Search Results

Restricted Access

Michael G. Karnavas

Abstract

This chapter considers whether the ad hoc nature of icc trial proceedings risks undermining the icc’s credibility. The Rome Statute and the icc Rules of Procedure and Evidence have sufficient constructive ambiguity as to how trials should be conducted such that, depending on the serendipitous composition of the Trial Chamber, trials can be shaped in a more ‘adversarial’ or more ‘inquisitorial’ fashion. This malleability, which may have been the result of a diplomatic compromise, has resulted in ad hoc trial proceedings at the icc; no two trials are conducted in the same manner. Since the hallmarks of any good court are uniformity, predictability, and reliability in its proceedings, does this feature, which is unique to the icc, risk undermining the legitimacy of the icc’s judgments and, inexorably, the icc itself?

Restricted Access

Michael G. Karnavas

Defence counsel are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients. So what exactly does it mean to ‘zealously represent’ a client before any of the international criminal courts or tribunals? How unproblematic is it for defence counsel to meet their ethical duties? Would an International Criminal Court (icc) Bar or professional association for icc List Counsel and their assistants be of any significance to that end? This contribution concludes that the only way forward out of the prevailing and persistent morass List Counsel currently find themselves in at the icc, is through the establishment of a Bar Association for List Counsel and their assistants.