Journal•ISSN: 1478-1387
Journal of International Criminal Justice
Oxford University Press
About: Journal of International Criminal Justice is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): International law & Criminal law. It has an ISSN identifier of 1478-1387. Over the lifetime, 1051 publications have been published receiving 14010 citations. The journal is also known as: JICJ.
Topics: International law, Criminal law, Statute, Tribunal, War crime
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the limits to the jurisdiction of the ICC over non-party nationals and explored the circumstances in which ICC parties are precluded from surrendering nationals of non-parties to the ICC.
Abstract: This article examines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over nationals of states not party to the ICC Statute. The article first addresses the US argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties without the consent of that non-party would be contrary to international law. The author considers the principles which support the delegation of criminal jurisdiction by states to international tribunals and discusses the precedents for such delegations. It is further argued that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over acts done pursuant to the official policy of a non-party state would not be contrary to the principle requiring consent for the exercise of jurisdiction by international tribunals. Finally, the article explores the limits to the jurisdiction of the ICC over non-party nationals. In particular, the article addresses the circumstances in which ICC parties are precluded from surrendering nationals of non-parties to the ICC.
120 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus less on the various judges' conclusions as to the international lawfulness of universal jurisdiction than on their treatment of the basic concept, reflecting both a conceptual conflation of states' jurisdiction to prescribe their criminal law with the manner of that law's enforcement and an inattention to crucial temporal considerations.
Abstract: Academic analysis of the Arrest Warrant case in the International Court of Justice has tended to focus to date on the Court`s judgment on immunity. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the question of universal jurisdiction, as discussed in detail in most of the separate and dissenting opinions and declarations. The following article focuses less on the various judges` conclusions as to the international lawfulness of universal jurisdiction than on their treatment of the basic concept. The article argues that this treatment is open to question, reflecting, as it does, both a conceptual conflation of states` jurisdiction to prescribe their criminal law with the manner of that law`s enforcement and an inattention to crucial temporal considerations. As well as fostering dubious terminology, these factors lead some judges to an unsatisfying conclusion regarding the permissibility of the enforcement in absentia of universal jurisdiction, and cause others to underestimate the degree of state practice in favour of universal jurisdiction over crimes under general international law.
115 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the application of Article 98 of the ICC Statute and considered the legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC, and argued that the effect of the Security Council referral is that Sudan is to be regarded as bound by the ICC and thus by Article 27.
Abstract: This article considers whether states are obliged or permitted to arrest Sudanese President Omar al Bashir pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The article considers the extent to which the ICC Statute removes immunities which would ordinarily be available to state officials. It is argued that the removal of the immunity by Article 27 of the ICC Statute applies also at the national level, when national authorities act in support of the ICC. The article examines the application of Article 98 of the ICC Statute and considers the legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC. It is argued that the effect of the Security Council referral is that Sudan is to be regarded as bound by the ICC Statute and thus by Article 27. Given that the Statute operates in this case not as a treaty but by virtue of being a Security Council resolution, the removal of immunity operates even with regard to non-parties. However, since any (implicit) removal of immunity by the Security Council would conflict with customary international law and treaty rules according immunity to a serving head of state, the article considers the application of Article 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter in this case.
112 citations
TL;DR: Rwanda has devised a second approach, known as gacaca, which focuses on a lower and less heinous level of participation in genocide, and which is inspired by traditional models of local justice as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: After many decades of impunity, Rwanda has embarked upon a course of transitional justice committed to prosecuting all who are suspected of involvement in the 1994 genocide. The first phase, which began in 1997 and is still continuing, targets the most serious offenders. Some 10,000 have been tried under the system. Confronted with its limitations, Rwanda has devised a second approach, known as gacaca, which focuses on a lower and less heinous level of participation in genocide, and which is inspired by traditional models of local justice. Acting upon legislation adopted in 2001, a pilot phase convinced Rwandan justice officials of the viability of the process throughout the country. The institutions have been fine-tuned, and become fully operational in the course of 2005. Because the pilot phase encouraged denunciation, instead of offering ‘closure’, the process has actually revealed a much broader popular participation in the atrocities of 1994. Rwandan authorities now say the gacaca process will prosecute more than 1,000,000 suspects.
110 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has lawfully issued and circulated an arrest warrant against the incumbent head of state of Sudan, Omar al Bashir, and whether its request to the states parties to the Rome Statute to arrest and surrender him is in conformity with the provisions of the Statute.
Abstract: This article discusses whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) has lawfully issued and circulated an arrest warrant against the incumbent head of state of Sudan, Omar al Bashir, and whether its request to the states parties to the Rome Statute to arrest and surrender him is in conformity with the provisions of the Statute. In this article, the argument is made that the rules of customary international law on personal immunities of incumbent heads of state do not apply in the case of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by an international criminal court; therefore they do not bar the exercise of the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to an incumbent head of state, even if this individual comes from a state not party to the Rome Statute, like Sudan. However, it is one thing to assert that an international criminal court can ‘lawfully’ issue and circulate an arrest warrant against individuals entitled to personal immunity before national courts, and quite another to say that states can ‘lawfully’ disregard the personal immunity of these same individuals, and surrender them to the requesting international court. This article endeavours to demonstrate that while the ICC arrest warrant is a lawful coercive act against an incumbent head of state, the ICC request to states parties to surrender President Al Bashir is contrary to Article 98(1) of the Rome Statute and it is an act ultra vires. States parties are therefore not bound to comply with this request.
105 citations