Self-referral of Situations to the International Criminal Court: Complementarity in Practice – Complementarity in Crisis

in International Criminal Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Self-referral practice has been the main source of cases before the International Criminal Court (icc) to date. This practice provokes significant questions as to its roots, legality and implications on the jurisdiction of the Court in general and the principle of complementarity in particular. Thus, the article, after considering the legal, factual and political considerations attached to self-referral, argues that self-referral, as utilized and encouraged by the icc since its inception, signals a departure of the purposive rationale of the principle of complementarity as the drafting history and the current wording of the Statute reveals, and this could have a detrimental effect on the credibility and impartiality of the Court.

Self-referral of Situations to the International Criminal Court: Complementarity in Practice – Complementarity in Crisis

in International Criminal Law Review

Sections

References

40

Kresssupra note 24 p. 945.

42

El Zeidysupra note 12 p. 218.

43

Informal Expert Papersupra note 25 19 footnote 24.

44

Kresssupra note 24 p. 946; Federica Gioia ‘State Sovereignty Jurisdiction and ‘Modern’ International Law: The Principle of Complementarity in the International Criminal Court’ 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006) 1095 p. 1114.

57

Kresssupra note 24 p. 945.

58

Letter of Jurisdiction 28 May 2004mentioned in Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony issued on 8 July 2005 as amended on 27 September 2005 (icc-02/04-01/05) 27 September 2005 p. 37.

86

Policy Paper 2003supra note 32 p. 4. The current Prosecutor had contemplated this scenario in his 2003 Policy Paper when he gave the example that ‘There may also be cases where a third State has extra-territorial jurisdiction but all interested parties agree that the Court has developed superior evidence and expertise relating to that situation making the Court the more effective forum’.

88

Policy Paper 2003supra note 32 p. 4.

91

Schabassupra note 37 p. 18.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 60 60 53
Full Text Views 16 16 16
PDF Downloads 4 4 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0