Rod Rastan
Rod Rastan serves as Chief of the Judicial Cooperation Support Section in the Registry at the International Criminal Court. Prior to joining the ICC, he worked for several years in the area of human rights, rule of law, and mediation with United Nations missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor and Cyprus as well as with field presences of the EU and the OSCE. He also participated in the negotiation of the ICC Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. He holds a PhD in Law from the London School of Economics, has published and lectured on international criminal law and serves on the editorial board of the Criminal Law Forum.
Address: Den Haag, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Address: Den Haag, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (8)
Uploads
Papers by Rod Rastan
of best practices.
Co-authored with Mohamed Elewa Badar.
Co-authored with Karel de Meester, Kelly Pitcher and Göran Sluiter
Co-authored with Mohamed Elewa Badar
Co-authored with Helen Duffy and Christopher Hall
términos “investigación” y “enjuiciamiento”. Se examinará el impacto de las definiciones de estos términos en las diferentes etapas del proceso, a fin de explorar los contornos de las disposiciones sobre admisibilidad del ER. En tanto que las discusiones en materia de complementariedad son parte integrante del sistema del ER en su conjunto, este texto explorará también la interrelación entre complementariedad, jurisdicción y gravedad
by the panelists on the topic of situation and case selection before
the International Criminal Court (ICC). Professor William
Schabas offers a thought provoking piece seeking to stimulate
debate on the manner in which situations are identified for
investigation and cases selected for prosecution. He questions the
abiding disquiet reflected in the critique of victor's justice arising
from Nuremberg and Tokyo, since he considers contemporary
choices to investigate certain situations or indict particular
individuals derive similarly from political assessments adopted
under the guise of legal norms and prosecutorial discretion. He
suggests we should not be surprised by such an outcome, as it is,
in fact, inherent to the function of any prosecution service when it
has to decide among a pool of available prosecutorial targets. He
argues that political considerations appear to be particularly
prevalent at the ICC, where the Prosecutor gets to decide not just
who to prosecute (cases), but when and where to investigate
(situations). In the light of his critique that decision-making in
such matters is driven by political rather than legal calculus,
Schabas suggests that it would be best if they were, in fact, left in
the hands of political authorities, bearing in mind also that the
enforcement of justice anyway relies on political support. The
result of the overall analysis is to question the premise for an
independent Prosecutor acting proprio motu at the ICC and to
suggest, in its place, the need for prior political sanction and
guidance before proceeding with investigations and prosecutions.
The thesis put forward by Professor Schabas is intriguing,
coming as it does from a pioneer of the discipline rather than a
realpolitik sceptic. The allegations of political selectivity in
particular warrant careful consideration. The comment below
suggests that while provocative, Professor Schabas' thesis is
ultimately speculative based, in his own words, "upon intuition
rather than evidence."' The Article compares this wholesale
dismissal of the exercise (toward the identification of ex ante
standards for the initiation of investigations and prosecutions)
with an approach based on the exposition of legal and policy
standards, in the light of Professor Brian Lepard's article on the
role of fundamental ethical principles in the formulation of
prosecutorial guidelines. A final section examines the central
concern of both articles, on the extent to which politics infiltrates
the legal process.
of best practices.
Co-authored with Mohamed Elewa Badar.
Co-authored with Karel de Meester, Kelly Pitcher and Göran Sluiter
Co-authored with Mohamed Elewa Badar
Co-authored with Helen Duffy and Christopher Hall
términos “investigación” y “enjuiciamiento”. Se examinará el impacto de las definiciones de estos términos en las diferentes etapas del proceso, a fin de explorar los contornos de las disposiciones sobre admisibilidad del ER. En tanto que las discusiones en materia de complementariedad son parte integrante del sistema del ER en su conjunto, este texto explorará también la interrelación entre complementariedad, jurisdicción y gravedad
by the panelists on the topic of situation and case selection before
the International Criminal Court (ICC). Professor William
Schabas offers a thought provoking piece seeking to stimulate
debate on the manner in which situations are identified for
investigation and cases selected for prosecution. He questions the
abiding disquiet reflected in the critique of victor's justice arising
from Nuremberg and Tokyo, since he considers contemporary
choices to investigate certain situations or indict particular
individuals derive similarly from political assessments adopted
under the guise of legal norms and prosecutorial discretion. He
suggests we should not be surprised by such an outcome, as it is,
in fact, inherent to the function of any prosecution service when it
has to decide among a pool of available prosecutorial targets. He
argues that political considerations appear to be particularly
prevalent at the ICC, where the Prosecutor gets to decide not just
who to prosecute (cases), but when and where to investigate
(situations). In the light of his critique that decision-making in
such matters is driven by political rather than legal calculus,
Schabas suggests that it would be best if they were, in fact, left in
the hands of political authorities, bearing in mind also that the
enforcement of justice anyway relies on political support. The
result of the overall analysis is to question the premise for an
independent Prosecutor acting proprio motu at the ICC and to
suggest, in its place, the need for prior political sanction and
guidance before proceeding with investigations and prosecutions.
The thesis put forward by Professor Schabas is intriguing,
coming as it does from a pioneer of the discipline rather than a
realpolitik sceptic. The allegations of political selectivity in
particular warrant careful consideration. The comment below
suggests that while provocative, Professor Schabas' thesis is
ultimately speculative based, in his own words, "upon intuition
rather than evidence."' The Article compares this wholesale
dismissal of the exercise (toward the identification of ex ante
standards for the initiation of investigations and prosecutions)
with an approach based on the exposition of legal and policy
standards, in the light of Professor Brian Lepard's article on the
role of fundamental ethical principles in the formulation of
prosecutorial guidelines. A final section examines the central
concern of both articles, on the extent to which politics infiltrates
the legal process.