The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions: The Principle of Complementarity (The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Human Rights Library)

CONTENTS
......Page 6
ABBREVIATIONS......Page 10
PREFACE......Page 12
1.1. The establishment of a complementary international criminal court......Page 14
1.2. Possible relationships between international and national jurisdiction......Page 17
1.3. Why analyse the complementarity principle?......Page 19
1.4. The available sources of law......Page 20
1.5. The book's further structure......Page 22
2.2. The purposes of the Rome Statute......Page 24
2.3. The purposes of the complementarity principle......Page 28
2.4. Comparing national and international criminal proceedings......Page 33
3.1. Introduction......Page 44
3.2. The political stakes involved and the changing times......Page 45
3.3. Early ILC discussions (1950-88)......Page 48
3.4. The establishment of the ad hoc tribunals (1993-94)......Page 54
3.5. The ILC discussions on an international criminal court (1990-94)......Page 57
3.6. The discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee (1995)......Page 77
3.7. The discussions in the Preparatory Committee (1996-98)......Page 82
3.8. The Rome Conference (1998)......Page 93
4.1. Introduction......Page 100
4.2. The trigger mechanisms......Page 102
4.3. The distinction between a "situation" and a "case"......Page 104
4.4. The decision whether to investigate......Page 107
4.5. The decision whether to prosecute......Page 133
4.6. Article 18: Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility......Page 136
4.7. Article 19: Challenges to the admissibility of a case......Page 163
4.8. Two particular procedural issues......Page 191
5.1. The main rule: national proceedings prevail......Page 198
5.2. The "sufficient gravity" criterion......Page 199
5.3. The term "complementary"......Page 200
5.4. The term "a State which has jurisdiction"......Page 203
5.5. The terms "the case", "the person concerned" and "the same conduct"......Page 210
5.6. National inaction: automatic admissibility......Page 212
5.7. Relevant national proceedings......Page 215
5.8. General vs. specific information......Page 225
6.1. Introduction......Page 228
6.2. Process and not outcome......Page 229
6.3. Cultural differences and national margin......Page 230
6.4. A general standard......Page 231
6.5. Human rights standards......Page 232
6.6. The ICC's own proceedings as a standard......Page 242
7.2. The admissibility criteria and internationalised courts......Page 244
7.3. The admissibility criteria and Security Council referrals......Page 249
7.4. The admissibility criteria and self-referrals......Page 259
8.1. The term "unwillingness"......Page 264
8.2. The attribution of the unwillingness to the state......Page 266
8.3. The factors in article 17(2)......Page 269
8.4. Legitimate reasons not to investigate, prosecute or convict......Page 322
9.2. The factors in article 17(3)......Page 326
9.3. General or specific causes of a state's "inability"......Page 341
10.2. Completed trials and inability......Page 344
10.3. The accused has abused the national process......Page 345
10.4. New significant evidence after a completed proceeding......Page 346
10.5. The convicted person is subsequently pardoned or paroled......Page 347
10.6. The state has characterised an ICC crime as an ordinary crime......Page 348
10.7. The case has implications for other cases before the ICC......Page 350
11.1. Introduction......Page 352
11.2. Some general aspects......Page 353
11.3. Prosecutorial discretion before other international and national  jurisdictions......Page 359
11.4. The "interests of justice" criterion in article 53 – general analysis......Page 366
11.5. Factors listed in article 53......Page 372
11.6. Factors not listed in article 53......Page 385
11.7. Judicial control......Page 416
11.8. The need for a prosecutorial policy, transparency and guidelines......Page 423
12.1. Introduction......Page 430
12.2. The transitional government's dilemma......Page 433
12.3. National amnesties and other states......Page 436
12.4. National amnesties and the Rome Statute......Page 437
12.5. Suggested factors for the "evaluation" of national amnesties......Page 464
12.6. Conclusive remarks......Page 476
13.2. Safeguarding state sovereignty......Page 482
13.3. Promoting national criminal proceedings......Page 486
13.4. Ensuring effective ICC interference......Page 491
13.5. Ensuring an appropriate selection of situations and cases......Page 496
13.6. Would a primary ICC have been preferable?......Page 499
INDEX......Page 502
BIBLIOGRAPHY......Page 512
SELECTED DOCUMENTS......Page 528
TABLE OF CASES......Page 538