Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-b4ls7 Total loading time: 0.503 Render date: 2022-07-06T11:38:30.776Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

13 - Too much of a good thing?: implementation and the uses of complementarity

from PART III - Analytical dimensions of complementarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Carsten Stahn
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Mohamed M. El Zeidy
Affiliation:
International Criminal Court
Get access

Summary

This chapter seeks to criticize some of the excesses of the International Criminal Court's complementarity regime when it comes to implementation. The argument is that states are being pushed by transnational civil society to harmonize their domestic laws with the Rome Statute in ways that have little to do with the requirements of complementarity and, instead, reflect traditional human rights and rule of law agendas. I identify several ways in which implementation is being used as a sort of ‘Trojan horse’ for these agendas, and then suggest that the reality of complementarity is that the ICC will almost never find a state unwilling or unable simply because of relatively minor qualitative differences in the substantive or procedural law. The only exception is cases where the absence of implementing legislation makes it impossible for a state to exercise jurisdiction over a crime entering the Court's jurisdiction. I conclude with a few thoughts on what complementarity should be: not so much a stick to beat international criminal law laggards, but a device to manage diversity and pluralism in international criminal law.

Introduction

Complementarity has emerged in the last decade as a formidable leverage to obtain implementation. In fact, one could argue that the virtual effect of complementarity via implementation has outweighed, at least so far, the actual jurisdictional operation of complementarity. Complementarity has become part of the way in which international criminal lawyers project a sense of the ‘international criminal law acquis’, a sort of global package of norms that have to be adopted by states that become part of the ICC club.

Type
Chapter
Information
The International Criminal Court and Complementarity
From Theory to Practice
, pp. 361 - 390
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cassese, A. et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002) 1849
Doherty, K. L. and McCormack, T. L. H., ‘Complementarity as a Catalyst for Comprehensive Domestic Penal Legislation’ (1999) 5 UC Davis J Int'l L and Pol'y149Google Scholar
Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary Checklist for Effective Implementation, AI Index IOR 40/015/2000 (2000) 1. See also, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform (ICCLR), International Criminal Court: Manual for the Ratification and the Implementation of the Rome Statute (3rd edn, 2008) 91 (‘all States wishing to rely upon the complementarity principle should review existing defences under their national criminal law in order to ensure that these defences do not potentially shield persons from criminal responsibility for acts amounting to ICC crimes’)
International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), International Criminal Court, Implementation of the Rome Statute in Cambodian Law (2006) no. 443/2, 64–5
Human Rights Watch (HRW), Making the International Criminal Court Work: A Handbook for Implementing the Rome Statute (2001) vol. 13, no. 4(G), 16
Ellis, M. S., ‘The International Criminal Court and its Implication for Domestic Law and National Capacity Building’ (2002) 15 Fla. J Int'l L227Google Scholar
Amnesty International, Brazil: Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, AI Index AMR 19/005/2009 (2009)
Jessberger, F. and Powell, C., ‘Prosecuting Pinochets in South Africa: Implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 14 S. Afr. J Crim. Just. 344, 348Google Scholar
Cassese, A. et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002) 996
Kleffner, J., ‘The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of Substantive International Criminal Law’ (2003) 1 JICJ 86, 105–6Google Scholar
Rowe, P., McGoldrick, D. and Donnelly, E. (eds.), The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2004) 337, 351Google Scholar
Bottini, G., ‘Universal Jurisdiction After the Creation of the International Criminal Court’ (2004) 36 NYU J Int'l L and Pol.503Google Scholar
Reydams, L., Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (2003) 224–5
Kress, C. and Lattanzi, F. (eds.), The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Orders, vol. I, General Aspects and Constitutional Issues (2000) 1, 14
Heller, K. J., ‘The Shadow Side of Complementarity: the Effect of Article 17 of the Rome Statute on National Due Process’ (2006) 17 Crim. LF255Google Scholar
Politi, M. and Gioia, F. (eds.), The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (2008) 69
Bekou, O. and Shah, S., ‘Realising the Potential of the International Criminal Court: the African Experience’ (2006) 6 HRL Rev.514Google Scholar
Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity: A Tale of Two Notions’ (2008) 19 Crim LF87Google Scholar
Terracino, B., ‘National Implementation of ICC Crimes: Impact on National Jurisdictions and the ICC’ (2007) 5 JICJ432Google Scholar
Broomhall, B., International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (2003) 91
Schense, J. and Piragoff, D. K., Commonalities and Differences in the Implementation of the Rome Statute in National Legislation Incorporating International Crimes: Approaches of Civil and Common Law Countries (2003) 246 (‘some national legislation developed to implement the Rome Statute will serve a broader policy objective, to ensure that national judicial systems can meet all existing obligations under international law’)
Du Plessis, M., ‘Complementarity and Africa: the Promises and Problems of International Criminal Justice’ (2008) 17(4) African Security Review 154, 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldmann, M., ‘Implementing the Rome Statute in Europe: From Sovereign Distinction to Convergence in International Criminal Law?’ (2005) 16 FYBIL 5, 11Google Scholar
Duffy, H., ‘National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 11 Duke J Comp. and Int'l L32Google Scholar
Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (1999) 527
3
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×