"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"--

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.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent international criminal tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. This book critically analyses the law and practice of the ICC and its contribution to the development of international criminal law and policy. The book focuses on the key procedural and substantive challenges faced by the ICC since its establishment. The critical analysis of the normative framework aims to elaborate ways in which the Court may resolve difficulties, which prevent it from reaching its declared objectives in particularly complex situations. Contributors to the book include leading experts in international criminal justice, and cover a range of topics including, inter alia, terrorism, modes of liability, ne bis in idem, victims reparations, the evidentiary threshold for the confirmation of charges, and sentencing. The book also considers the relationship between the ICC and States, and explores the impact that the new regime of international criminal justice has had on countries where the most serious crimes have been committed. In drawing together these discussions, the book provides a significant contribution in assessing how the ICC’s practice could be refined or improved in future cases. The book will be of great use and interest to international criminal law and public international law.

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 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.

Michael Vagias analyses the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

This pioneering book explores the intersections of law and culture at the International Criminal Court (ICC), offering insights into how notions of culture affect the Court’s legal foundations, functioning and legitimacy, both in theory and in practice.

This book offers a unique critical analysis of the legal nature, effects and limits of UN Security Council referrals to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Alexandre Skander Galand provides, for the first time, a full picture of two competing understandings of the nature of the Security Council referrals to the ICC, and their respective normative interplay with legal barriers to the exercise of universal prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction. The book shows that the application of the Rome Statute through a Security Council referral is inherently limited by the UN Charter as well as the Rome Statute, and can conflict with other branches of international law, including international human rights law, the law on immunities and the law of treaties. Hence, it spells out a conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to these limits and, in turn, informs the reader on the nature of the ICC itself.

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.