Abstract
This article scrutinizes the prevailing jurisdictional principles of international criminal law and identifies the most feasible once which would assist the International Criminal Court in achieving its core objectives. In so doing in-depth investigations of the contemporary constitutional and criminal legislations of Ethiopia in tandem with international laws has been made. The article argues that the Principle of Complementarity has the possible way outs for the pitfalls of the other competing maxims by giving deference to national-level prosecutions under most circumstances.
Highlights
The principle of complementarity is among the grand governing maxims upon which international criminal court operates
Insofar as the one sovereign State has jurisdiction to preside over a crime which has committed in its territory, it excludes other States from adjudicating the matter or if other States have already presided over the case based on the principle of subsidiary jurisdiction, the principle of primacy jurisdiction does not preclude the State with primacy jurisdiction from presiding on the case irrespective of the principle of ne bis in idem even though the nature and com
According to Article 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15(2) of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Criminal Code, Ethiopian Courts shall have primacy jurisdiction when the crime has been committed on Ethiopian territory, crimes committed against Ethiopia outside its territory, crimes committed abroad by an
Summary
The principle of complementarity is among the grand governing maxims upon which international criminal court operates. The principle of Concurrence Jurisdiction presupposes the existence of two Courts which are presiding over the same case most probably at the same time. The reason for concurrent jurisdiction is a moral proposition. As a result in addition to national adjudications of the crime, it should be condemned by an international entity. Concurrent jurisdiction has complex shortcomings such as problems in the distribution of suspects. To overcome the aforementioned pitfalls, complementary jurisdiction which represents the idea that states, rather than the International Criminal Court, shall have priority in proceeding with cases within their jurisdiction came up with the possible way outs by giving deference to national-level prosecutions under most circumstances
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
