Search: Complementarity SAIF GADDAFI

...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....

...some accountability process has started….There may be a number of political and institutional reasons at play and ideally the court should have an appreciation of these reasons before deciding whether and how to intervene.” Id. A related approach would be to resort to the concept of “complementarity,” associated most notably with the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. The question is whether complementarity, deference to domestic processes can be justified where there is no lack of ability or willingness to prosecute but there has been a conscious inclusive democratic decision...

...doubtful. What they would do, most likely, is prosecute their national themselves — serious prosecutions, not the kind that the U.S. reserves for its own war criminals. And then, of course, the principle of complementarity would require the ICC to defer to them — which is exactly the point of complementarity. One cannot solve the perennial problem of “who will guard the guardians” by handing over authority to prosecutors and courts. But that is what the universal jurisdiction agenda boils down to. Mr. Garzon’s comeuppance should be a warning to...

...on states, not just on the ICC. An examination of complementarity, for example, that looks at how the ICC ‘looks down’ on how states deal with atrocity crimes, should also properly assess how states are dealing with these international crimes. Clark does this to some extent in his exploration of domestic prosecutions, amnesties, peace negotiations and community-based responses to atrocity crimes. However, his point of departure, here, seems to be that states – in contrast to the ICC – offer justice that is not ‘distant’. They do, after all, have...

...to think an otherwise justifiable proprio motu investigation is nevertheless not in the interests of justice — that’s Art. 53(1)(c). But it also means that the PTC cannot review the OTP’s determination that the potential case or cases in the situation are admissible — that’s Art. 53(1)(b). That may seem like a small thing, but it’s not. Admissibility comprises two of the most critical aspects of the OTP’s decision to open a proprio motu investigation (or any investigation, for that matter): complementarity and gravity (Art. 17). The Afghanistan decision thus...

...to a remedy. In this respect, the question is whether HRL, which also applies in armed conflicts, may provide individuals with a procedural remedy for unlawful harm suffered in war time. Systemic integration between IHL and HRL The relationship between IHL and HRL may be considered from two perspectives: competition and complementarity. Generally, whenever two rules belonging to the different regimes are both applicable and in competition, human rights treaties are interpreted taking into account IHL rules (ICJ Nuclear Weapons, para. 25; HRCtee GC31, para. 11). For instance, the human...

...has shown in the essay linked to above, complementarity is a two-step process, not a one-step process as many scholars assume. The first step asks whether the state is “active” with regard to a case that the OTP wants to pursue — whether, in other words, the state is currently pursuing an investigation or prosecution of the same suspect for the same conduct. If it isn’t active, the case is admissible regardless of whether the state is willing and able to investigate or prosecute. If it is active — and...

...question about truth commissions, because you can’t say a priori which ones are a reasonable response to the situation, and which ones are a cover-up. It’s going to require extreme care by the prosecutor. There may be some problem there with the capacity to subvert those processes if they are reasonable, and we’ll just have to hope that the institutions within the court take a sensible view about it. But complementarity extends to covering internal processes which don’t necessarily involve prosecutions of individuals, so there’s no reason why the principle...

...and civil society (including Parliamentarians for Global Action) have been launched to remedy the ICC’s jurisdictional limitation, whilst the creation of the Special Tribunal has increasingly found itself in a political spotlight. One would think (and hope) that such development would prompt States to properly acknowledge how the limitations relating to jurisdictional issues – procedurally or substantively- may eventually backfire, and only lead to resorting to more cumbersome solutions.  Complementarity Laying down rules for an effective State-to-State cooperation, the Convention benefits all States, irrespective of their status to the Rome...

...this largely as the cross-referencing of cases between the two regional courts. However, one might ask for a greater examination of the use of similar doctrines and practices across not only these courts but also others, as she begins to discuss when addressing subsidiarity, deference, and the ICC principle of complementarity. Here, an examination of the work of the African Court of Human and People’s Rights might have provided an additional comparative perspective, particularly given that court’s broader application of states’ obligations beyond the African Convention. The necessity of the...

...two prosecutorial staffers by name who might be subject to visa restrictions and other punitive measures—the Prosecutor’s Chef de Cabinet and the head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division (JCCD) (even though neither would likely be involved in any actual investigation were one to materialize)—and threatened to also sanction the family members of ICC personnel. Experienced U.S. diplomats, including several who served under Republican and Democratic Administrations as U.S. Ambassadors-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, along with former Nuremberg Prosecutor Ben Ferencz, immediately decried this startling and counter-productive move, pronouncing...

...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...