Search: palestine icc

Mark Kersten With today's visit by Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo to Libya it does appear that an ICC trial in Libya is an option that will be discussed. Kevin has suggested he supports this idea as have David Kaye and Stewart Ford. I added my voice in support as well. More importantly, however, the ICC itself appears to be inclined to support the notion and has suggested so publicly (http://wp.me/p1n0fE-w0). The question, it seems, is whether the ICC is restricted, in this instance to an agreement which allows it to run proceedings...

...in full. Vieira said (my translation): “This is an issue that has to be examined in light of the established process. I personally have no knowledge of it and have not seen it. Brazil is a party to the ICC and we respect and follow it. Not every country is part of the ICC so it does not have total/global reach – it is limited. We need to understand its terms better, we do not have a fixed position on this. Putin’s presence in any member country can lead to...

The second is to assume that an international border is part of the territory of neither of the states it divides. The first possibility means that the OTP is correct: the ICC has jurisdiction over the deportation of the Rohingya, because at least one “essential element” of deportation — crossing an international border — took place on the territory of a state party, Bangladesh. The second possibility means that the OTP is wrong: the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the deportation of the Rohingya, because no “essential element” of...

but the Prosecutor’s announcement illustrates the urgency of the US finally taking this seriously. As a US national and a supporter of the ICC, I don’t really want to see the US locked in a showdown against the ICC. Yet, past experience (the misnamed American Servicemember Protection Act, bilateral immunity agreements, legislation allowing US forces in invade The Hague to liberate Americans in ICC custody) suggests such a confrontation is quite possible. Such an approach would not well serve either the ICC or the US, as it would amount to...

is the way that it attempts to use the Libyan government’s illegal detention of Melinda Taylor and her team as grounds for removing the OPCD from the case. I can’t cut-and-paste the relevant paragraphs — thanks, Registry! — so I’ll summarize them: 8. This paragraph points out that Taylor and her team were detained because the Libyan government feels their actions threatened Libya’s national security. It also notes the ICC’s initial statement “deeply regretting” those actions. 9. This paragraph notes that the ICC promised to investigate the OPCD’s actions. 10....

...Mahdi Al Faqi to the ICC however, challenges us to rethink our conception of war crimes to include the broader, but often forgotten concept of cultural destruction. It also serves as a positive example of domestic cooperation with the Court as it was Niger who transferred Mr Al Faqi to the Court. Mr Al Faqi is suspected under Article 8 (2) (e) (iv) ‘of committing war crimes in Timbuktu between 30th June and 10th July 2012, through ‘intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion and or historical monuments’. Specifically,...

Kevin has no doubt put his finger on the key issues facing the ICC and Sudan. Plainly, the ICC is raising the stakes in its investigation of Sudan, a risky proposition given certain fragile peace accords emerging. More interesting to me is that the ICC last week revealed that it tried to capture wanted Sudan minister Ahmed Harun via an extraordinary rendition. The plan, apparently, was to divert Harun’s plane away from its destination: Mecca, Saudi Arabia – and toward some ICC member state where he would be arrested and...

the VCLT and the ICTY/R jurisprudence. There is clearly a basis for bringing in the jurisprudence of the ICTY/R, and the ICC has shown willingness to engage this jurisprudence and to give principled reasons where it departs (e.g., witness proofing). [See Volker Nerlich, “The Status of ICTY and ICTR Precedent in Proceedings before the ICC” in Stahn/Sluiter (eds), The Emerging Practice of the ICC]. However, one aspect which is often not given sufficient consideration is the significant impact of the ICC’s perception of its own legitimacy on this process. An...

...right to investigate and prosecute those responsible according to the legal principle of territorial jurisdiction – based on where the crime was committed. The Ukrainian leadership determined, however, that it would be very difficult to carry out the investigations and prosecutions due to the ongoing conflict in the Donbass region, where the MH17 incident took place. As a result, Ukraine triggered the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed on its territory from 20 February 2014 onwards via two declarations under the ICC Statute, requesting the ICC Prosecutor to investigate the...

In a recent post, I noted my puzzlement at Russia’s recent announcement that it will not cooperate with the ICC’s investigation in Georgia. Noting that “Russia has very little to fear” from the investigation, I asked why it would not “milk a little goodwill by at least pretending to cooperate with the ICC” — especially as Russia could simply stop cooperating with the ICC if the OTP ever found evidence that incriminated it. My post elicited the following response from Patricia Jimenez Kwast on her personal blog: This might be...

...international criminal law. The primary target of his analysis is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Hafetz observers that the ongoing tensions between the ICC’s selection of situations to investigate and cases to prosecute have been intimately related to perceptions of the institution’s credibility: Continued asymmetries in the selection of situations and cases – even if largely the product of a tribunal’s design and the practical obstacles it faces – will hinder the ICC and other international tribunals from satisfying broader conceptions of fairness rooted in the equal application of criminal...

admissibility challenge was brought to the ICC in the case of Joseph Kony (who, of course has/had not been detained). My understanding is that ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II ruled on the basis of admissibility in the Kony case pursuant to Article 19. Mark Kersten Also, just to muddy the waters a bit more, at this point it's not clear that Saif al-Islam is in "custody" of Libya and it isn't even known whether Senussi was detained at all. Saif is in the custody of Zintan rebels, not the NTC and...