Search: Complementarity SAIF GADDAFI

...in fact have common interests and pursue them collaboratively (self-referrals for instance, or the complementarity principle). Cirimwani proposes a “proceduralising” of the “unwilling or unable” as a way out of the complementarity principle conundrum. As it is the case for all procedures, I agree that a clearer guideline on the assessment of the “unwilling and unable” could be useful. K. K. Sithebe argues that “there are gaps […] in texts that are critical of the ICC and/or international criminal justice” – I assume my book fits this mold – in...

...taken place regarding whether joining the ICC could offer legal protection against international crimes.  Armenia initially signed the Rome Statute in 1998. However, in 2004, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Rome Statute conflicted with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, specifically in two significant aspects: first, the question of the ICC’s complementarity in relation to the national criminal jurisdiction of the Republic of Armenia, and second, the matter of utilizing domestic processes for granting pardons and amnesty to convicted individuals in relation to the Article 105 of the...

...referral by the United Nations Security Council) and with the vexed questions of complementarity, compliance and cooperation by states. The book reveals: how so-called ‘weak states’ have managed to instrumentalise the Court’s self-referral trigger mechanism to pursue their political and security interests; the selective and inconsistent use by the Security Council of its power to refer cases to the Court; the inconsistent and strategic interpretation and application by the Court and by states of the complementarity principle; and how some states have used the Court as a platform for domestic...

...was in office when the Rome Statute was negotiated and he decided to sign the Statute prior to the signing deadline on 31 December 2000. In the statement accompanying the signing of the Statute, President Clinton identified the importance of holding accountable those individuals accused of committing crimes falling under the Rome Statute and the United States ‘tradition of moral leadership’ when it comes to those efforts. He also highlighted that the ICC is a Court of complementary jurisdiction, although his explanation of how complementarity works was somewhat lacking. Despite...

...broached the topic of how ICL interventions are so ‘distanced’ that they are inept, or too awkward, to ‘get close’ to the very people they putatively are to uplift, and simply fall short of becoming part of the ‘fabric of everyday life’ even in the places they aim to repair. They are cold, they leave audiences emotionally unmoved, they are not – to draw from Coke – companionate. Complementarity is not comity. I wanted also to tell you that am very drawn to your angles on global justice aesthetics. On...

...377-384), the IACtHR advisory opinion AO-32/25 (para 385), and the ECtHR’s Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (para 385 ). This is reflexivity in action. Each advisory opinion carries its own limits and functional specialization; for instance, the IACtHR in human rights law, ITLOS in the law of the sea, and the ICJ in general public international law. Yet their resonance generates complementarity, avoids conflicting conclusions, and gradually builds coherence within the international climate legal order. Over time, the repeated recognition and cross-fertilization among advisory opinions gradually sediment into...

The story coming out of Uganda bears emphasis for its impact on the ICC doctrine of complementarity. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, “the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where … [t]he case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.” The ICC website indicates that “the International Criminal Court will complement national courts so that they retain jurisdiction to try genocide, crimes against humanity and...

...US did not have the temerity to pursue these case, maybe the ICC could finally do so—or at least prod the US into doing far more by way of “complementarity.”  With “de-prioritization” of the investigation vis-à-vis US nationals, the Biden Administration lacks even the incentive to conduct complementarity; this potential leverage has thus been squandered. Remember also that the Rome Statute creates jurisdiction over war crimes “in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes” (Rome Statute, Art....

...Obama administration, she heralded the ICC as largely an instrument of positive complementarity, (ie not applicable to the United States, rather than a safeguard against impunity, which may be of greater concern to Americans). In fact, two of the most flagrant demonstrations of the Bush administration’s resistance to the Court remain in force with no sign of disappearing. First, the Article 98 Bilateral Immunity Agreements, which strong-armed many States Parties to the Rome Statute into swearing they would never cooperate with the Court if it were investigating Americans, are not...

...liberty, see IAComHR Coard paras 52‒61; ECtHR Hassan para 105). In general, it is a positive development that the HRC correlates violations of IHL and article 6 ICCPR in relation to the conduct of hostilities. First, this reinforces the perspective of complementarity between the ICCPR and IHL based on the fact that, to an extent, they protect the same values (HRC 2006 Concluding Observations: USA para 5). And secondly, this may expand the ability of victims of IHL violations to obtain redress. Indeed, States have an obligation under article 2(3)...

...that there were reasonable grounds to believe that ‘false positives’ could amount to crimes against humanity of murder and enforced disappearance and prioritized these crimes to continue its complementarity assessment. The assessment was concluded in 2021, when the OTP decided to close the preliminary examination arguing that Colombian authorities were “neither inactive, unwilling nor unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes.” This despite the fact that human rights organizations had expressed their criticism of the results that the Colombian government presented to the OTP, including the lack of...

...is no reason to believe that a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction has been committed in the situation (a very low standard) or that the situation does not satisfy the admissibility requirements of Article 17, which deals with complementarity and gravity. That’s Article 53(3)(b). I think it is very unlikely that Moreno-Ocampo will decline to investigate the Libyan situation. But it’s interesting to note that he can — and that, if he based a declination on complementarity or gravity grounds, there is nothing the Pre-Trial Chamber could do about it....