International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Research Articles

All Roads Lead to Rome Combating Impunity for Perpetration of Slave Trade and Slavery Crimes

The Republic of Sierra Leone has proposed amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to include, inter alia, provisions for the slave trade as a crime against humanity and has recommended that the General Assembly include the slave trade as an enumerated crime in the Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (CAH) (Draft articles). This declaration came nearly five years after Cardozo's Benjamin B Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic, on behalf of slavery crimes expert Patricia Viseur Sellers, sent commentaries to the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) to revise in a similar fashion the Draft articles. The Rome Statute creates a wide impunity gap by omitting the slave trade entirely as a war crime and crime against humanity and by including only those conflict-related slavery acts that include causing someone to engage in an act of a sexual nature. Specifically, the Rome Statute does not enumerate the slave trade or slavery under Article 8 as war crimes. It does not define the slave trade within the crime of enslavement under Article 7(g) as a crime against humanity or explicitly enumerate the slave trade within the context of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. War crimes conduct is not captured fully or explicitly under ICC jurisdiction because the Rome Statute sanctions only persons exercising powers attaching to the rights of ownership who also cause that person to engage in an act of a sexual nature. Crimes against humanity conduct also escapes legal sanction when perpetrators transport or otherwise engage in any slave trade acts without exercising powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person. Furthermore, the Rome Statute's bifurcation of enslavement and sexual slavery lead to non-factual, incomplete, and discriminatory results. Sexual slavery is enslavement; its separate enumeration as a crime against humanity has required some victims to prove additionally that they were caused to engage in an act of a sexual nature in violation of non-discrimination and others' slavery harms to escape legal characterization altogether.

ICC Jurisdiction: Against Israeli War and Humanitarian Crimes Targeting Palestinian Civilians 2023

The article explains the jurisdictional policy of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding Israeli war crimes targeting Palestinian civilians, during the attack on Gaza on October 7, 2023. The article shows that based on articles of the Rome Statute, Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred on October 7, 2023. therefore, the ICC has authority in this matter. ICC policy towards conflict 7 October 2023, ICC jurisdiction took action to continue the investigative process and will accelerate investigations related to the conflict, while Israel in 2024 and the latest update is not part of the non-member states of the ICC. However, given the jurisdiction of the ICC, it has jurisdiction regarding its investigations in countries that are not parties to the ICC. This is influenced by several factors in upholding the ICC's jurisdictional investigation law against Israeli criminals even though Israel is not an ICC member state: First, Palestine is a state party to the ICC which is supposed to provide justice for civil society. Second, there is pressure and encouragement from member countries and non-member countries of the ICC to carry out investigations regarding the conflict attack in October 2023.

Cybercrimes: An Emerging Category of Offenses within the Frame of the International Criminal Court Jurisdiction

In our interconnected society, crime persists, demanding joint efforts by national and international authorities to detect, prevent, and prosecute criminal activities. Jurisprudential evolution mandates lawmakers to possess a comprehensive legal vision, adapting laws to changing social contexts and emerging criminal methods, especially in technology, including computer technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI). This article comments on the escalating vulnerability of sovereign states and their economies to cyber-attacks. The radical evolution of computer systems has led to new modes of aggression, targeting not only traditional legal assets but also individuals familiar with advanced technology. The emergence of "cyberwarfare" prompts inquiries into potential categorizations within international legal frameworks. Recent global conflicts highlight the potential classification of cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure as war crimes or acts of aggression, urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider incorporating cybercrimes into its core interests. While normative references may lack in existing conventions, the Martens Clause emphasizes treating attacks using technology as equivalent to conventional means. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter implies that cyber weapons could be deemed equivalent to conventional weapons under international law. The article stresses the importance of education and advanced training for legal personnel skilled in identifying cybercrime perpetrators, challenging the ICC to recruit or train individuals with the necessary legal and technical expertise for effective cybersecurity responses. The article briefly explores challenges in conceptualizing and categorizing cybercrimes within existing legal frameworks. The intersection of law and technology necessitates harmonious collaboration between legal and technical experts, acknowledging the intricate web of cyberspace and the implications of cyber threats on global stability and security. In conclusion, the article advocates a fundamental shift in the approach to justice, recognizing the ICC's imperative evolution in addressing cybercrimes. Integrating cybercrimes into the ICC's purview aligns with international law principles, emphasizing the equivalence of cyber weapons to conventional arms. Collaboration between legal and technical experts is essential in navigating the complexities of cybercrimes, ensuring accountability, and upholding justice in the digital age. The article concludes by highlighting the proactive role of the ICC in shaping the future of global justice amid emerging cyber threats.

Analisis Tindakan Juan Evo Morales yang Memerintahkan Pendukungnya untuk Menghalangi Bantuan Covid-19 bagi Masyarakat Bolivia Ditinjau dari Statuta Roma 1998

Crimes against humanity are one of the four most serious international crimes regulated by the 1998 Rome Statute. Where individuals who commit them can be put on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) according to their jurisdiction. Currently, the State of Bolivia is receiving international attention due to allegations of crimes against humanity committed by the former president of the State of Bolivia himself. Juan Evo Morales, former President of the State of Bolivia has ordered his supporters to block or close the entry of covid-10 aid for the people of Bolivia. The goal is to cause suffering and misery for the people of Bolivia in the midst of the Covid-19 Pandemic, with full awareness that this Pandemic can impact/cause death to the Bolivians. By looking at the Rome Statute of 1998 and the jurisdiction owned by the ICC, Juan Evo Morales has committed Crimes Against Humanity and the ICC has the authority put Juan Evo Morales on trial. The research method used is Normative Legal, with Statute and Conceptual Approach. The results of the research show that the actions of Juan Evo Morales Morales, who ordered his supporters to obstruct the entry of Covid-19 aid for the people of Bolivia, is a crime against humanity in accordance with Article 7 paragraph (1) letter (k) of the 1998 Rome Statute and fulfills the jurisdiction of ICC.

Problematika ICC Dalam Menjatuhkan Sanksi Kepada Israel Dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional

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.

The Role of International Human Law in Armed Conflicts Involving Non- State Actors an Analytical Study

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) holds a paramount position in regulating armedconflicts that involve non-state actors. As non-state armed groups are on the rise and theirparticipation in conflicts becomes more prevalent, it becomes imperative to ensure that theseactors are bound by the same rules and principles as state actors. The cardinal principles ofIHL, including but not limited to the principle of distinction, proportionality, and necessity,are applicable to all involved parties in an armed conflict, irrespective of their status as stateor non-state actors. The involvement of non-state armed groups in conflicts is on the rise,presenting distinctive challenges to the implementation of IHL. Due to the lack of acentralized command structure and non-adherence to IHL principles, it becomes strenuous tohold these actors accountable for their actions. However, recent advancements ininternational law, such as the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over non-state actors,have fortified the legal framework for holding these actors responsible for their actions

International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Against Human Rights Violations by Philippine President After Withdrawal from Rome Statute

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.

Accountability for Environmental Crimes in Conflict Zones: Why Expanding the International Criminal Court's Jurisdiction Is not the Best Solution

Accountability for Environmental Crimes in Conflict Zones: Why Expanding the International Criminal Court's Jurisdiction Is not the Best Solution

Can the International Criminal Court prevent sexual violence in armed conflict?

Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.

LIABILITY MECHANISMS FOR WAR CRIMES COMMITTED AS A RESULT OF RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE IN FEBRUARY 2022: TYPES, CHRONICLE OF THE FIRST STEPS, AND PROBLEMS

Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are investigating more than 18,000 war crimes and crimes of aggression, including 18,177 violations of the laws and customs of war, more than 5,000 murders and 6,000 civilian injuries, and about 23,000 destructions of civilian infrastructure. We note these figures without considering the number of crimes committed in the occupied territories and the places of active hostilities. The number of crimes increases every day. War crimes are a type of international crime, along with the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, and genocide, which russia[1] is committing in Ukraine. However, in the article’s title, the term ‘war crimes’ is used in a unifying context. The researchers outline the range of war crimes and note the lack of systematisation due to the non-ratification of the Rome Statute by Ukraine, which significantly complicates the qualification of crimes for practicing lawyers. The authors then analyse such mechanisms of bringing the military, officers, and officials of russia to justice as: а) the International Criminal Court (ICC), b) ad hoc tribunals, с) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), d) national judicial systems on the principle of universal jurisdiction e) criminal proceedings of Ukraine, f) eclectic forms of cooperation of justice bodies of Ukraine with foreign and international partners, together with the chronology of the first steps for each. The rationality of the establishment of a special international ad hoc tribunal exists because of the duration of the proceedings in the IСС, the ІСС workload and lack of funding, and the non-extension of the ICC jurisdiction to the crime of aggression due to Ukraine’s non-ratification of the Rome Statute; ensuring the impartiality of the court in the eyes of the international community. The authors draw the attention of the Ukrainian legislator to the need to improve the logistics of using foreign forensic experts’ opinions in criminal proceedings on war crimes in Ukraine by amending the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) on the procedure for its verification as sources of evidence. The research methodology includes logical, historical, statistical, comparative law, and system-structural methods. The information base consisted of international legal acts, national legislation, official resources of authorities and international institutions, and other open data.

Malaysia and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

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.

The International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Towards The Deportation Issues In Myanmar

<p><em>This research aims to comprehensively analyze the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating gross violations of human rights involving a non-party state of the 1998 Rome Statute and its application to the perpetrators of deportation against the Rohingya with Myanmar as the non-party state. The results showed that this jurisdiction can be implemented under three conditions, first, the crime is committed by nationals of a non-party state on the territory of a state party to the Statute. Second, the UN Security Council refers a situation to the International Criminal Court in its resolution. Third, through an ad hoc declaration that a non-party state of the Rome Statute accepts the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Since the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court covers crimes that occur wholly or partly on the territory of a state party, it can be applied to the deportation against the Rohingya in Myanmar. This involved the fleeing of this ethnic group from attacks by the Government of Myanmar to Bangladesh, a state party to the 1998 Rome Statute</em></p>

The ICC's Al Bashir jurisprudence over the last decade: enforcer of the will of States Parties or of a global jus puniendi?

Over the course of the past decade, the question of whether States Parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) could rely on Al Bashir's Head of State immunity when refusing to execute the Court's arrest warrants has occupied the Court through five different cases, finally reaching an Appeals Chamber decision in May 2019. Although Al Bashir has been deposed from power and the controversy around the case has diminished, there are still valuable lessons to be learned from the case law produced. This article poses the question of what kind of court the ICC really is: is it merely enforcing the will of its States Parties or does it develop an independent existence following its own agenda? In the process, the article will shine a light on how the Appeals Chamber is moving the ICC towards a path of judicial independence: it is willing to stretch the limits of the Rome Statute and to possibly disregard the interests of its States Parties. By pronouncing on the absence of a customary rule of Head of State immunity before international courts, the Appeals Chamber aims to broaden the ICC's jurisdiction and to sharpen its profile as an international court acting on behalf of the international community and enforcing a global jus puniendi. Examining the decade of Al Bashir jurisprudence, it becomes clear where these findings originate and why they were by no means unavoidable. Finally, the article will indicate how the distilled features of the Court's character might be put to the test – or how the result of a decade of case law will silently evaporate.

ICC’s Involvement in Darfur Conflict: Possibility and Prospect

The fall of President Al-Bashir in 2019 was a turning point in the Darfur conflict that happened for more than 17 years in Sudan. The conflict has forced 2.5 million people away from homes and killed at least 500,000 people. The humanitarian conflict and crisis are motivated by the inter-ethnic conflict in Sudan. With orders from the U.N. Security Council, on March 4, 2009, at The Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The purposes of the study are to understand the factors behind the Darfur conflict, to understand how effective the Sudanese national judicial system is, and the jurisdiction of ICC in resolving Darfur conflict. The study is normative legal research through literature review with the existing books and journals. Two approaches of normative legal research were used, namely statutory approach and case approach. The result shows that Sudan National Court is ineffective in resolving the conflict and has no willingness to settle the conflict. Furthermore, ICC has jurisdiction to settle the Darfur conflict by order of United Nation Security.

Penegakkan Yurisdiksi International Criminal Court atas Kejahatan Agresi Pasca Kampala Amendments Diadopsi dalam Rome Statute

Until the entry into force of the Rome Statute, the definition of the crime of aggression was not also found in it. This leaves the International Criminal Court (ICC) without jurisdiction over crimes of aggression. The absence of ICC jurisdiction over crimes of aggression has resulted in military aggression that has not been processed by the ICC during the time when the proxy war / cold war was initiated. This means that the violation of delicto jus gentium juice is allowed even after the ICC has been established. This study aims: (1) to identify and identify the definition, limitations, and jurisdiction of the ICC for crimes of aggression; and (2) to determine the enforcement of ICC jurisdiction over crimes of aggression after the Kampala Amendments were adopted into the Rome Statute. The research method uses a type of normative research with a statutory approach and a historical approach. The results show that the ICC's definition, limitations, and jurisdiction over the crime of aggression have existed in the Rome Statute since Kampala Amendments were adopted into the Rome Statute. However, until now the enforcement of the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes of aggression has not been carried out concretely.

Dual Nationality and International Criminal Court Jurisdiction

Abstract The International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of states parties. However, it has never been clear whether the Court will automatically recognize a nationality that has been conferred by a state party under its domestic law, nor what criteria it would use to evaluate that nationality should it not be automatically accepted. In December 2019, the Office of the Prosecutor made its first formal pronouncement on the question, finding that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over North Koreans, despite their being South Korean nationals under South Korean law, because North Koreans are not able to exercise their rights as South Koreans until accepted as such by application, and on occasion their applications might be refused. In this article, I reject the Prosecutor’s analysis as misguided. I also reject the other main approaches to nationality recognition suggested by scholars, namely a ‘genuine link’ requirement, a deferral to municipal law, and a deferral to municipal law except where a conferral of nationality violates international law. Instead, I propose a functional approach that would respect municipal conferral of nationality unless that conferral unreasonably interferes with the sovereign interests of a non-state party.

Autocratic Consent to International Law: The Case of the International Criminal Court's Jurisdiction, 1998–2017

AbstractThis article contributes to an understanding of why autocrats have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Leveraging their ability to obstruct their own prosecution, autocrats have traded off the risk of unwanted prosecutions against the deterrent threat that prosecutions pose to political rivals and patrons of their enemies conspiring to oust them. The risk of unwanted prosecutions and the court's deterrent threat both arise because ICC prosecutions credibly communicate guilt for international crimes to capital-disbursing democracies, which may, insofar as possible, use leader-specific economic statecraft to prevent the administration of foreign states by those whom the court signals are guilty of international crimes. Analysis using fixed effects and matching shows that a greater reliance on capital publicly financed by democracies increased the probability that a state accepted the court's jurisdiction only when it was an autocracy (1998–2017). ICC jurisdiction also lengthened the tenure of autocrats and reduced the severity of civil conflict in autocracies.

The Issue of ICC Jurisdiction Over Nationals of Non- Consenting, Non-Party States to the Rome Statute: Refuting Professor Dapo Akande’s Arguments

The International Criminal Court (ICC) claims the right to extend its jurisdiction over nationals of non-consenting, non-party States to the Rome Statute. The United States, as a non-party State, argues that the Rome Statute violates customary international law by doing so. Professor Dapo Akande has written an article that defends the ICC practice. This article refutes the arguments made by Professor Akande.

Du Déclenchement de la Compétence de la Cour Pénale Internationale à L’égard du Crime D'agression

In the early hours of 15 December 2017 the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute made the decision to activate the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression as of 17 July 2018. The New York breakthrough completes the Rome and Kampala Conferences and marks the culmination of a fascinating century-long journey.

Crime of Aggression: Deceptive Expectations of International Criminal Law

The author underlines that the crime of aggression has been viewed as the most serious crime against international peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is unambiguously recognized in the Russian and Western doctrine. However, the term «aggression» has long become an instrument of interstate political struggle, although there has not been a single case of real criminal prosecution at the international level for this crime after World War II. In 2010 the Rome Statute was amended, defining signs of aggression as an international crime, as well as clarifying the rules for the exercise of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This event received rave reviews from most authors. But in reality, these optimistic expectations were destroyed — first of all, in terms of establishing effective jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to the crime of aggression. Establishing of the International Criminal Court jurisdiction by transferring the situation from the UN Security Council becomes practically impossible if the «interested» state is a Permanent member of the Security Council. The establishing of the International Criminal Court jurisdiction by transferring the situation from the state proprio motu is seriously limited (by the provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 of Art. 15-bis of the Rome Statute). As a result, the author concludes that at present it is impossible to speak of effective international criminal prosecution for the crime of aggression. Therefore, it makes sense to revise those norms of the Rome Statute, which cause the most negative reaction from leading states. Only this way the effective international prosecution of the crime of aggression will be possible in the future, together with the consistent development of international criminal justice in general.