No description available.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the signing of the Rome Statute in July, 1998 created the first permanent criminal court under international law. The Court stands in stark contrast to previous international criminal tribunals not simply because of its permanent nature, but also because it places the individual, not states, responsible under international law. It is, however, this independent, permanent nature of the Court which sparked fears within the society of states that the Court may in some manner serve to erode the state sovereignty. The purpose of this work is to address this basic concern. The aim of the work is to address the concept of sovereignty by first examining standard perceptions of sovereignty and then to move the discussion into an institutionalist construction of the term. Once accomplished, I then apply a set of criteria for evaluating sovereignty to the basic structures of the ICC in order to explore what the potential impact of the ICC may be on the institution of state sovereignty. In the end, I find that the institution of sovereignty is not threatened by the presence of the Court. In fact, the institution of sovereignty may be in some ways bolstered by the Court in that the Court embodies a new set of principals with regards to the appropriate relationship between the state and the individual. / Master of Arts

This research aims to analyze the relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). To understand the making of the ICC and the role of NGOs in its making is the intention behind this research project. It is for this reason that this thesis begins with a detailed examination of the emerging roles of NGOs in international relations. Subsequently, the background of ICC’s making is mentioned. It is divided into two parts, including participation of states and participation of NGOs. Regarding participation of NGOs in the making of the ICC, NGO Coalition for the ICC (CICC) plays a crucial role in this campaign. In summary, the lessons learned from CICC can be concluded as follows: - setting and controlling the international political agenda - gathering and analyzing information quickly - using the media as a means of dissemination - increasing communications with States - coordinating information and strategy - reducing coalition-building costs - monitoring and implementing international law The creation of the ICC can be seen as a multilateral mechanism for concerted international human security efforts. If we can apply the lessons that CICC have learned, then many more successful campaigns will be expected soon.

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.

No description available.

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.

This thesis analyzes the technical definition of the crime of persecution for the purpose of prosecutions at the International Criminal Court. The provisions on the crime of persecution are found in Article 7(1)(h) and Article 7(2)(g) of the Rome Statute and Article 7(1)(h) of the Elements of Crimes. Lack of clarity is a difficulty with these provisions. The writer analyzes the provisions by pooling together primary and secondary sources and drawing on the customary international law that has emerged from the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunals established between 1945 and 2003.

This thesis employs a social constructionist perspective to analyze constructions of the International Criminal Court (ICC), specifically (1) the notion of impunity; (2) the presence of a critical analysis; and (3) the connection between state support/opposition and favourable/negative portrayals of the Court. The theory chapter focuses on the propaganda model’s main premise that “media serve the interests of that state … framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate accordingly” (Herman & Chomsky, 1998, p.32). A thematic qualitative content analysis and several tools of grounded theory deconstructed 1,982 articles collected from The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Overall, the newspapers contained a high level of support for the propaganda model’s main assertions. Some of these conversations were quite limited and/or biased; specifically, American newspapers manipulated debates to justify American opposition to the Court.

No description available.