Dispute Settlement under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of the International Court of Justice

This paper examines the dispute settlement procedure establishedby Article 119 of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, with particular attention paid to whether that provisioncreates any relationship between the International CriminalCourt and the International Court of Justice. The paper firstdiscusses the jurisdictional reach of Article 119, detailingthe types of disputes addressed in its two subsections and themanner in which such disputes are to be handled. Secondly, itfocuses on the possibility of referral of disputes covered inArticle 119(2) to the International Court of Justice. Althoughthe provision expressly contemplates such a referral, it remainsunclear whether the provision adequately supports the jurisdictionof the International Court of Justice in accordance with theStatute of that Court. The paper goes on to suggest ways inwhich the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Partiescan take steps to improve the likelihood that such referralwould be deemed proper in order to enhance the possible andfinal settlement of disputes.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Beyond a “Victims’ Right”: Truth-Finding Power and Procedure at the ICC

The drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were presented with a unique opportunity to shape the future of victim participation in international criminal legal proceedings. They were also faced with a critical dilemma – how can the International Criminal Court promote the interests of victims while simultaneously protecting the accused’s fair trial rights? In many respects the final draft of the Rome Statute left the task of defining the parameters of these potentially competing interests to the Court. As a result, a body of case-law has emerged, highlighting textual ambiguities in the Rome Statute and giving rise to novel developments in sphere of victim participation. Amongst the most prominent of these developments is the recognition of the right of victims to introduce evidence at trial. However, viewing this procedure simply as a fixture of the International Criminal Court’s regime of victim participation masks its true significance and potential. This article explores the idea that the Court’s approach to the evidentiary procedure regulating victim participation has given birth to quasi-investigative powers that have the potential to dramatically reconfigure the future of international criminal litigation.     

The ICC and Russian Constitutional Problems

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (the ICC Statute)has not yet been submitted to the Russian parliamentary chambers,the Duma, and the Council of the Federation. However, an Inter-AgencyPanel led by the Ministry of Justice has been set up, with aview to drafting amendments to current Russian legislation andfacilitating Russia's cooperation with the ICC. Major problemsstanding in the way of Russia's ratification include certainprovisions of Russia's Constitution, which, for instance, donot provide for an international court substituting nationalcourts, and lay down the right to jury trial and the right toseek pardon. However, there are various ways of reconcilingthe Constitution with the ICC Statute. In short, there are noinsurmountable legal hurdles to harmonizing the Russian Constitutionand laws with the ICC Statute: the question of Russia's ratificationis mostly a question of political will.     

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.     

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the ICC

Like many states, Iran has an ambivalent position towards theStatute of the International Criminal Court (‘Statute’),ranging from enthusiastic support to open scepticism. On accountof its experience in the Iraq–Iran war, Iran is interestedin exploring the Court's jurisdiction over aggression and warcrimes; in addition, it sees the possible adoption of provisionson the crime of aggression as a tool against greater powers’domination. Major issues for Iran are, however, some of thepenalties provided for under Iranian criminal law, includingcapital punishment as well as whipping, stoning and the sectioningof limbs as well as the treatment of minorities and gender.Another problem may be the presence of non-Muslim Judges atthe Court, who, it is feared, may not be familiar with and sensitiveto Shari’a principles; in addition, under theologicalprinciples, Muslims may not be judged by non-Muslim Judges.This question paradoxically constitutes an incentive for Iranto consider ratification of the Statute. So far, Iran has signedbut not ratified the Statute. Studies are under way with a viewto presenting the Statute to Parliament for ratification. However,problems of conflict between some provisions of the Statuteand the principles of Shari’a law may arise if the Statuteis ratified.     

区块链纠纷的民事管辖权配置:法理创新与立法应对

区块链的自动性与透明性特性使其具有增强交易主体彼此之间信任的功能,在民商事领域内被广泛推广,由此触发了越来越多的区块链纠纷。当前流行以区块链社区自治作为解决此类纠纷的管辖手段,其理论依据是区块链初创者主张的"新主权主义"。该理论过于强调区块链社区管辖,从而排除司法的管辖。需要重新审视区块链社区管辖权与司法管辖权之间的辩证统一关系,实现司法管辖为主、社区自治为辅的和谐统一。基于区块链自身的特性,一般法院管辖中的"原告就被告"原则难以适用,专属法院管辖于法无据,应通过修改相关法律来解决这些难题,包括拓展原告所在地管辖原则的适用和增加新的管辖连接点,以及在条件成熟之际建立区块链法院,实现区块链纠纷的专属管辖。     

The Small-Case Procedure of the United States Tax Court: A Small Claims Court That Works

Professor Whitford finds that the small-case procedure of the United States Tax Court, unlike most other small claims courts, provides a meaningful avenue of redress for taxpayers contesting small amounts and appearing pro se. The success of this procedure is attributed to the unique dispute'posture" of the Tax Court petitioner and to the extensive resources assigned to the small-case procedure by both the Tax Court and the chief counsel to the IRS. This special Tax Court invention is not likely to be replicated in courts of more general jurisdiction. Lack of political support will prevent allocation of resources sufficient to make pro se litigation work. The expenditure of such resources in the Tax Court apparently reflects a felt need to legitimate the tax system by providing fair disputing procedures.     

India and the ICC

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute)would have been more acceptable to India if it had containedan opt-in provision whereby a state could accept the jurisdictionof the ICC by declaration (possibly for a specified period),and this might be limited to particular conduct or to conductcommitted during a particular period of time. The lack of sucha provision, and the inherent jurisdiction which replaced it,are perceived as representing a violation of the consent ofstates, and thus a threat to sovereignty. India's resistanceto accepting the inherent jurisdiction of the ICC is explained,in part, by anxieties about how investigation, prosecution andcriminal proceedings in the Indian system may be judged by aninternational court. The inclusion of ‘armed conflictnot of an international character’ in defining ‘warcrimes’ in Article 8 ICCSt. constitutes another reasonfor India's concern (that the conflicts that persist in Kashmir,the North-East and as was experienced in Punjab, as well asthe violence of more recent vintage in Gujarat, could be referredto the ICC). Further elements giving rise to India's misgivingsare the fear that the Court might be used with political motives,the power conferred on the Prosecutor to initiate investigationsproprio motu and the role allotted to the Security Council.     

Anti‐suit Injunctions and the Doctrine of Comity

Hin‐Pro International Logistics Limited v CSAV is an important case in the areas of anti‐suit injunctions, contractual interpretation and private international law. Despite the ambiguities surrounding the jurisdiction clause contained in the bills of lading, the Court of Appeal construed the jurisdiction clause as ‘exclusive’ in the context of a ‘contractual background’, and affirmed the continuation of the anti‐suit injunction granted by the Commercial Court. It is argued that the approach of applying the common law principles of contractual interpretation to a bill of lading is questionable. The approach used to apply English private international law is problematic in a number of ways. There are legitimate reasons for concern that the doctrine of comity in English private international law may become undermined as a result.     

Withdrawing life support from patients in a persistent vegetative state: the law in the Netherlands

This article sets out how a case like that of ms. Schiavo is likely to be decided in a Dutch court and compares that with the law in the United States. In the Netherlands there is one case with striking similarities: the decision of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 1989. After describing that case (which to a large extent still reflects the legal state of the art), comments are given on several aspects of the issue, such as the labelling of artifical feeding as a medical intervention, the role of the physician, the position of the proxy or surrogate, the ways to resolve dispute in case of conflict, and the significance of advance directives. The analysis will show that, although there is more consensus on the issue now than there was 16 years ago, there are still several questions that need to be addressed in the future.     

国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权关系论——《罗马规约》的妥协性规定评析

关于国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权的关系,《罗马规约》作出了妥协性的规定,二者的关系既表现为平等与协作,又反映出相互间的适度制约。这种妥协性的规定反映了国际社会现实,体现了国际刑事法院司法职能与安理会政治职能的相对分离和互动,具有现实合理性。     

On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the RomeStatute or the Statute) entered into force on 1 July 2002, withthe satisfaction of Article 126 of the Statute.¹ Up until 24 September 2004, 139 States have signed the Statuteand 97 States have become the Parties. Under such circumstances,China, as one of the permanent members of the Security Councilof the United Nations and a non-party State playing a greatrole in international affairs, needs to acquire a better understandingand also makes a detailed study on the Statute. One of the mostunique characters of the International Criminal Court (the ICCor the Court)—as reflected in the principle of complentarity—willbe discussed and analysed in the following essay.