International Criminal Jurisdiction

The book provides a holistic examination of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The main focus is placed on the three pillars which form the ICC’s foundation pursuant to the Rome Statute: the preconditions to the exercise of its jurisdiction (Article 12 Rome Statute) the substantive competence, i.e. the core crimes (Article 5-8bis Rome Statute, i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crime of aggression) the principle of complementarity (Article 17§1 (a) Rome Statute) The latter governs the ICC's ‘ultimate jurisdiction’, since it is not merely sufficient for a crime to be within the Court's jurisdiction (according to the substantive, geographical, personal and temporal jurisdictional criteria), but the State Party must also be unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Finally yet importantly, the main ‘negative preconditions’ for the Court’s jurisdiction, i.e. immunities (Article 27 Rome Statute) and exceptions via Security Council referrals are thoroughly examined.The book is an excellent resource for scholars as well as practitioners and notably contributes to the existing literature.

"Whose law must I obey? This question is so basic to our legal obligations that it ought to be easy. Specifically, a person considering an action ought to be able to answer this question by the use of law-like rules. This ought to be particularly true of criminal law, which will be the principal focus of this book. Actually, this question is partially unanswerable in the world as it exists today. Whether by accident or design, the current structure and content of law-national and international-sometimes prevents persons (natural or juridical) from being able to answer the question fully at the time of action"--

With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

The International Criminal Court has significantly grown in importance and impact over the decade of its existence. This book assesses its impact, providing a comprehensive overview of its practice. It shows how the court has contributed to major developments in international criminal law, and identifies the ways in which it is in need of reform.

The first book-length work to provide a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the ICC's jurisdiction over nationals of non-States Parties.

This book provides an analysis of whether the International Criminal Court can be regarded as an International Criminal World Court, capable of exercising its jurisdiction upon every individual despite the fact that not every State is a Party to the Rome Statute. The analysis is based on a twin-pillar system, which consists of a judicial and an enforcement pillar. The judicial pillar is based on the most disputed articles of the Rome Statute; its goal is to determine the potential scope of the Court’s strength through the application of its jurisdiction regime. The enforcement pillar provides an analysis of the cooperation and judicial assistance mechanism pursuant to the Rome Statute’s provisions and its practical implementation through States’ practices. The results of the analysis, and the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism, demonstrate that the ICC cannot in fact be considered a criminal world court. In conclusion, possible solutions are presented in order to improve the enforcement pillar of the Court so that the tremendous strength of the ICC’s judicial pillar, and with it, the exercise of worldwide jurisdiction, can be effectively implemented.

The International Criminal Court ushers in a new era in the protection of human rights. The Court will prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national justice systems are either unwilling or unable to do so themselves. This third revised edition considers the initial rulings by the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, and the cases it is prosecuting, namely, Democratic Republic of Congo, northern Uganda, Darfur, as well as those where it had decided not to proceed, such as Iraq. The law of the Court up to and including its ruling on a confirmation hearing, committing Chalres Lubanga for trial on child soldiers offences, is covered. It also addresses the difficulties created by US opposition, analysing the ineffectiveness of measures taken by Washington to obstruct the Court, and its increasing recognition of the inevitability of the institution.