studies at the University of Warwick (Coventry, England), as well as an International Fellow of the National Institute of Military Justice (Washington DC). Giovanni is an Attorney (Bar Council of Piacenza, Italy) admitted as Assistant to Counsel (Conseils Adjoints) to the International Criminal Court list, and a PhD candidate at Insubria University (Como, Italy). Former Visiting Fellow at the Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) and at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Universität zu Köln (Cologne,Germany), he has received invitations as a Visiting Scholar to the Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and to the Center for Military Law of the TTU Texas Tech University (USA).
Opinio Juris, 2024
In December 2023, Igor Salikov arrived in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, claiming to be a former mem... more In December 2023, Igor Salikov arrived in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, claiming to be a former member of the Russian armed forces and the Wagner Group. He arrived with the express intent of giving information to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Prosecutor. Some of what he said in a “sworn interview” and in a “bombshell interview” with Russian human rights activist, Vladimir Osechkin, has been reported in the media.
We address, hypothetically, three significant issues that the ICC must consider: (1) Should the Prosecutor open a new preliminary examination solely dedicated to the alleged war crimes of the Wagner Group, (2) the possibility of plea bargaining and its compatibility with the ICC practice and procedures, , and (3) the admissibility in the Trial Chamber of what may be purloined documentary and digital evidence.
Cork Online Law Review, 2022
The crime of ‘ecocide’ has been discussed for almost 50 years and is of increasing relevance. Sta... more The crime of ‘ecocide’ has been discussed for almost 50 years and is of increasing relevance. Starting as scientific and biological debates during the Vietnam War, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Rome Statute (RS), recommending amendments regarding substantive law and the structure of the crime of ecocide. This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, following an examination of the history of the crime of ecocide, it puts forward an integrative proposal focused on procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments involving jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, standards of proof, issues of admissibility, the prosecutorial discretion and the UN Security Council powers, as well as a new definition of aggravated ecocide in case of Substantial Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions or Climate Change.
This publication has been awarded the gold medal and a cash award for the best overall article, Arthur Cox Prize, University College Cork.
NIMJ National Institute of Military Justice, 2024
Our submission to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor is now accessible! I'm extremely pr... more Our submission to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor is now accessible! I'm extremely proud to be a part of the National Institute of Military Justice (NIMJ) in Washington DC. Alongside the institute's Director, Philip Cave, President Franklin Rosenblatt, and my esteemed colleagues International Fellows Dr. Anne Dienelt and Shruti Bedi, we've submitted our reflections on the ICC environmental crimes policy.
NIMJ aims to underscore three key points for the ICC OTP’s policy initiative on environmental crimes without necessitating further amendments to the Rome Statute:
1. The environment as a civilian object
2. Direct and indirect protection of the environment in armed conflict
3. Integrating psychological research on 'ecological grief,' 'environmental melancholia,'
and 'solastalgia,' into sentencing for environmental crimes according to Art. 78(1) of the Rome Statute.
OpinioJuris, 2021
On 31 March 2021, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) delivered its j... more On 31 March 2021, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) delivered its judgment in the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber I of 15 January 2019 (with reasons issued on 16 July 2019), wherein the Trial Chamber acquitted Mr Laurent Gbagbo and Mr Charles Blé Goudé of all charges. The Appeals Chamber found no error that could have materially affected the decision of the Trial Chamber in relation to both of the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Prosecutor’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Trial Chamber.
In this conversation, Giovanni Chiarini interviews Cuno Jakob Tarfusser – former Judge and Second Vice-President of the ICC – on two of the many fragile points that emerge from this appeal judgment, such as the method of judicial interpretation regarding the procedural rules. Specifically, they focus on: 1) the interpretation of “no case to answer”; and 2) the interpretation of the burden of proof.
At the end of this short conversation, we could definitely agree that the manner of judicial interpretation of the procedural rules should strictly conform to the legal framework of the Court. Otherwise, an increasingly intricate and unforeseeable procedure emerges, based on an almost arbitrary discretion of the judges.
Cambridge International Law Journal, 2021
The ‘situation’ between Iraq and the UK had long been under the scrutiny of the International Cri... more The ‘situation’ between Iraq and the UK had long been under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As early as 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) received communications from individuals and NGO’s – as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch –, regarding the launching of military operations and the resulting human loss in Iraq, and therefore a preliminary examination into Iraq/UK situation was opened. On 09 February 2006, the former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno- Ocampo, after having analysed over 240 communications, information and divergent sources documentation, in accordance with the proprio motu powers under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, announced the closure of the preliminary examination into the Iraq/UK situation. As Moreno-Ocampo explained in his letter to these groups, the reasoning for the closure was that the required “gravity” threshold of Article 17 of the Rome Statute was not met, since isolated war crimes with a small-scale number of victims are not sufficiently grave to be admissible under the ICC statutory law. On 10 January 2014, the OTP received a new communication from ECCHR and PIL, entitled “Responsibility of Officials of the United Kingdom for War Crimes Involving Systematic Detainee Abuse in Iraq from 2003-2008.” In response, on 13 May 2014, Moreno-Ocampo’s successor, Fatou Bensouda, re-opened the preliminary examination. Since then, the OTP has received a total of 236 communications or additional submissions pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute (par. 14 Final Report, hereinafter also “report”). The hopes of the advocacy groups that this would lead to a different outcome did not, however, materialize. On 09 December 2020 Bensouda decided to close the preliminary examination for the second time the reasons for which are comprehensively explained in her report.
This post will consider three procedural aspects of ICC practice highlighted by the Iraq/UK inquiry and how this inquiry highlights the critical importance of the principle of complementarity. Speci#cally, it will include: 1) the alleged war crimes and the issues of jurisdictions; 2) issues of admissibility; 3) the complementarity in the light of the UK’s military and national investigations.
Cambridge International Law Journal, 2021
http://cilj.co.uk/2021/03/03/extra-judicial-killings-in-the-philippines-and-the-so-called-war-on-... more http://cilj.co.uk/2021/03/03/extra-judicial-killings-in-the-philippines-and-the-so-called-war-on-drugs-where-does-it-stand-before-the-icc/
On 14 December 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP” or “Office”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) published the Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (“Report”). In this short reflection, I will discuss the situation in The Philippines which is very complex, since, on one hand, the prosecution and the repression of crimes concerning drugs are based on “lawful” motives, and, on the other hand, the modality of this “war” seems to have exceeded the limit of tolerability of international community. This article will consider two procedural points: the issues of jurisdiction and the criteria of admissibility required by the Rome Statute. On 30 June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte, in his official inauguration speech as 16th President of the Republic of The Philippines, reaffirmed his will to #ght criminality and drug trafficking, stating that “The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained”...
Chinese Initiative on International Law, 2021
库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔(Cuno Jakob Tarfusser)，2009年至2020年在国际刑事法院担任法官。他在任职期间还担任了法院的副院长及预审分庭的庭长。作为在两个预审分庭中任职的预审... more 库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔(Cuno Jakob Tarfusser)，2009年至2020年在国际刑事法院担任法官。他在任职期间还担任了法院的副院长及预审分庭的庭长。作为在两个预审分庭中任职的预审法官，他曾经负责法院处理的所有情势和案件。
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼(Giovanni Chiarini)，执业律师(意大利皮亚琴察律师协会)；国际刑事法院认可律师助理。他曾在联合国援助红色高棉审判(UNAKRT)的柬埔寨特别法庭(ECCC)最高法院分庭(Supreme Court Chamber)实习。现任英苏布里亚大学(科莫-瓦雷泽，意大利)博士候选人，研究方向为国际及比较刑事诉讼法。
2021年3月31日，国际刑事法院(ICC)上诉分庭根据检察官的上诉，对2019年1月15日第一审判分庭的决定(理由于2019年7月16日发布)作出判决，其中审判分庭宣布洛朗·巴博先生(Laurent Gbagbo)和查尔斯·布莱·古德先生(Charles Blé Goudé)无罪。关于检察官的两个上诉理由，上诉分庭没有发现任何可能在实质上影响审判分庭的决定的错误。因此，上诉分庭驳回了检察官的上诉，并确认了审判分庭的决定。
在这次谈话中，乔瓦尼·基亚里尼就上诉判决中出现的多个弱点中的两个，例如有关程序规则的司法解释方法，采访了国际刑事法院前法官兼第二副院长***库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔。具体来说，谈话的重点是：1)对“无需答辩”(no case to answer)的解释；和 2)对举证责任的解释。
在这次简短的谈话结束后，我们绝对可以认同程序规则的司法解释应严格遵循法院的法律框架。否则，基于法官近乎任意的自由裁量权，将会出现一个日益复杂和不可预见的程序。
American Bar Association (ABA) Year in Review, 2021
This article reviews some of the most significant developments in 2021 made by international cour... more This article reviews some of the most significant developments in 2021 made by international courts and tribunals, domestic courts, and legislative developments involving issues of international criminal law, international human rights law, and international public law. This article also includes a section on protecting the attorney-client and work product privileges in internal investigations, which offers practical application for lawyers engaged in cross-border civil litigation and investigations.
Giovanni Chiarini: The Philippines Situation.
On October 13, 2016, the former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted that the extrajudicial killings reported during the Philippines War on Drugs campaign (WoD) “may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.”77 A preliminary examination was opened on February 8, 2018, when the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) received several communications pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15.78 Subsequently, on May 24, 2021, Bensouda requested authorisation for an investigation pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15(3), stating there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity were committed as part of the WoD between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019.79 On September 15, 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I authorized the commencement of the investigation and instructed the Registrar to provide notice of the present decision to the victims who made representations.
This short essay considers the procedural issues, with special attention to jurisdiction ratione temporis, which remains, in the author’s opinion, an unresolved issue.
Authors: MANISH N. BHATT, GIOVANNI CHIARINI, KATHERINE MADDOX DAVIS, BETH FARMER, TIMOTHY FRANKLIN, CYREKA C. JACOBS, STE ́PHANEDENAVACELLE,SARAL.OCHS,ALEXANDERS. VESSELINOVITCH, MELISSA GINSBERG, MARC WEITZ, AND
JULIE ZORRILLA
The Chinese Initiative on International Law, 2022
格雷戈里·戈登（Gregory S. Gordon）是香港中文大学法学院的教授，曾担任该院副院长和研究型硕士项目主任。在加入法律学术界前，戈登教授曾在美国司法部和卢旺达国际刑事法庭担任检察官。2... more 格雷戈里·戈登（Gregory S. Gordon）是香港中文大学法学院的教授，曾担任该院副院长和研究型硕士项目主任。在加入法律学术界前，戈登教授曾在美国司法部和卢旺达国际刑事法庭担任检察官。2010年5月至6月，他代表国际人权联盟（美国历史最悠久的人权非政府组织）参加了国际刑事法院坎帕拉审查会议，并在谈判中提供了专家意见，以促成与侵略罪和战争罪有关的修正案。2017年12月，当国际刑事法院缔约国大会启动该法院的侵略罪管辖权时，他在联合国总部代表国际人权联盟（ILHR），并在全球防止侵略研究所的顾问委员会任职。戈登教授发表了关于侵略罪的学术著作，且目前正在为侵略定罪运动中的关键人物之一、前纽伦堡检察官本杰明·费伦茨（Benjamin Ferencz）撰写传记。
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼目前是科克大学（爱尔兰科克）刑事司法与人权中心的研究员，也是华威大学（英国考文垂）批判法律研究中心的访问研究员，也是国家军事司法研究所（美国华盛顿）的国际研究员。乔万尼是一名律师（意大利皮亚琴察律师协会），获准担任国际刑事法院名单上的律师助理（Conseils Adjoints），也是英苏布里亚大学（意大利科莫）的博士生。他曾任蔚蓝海岸大学（法国尼斯）和科隆大学（德国科隆）国际和平与安全法研究所的访问学者，并应邀担任爱丁堡大学（苏格兰）国际和全球法律中心以及德克萨斯理工大学（美国）军事法律中心的访问学者。
2022年2月24日凌晨，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。世界各地的领导人都谴责[i]这是一种非法的侵略行为。第二天，国际刑事法院检察官卡里姆·汗发表声明称，他一直 “密切关注乌克兰境内及周边地区最近的事态发展，并日益关注。”正如许多人所知，2017年，国际刑事法院启动了对侵略罪的管辖权。[ii]因此，也许值得一问的是，鉴于这一明显的侵略行为和国际刑事法院检察官的警告，在提到入侵乌克兰时，是否可以对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京及其领导圈（leadership coterie）提出侵略指控。
正如我们将解释的那样，尽管乌克兰已经将有关俄罗斯早期入侵的战争罪和危害人类罪的管辖权移交给国际刑事法院，并开始进行调查，但最近的入侵将不允许国际刑事法院将其案件扩大到包括潜在的侵略指控。然而，针对普京及其同伙的侵略案是否可以通过国内法院的普遍管辖权或通过专门设立的特设国际刑事法庭的管辖权提出？这些问题也将在下文中进行探讨。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eg90OUvxOelFJTYDJYgqlw
The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Navigating Aggression’s Fragmented Justice Landscape (Cambridge International Law Journal blog)
UCC Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights working papers, 2021
The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be con... more The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute (hereinafter “RS”), recommending amendments regarding substantive law and the structure of the crime of ecocide.
This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, it puts forward an integrative proposal, focused on the procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments, namely:
1) Jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, amending articles 127 and 121 RS;
2) The ‘deferral of investigation or prosecution’ power of the renewal by the UN Security Council should
not be authorised more than once, amending Article 16 bis RS;
3) The introduction of Aggravated Ecocide, and its Aggravating Circumstances, namely those actions or omissions which have a ‘substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change’, amending Article 8 ter RS draft and rule 145 of Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter, “RPE”);
4) The exercise of jurisdiction, in case of aggravated ecocide, on the basis of UN environmental authorities’ reports, such as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the context of Climate Change, or the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, amending articles 13 and 15 RS;
5) Changing the standard of proof in cases of aggravated ecocide from “reasonable basis” to proceed (and to believe) to a “sufficient basis,” amending articles 15, 18 and 53 RS and Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulation of the Prosecutor;
6) Regarding issues of admissibility, introducing a rebuttable presumption of both “gravity” and “interests of justice” in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 17 and 19 RS and Regulations 29 and 31 bis of the Regulation of the Prosecutor; and
7) The exclusion to the so-called proceedings on an admission of guilt in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 64 and 65 RS and Rule 139 of RPE.
Key words: ecocide, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence
UCC Legal Research Papers Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, 2021
On 20th March 2003 a US-led coalition, which included the UK, invaded Iraq initiating an internat... more On 20th March 2003 a US-led coalition, which included the UK, invaded Iraq initiating an international armed conflict. By 7th April 2003, UK forces had occupied the city of Basra and surrounding areas. Nearly two decades later the role of the UK armed forces in Iraq is still under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court. Incidents arising out of the UK occupation of southern Iraq were submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP or Office) by those who believed members of the UK forces committed war crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. On 9th December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor published the Final Report on the “Situation in Iraq/UK”, concerning crimes potentially committed by the UK armed forces, classified as war crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Due to the principle of complementarity, the OTP closed the preliminary examination without seeking authorisation to initiate an investigation. This case could be considered as a milestone in the evolution of the concept of complementarity in international criminal law. The deep analysis of the national proceedings, in terms of the willingness of the competent UK authorities to carry out the relevant investigations or prosecutions under article 17(2), is a trailblazer of the so-called complementarity assessment. The principles, as well as the methodology adopted in the Iraq/UK Final Report, represents a fundamental step forward, that will influence the ICC Prosecutor on future cases involving questions of pre-existing national legal proceedings and the whole process of complementarity evaluations.
Cassazione Penale, Giuffré, 2022
Da ormai quasi 50 anni si discute del reato di “ecocidio”, che è tuttora oggetto di dibattito. In... more Da ormai quasi 50 anni si discute del reato di “ecocidio”, che è tuttora oggetto di dibattito. Iniziato come problematica scientifica, principalmente attinente alla biologia, l’ecocidio è diventato anzitutto una questione politica prima ancora che giuridica. Recentemente, nel 2021, la Fondazione “Stop Ecocide” ha proposto di introdurre l’ecocidio come nuovo reato nello Statuto di Roma della Corte Penale Internazionale, con modifiche riguardanti il solo diritto sostanziale. Questo articolo si concentra sulle questioni processuali – a confine tra scienze ambientali e diritto – con particolare attenzione agli standard probatori ed alle condizioni di procedibilità, come la “gravità” e gli “interessi della giustizia”.
The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute, recommending amendments regarding substantive law. This paper focuses on the procedural issues, in-between environmental science and law, with special attention to the standard of proof as well as admissibility issues, in terms of “gravity” and “interests of justice”.
di Giovanni Chiarini
Rassegna della Giustizia Militare , 2023
Abstract: L’istituto del patteggiamento per crimini internazionali è tra i più significativi per ... more Abstract: L’istituto del patteggiamento per crimini internazionali è tra i più significativi per quanto riguarda l’evoluzione della procedura penale internazionale, da Norimberga all’Aia. Muovendo da una sostanziale negazione del patteggiamento avanti i Tribunali Militari Internazionali di Norimberga e Tokyo, la giustizia negoziata viene poi ad essere utilizzata su larga scala nei Tribunali ad hoc delle Nazioni Unite per l’ex Jugoslavia e per il Ruanda, dai quali discendono importanti elaborazioni giurisprudenziali. Successivamente, la disciplina del patteggiamento si evolve ulteriormente nello Statuto di Roma della Corte Penale Internazionale. Quest’ultima non rappresenta un mero intermezzo tra le esperienze dei Tribunali Militari Internazionali e quelli ad hoc delle Nazioni Unite o un semplice “compromesso storico” a metà strada tra le esperienze giuridiche anglosassoni e quelle continentali, ma ambisce a superare la tradizionale dicotomia ed a proporre una propria “identità normativa”, in grado di bilanciare le esigenze del giusto processo, di celerità ed efficienza del procedimento, nonché di tutela dei diritti delle vittime e dell’imputato. Il presente contributo, nel ripercorrere la storia del patteggiamento per crimini internazionali da Norimberga all’Aia, ricostruisce l’evoluzione dell’istituto e la sua potenziale (in)compatibilità con la disciplina italiana dell’applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti.
Abstract: Negotiated justice is one of the most significant paradigms that shows the evolution of international criminal procedure, from Nuremberg to The Hague. Whilst plea-bargaining was essentially denied before both Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, negotiated justice was broader introduced at the so-called Ad Hoc Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, wherein related plea-bargaining case-law were developed, then resulting into an autonomous special procedure in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Indeed, in the ICC the discipline on negotiated justice, named as “proceedings on an admission of guilt”, cannot be considered as a mere compromise in-between the Anglo-Saxon and European legal traditions. On the contrary, negotiated justice in the International Criminal Court statutory law acquires a unique normative identity, where several principles of criminal procedure, such as victims’ rights, fair trial, lengthiness of the proceedings and defendants’ rights as well are protected by this ICC special procedure. After having analyzed the origin and history of negotiated justice from Nuremberg and Tokyo to the Hague, this article focuses on a normative-jurisprudential approach on the evolution of plea-bargaining in the international criminal tribunals, and the main issues regarding that might arises from its applicability in the Italian criminal jurisdiction.
Cassazione Penale - Panorama Internazionale, Giuffré, 2021
L'Autore, dopo aver ripercorso il caso della cosiddetta “guerra alla droga” nelle Filippine, attu... more L'Autore, dopo aver ripercorso il caso della cosiddetta “guerra alla droga” nelle Filippine, attualmente pendente presso la Procura della Corte Penale Internazionale, si sofferma su tre principali problematiche: quella sostanziale, riguardante le fattispecie di reato previste dallo Statuto di Roma; quelle processuali, attinenti alle questioni di giurisdizione ed alle le condizioni di procedibilità, con un approfondimento della preliminary examination e del principio di complementarità.
The Author, after examining the situation of the so-called “war on drugs” in the Philippines, currently under the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, dwells on three main issues: one concerning the crimes established in the Rome Statute; the other two regarding the procedural issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, with a thorough analysis of both the preliminary examination and the complementarity principle.
Sommario 1. Introduzione: il contesto filippino durante la presidenza di Rodrigo Duterte e l’avvio della “War on Drugs”; 2. Le denunce alla Corte Penale Internazionale e l’avvio della preliminary examination: le “extra-judicial killings” possono costituire crimini contro l’umanità? 3. I profili processuali: cenni sulla preliminary examination. 3.1 Una sintesi dei requisiti procedimentali per poter avviare una investigation e lo “statutory-based approach” a quattro fasi della Procura della CPI; 3.2 Le questioni di giurisdizione: la problematica del difetto di competenza della CPI alla luce del recesso del Filippine dallo Statuto di Roma. Il precedente, seppur “parziale”, del Burundi; 3.3 Le condizioni di procedibilità: la valutazione del principio di complementarità a seguito delle indagini nazionali delle autorità filippine; 4. Riflessioni conclusive alla luce del del caso Iraq/UK e del Report 2020 sulle preliminary examination.
Global Justice Journal , 2021
The International Criminal Court (ICC), with the case of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (“Al Mahdi cas... more The International Criminal Court (ICC), with the case of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (“Al Mahdi case”), faced negotiated justice for the !rst time in its history. In this article I will be proposing amendments to the Rome Statute (“Statute”), to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) and to the Regulations of the Court (“Regulations”). This proposal is based on the issues arising out of the Al Mahdi Judgment.
Uploads
Books by Giovanni Chiarini
Professor Geoffrey S. Corn, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy, Texas Tech University School of Law
'All at once, this book is a fascinating study of legal history, criminal procedure, and international and comparative law. By interweaving these rich conceptual strands, Giovanni Chiarini presents a compelling thesis: that international criminal procedure may have begun as a normative clash of cultures but, through hybridization, it has evolved into a global framework of fairness. Professor Chiarini has been helping us reconceptualize this understudied but vital field and this book represents the brilliant fruit of his efforts to date. It should be considered essential reading for international criminal law theorists and practitioners alike.'
Professor Gregory S. Gordon, Professor of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
'Legal procedure brings order to chaos. In this volume, Professor Chiarini builds upon the solid foundation of international criminal procedure laid down by Safferling, which brought order to the international criminal law frameworks established by Bassiouni and Cassese, by bringing that process more fully into our 21st century experiences with tribunals in The Hague and beyond. In that manner, this work not only appropriately captures the past, but points the way forward for further development in this critical field of public international law.'
Professor Michael J. Kelly, Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law, Creighton University; Board of Directors ‘Association Internationale de Droit Pénal’
'In this book, Professor Chiarini delivers a far-reaching contribution to the understanding, analysis, and evolution of international criminal law and procedure. This treatise will be of enormous benefit to academicians, legal scholars, law students and practitioners who work globally in the pursuit of justice.'
Professor Danixia Cuevas, Law Center Miami Dade College, Fulbright Scholar Alumni Ambassador
'Chiarini's groundbreaking monograph provides readers seeking a big-picture view of international criminal trials, including international judges and practitioners, with a thorough understanding of principles, legal cultures and rules that govern international criminal procedure.'
Professor Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of The Western Cape
Papers by Giovanni Chiarini
While it is unlikely that the amendments will be formally discussed at the December 2024 ASP, there is more than a good chance that ecocide will at least be mentioned. As for ecocide’s eventual introduction into the Rome Statute, a vote on it could take place at the ASP 2025, or more likely at a dedicated Review Conference in the near future (finally, considering that discussions on the topic have been ongoing for over 50 years).
If the amendment is adopted, it will also open the door to considering further changes to enhance its effectiveness. For instance, I have previously suggested introducing an aggravating circumstance for ecocide when the commission of crime significantly impacts on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions; creating a Special Prosecutor for Ecocide with an autonomous Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC, solely competent for ecocide and mass environmental destructions; and establishing a new list of ICC judges with expertise in environmental law, animal law, law of the sea, climate change law and related areas, to bring environmental law expertise into the Court.
But for now, we should take it step by step. It is time for the ICC States Parties to seize the moment and not let the Pacific Islands' ecocide proposal slip away.
As we will explain, notwithstanding an existing Ukrainian self-referral of jurisdiction to the ICC in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity in reference to an earlier Russian incursion, as well as the opening of an investigation, the recent invasion will not allow the ICC to expand its case to include potential charges of aggression. Nevertheless, might an aggression case against Putin and his associates be brought via universal jurisdiction in a domestic court or via the jurisdiction of a specially created ad hoc international criminal tribunal? Those questions are grappled with below as well.
Gregory S. Gordon is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, where he formerly served as Associate Dean and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programs. Before joining the legal academy, Professor Gordon worked as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. From May-June 2010, he represented the International League for Human Rights (the oldest human rights NGO in the US) at the ICC Kampala Review conference and offered expert advice in negotiations that resulted in amendments related to the crime of aggression and war crimes. He was at UN Headquarters representing the ILHR in December 2017 when the ICC Assembly of States Parties activated the Court’s aggression jurisdiction, and he serves on the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression’s Council of Advisers. Professor Gordon has published scholarly works on the aggression offense and is currently writing the biography of one of the key figures in the movement to criminalize aggression, former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz.
Giovanni Chiarini is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, UCC University College (Cork, Ireland) and at the Centre for Critical Legal Studies at the University of Warwick (Coventry, England), as well as an International Fellow of the National Institute of Military Justice (Washington DC). Giovanni is an Attorney (Bar Council of Piacenza, Italy) admitted as Assistant to Counsel (Conseils Adjoints) to the International Criminal Court list, and a PhD candidate at Insubria University (Como, Italy). Former Visiting Fellow at the Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) and at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Universität zu Köln (Cologne,Germany), he has received invitations as a Visiting Scholar to the Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and to the Center for Military Law of the TTU Texas Tech University (USA).
We address, hypothetically, three significant issues that the ICC must consider: (1) Should the Prosecutor open a new preliminary examination solely dedicated to the alleged war crimes of the Wagner Group, (2) the possibility of plea bargaining and its compatibility with the ICC practice and procedures, , and (3) the admissibility in the Trial Chamber of what may be purloined documentary and digital evidence.
This publication has been awarded the gold medal and a cash award for the best overall article, Arthur Cox Prize, University College Cork.
NIMJ aims to underscore three key points for the ICC OTP’s policy initiative on environmental crimes without necessitating further amendments to the Rome Statute:
1. The environment as a civilian object
2. Direct and indirect protection of the environment in armed conflict
3. Integrating psychological research on 'ecological grief,' 'environmental melancholia,'
and 'solastalgia,' into sentencing for environmental crimes according to Art. 78(1) of the Rome Statute.
In this conversation, Giovanni Chiarini interviews Cuno Jakob Tarfusser – former Judge and Second Vice-President of the ICC – on two of the many fragile points that emerge from this appeal judgment, such as the method of judicial interpretation regarding the procedural rules. Specifically, they focus on: 1) the interpretation of “no case to answer”; and 2) the interpretation of the burden of proof.
At the end of this short conversation, we could definitely agree that the manner of judicial interpretation of the procedural rules should strictly conform to the legal framework of the Court. Otherwise, an increasingly intricate and unforeseeable procedure emerges, based on an almost arbitrary discretion of the judges.
This post will consider three procedural aspects of ICC practice highlighted by the Iraq/UK inquiry and how this inquiry highlights the critical importance of the principle of complementarity. Speci#cally, it will include: 1) the alleged war crimes and the issues of jurisdictions; 2) issues of admissibility; 3) the complementarity in the light of the UK’s military and national investigations.
On 14 December 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP” or “Office”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) published the Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (“Report”). In this short reflection, I will discuss the situation in The Philippines which is very complex, since, on one hand, the prosecution and the repression of crimes concerning drugs are based on “lawful” motives, and, on the other hand, the modality of this “war” seems to have exceeded the limit of tolerability of international community. This article will consider two procedural points: the issues of jurisdiction and the criteria of admissibility required by the Rome Statute. On 30 June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte, in his official inauguration speech as 16th President of the Republic of The Philippines, reaffirmed his will to #ght criminality and drug trafficking, stating that “The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained”...
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼(Giovanni Chiarini)，执业律师(意大利皮亚琴察律师协会)；国际刑事法院认可律师助理。他曾在联合国援助红色高棉审判(UNAKRT)的柬埔寨特别法庭(ECCC)最高法院分庭(Supreme Court Chamber)实习。现任英苏布里亚大学(科莫-瓦雷泽，意大利)博士候选人，研究方向为国际及比较刑事诉讼法。
2021年3月31日，国际刑事法院(ICC)上诉分庭根据检察官的上诉，对2019年1月15日第一审判分庭的决定(理由于2019年7月16日发布)作出判决，其中审判分庭宣布洛朗·巴博先生(Laurent Gbagbo)和查尔斯·布莱·古德先生(Charles Blé Goudé)无罪。关于检察官的两个上诉理由，上诉分庭没有发现任何可能在实质上影响审判分庭的决定的错误。因此，上诉分庭驳回了检察官的上诉，并确认了审判分庭的决定。
在这次谈话中，乔瓦尼·基亚里尼就上诉判决中出现的多个弱点中的两个，例如有关程序规则的司法解释方法，采访了国际刑事法院前法官兼第二副院长***库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔。具体来说，谈话的重点是：1)对“无需答辩”(no case to answer)的解释；和 2)对举证责任的解释。
在这次简短的谈话结束后，我们绝对可以认同程序规则的司法解释应严格遵循法院的法律框架。否则，基于法官近乎任意的自由裁量权，将会出现一个日益复杂和不可预见的程序。
Giovanni Chiarini: The Philippines Situation.
On October 13, 2016, the former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted that the extrajudicial killings reported during the Philippines War on Drugs campaign (WoD) “may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.”77 A preliminary examination was opened on February 8, 2018, when the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) received several communications pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15.78 Subsequently, on May 24, 2021, Bensouda requested authorisation for an investigation pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15(3), stating there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity were committed as part of the WoD between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019.79 On September 15, 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I authorized the commencement of the investigation and instructed the Registrar to provide notice of the present decision to the victims who made representations.
This short essay considers the procedural issues, with special attention to jurisdiction ratione temporis, which remains, in the author’s opinion, an unresolved issue.
Authors: MANISH N. BHATT, GIOVANNI CHIARINI, KATHERINE MADDOX DAVIS, BETH FARMER, TIMOTHY FRANKLIN, CYREKA C. JACOBS, STE ́PHANEDENAVACELLE,SARAL.OCHS,ALEXANDERS. VESSELINOVITCH, MELISSA GINSBERG, MARC WEITZ, AND
JULIE ZORRILLA
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼目前是科克大学（爱尔兰科克）刑事司法与人权中心的研究员，也是华威大学（英国考文垂）批判法律研究中心的访问研究员，也是国家军事司法研究所（美国华盛顿）的国际研究员。乔万尼是一名律师（意大利皮亚琴察律师协会），获准担任国际刑事法院名单上的律师助理（Conseils Adjoints），也是英苏布里亚大学（意大利科莫）的博士生。他曾任蔚蓝海岸大学（法国尼斯）和科隆大学（德国科隆）国际和平与安全法研究所的访问学者，并应邀担任爱丁堡大学（苏格兰）国际和全球法律中心以及德克萨斯理工大学（美国）军事法律中心的访问学者。
2022年2月24日凌晨，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。世界各地的领导人都谴责[i]这是一种非法的侵略行为。第二天，国际刑事法院检察官卡里姆·汗发表声明称，他一直 “密切关注乌克兰境内及周边地区最近的事态发展，并日益关注。”正如许多人所知，2017年，国际刑事法院启动了对侵略罪的管辖权。[ii]因此，也许值得一问的是，鉴于这一明显的侵略行为和国际刑事法院检察官的警告，在提到入侵乌克兰时，是否可以对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京及其领导圈（leadership coterie）提出侵略指控。
正如我们将解释的那样，尽管乌克兰已经将有关俄罗斯早期入侵的战争罪和危害人类罪的管辖权移交给国际刑事法院，并开始进行调查，但最近的入侵将不允许国际刑事法院将其案件扩大到包括潜在的侵略指控。然而，针对普京及其同伙的侵略案是否可以通过国内法院的普遍管辖权或通过专门设立的特设国际刑事法庭的管辖权提出？这些问题也将在下文中进行探讨。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eg90OUvxOelFJTYDJYgqlw
The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Navigating Aggression’s Fragmented Justice Landscape (Cambridge International Law Journal blog)
This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, it puts forward an integrative proposal, focused on the procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments, namely:
1) Jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, amending articles 127 and 121 RS;
2) The ‘deferral of investigation or prosecution’ power of the renewal by the UN Security Council should
not be authorised more than once, amending Article 16 bis RS;
3) The introduction of Aggravated Ecocide, and its Aggravating Circumstances, namely those actions or omissions which have a ‘substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change’, amending Article 8 ter RS draft and rule 145 of Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter, “RPE”);
4) The exercise of jurisdiction, in case of aggravated ecocide, on the basis of UN environmental authorities’ reports, such as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the context of Climate Change, or the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, amending articles 13 and 15 RS;
5) Changing the standard of proof in cases of aggravated ecocide from “reasonable basis” to proceed (and to believe) to a “sufficient basis,” amending articles 15, 18 and 53 RS and Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulation of the Prosecutor;
6) Regarding issues of admissibility, introducing a rebuttable presumption of both “gravity” and “interests of justice” in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 17 and 19 RS and Regulations 29 and 31 bis of the Regulation of the Prosecutor; and
7) The exclusion to the so-called proceedings on an admission of guilt in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 64 and 65 RS and Rule 139 of RPE.
Key words: ecocide, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence
The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute, recommending amendments regarding substantive law. This paper focuses on the procedural issues, in-between environmental science and law, with special attention to the standard of proof as well as admissibility issues, in terms of “gravity” and “interests of justice”.
di Giovanni Chiarini
Abstract: Negotiated justice is one of the most significant paradigms that shows the evolution of international criminal procedure, from Nuremberg to The Hague. Whilst plea-bargaining was essentially denied before both Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, negotiated justice was broader introduced at the so-called Ad Hoc Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, wherein related plea-bargaining case-law were developed, then resulting into an autonomous special procedure in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Indeed, in the ICC the discipline on negotiated justice, named as “proceedings on an admission of guilt”, cannot be considered as a mere compromise in-between the Anglo-Saxon and European legal traditions. On the contrary, negotiated justice in the International Criminal Court statutory law acquires a unique normative identity, where several principles of criminal procedure, such as victims’ rights, fair trial, lengthiness of the proceedings and defendants’ rights as well are protected by this ICC special procedure. After having analyzed the origin and history of negotiated justice from Nuremberg and Tokyo to the Hague, this article focuses on a normative-jurisprudential approach on the evolution of plea-bargaining in the international criminal tribunals, and the main issues regarding that might arises from its applicability in the Italian criminal jurisdiction.
The Author, after examining the situation of the so-called “war on drugs” in the Philippines, currently under the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, dwells on three main issues: one concerning the crimes established in the Rome Statute; the other two regarding the procedural issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, with a thorough analysis of both the preliminary examination and the complementarity principle.
Sommario 1. Introduzione: il contesto filippino durante la presidenza di Rodrigo Duterte e l’avvio della “War on Drugs”; 2. Le denunce alla Corte Penale Internazionale e l’avvio della preliminary examination: le “extra-judicial killings” possono costituire crimini contro l’umanità? 3. I profili processuali: cenni sulla preliminary examination. 3.1 Una sintesi dei requisiti procedimentali per poter avviare una investigation e lo “statutory-based approach” a quattro fasi della Procura della CPI; 3.2 Le questioni di giurisdizione: la problematica del difetto di competenza della CPI alla luce del recesso del Filippine dallo Statuto di Roma. Il precedente, seppur “parziale”, del Burundi; 3.3 Le condizioni di procedibilità: la valutazione del principio di complementarità a seguito delle indagini nazionali delle autorità filippine; 4. Riflessioni conclusive alla luce del del caso Iraq/UK e del Report 2020 sulle preliminary examination.
Professor Geoffrey S. Corn, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy, Texas Tech University School of Law
'All at once, this book is a fascinating study of legal history, criminal procedure, and international and comparative law. By interweaving these rich conceptual strands, Giovanni Chiarini presents a compelling thesis: that international criminal procedure may have begun as a normative clash of cultures but, through hybridization, it has evolved into a global framework of fairness. Professor Chiarini has been helping us reconceptualize this understudied but vital field and this book represents the brilliant fruit of his efforts to date. It should be considered essential reading for international criminal law theorists and practitioners alike.'
Professor Gregory S. Gordon, Professor of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
'Legal procedure brings order to chaos. In this volume, Professor Chiarini builds upon the solid foundation of international criminal procedure laid down by Safferling, which brought order to the international criminal law frameworks established by Bassiouni and Cassese, by bringing that process more fully into our 21st century experiences with tribunals in The Hague and beyond. In that manner, this work not only appropriately captures the past, but points the way forward for further development in this critical field of public international law.'
Professor Michael J. Kelly, Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law, Creighton University; Board of Directors ‘Association Internationale de Droit Pénal’
'In this book, Professor Chiarini delivers a far-reaching contribution to the understanding, analysis, and evolution of international criminal law and procedure. This treatise will be of enormous benefit to academicians, legal scholars, law students and practitioners who work globally in the pursuit of justice.'
Professor Danixia Cuevas, Law Center Miami Dade College, Fulbright Scholar Alumni Ambassador
'Chiarini's groundbreaking monograph provides readers seeking a big-picture view of international criminal trials, including international judges and practitioners, with a thorough understanding of principles, legal cultures and rules that govern international criminal procedure.'
Professor Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of The Western Cape
While it is unlikely that the amendments will be formally discussed at the December 2024 ASP, there is more than a good chance that ecocide will at least be mentioned. As for ecocide’s eventual introduction into the Rome Statute, a vote on it could take place at the ASP 2025, or more likely at a dedicated Review Conference in the near future (finally, considering that discussions on the topic have been ongoing for over 50 years).
If the amendment is adopted, it will also open the door to considering further changes to enhance its effectiveness. For instance, I have previously suggested introducing an aggravating circumstance for ecocide when the commission of crime significantly impacts on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions; creating a Special Prosecutor for Ecocide with an autonomous Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC, solely competent for ecocide and mass environmental destructions; and establishing a new list of ICC judges with expertise in environmental law, animal law, law of the sea, climate change law and related areas, to bring environmental law expertise into the Court.
But for now, we should take it step by step. It is time for the ICC States Parties to seize the moment and not let the Pacific Islands' ecocide proposal slip away.
As we will explain, notwithstanding an existing Ukrainian self-referral of jurisdiction to the ICC in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity in reference to an earlier Russian incursion, as well as the opening of an investigation, the recent invasion will not allow the ICC to expand its case to include potential charges of aggression. Nevertheless, might an aggression case against Putin and his associates be brought via universal jurisdiction in a domestic court or via the jurisdiction of a specially created ad hoc international criminal tribunal? Those questions are grappled with below as well.
Gregory S. Gordon is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, where he formerly served as Associate Dean and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programs. Before joining the legal academy, Professor Gordon worked as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. From May-June 2010, he represented the International League for Human Rights (the oldest human rights NGO in the US) at the ICC Kampala Review conference and offered expert advice in negotiations that resulted in amendments related to the crime of aggression and war crimes. He was at UN Headquarters representing the ILHR in December 2017 when the ICC Assembly of States Parties activated the Court’s aggression jurisdiction, and he serves on the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression’s Council of Advisers. Professor Gordon has published scholarly works on the aggression offense and is currently writing the biography of one of the key figures in the movement to criminalize aggression, former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz.
Giovanni Chiarini is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, UCC University College (Cork, Ireland) and at the Centre for Critical Legal Studies at the University of Warwick (Coventry, England), as well as an International Fellow of the National Institute of Military Justice (Washington DC). Giovanni is an Attorney (Bar Council of Piacenza, Italy) admitted as Assistant to Counsel (Conseils Adjoints) to the International Criminal Court list, and a PhD candidate at Insubria University (Como, Italy). Former Visiting Fellow at the Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) and at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Universität zu Köln (Cologne,Germany), he has received invitations as a Visiting Scholar to the Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and to the Center for Military Law of the TTU Texas Tech University (USA).
We address, hypothetically, three significant issues that the ICC must consider: (1) Should the Prosecutor open a new preliminary examination solely dedicated to the alleged war crimes of the Wagner Group, (2) the possibility of plea bargaining and its compatibility with the ICC practice and procedures, , and (3) the admissibility in the Trial Chamber of what may be purloined documentary and digital evidence.
This publication has been awarded the gold medal and a cash award for the best overall article, Arthur Cox Prize, University College Cork.
NIMJ aims to underscore three key points for the ICC OTP’s policy initiative on environmental crimes without necessitating further amendments to the Rome Statute:
1. The environment as a civilian object
2. Direct and indirect protection of the environment in armed conflict
3. Integrating psychological research on 'ecological grief,' 'environmental melancholia,'
and 'solastalgia,' into sentencing for environmental crimes according to Art. 78(1) of the Rome Statute.
In this conversation, Giovanni Chiarini interviews Cuno Jakob Tarfusser – former Judge and Second Vice-President of the ICC – on two of the many fragile points that emerge from this appeal judgment, such as the method of judicial interpretation regarding the procedural rules. Specifically, they focus on: 1) the interpretation of “no case to answer”; and 2) the interpretation of the burden of proof.
At the end of this short conversation, we could definitely agree that the manner of judicial interpretation of the procedural rules should strictly conform to the legal framework of the Court. Otherwise, an increasingly intricate and unforeseeable procedure emerges, based on an almost arbitrary discretion of the judges.
This post will consider three procedural aspects of ICC practice highlighted by the Iraq/UK inquiry and how this inquiry highlights the critical importance of the principle of complementarity. Speci#cally, it will include: 1) the alleged war crimes and the issues of jurisdictions; 2) issues of admissibility; 3) the complementarity in the light of the UK’s military and national investigations.
On 14 December 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP” or “Office”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) published the Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (“Report”). In this short reflection, I will discuss the situation in The Philippines which is very complex, since, on one hand, the prosecution and the repression of crimes concerning drugs are based on “lawful” motives, and, on the other hand, the modality of this “war” seems to have exceeded the limit of tolerability of international community. This article will consider two procedural points: the issues of jurisdiction and the criteria of admissibility required by the Rome Statute. On 30 June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte, in his official inauguration speech as 16th President of the Republic of The Philippines, reaffirmed his will to #ght criminality and drug trafficking, stating that “The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained”...
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼(Giovanni Chiarini)，执业律师(意大利皮亚琴察律师协会)；国际刑事法院认可律师助理。他曾在联合国援助红色高棉审判(UNAKRT)的柬埔寨特别法庭(ECCC)最高法院分庭(Supreme Court Chamber)实习。现任英苏布里亚大学(科莫-瓦雷泽，意大利)博士候选人，研究方向为国际及比较刑事诉讼法。
2021年3月31日，国际刑事法院(ICC)上诉分庭根据检察官的上诉，对2019年1月15日第一审判分庭的决定(理由于2019年7月16日发布)作出判决，其中审判分庭宣布洛朗·巴博先生(Laurent Gbagbo)和查尔斯·布莱·古德先生(Charles Blé Goudé)无罪。关于检察官的两个上诉理由，上诉分庭没有发现任何可能在实质上影响审判分庭的决定的错误。因此，上诉分庭驳回了检察官的上诉，并确认了审判分庭的决定。
在这次谈话中，乔瓦尼·基亚里尼就上诉判决中出现的多个弱点中的两个，例如有关程序规则的司法解释方法，采访了国际刑事法院前法官兼第二副院长***库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔。具体来说，谈话的重点是：1)对“无需答辩”(no case to answer)的解释；和 2)对举证责任的解释。
在这次简短的谈话结束后，我们绝对可以认同程序规则的司法解释应严格遵循法院的法律框架。否则，基于法官近乎任意的自由裁量权，将会出现一个日益复杂和不可预见的程序。
Giovanni Chiarini: The Philippines Situation.
On October 13, 2016, the former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted that the extrajudicial killings reported during the Philippines War on Drugs campaign (WoD) “may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.”77 A preliminary examination was opened on February 8, 2018, when the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) received several communications pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15.78 Subsequently, on May 24, 2021, Bensouda requested authorisation for an investigation pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15(3), stating there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity were committed as part of the WoD between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019.79 On September 15, 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I authorized the commencement of the investigation and instructed the Registrar to provide notice of the present decision to the victims who made representations.
This short essay considers the procedural issues, with special attention to jurisdiction ratione temporis, which remains, in the author’s opinion, an unresolved issue.
Authors: MANISH N. BHATT, GIOVANNI CHIARINI, KATHERINE MADDOX DAVIS, BETH FARMER, TIMOTHY FRANKLIN, CYREKA C. JACOBS, STE ́PHANEDENAVACELLE,SARAL.OCHS,ALEXANDERS. VESSELINOVITCH, MELISSA GINSBERG, MARC WEITZ, AND
JULIE ZORRILLA
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼目前是科克大学（爱尔兰科克）刑事司法与人权中心的研究员，也是华威大学（英国考文垂）批判法律研究中心的访问研究员，也是国家军事司法研究所（美国华盛顿）的国际研究员。乔万尼是一名律师（意大利皮亚琴察律师协会），获准担任国际刑事法院名单上的律师助理（Conseils Adjoints），也是英苏布里亚大学（意大利科莫）的博士生。他曾任蔚蓝海岸大学（法国尼斯）和科隆大学（德国科隆）国际和平与安全法研究所的访问学者，并应邀担任爱丁堡大学（苏格兰）国际和全球法律中心以及德克萨斯理工大学（美国）军事法律中心的访问学者。
2022年2月24日凌晨，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。世界各地的领导人都谴责[i]这是一种非法的侵略行为。第二天，国际刑事法院检察官卡里姆·汗发表声明称，他一直 “密切关注乌克兰境内及周边地区最近的事态发展，并日益关注。”正如许多人所知，2017年，国际刑事法院启动了对侵略罪的管辖权。[ii]因此，也许值得一问的是，鉴于这一明显的侵略行为和国际刑事法院检察官的警告，在提到入侵乌克兰时，是否可以对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京及其领导圈（leadership coterie）提出侵略指控。
正如我们将解释的那样，尽管乌克兰已经将有关俄罗斯早期入侵的战争罪和危害人类罪的管辖权移交给国际刑事法院，并开始进行调查，但最近的入侵将不允许国际刑事法院将其案件扩大到包括潜在的侵略指控。然而，针对普京及其同伙的侵略案是否可以通过国内法院的普遍管辖权或通过专门设立的特设国际刑事法庭的管辖权提出？这些问题也将在下文中进行探讨。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eg90OUvxOelFJTYDJYgqlw
The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Navigating Aggression’s Fragmented Justice Landscape (Cambridge International Law Journal blog)
This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, it puts forward an integrative proposal, focused on the procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments, namely:
1) Jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, amending articles 127 and 121 RS;
2) The ‘deferral of investigation or prosecution’ power of the renewal by the UN Security Council should
not be authorised more than once, amending Article 16 bis RS;
3) The introduction of Aggravated Ecocide, and its Aggravating Circumstances, namely those actions or omissions which have a ‘substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change’, amending Article 8 ter RS draft and rule 145 of Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter, “RPE”);
4) The exercise of jurisdiction, in case of aggravated ecocide, on the basis of UN environmental authorities’ reports, such as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the context of Climate Change, or the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, amending articles 13 and 15 RS;
5) Changing the standard of proof in cases of aggravated ecocide from “reasonable basis” to proceed (and to believe) to a “sufficient basis,” amending articles 15, 18 and 53 RS and Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulation of the Prosecutor;
6) Regarding issues of admissibility, introducing a rebuttable presumption of both “gravity” and “interests of justice” in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 17 and 19 RS and Regulations 29 and 31 bis of the Regulation of the Prosecutor; and
7) The exclusion to the so-called proceedings on an admission of guilt in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 64 and 65 RS and Rule 139 of RPE.
Key words: ecocide, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence
The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute, recommending amendments regarding substantive law. This paper focuses on the procedural issues, in-between environmental science and law, with special attention to the standard of proof as well as admissibility issues, in terms of “gravity” and “interests of justice”.
di Giovanni Chiarini
Abstract: Negotiated justice is one of the most significant paradigms that shows the evolution of international criminal procedure, from Nuremberg to The Hague. Whilst plea-bargaining was essentially denied before both Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, negotiated justice was broader introduced at the so-called Ad Hoc Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, wherein related plea-bargaining case-law were developed, then resulting into an autonomous special procedure in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Indeed, in the ICC the discipline on negotiated justice, named as “proceedings on an admission of guilt”, cannot be considered as a mere compromise in-between the Anglo-Saxon and European legal traditions. On the contrary, negotiated justice in the International Criminal Court statutory law acquires a unique normative identity, where several principles of criminal procedure, such as victims’ rights, fair trial, lengthiness of the proceedings and defendants’ rights as well are protected by this ICC special procedure. After having analyzed the origin and history of negotiated justice from Nuremberg and Tokyo to the Hague, this article focuses on a normative-jurisprudential approach on the evolution of plea-bargaining in the international criminal tribunals, and the main issues regarding that might arises from its applicability in the Italian criminal jurisdiction.
The Author, after examining the situation of the so-called “war on drugs” in the Philippines, currently under the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, dwells on three main issues: one concerning the crimes established in the Rome Statute; the other two regarding the procedural issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, with a thorough analysis of both the preliminary examination and the complementarity principle.
Sommario 1. Introduzione: il contesto filippino durante la presidenza di Rodrigo Duterte e l’avvio della “War on Drugs”; 2. Le denunce alla Corte Penale Internazionale e l’avvio della preliminary examination: le “extra-judicial killings” possono costituire crimini contro l’umanità? 3. I profili processuali: cenni sulla preliminary examination. 3.1 Una sintesi dei requisiti procedimentali per poter avviare una investigation e lo “statutory-based approach” a quattro fasi della Procura della CPI; 3.2 Le questioni di giurisdizione: la problematica del difetto di competenza della CPI alla luce del recesso del Filippine dallo Statuto di Roma. Il precedente, seppur “parziale”, del Burundi; 3.3 Le condizioni di procedibilità: la valutazione del principio di complementarità a seguito delle indagini nazionali delle autorità filippine; 4. Riflessioni conclusive alla luce del del caso Iraq/UK e del Report 2020 sulle preliminary examination.
“ICC is not a human rights body”: the report of the ICC Prosecutor on the closure of preliminary examination in Iraq/UK.
On 9th December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor published the Final Report on the Situation in Iraq/UK, concerning crimes presumably committed by the UK armed forces, classified as war crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Even if there was a reasonable basis to believe that these crimes were committed, the Prosecutor did not conclude that the UK authorities had been genuinely unwilling to carry out relevant investigative inquiries or prosecutions or that decisions not to prosecute in specific cases resulted from a genuine unwillingness to prosecute. Thereby, due to the principle of complementarity, the OTP closed the preliminary examination without seeking authorisation to initiate an investigation.
https://www.difesa.it/Giustizia_Militare/rassegna/Bimestrale/2021/Documents/01_2021/RGM_1_2021.pdf
Honored to join esteemed colleagues like Professor David M. Crane, Former Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the former International Criminal Court Vice President Cuno Jakob Tarfusser, Professor Milena Sterio and Professor Schabas William, the former Chief of Prosecution at the UN Ad Hoc Tribunal for Rwanda Silvana Arbia, Professor Jennifer Trahan, and many other specialists.
Event Location
In-person event only.
Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023
Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland History Center
10825 East Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Friday, Sept. 29, 2023
Cleveland Botanical Garden
11030 East Blvd, Cleveland, OH 44106
Centro di Ricerca Transizione Ecologica, Sostenibilità, e Sfide Globali
Nel preambolo dello Statuto di Roma del 1998, istitutivo della Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aia, è scritto che gli Stati membri sono “consapevoli che tutti i popoli sono uniti da stretti vincoli e che le loro culture formano un patrimonio da tutti condiviso, un delicato mosaico che rischia in ogni momento di essere distrutto”. Il recente conflitto tra Russia e Ucraina sembra chiaramente minare questo “delicato mosaico”, esponendo l’Europa al rischio della Guerra e turbando la coscienza dell’umanità.
Non a caso, il 25 febbraio 2022 – ossia il giorno dopo l’invasione dei territori ucraini decisa da Mosca – il Procuratore della Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aia, il britannico Kharim Khan, ha rilasciato una dichiarazione ufficiale in cui ha espresso la propria crescente preoccupazione, evidenziando la competenza della Corte relativamente al delitto di genocidio, ai crimini di guerra, ai crimini contro l’umanità (rispettivamente previsti e puniti dagli articoli 6, 7 ed 8 dello Statuto di Roma), ma altresì sottolineando il difetto di giurisdizione con riferimento al delitto di aggressione (di cui all’art. 8 bis).
Nonostante la sopra menzionata invasione su larga scala configuri una chiara violazione dell’obbligo di soluzione pacifica delle controversie tra Stati membri derivante dal divieto di uso della forza – così come stabilito dall’art. 2(4) della Carta delle Nazioni Unite –, in quanto atto commesso al di fuori delle ipotesi di legittima difesa individuale o collettiva previste dall’art. 51, ciò non significa che la CPI abbia automaticamente giurisdizione. E difatti, con riferimento alla fattispecie di aggressione sanzionata dall’art. 8 bis dello Statuto di Roma la questione dal punto di vista procedurale appare invalicabile. Quest’ultimo, infatti, punisce la progettazione, preparazione, iniziazione o esecuzione, da parte di una persona in grado di esercitare effettivamente il controllo o di dirigere l'azione politica o militare di uno Stato, di un atto di aggressione che, per carattere, gravità e portata, costituisce una palese violazione della Carta delle Nazioni Unite, ovvero l'uso della forza armata da parte di uno Stato contro la sovranità, l'integrità territoriale o l'indipendenza politica di un altro Stato (e a prescindere da una eventuale dichiarazione di guerra). Ma presenta alcuni limiti strutturali.
In breve, né la Russia né l’Ucraina – quest’ultima, nel 2000, ha firmato ma mai ratificato lo Statuto di Roma – sono Stati parte della Corte Penale Internazionale (attualmente sono 123, a seguito del recesso del Burundi e delle Filippine), e perciò si pongono al di fuori della sua competenza. Tuttavia, l’Ucraina nel 2014 ha attivato la giurisdizione della CPI tramite la procedura speciale prevista dall’art. 12(3) dello Statuto e dall’art. 44 delle cosiddette Rules of Procedure and Evidence. La norma statutaria de qua stabilisce che uno Stato non membro può, tramite una formale dichiarazione depositata presso la Cancelleria della Corte, accettare la competenza della CPI relativamente ai reati previsti dall’art. 5 (ossia i quattro crimini internazionale elencati in precedenza) e cooperare con essa senza ritardo e senza eccezioni.
Nel caso di specie, la dichiarazione venne depositata il 9 aprile 2014, con riferimento ai delitti presumibilmente commessi nel territorio ucraino dal 21 novembre 2013 al 22 febbraio 2014, e portò all’apertura, da parte della precedente Procuratrice Fatou Bensouda in data 25 aprile 2014, di una cosiddetta “preliminary examination”: si tratta di una fase procedimentale particolarmente complessa che consta di quattro sotto-fasi (del tutto diversa dal nostro concetto di “indagini preliminari”), che caratterizza l’impianto processuale della CPI e conferisce alla Procura grande discrezionalità in termini selettivi e decisionali. Tale fase precede quella della “investigation” (ossia dell’indagine vera e propria).
La preliminary examination in questione riguardava i fatti di possibile rilevanza penale internazionale avvenuti in tre differenti zone: durante le cosiddette proteste di Maidan; in Crimea; nel Donbass. Successivamente, in data 8 settembre 2015, il governo ucraino ha inviato alla CPI una seconda dichiarazione, contenente l’accettazione della giurisdizione a partire dal 20 febbraio 2014 e senza un termine temporale finale. Pertanto, la preliminary examination può considerarsi ancora pendente.
Difatti, nonostante in data 11 dicembre 2020 questa sia stata dichiarata conclusa dalla stessa Procuratrice Fatou Bensouda, per la quale esistevano ragionevoli motivi di ritenere che fossero stati commessi crimini di guerra (quali la tortura; gli attacchi contro la popolazione civile; il privare volontariamente un prigioniero di guerra o altra persona protetta del diritto a un equo e regolare processo o il costringerlo a prestare servizio nelle forze del nemico; stupri e altre forme di violenza sessuale, e altri) e crimini contro l’umanità (come il trasferimento forzato di popolazione in relazione al trasferimento di detenuti in attesa di giudizio o la sparizione forzata di persone, e altri), nulla impedisce al Procuratore di mantenere aperta la stessa preliminary examination con riferimento ai fatti occorsi dal 24 febbraio in poi: per esempio, nel precedente caso Iraq/UK, l’examination venne prima chiusa nel 2006 e poi riaperta e conclusa nel 2020. Ma ci sono anche altre due possibilità: il Procuratore può infatti decidere di aprire una nuova e differente preliminary examination, ad hoc per il recente conflitto, o di procedere con l’iter per l’avvio di una investigation.
Il Procuratore Kharim Khan, in data 28 febbraio 2022, ha scelto quest’ultima strada, esprimendo la propria volontà di procedere rapidamente con l’iter ex art. 15(3) per la richiesta di un’indagine riguardante anche i nuovi reati, eventualmente commessi da qualsiasi parte in conflitto ed in qualsiasi parte del territorio dell'Ucraina, volontà che ha riaffermato formalmente con comunicazione inviata alla Presidenza della CPI il 01 marzo 2022. L’indagine, seguendo questo iter proprio motu, avrebbe dovuto essere autorizzata dalla Pre-Trial Chamber II della Corte previa analisi di vari requisiti procedimentali che qui non occorre approfondire. Alla Corte, infatti, era stato assegnato il procedimento in data 02 marzo 2022 tramite provvedimento della Presidenza, in base all’art. 46 delle Regulations of the Court. Tuttavia, il recentissimo invio dei referral ex art. 14 RS inviati da 39 Stati membri – tra cui l’Italia, e prima tra tutti la Lituania – aggira il passaggio autorizzatorio della Pre-Trial Chamber e permette alla Procura di muoversi più rapidamente.
In ogni caso, il vero limite è da rinvenirsi nel difetto di giurisdizione in relazione al crimine di aggressione di cui all’art. 8 bis dello Statuto di Roma. Al contrario degli altri tre reati di competenza della CPI, la cui giurisdizione è fondata sulla dichiarazione di accettazione del governo ucraino ex art. 12(3) – per quanto concerne i crimini commessi da cittadini di tale Stato o sul territorio dello stesso –, la disciplina per il delitto di aggressione (inserito nello Statuto successivamente, a seguito degli emendamenti di Kampala del 2010 e in vigore dal 2018) è radicalmente differente e trova il suo perno processuale nell’art. 15 bis. La norma, che si configura come lex specialis, prevede al comma 4 che la Corte può – ai sensi dell'articolo 12 (come nel caso di specie) – esercitare la giurisdizione su un crimine di aggressione derivante da un atto di aggressione commesso da uno Stato Parte (ma la Russia non lo è), a meno che tale Stato Parte non abbia precedentemente dichiarato di non accettare tale giurisdizione depositando una dichiarazione presso il cancelliere. Ciò significa che – in base all’art. 15(bis)5 – per quanto riguarda il reato di aggressione, quando commesso da cittadini di tale Stato o sul suo territorio, la Corte non esercita la propria giurisdizione nei confronti di uno Stato che non è parte, come la Russia. In tal senso, l’art. 15 bis, che mira a tutelare gli Stati terzi non parte dello Statuto, richiederebbe, per l'avvio del procedimento relativamente al crimine di aggressione, il consenso dello Stato aggressore stesso. Circostanza, questa, piuttosto improbabile.
In conclusione, se la giurisdizione relativa ai crimini di guerra e contro l’umanità (nonché in caso di genocidio) viene conservata dalla Corte Penale Internazionale con riferimento al caso ucraino, lo stesso non può dirsi con riferimento al crimine di aggressione: per quest’ultimo vi è difetto di giurisdizione, difficilmente valicabile con una riforma dell’art. 15 bis o dell’impianto normativo ad hoc per il crimine di aggressione, in virtù del principio di irretroattività. Ma la recente decisione di procedere con un’indagine è certamente un chiaro messaggio di ammonimento per il rispetto delle norme del diritto internazionale umanitario, i cui sviluppi saranno da considerare sia nel breve sia nel lungo termine. Inoltre, si tratta di un forte segnale da parte della Corte Penale Internazionale, che vuole e deve fare la sua parte per portare giustizia e garantire il rispetto del diritto internazionale, nonostante i propri limiti statutari.