No description available.

The principle of complementarity is the cornerstone of the establishment of the International Criminal Court as well as one of the key factors for its successful operation.  Having said that, the qualities of being flexible and adaptable make the task of interpreting the principle of complementarity extremely sensitive and technically tricky.  According to the current wording of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute, the ICC could factually exercise primacy over the national jurisdiction, if a loose interpretation of the principle is adopted, or conversely being residual to national jurisdictions, if the principle was strictly interpreted. While the principle of complementarity was at the heart of the negotiating process for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the emerging practice of the Court to date has left the vast majority of the questions on complementarity unanswered, even the few issues which the Court has touched upon are not immune from criticism. This thesis will thus strive, through an in-depth analysis of the past, present and practice of the principle of complementarity and its corollary issues, to offer workable answers as well as constructive criticism.  Guided by the central objective of ending impunity for the core crimes through criminal justice, this thesis, in interpreting the principle of complementarity, will follow a balanced approach which, while unequivocally favours national prosecutions where possible, it adopts a broadening interpretation when national jurisdictions are genuinely unavailable or ineffective.  To this end, this thesis eventually presents the principle of complementarity as a managerial principle which promotes for the effective investigation and prosecution of the core crimes through the adoption of different policies which encourage, <i>inter alia</i>, a division of labour between the International Criminal Court and domestic jurisdictions, and enable states to carry out proceedings and overcome dilemmas of ‘inability’ or ‘unwillingness’ without the role of the International Criminal Court being limited in such incidents to excluding national jurisdiction.

No description available.

<p>The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (Commission) began its work in October 2004 and provided its final report only three months later on 25 January 2005.2 There, it concluded, inter alia, &ldquo / that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide&rdquo / and that at least the central Government authorities did not act with genocidal intent.3 However, these findings would not exclude the possibility that the atrocities committed by individuals against victims were carried out with the specific intent to destroy and therefore could possibly fulfil all necessary requirements of the crime of genocide.</p>

<p>The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (Commission) began its work in October 2004 and provided its final report only three months later on 25 January 2005.2 There, it concluded, inter alia, &ldquo / that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide&rdquo / and that at least the central Government authorities did not act with genocidal intent.3 However, these findings would not exclude the possibility that the atrocities committed by individuals against victims were carried out with the specific intent to destroy and therefore could possibly fulfil all necessary requirements of the crime of genocide.</p>

The prosecutorial standard for incitement is subject to different approaches in the common law and civil law traditions respectively. The most crucial difference lies in the role attributed to the result as a definitional element of the offence. While the civil law generally characterizes proof of results as a prerequisite to liability, the common law views it as significant but not determinative of guilt. This divergence is expounded at the international level, which condones both approaches with respect to different crimes, employing the common law approach only to genocide and relegating all other crimes to the purview of the civil law approach. The practical effect is a focus on the gravity of the substantive crime to which incitement attaches, rather than on the crucial role of incitement itself. This thesis will seek to elucidate the parameters of this debate with the aim of deconstructing and redrawing preconceived barriers in international criminal law.

Thesis (D.Jur.Sc.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of Law, 2000. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 309-321).

Habilitation - Universität, Innsbruck, 2006. / Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (p. [381]-403) and index.

Univ., Diss.--Freiburg im Breisgau, 2002.

Univ., Diss.--München, 1999.