To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Rome Statute.
Journal articles on the topic 'Rome Statute'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Rome Statute.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Huda, Nurul. "STATUS PENYELENGGARAAN PERADILAN HAM DI INDONESIA BERBASIS HUKUM INTERNASIONAL." Masalah-Masalah Hukum 44, no. 4 (October 28, 2015): 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.14710/mmh.44.4.2015.473-483.
Full textAbstract:
The era of respect for Human Rights (HAM) in Indonesia was marked by the issuance of regulatory/legal instruments both in the state constitutional amendment after amendment and legislation in the form of legislation include Act No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court which is substantially oriented the Rome Statute. Apparently, Act No. 26 of 2000 is a product of the criminal policy "compromise models" because on one hand there is a setting which adopted the Rome Statute and on the other hand found a variety of different conditions deviate and with the statute. Though International legal instruments is one of the sources of law are important to the national legal systemEra penghormatan terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) di Indonesia ditandai oleh disyahkannya regulasi / instrument hukum baik di dalam amandemen konstitusi negara maupun perundangan dalam bentuk undang-undang diantaranya adalah Undang-Undang nomor: 26 tahun 2000 tentang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia yang substansinya berkiblat pada Statuta Roma. Nampaknya UU nomor 26 tahun 2000 merupakan produk kebijakan criminal “model kompromi” sebab di satu sisi terdapat pengaturan yang mengadopsi pada Statuta Roma dan pada sisi lain ditemukan berbagai ketentuan yang menyimpang dan berbeda dengan statute tersebut. Padahal instrument hukum internasional merupakan salah satu sumber hukum yang penting bagi system hukum nasional
2
Robinson, Darryl. "Defining “Crimes Against Humanity” at the Rome Conference." American Journal of International Law 93, no. 1 (January 1999): 43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2997955.
Full textAbstract:
On July 17, 1998, the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome Conference) adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). One of the many significant provisions of the ICC statute is Article 7, which defines “crimes against humanity” for the purpose of the ICC. A significant difference between the definition in the ICC statute and the major precedents on crimes against humanity is that the former definition was not imposed by victors (as were those in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters) or by the Security Council (as were those in the Statutes of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals). In contrast, Article 7 was developed through multilateral negotiations involving 160 states. For this reason, one could reasonably expect Article 7 to be more detailed than previous definitions, given the interest of participating states in knowing the precise contours of the corresponding obligations they would be undertaking. For the same reason, one might expect the definition to be more restrictive than previous definitions. Fortunately, although the definition in the ICC statute is more detailed than previous definitions, it generally seems to reflect most of the positive developments identified in recent authorities. For example, the definition does not require any nexus to armed conflict, does not require proof of a discriminatory motive, and recognizes the crime of apartheid and enforced disappearance as inhumane acts.
3
Nemane, Vivek V., and Indraneel D. Gunjal. "Article 124 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: ‘Transitional Provision’ or ‘The Right to (Convenient) Opt-out’." International Criminal Law Review 15, no. 5 (June 27, 2015): 949–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-01505004.
Full textAbstract:
Article 123 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides for a Review Conference to consider any amendments to the statute. Amendments proposed and forwarded by the Assembly of State Parties (asp) were considered during the first Review Conference held at Kampala in 2010. Out of the three potential amendments to the Rome Statute, a proposal to delete Article 124 of the Statute failed. This article evaluates the consistency between contents and objectives of the Rome Statute with reference to a dichotomy which has been emerged after the first Review Conference due to the retention of Article 124. The article questions the basis of the retention of Article 124, and argues that the ‘opt-out provision’ enshrined in Article 124 should be deleted from the Rome Statute during the fourteenth session of the asp in 2015.
4
Rehman, Naveed-ur, Amir Mahmood Chaudhry, and Farooq Umair Niazi. "Pakistan's Reservations on The Rome Statute: A Critical Analysis from Legal and Political Perspectives." Research Journal for Societal Issues 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2024): 592–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.56976/rjsi.v6i2.244.
Full textAbstract:
Pakistan has ratified seven out of nine significant international conventions on human rights. The country strongly supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court and voted in favour of the Rome Statute. However, the country has not ratified the Rome Statute and has expressed its reservations, which inter alia, include more immunity for the head of state, jurisdictional triggers initiated by the UN Security Council, and the doctrine of command responsibility. These reservations are considered a compromise on the state's sovereignty and jurisdiction. This article critically analyzes the reasons why Pakistan did not ratify the Rome Statute. The article further explores the country’s legislative framework embedded in the Constitution that enables it to ratify international treaties, the role of the Parliament, and the Ratification of International Treaties Act, 2013, which formalizes the procedure and grounds for ratification or non-ratification of international treaties. This study also critically examines the political and legal implications of non-ratification of the Rome Statute. The ratification of the Rome Statute by Pakistan may significantly impact the country's good ties with other nations, military and government relations, the country’s GSP Plus status, and domestic legislation following Islamic injunctions. The result of this study suggests that the country must adopt a balanced approach to ratifying the Rome Statute while considering the crucial aspects of state sovereignty, and carefully considering the legal, political, and strategic perspectives involved in such ratification
5
Abdul Ghafur Hamid@ Khin Maung Sein. "INCORPORATING THE ROME STATUTE INTO NATIONAL LAW: LESSONS FOR MALAYSIA." IIUM Law Journal 31, no. 2 (December 11, 2023): 97–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v31i2.895.
Full textAbstract:
Although the former Malaysian government, due to political pressure, decided not to proceed with accession to the Rome Statute, this is not the end of the game. To join the Rome Statute had been in principle accepted by preceding governments and has been the ardent hope of the civil society. How to incorporate the Rome Statute into the Malaysian legal system has been deliberated among the Malaysian government (including the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Malaysian Parliamentarians, and civil society since a long time ago. As adopting the Rome Statute is in the best interest of humanity as a whole, the idea will definitely revive at any time in the future when the political climate is favourable. The objectives of the present paper, therefore, are to rebut the main objections against the Rome Statute and to identify the best way of incorporating the Rome Statute into the Malaysian law once Malaysia decides to accede to it. This is a doctrinal legal research supplemented by a comparative methodology, focusing on an analysis of key provisions of the Rome Statute and the Malaysian laws that could be affected, and a comparison between the practices of selected dualist and monist countries. The paper finds that Malaysia, as a dualist State, should opt for applying the single comprehensive enactment modality rather than the multiple one. It is in the best interest of Malaysia for clarity and effectiveness purposes. It concludes with recommendations for the proposed draft implementing legislation, together with suggestions for consequential amendments.
6
Satrio Purnomo, Anandy. "THE URGENCY TO INCLUDE GENDER AS PROTECTED GROUP UNDER THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE." Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 4, no. 1 (January 31, 2020): 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i1.344.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract
This research will discuss exigence to assign gender as protected groups in Genocide under Rome Statute which contains about gender (indeed third gender) selective mass killing. This research is inspired from the allegation of selective mass killing to gender in Nanjing, China, India, and Indonesia which begs protection from crime of genocide. This research method used is the juridical normative approach method. The research is conducted by analyzing the data gained from library studies and international conventions related to International Criminal Law. The specification of research is done by describing the related legislations associated with the legal theory and practice of implementing an object of research. The result of this research shows that the gender has similar characteristics exclusive groups as the protected groups under article 6 Rome Statute. What the result of that based on article 9 Rome Statute, amendment protected group is possible to do.
Keywords: Gender, Genocide, International Criminal Court
Abstrak
Penelitian ini akan membahas urgensi untuk menambahkan gender sebagai kelompok yang dilindungi dalam kejahatan genosida yang diatur di bawah ketentuan Statuta Roma terkait pembantaian berpreferensi gender (termasuk gender ketiga). Penelitian ini terinspirasi dari adanya dugaan pembantaian selektif gender di Nanking, Tiongkok, India, bahkan Indonesia yang membutuhkan perlindungan dari ketentuan genosida. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Penelitian dilakukan dengan menganalisis data yang diperoleh dari studi kepustakaan dan studi peraturan konvensi internasional yang berkaitan dengan Hukum Pidana Internasional. Penelitian menggunakan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis yaitu menggambarkan peraturan yang dikaitkan dengan teori hukum dan praktek pelaksanaan suatu objek penelitian. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukan bahwa gender memiliki karakteristik yang sama dengan kelompok yang dilindungi dalam kejahatan genosida. Sehingga sesuai dengan Pasal 9 Statuta Roma amandemen terhadap kelompok yang dilindungi dalam kejahatan genosida dimungkinkan untuk dilakukan.
Kata Kunci: Gender, Genosida, Mahkamah Peradilan Pidana
7
Mohd Hassan, Fareed, and Mohd Hazmi Bin Mohd Rusli. "Malaysia and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." Brawijaya Law Journal 9, no. 1 (April 30, 2022): 76–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2022.009.01.06.
Full textAbstract:
Through its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has received support and opposition from many countries. Despite working toward universal ratification or accession to the Rome Statute, Signatories and State Parties to the Rome Statute have decided not to ratify and withdraw from being Member States due to, among other reasons, the issue of immunity and criminal responsibility of the Head of State, which are not in line with their respective Constitution, particularly by Malaysia. As such, this study analyzes the position of immunity of the Head of State as well as the criminal responsibility of a military commander under international law, particularly under the Rome Statute and the Malaysian Constitution. Based on doctrinal analysis, this study argues that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as the Malaysian Head of State and the Commander-in-Chief of the Malaysian Armed Forces, has immunity before the national court and, thus, will be highly exposed to ICC jurisdiction because the complementary principle under the Rome Statute cannot be implemented. This study concludes that being a part of the ICC Membership is untimely for Malaysia without the reconciliation of these contradictions.
8
Kahimba, Nicksoni Filbert, Cecilia Edward Ngaiza, and Boaz John Mabula. "Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes in Tanzania: The State of the Law." Eastern Africa Law Review 47, no. 2 (December 31, 2020): 106–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.56279/ealr.v47i2.4.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines Tanzania’s ability to domestically prosecute international crimes following its ratification of the Rome Statute. The Article also analyses the possibility of relying on the provisions of customary international law to prosecute these crimes in the absence of domestication of the Rome Statute. The article probes into the reasons for the non-domestication of the Statute, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the current legal framework to prosecute international crimes, and proffers a set of recommendations for the identified legal flaws. It finds that although Tanzania is a State Party to the Rome Statute, it has not yet domesticated the Statute. Despite the absence of a direct legal obligation to domesticate or nationally incorporate the provisions of the Rome Statute, the articles states that it is fundamental that Tanzania indicates its ability and willingness to prosecute international crimes within its domestic legal framework. While there are two approaches to prosecuting crimes of the Statute at the national level, this article has discussed the effectiveness of Tanzania’s legal framework to prosecute those crimes through the ordinary crimes approach. It contends that while some of the core crimes can be prosecuted domestically and through customary international law, the current domestic legal framework in Tanzania is incapable of prosecuting the Statute’s core crimes effectively in the absence of domestication or adoption of serious legal amendments in the relevant domestic legislation. Keywords: Customary International Law - International Crimes - International Crimes Approach - Ordinary Crimes Approach - Penal Code - Rome Statute
9
Piranio, Christopher J. "Introduction: reflections on the Rome Statute." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 307–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2011.617973.
Full text
10
Yury Roks. "ARMENIA REFUSES TO RATIFY ROME STATUTE." Current Digest of the Russian Press, The 75, no. 014 (April 9, 2023): 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.21557/dsp.85684672.
Full text
11
Jasmine Yogaswara, Aisyah. "IMPACT OF PHILIPPINES’ WITHDRAWAL FROM INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ON CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY INVESTIGATION IN PHILIPPINES." Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 4, no. 2 (April 12, 2021): 226–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.413.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract
Rodrigo Roa Duterte is the incumbent president of the Philippines who was inaugurated on June 30th 2016 and initiated the War on Drugs Operation to eradicate drug abuse in the Philippines one day after his inauguration. The operation gave authorization to the members of Philippines National Police to ‘neutralize’ or kill suspects of illegal drugs dealers and users. The operation also related to other crime such as rape, imprisonment, and torture. The crimes are committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population as therefore it can be qualified as crimes against humanity. Philippines’ status as a state party to Rome Statute gives ICC the chance to prosecute Philippines’ nationals if they committed crimes against humanity. However, after the ICC Prosecutor initiated preliminary examination on the related case, Philippines deposited its instrument of withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The purpose of this research is to find out the legal effect of Philippines withdrawal toward ICC’s process of preliminary examination, investigation, and trial, and whether ICC have any jurisdiction over crimes against humanity that is committed after Philippines’ withdrawal becomes effective.
Keywords: Crimes Against Humanity, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute
Abstrak
Rodrigo Roa Duterte menjabat menjadi Presiden Filipina pada tanggal 30 Juni 2016 dan memulai operasi pemberantasan narkotika yang disebut War on Drugs Operation sehari setelahnya. Operasi tersebut memberikan izin bagi Polisi Nasional Filipina untuk melakukan penembakan di tempat atas tersangka pengguna dan pengedar narkotika. Selain itu, terdapat kejahatan lain terkait operasi tersebut di antaranya pemerkosaan, penyiksaan dan penahanan tanpa proses hukum. Kejahatan-kejahatan tersebut dilakukan secara meluas, sistematis dan ditujukan pada populasi sipil yang menjadikannya dapat dikualifikasikan sebagai kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Status Filipina sebagai negara pihak dalam Statuta Roma menjadikan ICC memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadili warga negara Filipina yang melakukan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Namun, setelah Jaksa Penuntut ICC memulai pemeriksaan pendahuluan atas War on Drugs Operation, Filipina melakukan penarikan diri dari Statuta Roma. Tujuan dari penulisan tugas akhir ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaruh penarikan diri Filipina dari Statuta Roma terhadap pemeriksaan pendahuluan yang sedang dilakukan dan apakah ICC memiliki yurisdiksi atas kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan yang masih terjadi di Filipina pasca penarikan dirinya berlaku efektif.
Kata kunci: Kejahatan Terhadap Kemanusiaan, Mahkamah Pidana Internasional, Statuta Roma
12
Mohd Hassan, Fareed, and Noor Dzuhaidah Osman. "THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE HEADS OF STATE UNDER THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC) AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE AFRICAN AND U.S. PERSPECTIVES." Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law 7, no. 1 (2019): 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.v7i1.112.
Full textAbstract:
The United States (U.S.), a Signatory, but not a State Party to the Rome Statute, entered into various Bilateral Agreements (BIAs) with almost all State Parties to the Rome Statute prohibiting the arrest, surrender, or prosecution of the US Head of State before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Similarly, the African Union (AU) Members, being the majority State Parties to the Rome Statute have decided in the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government not to cooperate with the ICC and to grant immunity to African Heads of State after the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued two arrest warrants against the Sudanese President for allegedly committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This paper examines the tension between States’ obligations under the Rome Statute to prosecute, surrender and arrest a head of State, including when referred to by the UN Security Council on the one hand, and the AU decision, the U.S. BIAs and customary international law which grants immunity to a sitting head of State from criminal prosecution by either an international or a foreign court on the other hand. It argues that States are bound by the obligations enshrined under the Rome Statute and both the AU decision and the BIAs are inconsistent with the duty of states to uphold jus cogens norms including those proscribed under the Rome Statute
13
Dauster, Manferd. "Post-Mortem Protection of Human Dignity." Bratislava Law Review 4, no. 1 (August 31, 2020): 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.46282/blr.2020.4.1.154.
Full textAbstract:
After a long development, Rome Statute represents a codification of customary international humanitarian law. Despite of her own national history with respect to war crimes, Germany finally promotes prosecution of offences against crimes as set forth by the Rome Statute through national authorities based upon the German Criminal Code of Crimes against International Law which mirrors the Rome Statute. Desecration of dead adversaries has become outraging practice in armed conflicts of international and non-international character. The German Federal Supreme Court of Justice in its case law has stated the criminal illegality of such wrong-doing by not only referring to the Rome Statute, but either implementing international case law when it comes to desecration of corpses according to Section 8 paragraph 1 No 9 of the German Criminal Code of Crimes against International Law.
14
Garfunkel, Ianiv. "The Referral of the Situation in Venezuela to the International Criminal Court: The Office of the Prosecutor Should Not Step In… Yet." Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 12, no. 1 (May 31, 2021): 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10028.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract On 26 September 2018, six American States Parties to the Rome Statute referred the Situation in Venezuela to the Office of the Prosecutor (‘OTP’) of the International Criminal Court, regarding crimes against humanity. Those States rested on Article 14 of the Rome Statute to proceed. That referral – namely, crimes committed outside the territory of the referring State(s) – was the second of its kind received by the icc in its more than 15-year working history. The otp is currently considering the referral under the so-called ‘Preliminary Examination’ stage, wherein the admissibility test is likely to be addressed within the complementarity principle, according to Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Despite the duty to exercise their criminal jurisdiction, as the Preamble to the Rome Statue stipulates, and the fact that those six American States recognize some sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction, those States remained inactive. What should the otp do when six democracies, who are able to act, do not even try to launch an investigation for crimes they have expressed concerns about, without providing an explanation for their inactivity? This article will analyse how the otp should deal with this referral in terms of the complementarity principle, having regard to the positive approach to complementarity. Accordingly, it will be argued that the Prosecutor should refrain from intervening until those States attempt to act and/or, in case of legal or factual inability, justify the referral.
15
Hall, Ian, and Renée Jeffery. "India, the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court." Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 27, no. 3 (September 29, 2021): 460–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02703001.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Despite its long-standing rhetorical support for an international criminal justice regime, India continues to resist signing the 1998 Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. This article explores the reasons for this reluctance. It observes that during the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, India voiced multiple objections to the design of the ICC, to how it was to function, and to the crimes that it was to address. It argues that analyzing the negotiating strategy India employed during those talks allows us to discern which reasons mattered more to New Delhi and what accounts for India’s ongoing refusal to sign the Rome Statute.
16
Wulandari, Ria. "KEDUDUKAN BILATERAL IMPUNITY AGREEMENT (BIA)/NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT (NSA) TERHADAP STATUTA ROMA 1998." TANJUNGPURA LAW JOURNAL 2, no. 2 (February 11, 2020): 166. http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v2i2.25801.
Full textAbstract:
The Rome Statute asserts that the ICC has jurisdiction over people (natural person). This affirmation is contained in article 25 (2) stating that persons committing offenses materially included in the ICC jurisdiction shall enter into individual criminal liability. Another article on the non-recognition of impunity is found in the provisions of article 33 of the Rome Statute stating that a person committing crimes covered by the Rome Statute on the basis of superior orders can not escape from criminal responsibility. But the 1998 Rome Statute has weak rules in article 98 paragraph 2 concerning cooperation concerning the release of immunity rights and consent to submit to which the treaty was made because of an existing SOFA agreement prior to the 1998 Rome Statute. The absence of impunity in the Rome Statute of 1998 has provoked a strong reaction from the United States. According to US, this non-impunity provision threatens its citizens, especially US troops who serve as peacekeepers or military cooperation with allies in various parts of the world. Therefore the United States uses the provisions of article 98 paragraph 2 to hold a number of bilateral agreements with various states stating that no citizen shall be an officer or former official, or any military personnel of any party which may be transferred or transferred by another State to the International Criminal Court for any purpose. This agreement became known as the Bilateral Implementation Agreement (BIA). Another term for this agreement is the NonSurrender Agreement (NSA). The BIA / NSA Agreement then becomes contradictory to the objective of the Rome Statute 1998 on impunity repudiation. If the BIA / NSA agreement is justified it will complicate the existence of the International Criminal Court.
17
Kyrychko, Vasyl Mykolaiovych. "Implementation of the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Criminal Code of Ukraine: results and prospects." Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine 2, no. 22 (December 21, 2024): 1–52. https://doi.org/10.21564/2311-9640.2024.22.315947.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the results of the implementation of the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 8, 8 bis, 28, 29, 70 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the Rome Statute) to the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Such implementation was carried out in accordance with the Law of Ukraine No. 4012-IX of October 9, 2024. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) the provisions of Article 28 of the Statute on the criminal liability of commanders and other superiors were implemented to Article 31-1 of the Code in violation of the system of the Code; this may result in unnecessary restriction of rights; therefore, a new article with a different content is proposed for inclusion in Section XX of the Special Part of the Code; 2) the implementation of the provisions of Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression to Article 437 of the Code was supported, while maintaining in this article criminal liability for related criminal acts related to armed conflicts; 3) the implementation of the provisions of Article 8 of the Rome Statute on war crimes to Article 438 of the Code was only partially implemented; amendments to Article 438 of the Code were proposed for the full implementation of Article 8 and the extension of its effect to violations of laws and customs applicable in non-international armed conflicts; 4) the implementation of the provisions of Article 6 of the Rome Statute on genocide to Article 442 of the Code was carried out with shortcomings in the form of inconsistency of certain provisions of Article 442 of the Code with the provisions of Article 6 of the Rome Statute; 5) the provisions of Article 7 of the Rome Statute on crimes against humanity are implemented in the Code by including Article 442-1 “Crimes against humanity”, which is a positive result; a negative result is the presence in Article 442-1 of provisions that do not comply with Article 7 of the Rome Statute in their content; 6) the amendments to Articles 49 and 80 of the Code, which relate to the non-application of the statute of limitations (Article 29 of the Rome Statute), as well as the amendments to Article 384 of the Code, which relate to crimes against justice (Article 29, paragraph 4, subparagraph “a” of the Rome Statute), are supported; at the same time, the amendments to Article 376 of the Code, which relate to crimes against justice, are recognized as inapplicable; 7) critical remarks are made regarding the provisions of the new Part 2 of Article 8 of the Code (it concerns the effect of the law on criminal liability) due to the fact that its practical application may lead to problems in Ukraine's relations with other states; 8) doubts are expressed regarding the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine of the amendments made to Part 1 of Article 69 of the Code, which concern the imposition of punishment for international crimes. Proposed amendments to the Code in order to eliminate shortcomings in the implementation of the provisions of the Rome Statute and improve the system of the Code.
18
Špokauskas, Dovydas. "Su kariavimo priemonėmis susiję karo nusikaltimai: tarptautinės humanitarinės teisės ir tarptautinės baudžiamosios teisės santykio problemos." Teisė 75 (January 1, 2010): 111–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/teise.2010.0.233.
Full textAbstract:
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, ar Tarptautinio baudžiamojo teismo Romos statuto nuostatos visiškai perteikia kariavimo priemonių pasirinkimą reglamentuojančias tarptautinės humanitarinės teisės sutartines ir paprotines nuostatas. The analysis assesses whether the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court do not fully reflect the customary and treaty norms of international humanitarian law related to the choice of means of warfare.
19
Fərhad oğlu Qəyayev, Nihad. "International criminal court as an international judical body acting on a complementary basis." SCIENTIFIC WORK 15, no. 3 (March 24, 2021): 97–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.36719/2663-4619/64/97-101.
Full textAbstract:
The functioning of the International Criminal Court is carried out on the basis of the principle of complementarity. Thus, in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly states that “the International Criminal Court….complements the national criminal justice authorities”. The principle of complementarity is revealed in Art. 17-20 of the Statute. This article discusses the algorithm and the criteria for evaluating the performance of the complementarity based on the analysis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Statute), the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2000), the Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisations of 2016, the Policy Paper Preliminary Examinations of 2013. Key words: International Criminal Court, principle of complementarity, Rome Statute, international crime, state sovereignty, criminal law jurisdiction, international criminal law, principles of criminal procedure
20
Sang-Hyun, SONG. "Preventive Potential of the International Criminal Court." Asian Journal of International Law 3, no. 2 (May 13, 2013): 203–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2044251313000064.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article discusses the transition of international criminal justice from a predominantlyex post factopunitive concept of post World War II efforts—and thead hoctribunals set up in the 1990s—towards a more comprehensive concept of justice centred around the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute, with significant potential for the prevention of future atrocities. Four sources of preventive effect are examined: deterrence, timely intervention, stabilization, and norm setting. Significant challenges remain for the Rome Statute system, notably strengthening the principle of complementarity, enhancing the co-operation of states with the ICC, securing sufficient resources for international justice, and furthering universal acceptance of the Rome Statute, especially in the Asia-Pacific. The author argues that the ultimate value of the Rome Statute system lies in entrenching legal and social norms that will help human compassion prevail over cruelty.
21
Agung Tri Wicaksono, Achmad Arbi’ Nur Badrotin Jabbar, and AH. Fajruddin Fatwa. "Problematika ICC Dalam Menjatuhkan Sanksi Kepada Israel Dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional." JURNAL HUKUM, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL 3, no. 1 (December 21, 2023): 207–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.55606/jhpis.v3i1.3210.
Full textAbstract:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) or International Criminal Court is a court that is not under the United Nations (UN) and is independent and has jurisdiction to try a person/country suspected of committing serious human rights crimes such as war crimes, genocide and crimes. towards humans. However, in reality, the ICC seems to ignore acts of genocide and war crimes committed by Israel against Palestine on the pretext that Israel does not recognize the Rome Statute and is not a member of the ICC, so Israel cannot be subject to any sanctions from the ICC. The aim of this research is to examine and explore why the ICC seems to be ignoring Israel's actions, which should be under its jurisdiction. The method used in this research is juridical/normative legal research with the Roman Statute as the primary legal material. The findings of this research are that Israel should still be subject to sanctions by the ICC based on article 12 paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute which states that the ICC's jurisdiction also applies to non-ICC countries that commit crimes in the territory of countries that recognize the Rome Statute, in this case Palestine has ratified the Statute. Rome on April 1 2015. The implication of this research is that Israel can be tried by the ICC even though they have not ratified the Rome Statute.
22
Sujadmiko, Bayu, Desia Rakhma Banjarani, Rudi Natamiharja, and Desy Churul Aini. "Does International Criminal Court have Jurisdiction over the Destruction of Cultural Property by the Islamic State of Irac and Syria?" Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal) 10, no. 2 (July 30, 2021): 200. http://dx.doi.org/10.24843/jmhu.2021.v10.i02.p01.
Full textAbstract:
The cultural property becomes objects of destruction in armed conflicts, such as Syria and Iraq, which were carried out by ISIS squads (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). For ISIS’s actions, the ICC should judge ISIS. However, new problems will arise regarding the jurisdiction of the ICC to judge ISIS. Based on the explanation of this background, the question will arise: How are humanitarian law regulations related to protecting cultural property during armed conflict? And what is the regulation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the protection of cultural property in armed conflict by ISIS? The research in this article is normative legal research with the statue approach. According to humanitarian law, the research results show that the regulations relating to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are contained in the 1954 Hague Convention, Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1977. The destruction of cultural property carried out by ISIS is included in war crimes, one of the Rome Statute material jurisdictions. In this case, the Rome Statute applied by the ICC has juridical power to uphold justice and punish, including war crimes committed by ISIS. For the destruction of various cultural property in Iraq and Syria, ISIS can be judge by the ICC through a referral by the UN Security Council based on the provisions stipulated in the 1998 Rome Statute.
23
Freuden, Sarah. "Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute” (Int'l Crim. Ct.)." International Legal Materials 58, no. 1 (February 2019): 120–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2019.3.
Full textAbstract:
On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) issued its “Decision on the ‘Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute.’” The decision is notable both for the procedural posture—the Prosecution submitted its request prior to opening a preliminary examination—and the majority's conclusion that the Court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged deportation from Myanmar, a nonstate party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute or Statute), to a state party, Bangladesh.
24
Wong, Meagan S. "AGGRESSION AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 70, no. 4 (October 2021): 961–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589321000373.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe definition of the crime of aggression in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) stipulates that a State act of aggression is a material element of the crime, suggesting an intrinsic link between individual criminal responsibility and State responsibility for aggression. This article argues that the Rome Statute provides a legal basis for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to determine State responsibility for aggression when considering the material elements of the crime of aggression, which has important practical and conceptual implications for the law of international responsibility. Although the content of State responsibility flows automatically from the breach of the obligation, it is argued that a finding of aggression pursuant to Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute may be considered as a form of satisfaction for the purposes of Article 37 of the 2001 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001 ILC Articles). Furthermore, the material element of the crime in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute requires the act of aggression by its character, gravity, and scale to constitute a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in line with the nomenclature used within the 2001 ILC Articles regarding serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). The article considers the important role that the ICC may play in relation to serious breaches of the jus cogens obligation to refrain from an act of aggression.
25
Ssenyonjo, Manisuli. "African States Failed Withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: From Withdrawal Notifications to Constructive Engagement." International Criminal Law Review 17, no. 5 (October 15, 2017): 749–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-01705003.
Full textAbstract:
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 (au) welcomed and fully supported the three States’ withdrawal notifications and considered them as ‘pioneer implementers’ of the au’s ‘Withdrawal Strategy’, The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal before they became effective. This article examines three issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. It begins by examining the reasons as to why the three states submitted withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute. It then considers the impact of the three states’ withdrawal notifications. It concludes by identifying steps that might be taken to ensure constructive engagement between African States and the icc.
26
Arsanjani, Mahnoush H. "The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." American Journal of International Law 93, no. 1 (January 1999): 22–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2997954.
Full textAbstract:
The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) took place in Rome at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The participants numbered 160 states, thirty-three intergovernmental organizations and a coalition of 236 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The conference concluded by adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a nonrecorded vote of 120 in favor, 7 against and 21 abstentions. The United States elected to indicate publicly that it had voted against the statute. France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation supported the statute.
27
Triyana, Heribertus Jaka. "THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE ROME STATUTE IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW." Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada 25, no. 3 (March 31, 2014): 489. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16074.
Full textAbstract:
In practice, the application of the complementarity principle in the Rome Statute remains unclear, particularly with respect to the prioritization of national penal law jurisdiction. This paper willdiscuss the relevance of the complementarity principle to the development of a national criminal justice system and to the investigation and prosecution of the most serious crimes provided for in the Statute. It was concluded that the complementarity principle should be used to unravel the twisted development of the national criminal justice system in accordance with the provisions of international law. We need to establish our national criminal justice system as the main and foremost forum (hence, willing and able) in the process of investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes on earth. Dalam praktik, aplikasi Asas Pelengkap (the complementarity principle) dalam Statuta Roma masihbelum jelas, khususnya terkait dengan pengutamaan (prioritization) yurisdiksi hukum pidana nasional. Oleh karena itu, tulisan ini akan membahas relevansi asas tersebut terhadap pembangunan sistem hukum pidana nasional dan terhadap penyelidikan dan penuntutan kejahatan paling serius yang diatur dalam Statuta. Disimpulkan bahwa Asas Pelengkap harus Mahkamah digunakan sebagai pengurai benang kusutpembangunan sistem hukum pidana nasional Indonesia sesuai dengan ketentuan hukum internasional supaya menjadi forum utama (mau dan mampu) dalam proses penyelidikan dan penuntutan kejahatan paling serius di muka bumi.
28
Solomon, Solon. "Broadening International Criminal Jurisdiction?" International Human Rights Law Review 4, no. 1 (June 11, 2015): 53–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00401006.
Full textAbstract:
The interests of justice are embedded in Article 53 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). They give the Prosecutor the right to decline to initiate an investigation or suspend a prosecution. In these cases, the interests of justice act as a basis for the Prosecutor to refrain from any action. This article argues that due to their non-positivist character, the interests of justice could serve as the platform also of prosecutorial action, acting as the legal vehicle for a broad interpretation of the Rome Statute in the name of justice. Nevertheless, such broad, interests of justice-instigated interpretation, cannot but have positivism as its outmost limit. The Rome Statute is an international criminal law instrument and international criminal law is governed by the legality principle, which narrows any hermeneutical endeavors. Along these lines, this article examines the nexus between the expansive interpretational interests of justice function and its limits by referring to cases where the International Criminal Court (icc) was called to endorse or not a broad interpretation of notions included in the Rome Statute. The article examines cases arising from situations referred to the icc by States and by the un Security Council.
29
Rosenne, Shabtai. "The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court." Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2 (December 1999): 119–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1389135900000398.
Full textAbstract:
This article will review the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC) under the Rome Statute of 17 July 1998. Jurisdiction will be examinedratione personaeandratione materiae, including in each case its scoperatione temporis, concentrating on two separate aspects of jurisdiction as they appear in the Statute. These are jurisdiction to bring charges against an alleged offender and to bring that person to trial, and as a corollary, jurisdiction to detain or arrest an accused or suspected person. Given that it is early in the history of the Rome Statute, some consideration of other issues raised by the Statute is also necessary.
30
Smyrnov, M. "Prosecution for the most serious international crimes committed in Ukraine during the full-scale military invasion of the aggressor country: jurisdictional aspects." Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, no. 1 (May 29, 2023): 607–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.01.106.
Full textAbstract:
The conceptual issues, related to the construction of the system of international criminal justice, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and features of cooperation of Ukraine with the International Criminal Court, are examined in the article.
The main reasons for the delay in Ukraine's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are analyzed, and attention is drawn to the inconsistent and contradictory position of Ukraine, which does not use the mechanisms of criminal prosecution for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression provided for by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Ukraine has signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and invites the latter to investigate crimes committed by the aggressor country in Ukraine, but does not fulfill its obligations, does not ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and does not recognize its jurisdiction (except for special jurisdiction).
The need to harmonize substantive and procedural law of Ukraine to the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is emphasized. The prospects, negative and legal consequences of Ukraine's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the context of a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine by an aggressor country, as well as European integration processes and the requirements of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union are studied. The thesis is proved that Ukraine's non-ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court may affect the possibility of bringing the aggressor country to justice, despite the fact that Ukraine used a special procedure of recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The main aspects of the activity and jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court were considered. Attention is drawn to the fact that Ukraine's relations with the International Criminal Court are based on the principle of complementarity of jurisdictions. The essence, significance and advantages of Ukraine's cooperation with the International Criminal Court, as well as the possibility of bringing the aggressor country to justice for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, have been studied. Based on the results of such a study, it was concluded that the recognition of the jurisdiction of the ICC (not only the special jurisdiction due to Clause 3 of Article 12 of the Rome Statute) for Ukraine is a priority and indispensable component of its European path of development and a real opportunity at the international level to prosecute top officials of the aggressor country for crimes committed in Ukraine.
The ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides additional opportunities for the national judiciary, will lead to the strengthening of the rule of law and, thanks to access to the International Criminal Court, will allow the aggressor country to be held accountable for crimes committed during a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine.
31
Chadimova, Michala. "Development of Superior Responsibility at the ECCC." International and Comparative Law Review 18, no. 2 (December 1, 2018): 170–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0044.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article aims to describe the development process of superior responsibility doctrine at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Superior responsibility is contained in all Statutes of ad hoc tribunals and also the Rome Statute. However, the case of ECCC is distinctive for its special structure and applicable law. As such, the ECCC is being often called ‘hybrid’, court. This Article aims to analyse travaux préparatoires to the ECCC Statute and ECCC Statute itself when it comes to superior responsibility. This analysis will be followed by the ECCC case law. In 2019, the closure of ECCC is anticipated. As such, the first complex analysis on superior responsibility and its applicability by the ECCC is appropriate and can be used as guidance for other already established or future hybrid tribunals. To some extent, the findings can also be used for the application of superior responsibility by the ICC.
32
RELVA, HUGO. "The Implementation of the Rome Statute in Latin American States." Leiden Journal of International Law 16, no. 2 (June 2003): 331–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156503001171.
Full textAbstract:
The implementation of the provisions of treaties and conventions is a duty arising from conventional and customary international law. In the case of the Rome Statute this duty is implied, since only by fulfilling it will states be able properly to comply with the obligation of complementarity. Moreover, the entire Statute is based on the assumption that states parties will in most cases be able and willing to investigate and prosecute crimes. Implementing the Rome Statute in Latin America is complicated by gaps existing in domestic legislation and the special characteristics of the legislation of civil law states.
33
MEISENBERG, Simon M. "Complying with Complementarity? The Cambodian Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." Asian Journal of International Law 5, no. 1 (April 8, 2014): 123–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2044251314000010.
Full textAbstract:
Learning from past atrocities, Cambodia has taken positive steps to ensure that future international crimes may be adequately prosecuted through its ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. However, an effective accountability mechanism and deterrence for any future crimes requires more than simply joining the ICC. There is a growing consensus that Member States should adopt the ICC crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as part of their domestic law, as the absence of legislation may result in an inability to prosecute under the principle of complementarity. Cambodia has followed this trend and enacted implementing legislation into its new 2009 Cambodian Criminal Code (CCC). Scrutinizing the enacted international crimes provisions in the CCC, it becomes apparent that some modifications and reform to the current Cambodian criminal statutes are necessary in order to comply with the complementarity principle in the ICC Statute.
34
Asgarkhany, Abu Mohammad, Iraj Goldouzian, and Behzad Dorraj. "Consequences, Necessities and Advantages of Iran’ Accession to the Statute of International Criminal Court." Journal of Politics and Law 9, no. 6 (July 31, 2016): 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v9n6p219.
Full textAbstract:
The existing conflicts between approval of Rome Statute by Islamic Consultative Assembly along with joining the International Criminal Court and national interests and some of Islamic laws and regulations, has always been a controversial issue among scholars of law community of Iran because of the establishment of International Criminal Court and signed the Rome Statute by Islamic Republic of Iran. Many believe that accession to the International Criminal Court and its approval by parliament is inconsistent with national interests and sovereignty and also would bring negative consequences to the country. Contrary to this view, it is believed that provisions of the Rome Statute are not inconsistent with Islamic and domestic regulations and this accession can bring positive outcomes and international interests to Iran. In this way, national power and sovereignty of country would be reinforced at international level. The present study has investigated positive consequences and advantages of Iran’s accession to the Rome Statute.
35
Birkett, Daley J. "Twenty Years of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Appraising the State of National Implementing Legislation in Asia." Chinese Journal of International Law 18, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 353–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmz014.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The International Criminal Court relies on its State Parties to incorporate, or implement, its constituent instrument, the Rome Statute, into their domestic legal systems to enable its effective functioning. First, State Parties are obliged to give effect to their explicit obligation to cooperate with the Court under the Rome Statute. Second, although not required to do so, to avoid their national legal systems being found by the Court to be unable to investigate and/or prosecute the crimes under its jurisdiction in accordance with the principle of complementarity, they should also implement the definition and prohibition of these offences in their national legal frameworks. This article appraises the status of the domestic implementation of the Rome Statute, both crimes and cooperation, in Asia. The article concludes that few Asian State Parties to the Rome Statute have incorporated the treaty’s provisions into their domestic laws in a holistic manner, with the absence of cooperation legislation, enabling State Parties to assist the Court, particularly striking.
36
Miftahuddini Ashar, Nimas Masrullail. "Hukum Internasional tentang Genosida dalam Perspektif Fikih Dauly." al-Daulah: Jurnal Hukum dan Perundangan Islam 4, no. 01 (April 1, 2014): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.15642/ad.2014.4.01.1-24.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: This article discusses about the genocide in international law on the dauliy jurisprudence perspective. International law governs the genocide crime in the Rome Statute which is applied for the state parties. The Rome Statute becomes the basis for the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is responsible for handling the case of genocide and other cases listed in the Rome Statute. Based on article 77 of the Rome Statute, genocide perpetrator will be liable to imprison of not more than 30 years, or a lifetime (under certain condition). In addition, the offender will be liable to fine and confiscation. Based on this, international law governing the genocide can be quite fair because there is no difference in the position of judge and imposing sanction, but when it is viewed from the dauliy jurisprudence perspective, sanction given to the perpetrator of genocide is considered not to be commensurate with the conducted crime.Keywords: Dauliy Jurisprudence, Genocide, International Law
37
Pocar, Fausto. "Transformation of Customary Law Through ICC Practice." AJIL Unbound 112 (2018): 182–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.55.
Full textAbstract:
Article 21 of the Rome Statute, in defining the applicable sources of law for the International Criminal Court (ICC), breaks with the practice of the ad hoc tribunals by treating customary international law as only a secondary authority. Nonetheless, customary international law still has an acknowledged role in ICC jurisprudence in filling lacunae in the Rome Statute and aiding in its interpretation. One can also predict other instances in which the application of customary international law will be required. It remains to be seen, however, whether the ICC's use of customary law will lead to that law's further fragmentation or whether that use will instead modify customary law to reflect the ICC Statute.
38
Nuridzhanian, Gaiane. "Ne Bis In Idem in Article 20(3) of the Rome Statute and Non-State Courts." Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 18, no. 2 (November 19, 2019): 219–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341401.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Article 20(3) of the Rome Statute bars the International Criminal Court from trying a person for conduct proscribed by the Statute if the person has already been tried in relation to the same conduct before “another court,” provided that the proceedings in the other court were genuine. The article discusses application of Article 20(3) of the Rome Statute and, by implication, of the Court’s admissibility framework to non-State courts. It argues that Article 20(3) applies where there has a been a trial before a court of a State, whether that State is a party or not to the Rome Statute. Article 20(3) can in principle apply to a trial before a non-State court were the trial to satisfy the customary international law rules on attribution of conduct to a State.
39
Worboys, Jonathan P. "Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Int'l Crim. Ct.)." International Legal Materials 59, no. 2 (April 2020): 280–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2020.18.
Full textAbstract:
On April 12, 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) refusing to authorize an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the Decision).
40
Hamid, Abdul Ghafur, Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal, Muhannad Munir Lallmahamood, and Areej Torla. "SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE ROME STATUTE AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY: AN APPRAISAL." IIUM Law Journal 29, no. 2 (December 23, 2021): 115–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.670.
Full textAbstract:
The doctrine of superior responsibility has been embedded in Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which enunciates the responsibility of both military commanders and civilian superiors. Although constitutional monarchs are civilians entrusted with the position of commanders in chief, there are States that opposed accession to the Rome Statute on the simple ground that their respective monarchs could be indicted and punished under the Rome Statute. The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to examine whether constitutional monarchs could be responsible under the doctrine of superior responsibility. The paper focuses on the analysis of the elements of superior responsibility by referring to the authoritative commentaries of Article 28 and constitutional practices of three selected constitutional monarchies: the United Kingdom, Japan, and Malaysia. The paper finds that constitutional monarchs could not be held responsible because they have to act on the advice of the government and do not possess the effective and operational control over the armed forces as required under the Rome statute.
41
Ashri, Abdul Munif, and Hans Giovanny. "PENGHILANGAN PAKSA SEBAGAI KEJAHATAN TERHADAP KEMANUSIAAN (TELAAH PUTUSAN PRA-PERADILAN III ICC ATAS SITUASI BURUNDI)." Arena Hukum 16, no. 02 (August 31, 2023): 396–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2023.01602.9.
Full textAbstract:
Enforced disappearance could be qualified as a crime against humanity. However, international human rights law (IHRL) and international criminal law (ICL), have different definitions of enforced disappearance. It can be reviewed by the different formulations between the ‘ICPPED’ and the Rome Statute of the ‘ICC’. Rome Statute adds several elements to the enforced disappearance definition, such as ‘specific intent’ by the individual perpetrators, ‘temporal element’, and ‘political organization’ as potential actors. And the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) III Decision on ‘Burundi Situation’ (2017) could be a significant reference. By the doctrinal research through statute and conceptual approach, this article concludes that the PTC III Decision reflects the very close relationship between those two different branches of law, as PTC III still refers to IHRL instruments to fill the legal gap in the interpretation of enforced disappearance within the Rome Statute.
42
Chen, Ruiqing. "Reasonableness of ICC Judgment of the Bashir Case from the International Status, Clause Conflicts and Scope of Application." Communications in Humanities Research 14, no. 1 (November 20, 2023): 9–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/14/20230392.
Full textAbstract:
This article addresses the International Criminal Court ruling in the Bashir case from the perspectives of the International Criminal Courts position following the United Nations Security Councils referral of the case, and the conflict between Articles 27 and 98, which in the Rome Statute, and the rationale of Article 27s scope of applicability. The immunity ratione personae can be divided in to two parts: Rome Statute and customary international law, which are the principal sources. Sudan is not the contracting party of the Rome Statute, and the Rome Statute only applies to signatories. This essay first contends that the position of the International Criminal Court in the Bashir case has not altered toward a vertical connection after the United Nations Security Council transferred the case. Second, the field of applicability of Article 98 should be broadened, and Article 27s effective time should not be restricted to the appeals phase. Third, the International Criminal Court cannot demonstrate that there is an existing case in which the immunity of in-service leaders of state has been revoked in international customary law. In the end, this article contends that the International Criminal Courts ruling of the Bashir case is irrational and insufficiently supported by the facts. Sudan is a third country to the Rome Statute, had its rights violated by the International Criminal Courts explanation of Article 27.
43
PAOLO REALE, Ezechia. "Chronicles from Kampala amending the Rome statute." Revue internationale de droit pénal 82, no. 1 (2011): 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/ridp.821.0253.
Full text
44
Schabas, William A. "Canadian Implementing Legislation for the Rome Statute." Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 3 (December 2000): 337–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1389135900000684.
Full textAbstract:
Canada has been very much at the centre of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the momentum shifted in late-1994 from the International Law Commission (ILC) to more broadly representative bodies established by the General Assembly. It was Canada that chaired the ‘like-minded’, a group of states active during the several sessions of the Preparatory Committee and during the Diplomatic Conference in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998. The ‘like-minded’ were committed to invigorating the ILC's draft statute by enhancing the independence of the Prosecutor and trimming the sails of the Security Council. At Rome, Canadian diplomat Philippe Kirsch was elected chair of the Committee of the Whole, and he directed the intense negotiations throughout the five-week session. Kirsch crafted the final package of compromises that was submitted to the Conference at its close, on the morning of 17 July, and that succeeded in rallying the vast majority of delegations when put to a vote later that day. Since then, Kirsch and his team have presided over the ongoing work of the Preparatory Commission.
45
Heinze, Alexander. "The 20th Anniversary of the Rome Statute." Criminal Law Forum 30, no. 1 (November 24, 2018): 109–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10609-018-9361-z.
Full text
46
Khan, Mazhar Ali. "Pakistan’s Commitment to Human Rights: A Probe into the Question of Ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court." Review of Human Rights 5, no. 1 (December 15, 2020): 55–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.35994/rhr.v5i1.133.
Full textAbstract:
The question of ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court is one of the most debated questions in public international law. Because it involves strict commitment to human rights many states often see it as a hurdle to their national interests. Nevertheless a number of states have ratified the statute except a few. Pakistan is one of those states that have not ratified the Rome Statute even though it has been a party to various other treaties on human rights. This article focuses on the question why Pakistan did not ratify the statute? The article also provides recommendations how the ratification can be made possible.
47
Hamid, Abdul Ghafur. "MALAYSIA AND THE ROME STATUTE: THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY." IIUM Law Journal 27, no. 2 (December 18, 2019): 279–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v27i2.509.
Full textAbstract:
The announcement of Malaysia’s accession to the Rome Statute on March 4, 2019 was met with strong objection by the opposition and some stakeholders. One of the main arguments made by those who opposed the Rome Statute was that “it will, in the end, destroy national sovereignty.” Although the argument appears to be political rhetoric, it has already injected confusion among the general public and painted a dark picture that the Rome Statute is a hegemonic law that will rob Malaysia of its sovereignty. The main purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to set the record straight and to prove the simple fact that entering into a treaty is in fact a clear exercise of a State’s sovereignty and not to lose sovereignty. Firstly, the paper reappraises the concept of sovereignty: in its original form and its evolution from 16th century to 21st century, on the basis of State practice, doctrine and judicial pronouncements. Secondly, arguments against the Rome Statute made by some powerful States are analysed and rebutted. Thirdly, Malaysia’s situation is objectively evaluated in the light of a comparison between the Rome Statute and other onerous treaties to which Malaysia has already been a party. The paper concludes with the findings that States with their own free will restrict their sovereignty to subject themselves to international law and that Malaysia by no means will lose its sovereignty by acceding to a treaty. Most importantly the Government must prioritize the need to convince the people that it is the right thing to do – it is beneficial to the people of Malaysia or it can achieve the higher aim of protecting humanity.
48
Rakhmawati, Neni. "International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Against Human Rights Violations by Philippine President After Withdrawal from Rome Statute." Semarang State University Undergraduate Law and Society Review 3, no. 1 (January 20, 2023): 91–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/lsr.v3i1.57091.
Full textAbstract:
Rodrigo Duterte who has ordered the police to execute drug addicts who do not want to be arrested. However, the assailant was still shot despite surrendering to arrest, the police on behalf of the anti-drug unit went to people's homes and did so because of the policy of "who gets killed, the police get paid". The crime that has been committed by Rodrigo Duterte under ICC jurisdiction is giving orders. to the police and the public to carry out extrajudicial killings of individuals involved in narcotics and to protect those who carry out their orders, so that Rodrigo Duterte is judged guilty and responsible in accordance with Article 25 paragraph 3 (b), (c), (d) the Rome Statute Crimes against humanity are among the criminal jurisdictions of the ICC. Although the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, it did not prevent the International Criminal Court (ICC) from reviewing the case involving Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. The Rome Statute provides for withdrawals, in particular article 127 , paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1998 Rome Statute.
49
Taak, Sangeeta. "The United States reluctance to join the international criminal law statute: an analysis." Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal 8, no. 5 (October 21, 2020): 182–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2020.08.00326.
Full textAbstract:
The International Criminal Court statute (ICC statute hereinafter) is a treaty based and its jurisdiction is applicable on those states who signs and ratifies the statute. In order to explain the working of the International Criminal Court, it is necessary to define the jurisdiction to which it is applicable. Although the model of the International Court of Justice was available, yet no one had ever tried to create a court with such a wider scope and application. The Predecessor examples of the Nuremberg Tribunals, International Criminal Tribunal Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) etc. had territorial jurisdiction in nature. It means that the ICTR had the jurisdiction over those crimes only which were committed by the Rwandan nationals in the neighboring countries.1 The only distinguished feature of ICC statute from its predecessors is that the Jurisdiction of ICC is consent based. The states who signs and ratifies it shall be subject to its jurisdiction. As in the words of W. Chadwick Austin and Antony Barone Kolenc, “These are the fundamentals of the court’s jurisdiction that individual states are entitled to exercise with respect to the same crimes. Moreover, the drafters of the Rome Statute sought to limit the ability of the court to try cases over which it has, at least in theory, jurisdiction. Only when the domestic justice system is unwilling or is unable to prosecute, can the International Criminal Court take over. This is what the Statute refers to as admissibility”.2 Not every case is admissible even if it has jurisdiction. Moreover, ICC is getting support from its member states. Unlike other global courts, ICC has less limitation for enforcement. In foreign courts, which rely on universal jurisdiction laws are limited by their lack of international support and political influence to enforce their decisions.3 If we compare the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it has limited enforcement power. The support and cooperation of U.S Domestic courts make it convenient to enforce the jurisdiction and power to carry out their decisions.4 On the other hand, in case of ICC, it is independent institution from the U.S. did not ratify the ICC statute. In this case it is a challenge before ICC to gain universal jurisdiction of the court and to enforce the decision of the court. To make this court universal in nature, it is necessary to make the jurisdiction of the court fair and suspicion free in the provisions of the Rome Statute. It is also important to make the countries liable who are not party to it but they have committed a crime under the ICC Statute.5 One of the most important arguments is as to who can trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC. In this article I shall be focusing on the argument of U.S for not signing the ICC. I shall be analyzing the practical reasons for not signing the ICC Statute and the arguments advanced by the U.S. The analysis of the non-state parties is also explained to make it clear that why states are still reluctant to sign the Rome statute. India, U.S and China have major objections for signing the Rome Statue. In this paper I shall be explaining the objection of United States in joining the ICC.
50
Ventura, Manuel J. "Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir." American Journal of International Law 111, no. 4 (October 2017): 1007–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.95.
Full textAbstract:
On July 6, 2017, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (the Court or ICC)—composed of Judges Tarfusser, Perrin de Brichambaut, and Chung—held that South Africa violated the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) by failing to arrest and surrender to the Court President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan when he visited the country in June 2015. However, the Court did not refer the matter to the ICC Assembly of States Parties (ASP) or the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute. The decision added South Africa to a list of ICC state parties that have failed in their Rome Statute obligations with respect to the incumbent head of state of Sudan. It also marked the first time that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), all ICC states parties, and the United Nations (UN) were invited to present their views and argue fully what is perhaps the most legally contentious and politically sensitive issue that the ICC has faced in its history.