A Single Comment — Permalink

Comment on the Decentralized Accountability Question: “How, and to what extent, should the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor engage with national, regional, or other authorities or organizations to support accountability for those accused of grave crimes?”

Meslat
53284
April 6, 2024
9:34 am

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Rome Statute marked a significant milestone in the global pursuit of justice for the most serious crimes of international concern. The principle of complementarity, which underscores the ICC's role as a complement to national jurisdictions, highlights the crucial responsibility of sovereign States in combating impunity and ensuring accountability. However, challenges persist in effectively investigating and prosecuting core international crimes. This argument aims to advocate for enhanced cooperation between the ICC and States in exercising universal jurisdiction, emphasizing the benefits and addressing the obstacles that such collaboration may entail.

Benefits of Cooperation:

Sharing the workload: The ICC, with limited capacity and resources, faces significant challenges in carrying out all its mandated tasks. Close cooperation with States exercising universal jurisdiction can alleviate this burden by sharing investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities. By working together, the ICC and States can more effectively address the enormity and complexity of cases, particularly those involving large amounts of digital evidence.
Access to expertise and resources: National jurisdictions possess valuable forensic, analytical, and contextual knowledge that can greatly contribute to investigations. Collaboration with States allows the ICC to tap into their expertise, ultimately enhancing the quality and efficiency of its investigative processes. Furthermore, States' resources can help bridge gaps in areas where the ICC may face limitations.
Strengthening national investigations: The ICC's engagement can significantly advance national investigations by providing vital information, evidence, advice, or expertise. National authorities may benefit from the ICC's assistance in overcoming evidentiary and legal hurdles, especially when seeking cooperation from States involved in armed conflicts. Moreover, the ICC can contribute to establishing contextual elements necessary for obtaining convictions, thereby assisting national authorities in strengthening their cases.
Understanding prosecutorial strategies: Increased interaction between the ICC and States exercising universal jurisdiction fosters a better understanding of national prosecutorial strategies and priority crime areas. Such knowledge exchange can lead to more efficient resource allocation within the ICC and enable States to align their efforts with international standards. This mutual understanding facilitates a coordinated approach in addressing core international crimes.

Obstacles and Solutions:

Legal gaps: Challenges may arise due to legal limitations in some States' legislations, which hinder their ability to engage in joint investigations with the ICC. An essential step towards overcoming this obstacle is for States to review and update their national laws, providing a solid legal basis for collaboration with the ICC and establishing Joint Investigation Team (JIT) agreements.
Resource constraints: Both the ICC and States may face resource constraints that could impede effective cooperation. To address this, States should prioritize allocating adequate resources to national investigative bodies, allowing for the development of specialized teams and the acquisition of necessary technologies. Simultaneously, the international community must continue to support the ICC's annual budget to ensure its operational effectiveness.
Political considerations: Political factors can influence the willingness of States to engage in cooperation with the ICC. Encouraging political support and commitment at both national and international levels is crucial. States should recognize the importance of justice and accountability in addressing core international crimes and prioritize these values over political considerations.

In conclusion, Universal jurisdiction plays a vital role in ensuring accountability for core international crimes, complementing the efforts of the ICC. While challenges persist, the increasing number of universal jurisdiction investigations demonstrates the growing recognition of the importance of holding perpetrators accountable. The close cooperation between the OTP and states exercising universal jurisdiction offers mutual benefits, strengthening the collective fight against impunity and contributing to the pursuit of justice on a global scale.

Home Page for This Issue

Issue Background Materials Page

Featured Comments

jordynyian: I. Introduction Universal criminal jurisdiction allows any nation to prosecute serious international crimes. Although universal criminal jurisdiction exists under the current state of international criminal law, its decentralized nature has proven to be a weakness. This current lack of international cooperation can be resolved through the development of transgovernmental networks. However, implementation of successful transgovernmental networks is... (more)
Alexandra Speed: Regional Organizations as Partners in Complementarity: An Exploration of the AU, ASEAN, & Arab League of States’ Roles in Implementing Complementarity I. Introduction Regional organizations like the African Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the Arab League of States have the opportunity to assist the international community by implementing the principle of complementarity. Although, there... (more)
Regina Campbell: How TikTok Can Save the World—Regional Organizations’ Role in Joining Social Movements to Ensure Compliance With International Law In this comment, I argue that the role of regional organizations in Africa can aid in implementing the principle of complementarity by aligning themselves with social movements that create a culture of domestic prosecution and pressure States to exercise jurisdiction over mass atrocities. In Part I, I define complementarity... (more)
Zishan Yu: Promotion of Universal Jurisdiction: With Experts One-to-One Introduction This comment discusses how to promote universal jurisdiction. By arguing for the importance of universal jurisdiction and comparing different situations faced by countries, this comment discusses problems we face when introducing universal jurisdiction to the world. In China, for example, an important principle in criminal law is “No crime without law making it so; no... (more)
mahak jain: The comment attempts to reimagine the frameworks of the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute in correlation with the sub-Saharan African context. The comment advances the debate over the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) with the incoming of the amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the ACJHR titled as the Malabo Protocol.1 I aim to shed... (more)
SydneyRobles: I. Introduction International law increasingly recognizes that States have a moral and legal duty to hold perpetrators of grave international crimes accountable.1 To fulfill this duty, a number of States have adopted universal jurisdiction laws empowering national courts to assert jurisdiction over select crimes based solely on their heinous nature, without any connection to the State.2 This Comment conducts a comparative analysis of German,... (more)
hglembo: Using Development Banks to Implement Complementarity I. Introduction The principle of complementarity, specifically positive complementarity focuses on providing collaborative assistance from the International Criminal Court (ICC). While a core goal of the Rome Statute is for the ICC to work complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, this is not always successfully implemented.... (more)
jordynyian: I. Introduction Under the principle of complementarity, the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) is intended to function solely as a court of last resort when courts of the national jurisdiction where crimes occurred are unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute these crimes. As part of their genuine efforts, national jurisdictions must also sufficiently address victims’ rights. However, under the current state of... (more)
Dalia: I. Introduction The principle of universal jurisdiction provides for a state’s jurisdiction over crimes against international law even when the crime did not occur on that state’s territory, and neither the victim nor perpetrator is a national of that state (thus ruling out the exercise of jurisdiction through the principles of nationality, passive personality, and territoriality).1 This, thus, allows national courts in third countries... (more)
aalmaguer: How Regional Organizations Can Support Complementarity: The Asian Development Bank and Judicial Reform Introduction The principle of complementarity requires institutional capacity at the national level to prosecute the crimes set forth by Article 5 of the Rome Statute (Article 5 Crimes). The International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to be a court of last resort, not the only court. Of... (more)
Dalia: I. Introduction The principle of complementarity aims at granting jurisdiction to a subsidiary body when the main body fails to exercise its primacy jurisdiction.1 In the case of the International Criminal Court (ICC), this would mean interfering only when the national jurisdiction was unwilling or unable to prosecute pursuant to Article 17 of the Rome Statute.2 One of the major issues that the... (more)
arvind2024: Universal Jurisdiction and Horizontal Complementarity I. The Problem with Universal Jurisdiction As the prompt for this question notes, states are becoming increasingly comfortable trying cases under universal jurisdiction. Yet, universal jurisdiction remains a frequently debated issue because its exercise involves infringing traditional state sovereignty.1 When a state invokes universal jurisdiction, it may exercise jurisdiction... (more)
Regina Campbell: Victim Over Verdict—How Exercising Universal Jurisdiction Means Promoting the Interests of Victims of International Atrocities In this comment, I argue that in order to exercising universal jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) should prioritize the interests and desires of the victims of international atrocities. In Part I, I explain why the OTP should... (more)
SydneyRobles: I. Introduction The principle of complementarity is a cornerstone of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Under this design, the ICC will only intervene in “exceptional” circumstances where states fail to investigate and prosecute international crimes.1 Since its inception, the ICC has opened investigations in nine African States.2 A number of... (more)
DevinYaeger: How Can the International Criminal Court Help National Courts Implement Universal Jurisdiction: Potential Applications and Pitfalls Arising from the Article 93 Cooperation I. Introduction In recent years, there has been renewed interest in countries exercising universal jurisdiction, i.e., the prosecution of foreign nationals for serious crimes unrelated to the prosecuting nation other than their offensiveness or threat to... (more)
james2024: Regional Complementarity: Mutually Beneficial Collaboration between Regional Courts and the ICC I. Introduction The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a unique forum for international justice, as the only international court charged with prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.1 Despite its unique place in international justice, the Court has long faced... (more)
Zishan Yu: A Win-Win Situation: Cooperation Between the International Criminal Court and Regional Organizations I. Introduction This comment addresses the challenges that the International Criminal Court (ICC) faces in today’s rapidly changing world. Some people are disappointed that only a few perpetrators have been tried by the ICC, and that the vast majority have so far escaped consequences for their crimes. Some countries... (more)
mahak jain: The success of the International Criminal Court (ICC) revolves around its jurisdictional structure and the complementarity component of its legal system and it may very well be quantifiable by how few situations the Court will have to prosecute.1 This is not because of the quixotic belief that the ICC can serve as a better court of law and custodian of world peace and justice, but because of its default... (more)
hglembo: ICC as a Partner for States Trying Universal Jurisdiction Cases I. Introduction As a greater number of states try universal jurisdiction-based cases, it is apparent that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should make itself a better partner for these states. Universal jurisdiction allows states to try crimes, similar to those outlined in the Rome Statute,1 no matter where the crime occurred or... (more)
Alexandra Speed: Universal Jurisdiction’s Universal Issues: Solutions for the States by the ICC I. Introduction Universal jurisdiction is an element of international law that is frequently exercised by many countries across the world. It is most generally exercised by states that have an interest in seeing perpetrators of international crimes brought to justice. It has recently been exercised by Germany prosecuting Syrian officials and... (more)
aalmaguer: Helping States Pursue Investigations Under Universal Jurisdiction: Proposed Role for the International Criminal Court and Interpol Introduction At a fundamental level, a state needs three things to pursue a criminal investigation through universal jurisdiction: existing national laws or legislation authorizing the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the specific crime, political will to apply those laws and pursue... (more)
arvind2024: Doing Away with the ICC’s Unitary Structure The principle of complementarity is a “cornerstone” of the Rome Statute.1 It is more than a jurisdictional rule on concurrent claims by domestic courts and the International Criminal Court (ICC) as articulated in Article 17: it “has begun to shape the normative structure of peace-making.”2 In its 2006 Report on Strategy, the Office... (more)
james2024: Expanding the Landscape of International Justice: Obstacles to Universal Jurisdiction and the Potential Role of the ICC I. Introduction Since its inception in 1998, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has aimed to bring justice to the gravest international crimes in the world. The Court is the first and only permanent international criminal court with the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute individuals for genocide... (more)