LL.M. (International Law) / The after-effects of the Second World War (WWII) and the Cold War that followed engendered a radical paradigm shift in the collective accountability for international crimes. Indeed, institutions have been established to take stock of the catastrophic effects of wars and enable states to come to terms with their confrontational past. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials mainly focused on reigning in military leaders who perpetrated mass killings. These trials laid the foundation for a reconfiguration of the international criminal justice. This study argues that the complementarity principle in the classical sense and the prosecutorial strategy of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of only bringing to justice high-level perpetrators effectively creates an impunity gap if states are unwilling and unable to prosecute. Therefore, positive complementarity becomes necessary for the ICC to encourage states to prosecute both high and low-level perpetrators. In an endeavour to achieve this, TJ mechanisms become necessary as they provide a holistic approach, i.e. involvement of victims, provision of reparations and prosecution of offenders. The statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome statute) is said to have a so-called “catalysing effect” on domestic criminal justice systems by some authors mainly because the principal obligation to investigate and prosecute international crimes is entrusted to the domestic criminal justice systems. The ICC may exercise its prerogative over a case only if the states have not genuinely investigated or prosecuted the perpetrator. However, the catalysing effect of the complementarity principle can be discordant with transitional justice (TJ) mechanisms in post-conflict societies where justice might have to be compromised over peace and vice versa. This has been observed where measures such as amnesty, the use of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs), and pardons have been solicited by rebels or de facto holders of power, such as military chiefs, as a way of evading accountability.

No description available.

LL.M. (International Law) / The coming into force of the Rome Statute of the ICC (International Criminal Court) created a shift in state attitude in respect of the implementation and enforcement of International Law. In particular, several issues arise concerning the role to be played by states in the context of complementarity between the ICC and national courts. The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of the most concern to the international community and its power is limited by, amongst others, the complementarity principle as well as the jurisdiction and functioning of national courts. States parties agreed to establish a permanent court which would put an end to impunity and prevent acts of core international crimes, as well as ensure effective prosecution of international crimes. Under the Rome Statute, states parties are obliged to develop measures at the national level in order to enhance international cooperation with the ICC. The complementarity principle encompasses, amongst others, the duty of every State to exercise criminal jurisdiction over international crimes, to enhance the capacity of national jurisdiction and to implement an appropriate national legal system which provides the same level of guarantee in investigating and prosecuting international crimes as the ICC. Both the ICC and national courts have jurisdiction over core crimes and this concurrent jurisdiction causes conflict between both institutions. The complementarity principle is based on the basis that states should maintain primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However,these conflicts do not arise with Ad Hoc tribunals, whose Statutes emphasise the supremacy of the international criminal tribunals over national courts. The complementarity principle is based on the basis that states should maintain primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The complementarity principle provides that prosecutions of crimes stipulated under the Rome Statute are primarily the task of states and the ICC is the court of last resort.6 This primary competence of national courts and the boundary between the two jurisdictions is given expression in article 17 of the Rome Statute. Prosecutions of core crimes before the ICC are only admissible if, and under condition that, an effective prosecution at the national level is threatened by legal, political and factual obstacles.

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper will explore the history of the outbreak of religious related violence in Nigeria and the response of Nigeria and the African Union to the acts of the Boko Haram group both legally and procedurally. The intervention of the ICC as a viable option to combat the scourge of the group will also be examined. Other options such as trial in the Court of third States under the principle of universal jurisdiction and a special court jointly facilitated by the States involved will also be assessed.

This thesis attempts to address perennial concerns, mostly raised in some quarters in Africa, pertaining to the development of the complementarity regime established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It grapples with a very important question, whether the principle of complementarity, embodied in article 17 of the Rome Statute, was formulated and is being applied by the ICC in a manner that upholds the ideals and theories upon which the regime was founded. The principle of complementarity is designed to mediate the imperatives of State sovereignty and a legitimate international criminal justice system. Essentially, complementarity gives States latitude to try genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression nationally, with the ICC only intervening where States are either unable or unwilling to prosecute genuinely. Africa constitutes the biggest regional block of membership to the Rome Statute, however, over the years; support for the ICC on the African continent has waned. It has been argued in some quarters that the ICC is anti-African and that it has interpreted and applied complementarity in a manner that diminishes State sovereignty. The thesis argues that this tension may also be due to textual deficiencies inherent within the Rome Statute, in the provisions that embody this principle. It therefore examines complementarity from a theoretical perspective to provide a comprehensive account of the system contemplated by the drafters of the Rome Statute. In this regard, the thesis argues for expansion of States’ ability at the national level to deal with international crimes without compromising international criminal justice processes or threatening State sovereignty. This is suggested as a way of relieving the tension that has characterised the relationship between African States and the ICC. The thesis further sketches out some of the complexities inherent in the modalities through which the Court may exercise its complementary jurisdiction, particularly within the African continent, given that legal systems in most African countries are particularly weak. It thus dissects the provisions that outline the principle of complementarity in tandem with the Court’s interpretation and application of complementarity in practice. Furthermore, through an exploratory survey of the referral of the Situation in Uganda, and the ICC Prosecutor’s proprio motu investigation of the Situation in Kenya, the thesis illustrates how a positive approach to complementarity can help establish a healthy cooperative synergy between the ICC and States, thereby promoting a functional expeditious criminal justice system. This will go a long way towards assuaging State’s fears that the ICC merely pays lip service to complementarity and arbitrarily supersedes national jurisdiction.

The principle of complementarity is a tool used to punish the commission of core international crimes. A concerted approach is required to combat war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court needs to fully appreciate the express and implied discretionary powers of states to ensure all possible accountability mechanisms are explored. Failure by the Prosecutor to do so results in missed opportunities to capitalise on various options related to the proper application of complementarity. Therefore, there is a need for consultations to establish that the International Criminal Court and prosecutions can no longer exist without competing alternatives preferred by states. The current misunderstandings on the application of complementarity are rooted in unresolved state and prosecutorial discretions. The endangering of state discretion threatens the integrity and credibility of the International Criminal Court. The unaddressed question of state discretion is also at the centre of disputes between the African Union and the International Criminal Court. Grey areas in the application of complementarity are clearly visible through the inconsistency and diversity of the International Criminal Court decisions and frequent prosecutorial policy proclamations. As a result, prosecutorial discretion needs to be checked. Prosecutorial discretion is checked at the United Nations, International Criminal Court and state levels. The checks at regional level and by non-prosecutorial options need to be explored. The call is for the International Criminal Court not to neglect the legal-political environment which the Court operates in. The environment is essential in demarcating the exercise of discretions. The Kenyatta case is illustrative of the need to invent an interpretation that reflects the evolving theory to practice reality. The development or amendment of a prosecutorial policy is desirable to give guidance on the value, circumstances and priority accorded to justice. The policy should be comprehensive enough to accommodate mechanisms which advocate for strengthened state discretion. For instance, African Union instruments and treaties reveal that the respect of state discretion is one of the core principles of the African Union system. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LL.D.