The International Criminal Court as an International Judicial Control of the National Public Power? (the ICC’s Standpoint on the Complementarity Principle in the Prosecutor V. Simone Gbagbo Case)

Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 61)

Abstract

The article is about the interpretation of the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute. By this principle, the governments participating at the Rome Diplomatic Conference, wanted to match the general claim of putting an end to impunity with the observance of the principle of sovereignty and the rules of rationality and efficacy. The article shows via the Simon Gbagbo case how the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber applied the same person/same conduct test during their respective procedures.

Keywords

ICC Complementarity Same person/same conduct Sovereignty International criminal jurisdiction National proceedings 

References

Books

  1. El Zeidy, Mohamed M. 2008. The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law, Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Leiden-Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Jurdi, Nidal Nabil. 2010. International Criminal Court and National Courts, Ashgate Aldershot, Burlington.Google Scholar
  3. Stahn, Carsten and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds). 2011. The International Criminal Court and Complementarity, University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Politi, Mauro and Federica Gioia (eds). 2008. International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, Ashgate Aldershot, Burlington.Google Scholar
  5. Triffterer—Ambos (eds). 2015. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (3rd ed), Beck-Hart—Nomos.Google Scholar

Online

  1. Klamberg, Mark (ed). Case-Matrix - Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court http://www.casematrixnetwork.org/case-m/klamberg-commentary/rome-statute/#c1150. Accessed 30 November, 2015.
  2. Varga, Réka. Challenges of domestic prosecution of war crimes with special attention to criminal justice guarantees, Budapest, Pázmány Press, 2014, https://jak.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/458014/file/borito_RVarga_PhD4_web_final.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2015.

Book Chapters

  1. Abdou, Mohamed. 2015. Article 17. In: Case-Matrix - Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court. ed. Mark Klamberg.Google Scholar
  2. Conway, Gerard. 2015. Article 20. In: (ed): Case-Matrix - Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court. ed. Mark Klamberg.Google Scholar
  3. Greppi, Edoardo. 2008. Inability to investigate and Prosecute under Article 17, In: International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions. eds. Mauro Politi and Federica Gioia, p. 63–70.Google Scholar
  4. Schabas, William and Mohamed M. El Zeidy. 2015. Article 17 - Issues of Admissibility. In: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, eds. Triffterer – Ambos, p. 781–831.Google Scholar
  5. Stahn, Carsten. 2011. Taking complementarity seriously, In: The International Criminal Court and Complementarity, eds. Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy p. 233–282.Google Scholar
  6. Taylor, Melinda. 2015. Article 18. In: Case-Matrix - Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court., ed. Mark Klamberg.Google Scholar

Journals and Articles

  1. El Zeidy, Mohamed M. 2002. The United States Dropped The Atomic Bomb of Article 16 of the ICC Statute: Security Council Power of Deferrals and Resolution 1422, 35 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law p. 1503–1544.Google Scholar
  2. Mokhtar, Aly. 2003. The Fine Art of Arm-Twisitng: The US, Resolution 1422 and Security Council Deferral Power under the Rome Statute’, 3 International Criminal Law Review p. 295–344.Google Scholar
  3. Stahn, Carsten. 2003. ‘The Ambiguity of Security Council Resolution 1422(2002), 14 European Journal of International Law p. 85–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peter Pazmany Catholic UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations