The International Criminal Court And Problems Of State Sovereignty

Scientific Essay from the year 2008 in the subject Law - Criminal process, Criminology, Law Enforcement, grade: 2:1, University of Leeds, course: Political Science, language: English, abstract: It is the argument of this dissertation that the International Criminal Court is an appropriate tool for the enforcement of international criminal law and embodies a shifting notion of state sovereignty. Historically, both multilateral and unilateral attempts to enforce international criminal law have been progressive but not wholly successful. The International Criminal Court is rooted in customary law and addresses the failures of past attempts. The Court’s opposition has illustrated problems of state sovereignty, which in turn exemplifies how the International Criminal Court embodies a shifting notion of state sovereignty. The sources used are the existing academic literature, interviews, international statute, magazines, and newspaper articles.

'State sovereignty' is often referred to as an obstacle to criminal justice for core international crimes by members of the international criminal justice movement. The exercise of State sovereignty is seen as a shield against effective implementation of such crimes. But it is sovereign States that create and become parties to international criminal law treaties and jurisdictions. They are the principal enforcers of criminal responsibility for international crimes, as reaffirmed by the complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Criminal justice for atrocities depends entirely on the ability of States to act. This volume revisits the relationship between State sovereignty and international criminal law along three main lines of inquiry. First, it considers the immunity of State officials from the exercise of foreign or international criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, with the closing down of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, attention shifts to the exercise of national jurisdiction over core international crimes, making the scope of universal jurisdiction more relevant to perceptions of State sovereignty. Thirdly, could the amendments to the ICC Statute on the crime of aggression exacerbate tensions between the interests of State sovereignty and accountability? The book contains contributions by prominent international lawyers including Professor Christian Tomuschat, Judge Erkki Kourula, Judge LIU Daqun, Ambassador WANG Houli, Dr. ZHOU Lulu, Professor Claus Kre, Professor MA Chengyuan, Professor JIA Bingbing, Professor ZHU Lijiang and Mr. GUO Yang.

Galand critically spells out a comprehensive conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to the various limits to the International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over situations that concern nationals and territories of non-party States.

This innovative text is shows how there has been a concerted effort, since the end of World War I, to curb a state's power and freedom of action through the concept of international accountability to a set of recognized rules and norms. A state not only is to adhere to these rules but also can be sanctioned by an international penal process through enforcement of international criminal law. Adoption of the Rome Statute and the creation of the International Criminal Court are the culmination of many years of effort to challenge the power of state action. Scholars and students of international law with an interest in international criminal law will find this volume an interesting narrative of how the developments of international penal mechanisms of the 20th century have contributed to a diminution of state sovereignty. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

One of the main problems of the International Ad hoc-tribunals in The Hague and Arusha, as well as of the permanent International Court, concerns the conflict between national security and secrecy interests of sovereign States arising in legal proceedings as a result of evidence interests and the court hearing the case. While an International Criminal Court cannot succeed without the necessary competence for gathering evidence, it can also not succeed if it fails to take account of legitimate national security interests. Written by well-known authors and commentators, the articles in the book deal with this controversy from the point of view of comparative law and legal politics. The topics covered focus on experiences and decisions from the practice of both ad hoc-tribunals, as well as political and legal discussions relating to the Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the permanent International Criminal Court.

This comparative study focuses on the legislative methods and techniques used in 12 countries to give effect to the International Criminal Court. The text covers both common law as well as civil law countries: Argentina; Brazil; South Africa; The Netherlands; Liechtenstein; France; Sweden; Germany; Norway; Italy; Canada; and the UK. The practice of each state forms a chapter focusing on constitutional, sovereign, and criminal issues. Two additional chapters discuss such issues now facing Japan and Mexico. The contributors focus on real issues encountered and methods and techniques actually employed with the purpose of serving as a practical guide to those countries that are still looking for methods to give effect to the Rome Statute. In each case the authors explain why certain legislative approaches were used and why others were not selected. The authors are all experts with years’ of experience in the field; most of them participated in preparing the relevant domestic laws and in the making of the Rome Statute. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

Essay from the year 2023 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1,0, Göteborg University (Rechtswissenschaft), course: International Criminal Law, language: English, abstract: How can the U.S. arguments regarding the ICC as a threat to state sovereignty be assessed? How is the ICC as an institution affected by the fact that the U.S. – one of the Permanent Five – is not part of the Rome Statute? The ICC, being the world’s first permanent international criminal court, was established to prosecute individuals for “the most serious crimes of international concern”, namely genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression. Some controversies among states arose during the establishment, primarily concerning the court’s jurisdiction and its effects on state sovereignty. The clash between the authority of the ICC and the sovereignty of states has thereafter repeatedly been up for discussion. The U.S. is often depicted as one of the main opponents to the ICC due to the court’s alleged impact on state sovereignty. What may be considered ironic in the context is that the U.S. initially constituted one of the key creators of the court, to ultimately neither sign nor ratify its statute. An argument that has been put forward by the U.S. is that there is no need for an external juridical body for such a well-established, sovereign state as the U.S. However, such a body would serve a purpose for other states, which do not meet the high U.S. standards. This argument shows clear tendencies of so-called American exceptionalism, which is the idea that the U.S. is superior to other states for historical, ideological or religious reasons. What makes this standpoint further interesting is that the U.S., despite not being part of the Rome Statute, may refer cases to the ICC in its capacity as one of the permanent members of the UNSC – which they have, on several occasions. In other words, the U.S. appears to be in the position to exercise indirect control over an international institution which their own nationals cannot be subjects to.

This book is an attempt to approach the issue of defining international terrorism, proposing that the most workable way to do so is to achieve due balance between the two principal driving forces of international law developments: State sovereignty interests and cosmopolitan ideals. All those who aspire to the promotion of international criminal justice and the fight against impunity agree that the formulation of a universal definition of international terrorism will further enhance the fight against terrorism and offer a universally acceptable legal framework within which this fight can be conducted. Discussed in an in-depth manner are, for instance, the UN Charter Provisions, the Rome Statute and the principle of complementarity, the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression, the paradigms of aggression and terrorism, and prominent anti-terrorist Security Council Resolutions such as Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373. The volume broadens the reader’s understanding on how State sovereignty interests and priorities as well as ideals of cosmopolitanism have influenced the development of international law in general and international criminal law in particular. Furthermore, it simplifies the complicated picture of defining international crimes by explaining how the ‘State sovereignty’ and ‘Cosmopolitanism’ dynamics have also been of relevance throughout the drafting process of the definition of the crime of aggression for the purposes of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. In addition, it equips the reader with an understanding of the reasons behind the lack of an international definition for terrorism and suggests an appropriate context within which such a definition can take shape. It intends to appeal to academics and students with an interest in international criminal law and the international criminal justice system, international law and security, but also to anyone with an interest in transnational crime and counter-terrorism. Stella Margariti has recently graduated from the University of Dundee where she attained the title of Doctor from the School of Law.