Search: Complementarity SAIF GADDAFI

...on other frameworks seems to be a frequent characteristic of government filings - of Kenya previously and of Libya in the Gaddafi and Al Senussi cases. It's not simply a case of bad lawyering - many of these filings are signed by well-established international criminal law and/or public international law figures. Alexander David K charitably commented: "It’s not simply a case of bad lawyering – many of these filings are signed by well-established international criminal law and/or public international law figures." The second part of this assessment is certainly true....

...committed by the anti-Gaddafi militias in Libya given that such assistance had a prima facie and "substantial effect on the crime's commission" ? Kevin Jon Heller LO, It's impossible to make a definitive judgment without knowing all the facts, but there is no question the specific-direction would make holding NATO accountable much more difficult. It would not be enough simply to show NATO provided assistance that ended up having a substantial effect on a crime committed by the rebels; you would also have to show that NATO directed the assistance...

...to make sueing corporations possible. The same is the case of international treaties. There are no such treaties, because powerful states, such as U.S. don't want their corporations to be sued for human rights violations. In short your argument is like saying that Gaddafi should be tried according to the Libyan law, which he dictated himself, stating that whatever he does or say is the law. Jordan Response... AND there are at least 20 Supreme Court cases that have ALREADY decided that corporations and companies can have duties and rights...

...on the basis of having issued the arrest warrant: http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc966058.pdf . Another discussion can be found in the decision denying the request of Judge Monageng to be excused in the Gaddafi/Senussi appeals: http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1397414.pdf. These decisions concern appeals, so they are admittedly very different from the present case, but the principles are similar. One interesting aside to consider in the present context is article 39 (4): “under no circumstances shall a judge who has participated in the pre-trial phase of a case be eligible to sit on the Trial Chamber hearing...

...pardon of accountability in the U.S. domestic setting does not end the discussion. Rather it evidences the failure of complementarity, calling us to seek international tribunals as a solution. I would prefer that the United States not find itself in a situation where it would have its leaders hailed before international criminal tribunals if possible. The United States court system has sufficient independence and neutrality to be able to address criminality at the highest level of the United States in a manner that is both fair and just. Moreover, given...

...avoids prosecuting its own officials and soldier for anything of consequence. It also undermines what is, I think, one of the few legitimate US concerns about the ICC -- namely, that although the Rome Statute is based on the principle of complementarity, the Court has the final say over whether a state is "willing" to prosecute its own nationals. Given how evidently unwilling the US is to do so, the US position seems -- wrongly -- like little more than a demand for the right to act (or not act)...

...judge will assert jurisdiction over something that should be left to the domestic political process of another country" True enough. But in the Spanish example the Courts will only act when no action has been taken by a more appropriate forum (essentially an application of the complementarity principle) and the fact is that, certainly in the China example, no action has been taken at home - not even a "domestic political process/bargain" such as an amnesty or a TRC. That being the case I wonder if exercises of universal jurisdiction...

...easy one not involving complex questions of Complementarity, proportionality etc.. Aeyal Gross Also by the way one can argue the PA won't care much for Hamas people being at the dock, but that could be politically wrong (or right). Zach I have to agree with André. Article 12(3) can only be utilized by non-states parties. However, Palestine could presumably file a declaration first and then ratify the Statute. I don't believe that ratification would nullify the declaration. Another interesting strategy that the Palestinian government could employ is ratification with an...

...the principle of complementarity, has been favoured publicly by the ICC prosecutor who sees the ICC for state parties as a court of last resort. The ICC prosecutor cannot as such investigate these cases as the UK is willing and able to prosecute crimes falling covered by the ICC statute. Thus the decision has much less to do with pro western policy and number of victims.... Matthew Gross I don't think the evidence would bear any prosecutions of US officials in Operation Condor. Those documents so far obtained show little...

...all, I think the U.S. delegation did a credible job of protecting U.S. interests at the conference. Guy2 "All in all, I think the U.S. delegation did a credible job of protecting U.S. interests at the conference" - if one considers US interests as being the interests of impunity, I agree. Why in the world would the US consider prosecuting these crimes according to the complementarity principle as contrary to its interests?! This is something I will never understand. In the medium term (say, 30 years), the US stands to...

...complementarity principle? (Which the Ugandan courts do not, at least yet.) Problems like these are why the ICC should not allow self-referrals. Matthew Happold Is the ICC blocking peace in northern Uganda? Much of the blame lies with the Ugandan Government, which referred the situation to the ICC (not least to "internationalise" the conflict and put pressure on the LRA) and for some time now has been saying one thing to the Court and external observers, and another to the LRA and its internal constituency. On the other hand, the...

Erlend Julian I am certainly no expert on ICL, but regarding your comment as to whether the ICC Statute allows for "substitutions like this"... as the ICC hardly owns the conflict, wouldn't this (hypothetically) rather be a question of complementarity or ne bis in idem from an ICC-point of view? Or possibly a problem of dual jurisdiction (and a possibly very interesting case of fragmentation of IL)?...