Asset freezing at the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council: A legal protection perspective

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are both empowered to request States to freeze individuals’ assets. The ICC can do so with respect to persons accused of the crimes under its jurisdiction, while the UNSC can make such requests in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Regardless of their duration, such measures necessarily infringe upon the targets’ rights. But the longer assets are frozen, the more acute these infringements can become. ICC-requested asset freezes can endure from the issuance of a warrant of arrest until the accused person is acquitted or convicted, whereas UNSC-ordered measures can persist until international peace and security is restored. Asset freezes executed at the behest of the ICC and the UNSC are therefore rarely short in duration. The focus of this thesis rests on the two bodies’ exercise of their asset freezing powers, with a particular emphasis on the legal protections available to those individuals at the receiving end of the measures at the disposal of the ICC and the UNSC, respectively. The thesis concludes that the asset freezing measures implemented by States at the request of the two bodies are largely consistent with the rights of the individuals against whom they are imposed. At the same time, certain problems remain as far as the protracted application of these procedures are concerned. In view of this conclusion, the thesis details two recommendations that the two institutions could consider in order to respond to the issues identified

An independent woman in West Africa The case of Mary Kingsley

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DX198062 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo