South Africa's Implementation of the ICC Statute: An African Example

In this article, the author analyses the most important provisionsof South Africa's Implementation of the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court Act, 2002. In particular, attentionis given to the complex complementary scheme that is establishedunder the Act, including the jurisdictional bases under theAct for South African prosecution of war crimes, crimes againsthumanity and genocide; the substantive law that applies to anyprosecution of an ICC crime undertaken on South African soilpursuant to the Act; and the procedure to be followed in respectof such a prosecution. Other topics examined include the problemof immunities and amnesties in the South African context, andthe mechanisms devised by the Act to ensure South Africa's cooperationwith the ICC in respect of any investigation or prosecutionundertaken by the Court. The author concludes that the implementationAct is likely to serve as a meaningful example for other AfricanStates Parties in their efforts to domestically give effectto their obligations under the Rome Statute.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Iraq and the case for Australian war crimes trials

This article presents the case for Australian war crimes trials, following Australian participation in the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deaths of as many as a million Iraqi civilians. It focuses on jus in bello (war crimes) rather than jus ad bellum (just war). The article sets out the argument and rationale that Australian war crimes trials are needed. Having established the necessity, the article identifies two of the principal alleged atrocities for which Australian officials should be held criminally accountable. It details Australian military support for the use of cluster bombs against civilians during the 2003 invasion, and senior Australian military commanders’ responsibility for planning and carrying out multiple purported war crimes during the attack on Fallujah in late 2004. The article recognises that, in order for Australian officials to be prosecuted under the International Criminal Court (ICC), all domestic remedies must be first exhausted. It therefore specifically addresses which Australian laws can be used, with particular emphasis on anti-terrorist legislation passed in 2002 under the Howard Government and the introduction into Australia’s domestic federal criminal legislation offences equivalent to the ICC Statute offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These provide the most applicable legal tools for prosecuting senior Australian officials for war crimes in Iraq.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Recharacterizing the Lubanga Case: Regulation 55 and the Consequences for Gender Justice at the ICC

The omission of charges related to sexual violence in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was controversial and disappointing from a gender perspective, given the prevalence of sexual violence in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the expectations on the ICC as a gender progressive institution. In 2009, in an attempt to remedy this omission, victim advocates successfully argued that the Trial Chamber should utilize the process under Regulation 55 of the Court to consider legally recharacterizing the charges against Lubanga to include charges of sexual slavery and cruel and inhuman treatment. The decision was later reversed on appeal and the possibility of legal recharacterization dismissed. This article analyzes the Court’s decisions in relation to recharacterization in the Lubanga case, and the negative implications of the approach adopted for gender justice at the ICC. The article advances an alternative, gender-sensitive approach to recharacterization under Regulation 55 of the Court that would have supported the possibility of legal recharacterization to the crime of sexual slavery in Lubanga and which would facilitate the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence in future cases before the ICC.     

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。     

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     

国际刑事法院管辖权探究——以利比亚情势为视角

在利比亚战争期间,国际刑事法院对卡扎菲等人发出逮捕令,对卡扎菲政权的灭亡以及被追捕的有关人的生命、自由产生巨大影响。利比亚战争虽然已经结束,但国际刑事法院的各项诉讼活动仍在进行。通过利比亚战争期间国际刑事法院的一系列活动,可以看出国际刑事法院的管辖权依据、行使的方式和结构,同时也证明了国际刑事法院在处理重大国际事件,特别是国际罪行中的重要性、权威性、公正性和独立性。     

国际刑事法院检察官的地位与功能研究

被赋予国际刑事案件调查、起诉权的检察官 ,在国际刑事法院运作程序中是最活跃最积极的因素 ,对于国际刑事犯罪的惩治起着关键性作用。其组织和功能上的特点是 :审检合署的机构设置 ;“检警一体”的功能结构 ;在检察事务和内部管理上实行“检察长负责制” ;受刑事预审法庭的司法审查等。但在检察官行使职权时 ,存在与相关国家主权协调 ,克服直接调查取证可能遇到的障碍 ,以及合理对待国际政治因素对刑事检控的影响等问题     

The Court-martial of Corporal Payne and Others and the Future Landscape of International Criminal Justice

The court-martial of Corporal Payne and others involved thefirst charges brought under the International Criminal Court(ICC) Act in the United Kingdom, and led to the first Britishsoldier ever to be convicted for a war crime under internationallaw. But the significance of the case extends far beyond itsnational implications; it represents an important illustrationof the national-level accountability heralded by the ICC regime.This article critically examines the court-martial of CorporalPayne and others, and uses this analysis as the basis of a broaderexploration of the contrast between domestic courts-martialand international courts as fora for trying international crimes.The final part of the article explores the potential significanceof that dichotomy for the future landscape of internationalcriminal justice.     

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     

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.     

International Recognition of Victims' Rights

Since its inception, the United Nations has adopted two GeneralAssembly resolutions dealing with the rights of victims: the1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victimsof Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2006 Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law. The focus of theformer was on victims of domestic crimes, while that of thelatter is on victims of international crimes; more particularly,gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law. The 2006 Principlesare, for all practical purposes, an international bill of rightsof victims. Their adoption has been hard-fought, but their implementationboth at the national and international levels is sure to stillface many obstacles. Parallel to this historic development havebeen decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as provisionsin the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), givingstanding to victims in ICC proceedings, but also certain rightsof compensation. These parallel developments, as well as otherswithin domestic legal systems, evidence a wide movement towardsthe recognition of the rights of victims of crime, whether domesticor international, or gross violations of human rights. Thisarticle re-traces the historic origin of victims' rights indomestic and international legal systems, focusing particularlyon the adoption of the two international instruments mentionedabove, and more particularly on the negotiating history of the2006 Principles. A detailed commentary of these Principles constitutesthe centerpiece of this article.     

The International Criminal Court and United States opposition

While the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been touted as the most fundamental development in international society to date, there has been relatively little criminological research examining the potential influence of the ICC. Additionally, criminologists have neglected the United States' responses to the ICC. Our purpose is to fill that gap by examining the United States' role in the development of, and subsequent reactions to, the ICC. Moreover, we draw upon Chambliss' Structural Contradictions Model to explicate processes within the development of International Law, thereby expanding its utility. We begin with a brief discussion of the most contentious elements of the ICC for the United States, sovereignty and jurisdiction, followed by a review of the theoretical model utilized in our analysis. We then discuss the role of the United States in the development of the ICC followed by the proceeding actions taken against the Court. We suggest how US withdrawal and legislative undermining of the ICC not only reflects the US ambiguous relationship with international law but also reveals some of the inherent limitations placed on the ICC as an international institution of formal social control. We conclude with a criminological analysis of the Court's potential based on the existing Rome Statute and the recent efforts of the U.S. to thwart its efficacy.Dawn L Rothe is an Assistant Professor of Criminology at the University of Northern Iowa. She earned her Ph.D. in Sociology from Western Michigan University. Her main research interests focus on White-Collar-Crime (state and transnational crimes), international law and institutions of social control, and criminological theory. Her recent work has appeared in Critical Criminology and Social Justice, and is the author of the forthcoming book Symbolic Gestures and the Generation of Social Control: the International Criminal Court published by Lexington.Christopher W. Mullins is an Assistant Professor of Criminology in the department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology at the University of Northern Iowa. His research focuses on violence, especially interconnections between street culture, gender and street violence, as well as violence by corporations and nation-states. His work has appeared in Criminology, Critical Criminology, and Criminal Justice Review and is the author of two forthcoming books and several book chapters.