The Principle Of Complementarity In International Criminal Law

Presents a study of the historical antecedents of the principle of complementarity. This work draws upon the first efforts at international prosecution, after the First World War, and then traces the evolution of the concept through the drafting of the 1937 treaty on terrorism, and the post-Second World War tribunals.

This book analyses how the complementarity regime of the ICC’s Rome Statute can be implemented in member states, specifically focusing on African states and Nigeria. Complementarity is the principle that outlines the primacy of national courts to prosecute a defendant unless a state is ‘unwilling’ or ‘genuinely unable to act’, assuming the crime is of a ‘sufficient gravity’ for the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is stipulated in the Rome Statute without a clear and comprehensive framework for how states can implement it. The book proposes such a framework and argues that a mutually inclusive interpretation and application of complementarity would increase domestic prosecutions and reduce self-referrals to the ICC. African states need to have an appropriate legal framework in place, implementing legislation and institutional capacity as well as credible judiciaries to investigate and prosecute international crimes. The mutually inclusive interpretation of the principle of complementarity would entail the ICC providing assistance to states in instituting this framework while being available to fill the gaps until such time as these states meet a defined threshold of institutional preparedness sufficient to acquire domestic prosecution. The minimum complementarity threshold includes proscribing the Rome Statute crimes in domestic criminal law and ensuring the institutional preparedness to conduct complementarity-based prosecution of international crimes. Furthermore, it assists the ICC in ensuring consistency in its interpretation of complementarity.

The principle of complementarity provides a framework as to when the Prosecutor of the ICC may and should interfere "vis-a-vis" national judicial systems. The principle acknowledges the primary right of states to prosecute while also recognising the need for international interference when states fail in this task. As formulated in the Rome Statute, however, it leaves complex questions unresolved. To mention a few: When is a national criminal proceeding really an attempt to shield the perpetrator? When can a national judicial system be characterised as unavailable? And when will an ICC prosecution serve the interests of justice? This book seeks to answer these and other related questions by interpreting the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute and discussing them in a broad context. The book also critically assesses policy considerations underlying the establishment of the ICC, including the implications of international criminal justice for achieving peace. It asks, "inter alia," whether the ICC should set aside an amnesty which a national truth commission has granted in an attempt to achieve a peaceful transition from tyranny to democracy.

The drafters of the ICC’s founding document, the Rome Statute, foresaw what would become the main challenge to the Court’s legitimacy: that it could violate national sovereignty. To address this concern, the drafters added the principle of complementarity to the ICC’s jurisdiction, in that the Court’s province merely complements the exercise of jurisdiction by the domestic courts of the Statute’s member states. The ICC honours the authority of those states to conduct their own trials. However, if the principle of complementarity is to be applied, states must ensure that their own judicial systems and trials are consistent with international standards of independence and fairness. In addition, for complementarity to work, the ICC must be willing to actively support, embrace, and implement the principle. If the Court holds on too tightly to a self-aggrandising view of its role in promoting international justice, then it will lose all credibility in the eyes of nation states. Finally, the international community, in calling on states to address war crimes committed within their borders, must provide the financial, technical, and professional resources that many struggling states need in this endeavour. This book sets forth several innovative recommendations to fulfil these goals so as to make future domestic war crimes courts work more effectively.

Critically explores the International Criminal Court's evolution and the domestic effects of its interventions in three African countries.

This systematic, contextual and practice-oriented account of complementarity explores the background and historical expectations associated with complementarity, its interpretation in prosecutorial policy and judicial practice, its context (ad hoc tribunals, universal jurisdiction, R2P) and its impact in specific situations (Colombia, Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Sudan and Kenya). Written by leading experts from inside and outside the Court and scholars from multiple disciplines, the essays combine theoretical inquiry with policy recommendations and the first-hand experience of practitioners. It is geared towards academics, lawyers and policy-makers who deal with the impact and application of international criminal justice and its interplay with peace and security, transitional justice and international relations.

This book concerns the relationship between the principles of complementarity and universal jurisdiction. Territorial States are normally affected most strongly by core international crimes committed during a conflict or an attack directed against its civilian population. Most victims reside in such States. Most damaged or plundered property is there. Public order and security are violated most severely in the territorial States. It is also on their territory that most of the evidence of the alleged crimes can be found. There are, in other words, obvious policy and practical reasons why States should accord priority to territoriality as a basis of jurisdiction. But is there also an obligation for States to defer exercise of universal jurisdiction of core international crimes to investigation and prosecution of the same crimes by the territorial State? What - if any - is the impact of the principle of complementarity in this respect? These are among the questions discussed in this anthology.

"This book follows as LAW"--