Magister Legum - LLM / The coming into force of the Rome Statute on the 1st July 2002 signified the birth of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC came into existence as a permanent criminal court for the prosecution of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Crime of Aggression. There are 121 states-parties to the Rome Statute. This means there are many states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC would ordinarily not have jurisdiction over the nationals of these states if they committed offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC on the territories of the non-states parties. This paper intends to analyse whether the ICC has jurisdiction over nationals of non-state parties who commit crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC on the territories of non-states parties to the Rome Statute. There are situations and cases that are before the ICC involving nationals of non-state parties that committed crimes on territories of non-states parties. These cases have come before the ICC by way of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referrals. This paper will therefore examine the legality of UNSC referrals under international law in respect of nationals of non-states parties, who commit crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, on territories of non-states parties.

Over the years, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has received criticism for exercising its territorial jurisdiction over non-state parties’ nationals. Non-state parties claim that the Court is illegitimate and that its jurisdictional claim over their nationals violates the principle of consent in public international law. This thesis aims to develop interdisciplinary research into international relations and international law by asking the question of how the alleged legitimacy deficit of the ICC can be alleviated. The interdisciplinary methodology is approached through supplementing the legal dogmatic method with international relations theory. In turn, the analysis is carried out in two sections, one dedicated to legal analysis and the other to the international relations theory constructivism. The main finding of legal analysis is that the ICC’s jurisdictional claim over non-state parties is in most cases fully in line with the principle of consent. The analysis finds that the main solution to the legitimacy deficit is that the Court should make an effort to employ its secondary and tertiary sources of law in its interpretation. Both the legal analysis and constructivist theory point to the ICC needing to be more persuasive. The ICC and its allies should create new understandings about it through norm transformation. This norm transformation will take the form of legal persuasion as well as diplomatic and political pressure. In regard to the interdisciplinary research agenda, this inquiry demonstrates that interdisciplinary researchers can tap into the legal discipline and its methodology by embracing legal formalism. Such use of the legal discipline will also allow for constructivists to learn from legal scholars about persuasion and norm systematisation.