In association with the International Commission of Jurists

International Criminal Law

22 Dec

In the comments to my first post on the ICC and retroactive jurisdiction, Johnboy4546 suggested that the Palestinians might self-refer only the situation in the West Bank to the Court.  Such a referral would have two clear advantages for the Palestinians: (1) it would prevent the OTP from investigating Hamas's rocket attacks, which are almost always launched from Gaza, as well...

|
13 Dec

I had an interesting -- and respectful -- disagreement with André de Hoogh last week concerning the right of non-states parties to retroactively accept the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute.  I argued in my post that Palestine could accept the Court's jurisdiction retroactive to whenever it became a state under international law.  Andre challenged...

|
08 Dec

According to Enough!, the OTP is investigating the actions of M23 and "other parties" in the DRC: In the aftermath of the March 23 Movement, or M23, seizure of Goma, the International Criminal Court, or ICC,Chief Prosecutor Fatoua Bensouda announced that her office is investigating "allegations of ICC crimes by members and leaders of M23, and by other parties taking advantage of the chaos...

|
07 Dec

In my essay on signature strikes, I criticize (and I'm not alone) the U.S. practice of considering military-age males in an area of known terrorist activity to be lawful targets.  That signature, however, pales in comparison to the possibility that the U.S. is targeting "children with potential hostile intent," as well: The US military is facing fresh questions over its targeting policy in Afghanistan after...

|
01 Dec

A number of commentators have challenged my claim that Articles 11(2) and 12(3) of the Rome Statute would permit Palestine to accept the ICC's jurisdiction retroactively, whether as a member-state or on an ad hoc basis. Here, for example, is what my friend Jennifer Trahan wrote yesterday at IntLawGrrls: Even if an entity becomes a "state," should there be jurisdiction that...

|
29 Nov

I've been meaning to discuss the AP's recent claim that an obviously fraudulent graph provided to it by an unnamed country (almost certainly Israel) proves that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. As is often the case, however, Glenn Greenwald beat me to it. If the AP were capable of shame, it would immediately retract the...

|
29 Nov

In the wake of today's long-overdue vote to upgrade Palestine to observer-state status, there seems to be persistent confusion concerning what would happen if Palestine ratified the Rome Statute. In particular, a number of commentators seem to think that it is unclear whether the ICC would have jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to Palestine's ratification. (See Colum Lynch at FP,...

|
26 Nov

The United Nations General Assembly is set to decide Thursday whether to upgrade Palestine to "non-member state" status, on par with the Vatican. The resolution will almost certainly pass, given that more than 130 states have already recognized a Palestinian state. The interesting question is whether powerful Western states will vote in favor of the resolution. France...

|
25 Nov

Okay, not Saif Gaddafi.  Saadi: Niger’s President Mahamadou Issofou has said his government is ready to hand Saadi Qaddafi over to the International Criminal Court should the body request it to do so. To date, the ICC has not issued a warrant for Saadi’s arrest, and will not request his extradition unless that position changes. On 7 November, however, the ICC’s Chief...

|
23 Nov

I've written before about Judge Sow's attempt to make a statement in open court criticizing Charles Taylor's conviction.  Now Judge Sow has given a lengthy interview to the New African magazine concerning the trial, his attempt to make the statement, and his punishment afterward.  As Bill Schabas points out today, "[n]othing comparable has ever appeared in the history of international criminal justice."  Judge...

|
15 Nov

[Darryl Robinson is an Assistant Professor at Queen’s University, Faculty of Law] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. I am very grateful for James Stewart’s comments on “How Command Responsibility Got So Complicated”. Professor Stewart and I are engaged in similar projects (criminal law theory and international criminal law (‘ICL’)) and immersed in similar literature, so our discussions are always very helpful to me, even though we at times reach different conclusions. Professor Stewart raises several interesting points, and I cannot quite do justice to all of them. I offer the following thoughts on the main points. As a preliminary point, Professor Stewart rightly notes that people at the Tribunal had done a frenzied review of the relevant literature and so were at least aware of these issues. I take that point very much. Academics are often quick to criticise courts and institutions for their alleged failures to consider this or that issue, when perhaps the relevant actors were in fact deeply aware of it but chose not to elaborate on it given the hundred other priorities they had to attend to. I also sympathise with judges, who are either criticised for failure to elaborate on theoretical underpinnings, or alternatively are criticised for their wordy, theoretical decisions. For precisely these reasons, I ‘emphatically acknowledged’ that the Tribunals were operating in a pioneering phase, dealing with countless questions and constructing doctrinal rules from diverse authorities, and hence could not give detailed consideration to every fine point.[1]
|