Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
4 pages
1 file
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Triffterer/Ambos eds.), 3rd Edition. © 2016 Verlag C.H. Beck oHG, 2016
Article 11 establishes the temporal threshold for the activation of the Court’s jurisdiction at the date of entry into force of the Statute, which occurred on 1 July 2002. Whereas the other facets of the Court’s jurisdiction – jurisdiction ratione materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci – may be modified or applied in the alternative, paragraph 1 of article 11 represents an absolute bar on the scope of the Court’s competence. Paragraph 2 of article 11 regulates the activation of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction for States joining the ICC after its entry into force. For those signatory States that deposited the instruments necessary to bring the Statute into force, temporal threshold will apply from the date of the entry into force of the Statute itself, per article 11(1). For those States that become Parties to the Statute thereafter temporal jurisdiction will apply from the first day of the month after the 60th day following the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Nonetheless, article 11(2) recalls that an acceding State may also lodge a declaration under article 12(3) with respect to the time period during which it remained a non-Party State, thereby investing the Court with jurisdiction from an earlier time although no earlier than the restriction contained in article 11(1). Co-authored with Mohamed Elewa Badar
Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 16, no. 5, 1063-1091, 2018
On 4 July 2018, the International Criminal Court (ICC, the Court) issued a second warrant for the arrest of Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf Al-Werfalli, a commander within General Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA). Already wanted by the Court since August 2017, Al-Werfalli remains at large. The LNA maintains that he is facing justice in Libya, implicitly excluding the surrender of the suspect to the ICC. As a result, in the second arrest warrant the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) addressed the admissibility of the case and declared that the proceedings initiated by the LNA do not satisfy the requirements of the complementarity test. This conclusion, although not surprising, hides a question on the relationship of the Court with non-state entities. It is a question the PTC I deliberately avoided answering: is the ICC required to assess its complementarity with respect to criminal prosecutions undertaken by non-state entities in general, and with non-state armed groups (NSAG) in particular? ICC Judge Kovács, presiding over the chamber, had already suggested that a rigid approach should be rejected when dealing with entities having both undisputed control over a territory and the capacity to exercise criminal jurisdiction. Moving from that hint, this article first shows that the issue is not unique to the Libyan situation and that the ICC can easily find itself confronted with criminal proceedings run by courts of NSAGs. It then restricts the analysis to NSAGs armed groups that control a territory, are capable of exercising criminal jurisdiction and have a legal basis in international law to do so. Finally, it submits that the combined effect of the ne bis in idem principle and the command responsibility regime under the ICC Statute provides a solid argument allowing the Court to answer the question in the affirmative.
International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules, G. Sluiter, H. Friman, S. Linton, S. Vasiliev (eds.), 2013
The present chapter deals with the investigation phase in international criminal proceedings. It concentrates on two of the most important aspects in criminal procedure preceding the actual trial, namely the collection of evidence and the arrest and detention of suspects. The chapter commences with a preliminary section on the delineation and scope of the investigation phase (section 2). This is followed by separate sections on the collection of evidence, by means of both non-coercive (section 3.1) and non-custodial coercive measures (section 3.2), and on restriction and deprivation of liberty (section 4). Remedies in case of violations are also addressed (section 5). Sections 3.1, 4, and 5 are further divided into substantive subsections. Co-authored with Karel de Meester, Kelly Pitcher and Göran Sluiter
This is the iii volume in the International Criminal Law Practitioner Library Series. Volumes I and II dealt with substantive international criminal law, particularly forms of individual criminal responsibility and the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The present volume is devoted to international criminal procedure, the most controversial and most important aspect of international criminal law.
Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes, Morten Bergsmo (ed.) © Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher Oslo, 2010, 2010
Complementarity under the Rome Statute can be understood in two ways: as an admissibility principle governing case allocation between competing jurisdictions, and as a burden sharing principle for the consensual distribution of caseloads. Complementarity as admissibility posits the relationship between the ICC and States as a contest, leading one forum to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. This is because the framework is case-specific: two forums cannot try the same case at once. Complementarity as burden-sharing embraces a broader systemwide approach that promotes the concurrent assumption of jurisdiction by different forums. This is complementarity set against the problem of mass criminality, where the fear is not that the same person will be tried twice, but that the many will not be tried at all. It seeks to address the impunity gap created as a consequence of insufficient judicial coverage. This chapter provides an overview of complementarity as informed by the Court's judicial pronouncements and prosecutorial policies, examining how models of contests and collaboration interact. This is intended to serve as an introduction to the examination by other contributors to this volume of the "horizontal" application of complementarity to guide the relationship between national criminal jurisdictions.
Leiden Journal of International Law, 2008
The ICC Statute sets up a system for enforcement whereby the Court's decisions are to be effected by domestic authorities. The article explores the implications of this institutional design in terms of the legal tools at the Court's disposal and the extent to which the ICC can adjudicate issues related to state co-operation. At the same time, it examines the responsibilities assumed by all states parties under the Statute to secure compliance, including in situations where the requested national authorities are unwilling or unable to co-operate. It suggests that to be sucessful, the co-operation regime under the ICC Statute will require a dynamic set of interactions between the individual state and the collective.
Stratum plus 4, 2024
Estudios Sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 2004
Autoctonía, 2024
Pensar la Justicia Social hoy. Nancy Fraser y la reconstrucción del concepto de justicia en la era global, 2015
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2024
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2021
Revista de Filosofía Nuestramericana: Posibilidad, Crítica y Reflexión. , 2013
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 2004
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 1999
Proceedings of 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, 2016
Modelling and Simulation, 2008
Internal medicine ( …, 1998
Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, 2020