Thesis (M.S.) -- Central Connecticut State University, 2008. / Thesis advisor: Timothy Rickard. "... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in International Studies." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 117-124). Also available via the World Wide Web.

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.

This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.D.

This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.