Realising the Potential of the International Criminal Court: The African Experience

To date efforts of the International Criminal Court (ICC) toeradicate impunity for international crimes have been focussedin the African region. With arrest warrants now issued in relationto the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ugandaand the surrender of one individual to the Court, this articleprovides a timely examination of the efforts of African Statesto adopt legislation to provide for cooperation with the ICCand the prosecution of ICC crimes in national courts. The articledemonstrates that despite their willingness to make use of theICC system for prosecutions, African States, reflecting thegeneral trend in other regions, have made very little progressin implementing the Rome Statute. The article also examineshow the ICC has conducted its investigations in light of thelack of such implementing legislation.     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

State Withdrawal Notifications from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: South Africa,Burundi and the Gambia

In 2016 three African states namely South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia submitted written notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Although the African Union welcomed and fully supported the three withdrawal notifications and considered them as ‘pioneer implementers’ of its ‘Withdrawal Strategy’, The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal. Some other states – Kenya, Namibia and Uganda – have made threats to submit withdrawal notifications. This article examines four issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. First, why did the three states submit withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute? Second, what is the impact of the three states’ withdrawal notifications? Third, is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (or the yet-to-be-established African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights) a suitable African regional ‘alternative’ to the ICC? Finally, what steps might be taken to avoid, or at least minimise, further withdrawals in the future and to avoid impunity of perpetrators of international crimes in states that have withdrawn from the Rome Statute?     

国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评

国际刑事法院是否成功的关键取决于《罗马规约》的缔约国和国际社会与之真诚的国际合作与司法协助。反之 ,国家也应根据国际法的基本原则善意履行其自愿承担的义务 ,向国际刑事法院提供国际合作与司法协助。本文通过阐述《罗马规约》有关国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助方面的实体性和程序性规定 ,说明国家在国际刑事法院调查、起诉和惩治国际社会关注的最严重的国际犯罪中的作用和义务     

Amid domestication and Afriexit: whither Nigeria and South Africa on the International Criminal Court?

There is a silent revolution going on among African states regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Some states that previously signed the Statute refused to ratify it. Some that ratified the Statute refused to domesticate it. Some that domesticated it withdrew or threatened to withdraw from it. Some that withdrew from it revoked their withdrawal. The African Union called for the mass withdrawal of African states from the Statute. Amid this storm of domestication and Afriexit, this study probes the question: what will be the status of Nigeria and South Africa on the ICC by 2022, considering the events in these states so far, evidence from data and the spate of domestication and exit procedures in homogeneous African states in contemporary times? The objectives of the study are to predict the status of Nigeria and South Africa by 2022 and reflect on the implication of the predictions for the on-going viability, sustainability and credibility of the ICC. It predicts that Nigeria has a zero per cent indication of domesticating the Statute. South Africa has 100 per cent positive indication to remain an ICC state party.     

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

国际刑事法院的司法能动主义:实践、反思及限制

国际刑事法院对《罗马规约》近年来的解释中呈现出司法能动主义的趋势,即背离约文的字面含义和立法者的原意,扩张国际刑事法院管辖下犯罪的定义和可受理案件的范围。国际刑法的混合性质、先前国际刑事法庭的司法能动主义政策以及《罗马规约》适用法条款和解释规则的不确定性都是导致国际刑事法院司法能动主义的原因。作为非经授权的司法立法行为,国际刑事法院的司法能动主义不但违背国家主权原则和罪刑法定主义,而且损害了国际社会通过其追究国际犯罪的信心。构建对其司法能动主义进行规制的关键在于厘清和协调《维也纳条约法公约》中的解释规则、罪刑法定原则下的严格解释以及存疑有利于被告解释方法三者在《罗马规约》解释中的适用范围及适用关系。     

International Crimes and ICC Cooperation in England and Wales

The United Kingdom, as a party to the ICC Statute, has broughtin a series of similar pieces of legislation in order to fulfilits obligations under the Statute, and to ensure that crimessubject to the jurisdiction of the ICC are also crimes in domesticlaw. This article concentrates on the International CriminalCourt Act 2001, which applies in England and Wales, to appraisewhether it adequately provides for assistance to the ICC, andwhether the crimes subject to the ICC's jurisdiction are adequatelyincorporated into domestic law. The article also mentions thepossible role of the common law of England and Wales in relationto international crimes. It concludes that, for the most part,the Act reflects a sensible approach to issues involved in assistingthe ICC and provides a workable basis for the prosecution ofinternational crimes in that jurisdiction.     

Any Other Contribution? Ascribing Liability for Cover-Ups of International Crimes

As the International Criminal Court (the Court or ICC) continues to develop the parameters of the various modes of liability set out in Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute, recent developments raise questions as to whether the Court can consider participation in cover-ups or concealment of crimes as giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. It is only recently that international tribunals, and notably the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have turned to consider how international criminal law approaches responsibility for cover-ups or concealment of crimes. In reviewing how and why the ICTY has addressed individual criminal liability for engaging in cover-ups, and in light of the ICC’s Mbarushimana decision, the aim of this paper is to suggest how the ICC might consider such issues in future cases. Having demonstrated the necessity of international criminal law accounting for cover-ups, the paper will discuss how the jurisprudence, in toto, excludes the possibility of holding to account individuals who contribute to the cover up of international crimes, by whatever means, or however grave, unless they were acting on the premise of a prior agreement with the principals. By way of conclusion the paper will suggest that an expansive interpretation of Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute may provide a means of addressing this gap.     

国际刑事法院管辖权的属性

自 1998年《国际刑事法院罗马规约》通过后 ,围绕管辖权属性问题的争辩始终没有休止。实际上 ,国际刑事法院管辖权的多维性体现了主权与人权国际保护的逻辑延伸。透视国际刑事法院管辖权内容上的多维性特征可见 ,《罗马规约》规定的国际刑事法院管辖权游弋于补充性和普遍性与强制性之间 ,体现了适用上的多角度、多层次和多维空间。这种多维特征之间既相互独立 ,又相辅相成 ,充分显示国际刑事法院的历史地位和重要性 ,当被控国际罪行的程序逐渐制度化时 ,国际刑事法院的运行机制也会更加公正、合理与完善     

National Implementation of ICC Crimes: Impact on National Jurisdictions and the ICC

The national implementation of the International Criminal Court(ICC) Statute has proven to be more difficult than initiallyanticipated. Most States Parties have either not incorporatedthe ICC crimes into their domestic laws, or they have done sousing different forms of wording. This article examines theimplementing legislation of several states to demonstrate howinadequate implementation of the ICC crimes might prevent statesfrom exercising their primary jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.In turn, this might affect the admissibility of a case beforethe ICC. To this end, this article also explores whether flawedimplementation of the ICC crimes amounts to unwillingness orinability of the state to genuinely prosecute. This articleargues that implementation of the Statute is of paramount importanceto the future of the ICC.     

The International Criminal Court and the Control of State Crime: Prospects and Problems

Over the past two decades, crimes committed by nation states has received strong theoretical and empirical attention from critical criminologists. Much of this work has highlighted the lack of internal and external mechanisms to control such injurious behavior. Potentially, this has now changed. In the summer of 1998, delegates from nearly 140 countries created the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Entering into force in the summer of 2002, the ICC has unprecedented international jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, war, aggression, and those against humanity. This paper provides a brief history of international law and attempts to develop an ICC. It then examines the functioning and structure of the ICC as established in the Rome Statute. We then proceed to analyze the potential which the ICC posses to control state criminality. Our analysis concludes with discussions of how the ICC might be modified to better act as a deterrent to such offending.     

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.     

Great Expectations: The Implementation of the Rome Statute in Italy

This article first explores whether Italy is under an obligationto implement the Rome Statute that it ratified in 1999. It thenidentifies the general sets of inconsistencies between Italianlegislation and the Rome Statute and analyses whether and towhat extent the former needs to be amended or integrated inorder to implement the substantive provisions of the latter,in particular in relation to the definition of crimes, generalprinciples of criminal responsibility, defences and other barsto prosecution. Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction by Italiancourts over crimes in the Rome Statute is discussed in the lightof the principle of complementarity on which the jurisdictionof the International Criminal Court is based.         Mere dreams,mere dreams!         W.B. Yeats,Meditations in Time of Civil War, I (1928)     

China's Attitude Towards the ICC

Unlike the USA, China has few overseas military commitments,and therefore is not concerned that its troops may one day comeunder International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. Moreover,China is not in a position to pressurize other countries tosign bilateral agreements as the USA has done. Whether or notChina eventually accedes to the Rome Statute, it cannot avoidthe jurisdiction of the ICC in other parts of the world. Thereare five main reasons for China's opposition to the ICC. First,its jurisdiction is not based on the principle of voluntaryacceptance; furthermore, complementarity gives the ICC the powerto judge whether a state is able or willing to conduct propertrials of its own nationals. Secondly, also war crimes in internalarmed conflicts fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thirdly,crimes against humanity are prohibited in time of peace as well.Fourthly, the inclusion of the crime of aggression within thejurisdiction of the ICC weakens the power of the UN SecurityCouncil. Fifthly, the proprio motu power of the Prosecutor maymake the ICC open to political influence. The authors try toshow how all these objections can be legally met and set fortha series of considerations that would make China's participationin the Court a welcome development in China's national and internationalinterests. They finally argue that the Chinese government shouldtake an open attitude, taking into consideration the Court'sactual performance, and should not, therefore, exclude the possibilityof acceding at an appropriate time to the ICC Statute.     

攻击联合国人员和有关人员犯罪的国际法控制

长期以来,国际社会一直致力于通过立法来惩治针对联合国人员和有关人员的恐怖袭击活动。1998年生效的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》将攻击联合国人员和有关人员的罪行纳入法院管辖范围。2003年《安理会第1502号决议》进一步完善了规约的规定,并要求各国也在国内立法惩处这类犯罪。     

The Implementation of the ICC Statute in Argentina

Argentina ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statutein November 2000 and adopted an Implementation Law in December2006. The Law introduces into domestic legislation the crimesfalling under ICC jurisdiction by means of renvoi to the Statute.Such procedure avoids the risk of a unilateral definition ofthe crimes. In addition, the Law provides for a range of penaltiesincluding incarceration. Regrettably penalties envisaging restitution,reparation or rehabilitation of the victim are not providedfor in the Law. In terms of cooperation with the ICC, the Lawestablishes mechanisms for an open and efficient relationshipwith the Court in case of arrests and surrender of persons,as well as requests for assistance and preliminary rulings.     

Reparations To Victims Before The International Criminal Court: Lessons From International Mass Claims Processes

The implementation of the rights of victims under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court presents momentous challenges to the Court. Given the nature of the crimes falling under the Court's jurisdiction, victims' reparation claims are often likely to number thousands, if not tens of thousands. Under the Statute, it is the Court's task to organize and determine the modalities of victims' participation in the reparation proceedings. The Court is well advised to closely examine the approaches and solutions developed by modern international and national mass claims programs that have faced similar challenges. The paper analyses in detail these challenges and outlines the options available to the Court. The authors are attorneys with Lalive, an international law firm based in Geneva, Switzerland. For further information see http://www.lalive.ch.     

国际刑事法院《罗马规约》犯罪构成要件刍议——以危害人类罪作为样本

尽管世界各国对于犯罪的规定各不相同,但其犯罪规定中所涵盖的成立犯罪的要件(犯罪要素)却大体相当.这种认识对象与内容的相通,正是国际犯罪概念和国际刑事司法审判活动及其机构产生的基础.国际刑事法院管辖的是整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪,具体包括四类:灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪.《罗马规约》对于犯罪构成要件的规定采用规约规定与《犯罪要件》细释相结合的方式,为在国际刑法领域实现法治化作出了有益的创新,开辟了国际刑事司法的新纪元.     

Protectors on trial? Prosecuting peacekeepers for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court

Allegations of criminal conduct have been made against UN peacekeeping personnel. While only a small number commit criminal offences, these personnel must be held accountable for their actions. Ensuring accountability is difficult due to jurisdictional issues, including in which jurisdiction (host state, sending state, or third state) to prosecute offenders. However, the possibility of the International Criminal Court exercising jurisdiction over peacekeeping personnel (civilian or military) has not really been considered. This article will examine the potential applicability of the substantive law of war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute to crimes committed by peacekeeping personnel.