Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice

The UN Security Council has recently referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the International Criminal Court. This has been hailed as a breakthrough in international criminal justice. However, aspects of the referral resolution can be criticized from the point of view of their consistency with both the Rome Statute and the UN Charter.The limitations of the referral with respect to whom the Court may investigate also raise issues with respect to the rule of law. In addition, Sudan has accused the Security Council of acting in a neo-colonial fashion by referring the situation in Darfur to the Court. This article investigates these criticisms against the background of the international system in which international criminal law operates, and concludes that although the referral cannot be considered neo-colonial in nature, the referral can be criticized as selective and as an incomplete reaction to the crisis in Darfur. The referral remains, however, a positive step

Prosecuting the Leaders: Promises, Politics and Practicalities

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->Given recent developments in relation to the prosecution of international crimes,  it might be thought that one of the last bastions of sovereignty has been breached, and international criminal law has not only entrenched itself in international law. Indeed further to this, it has assumed a supranational position that stands entirely above States, promising justice for all and as a trump card over depredations committed in the name of State sovereignty. After all, Charles Taylor from Liberia is standing trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Slobodan Milošević only escaped judgment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by dying before the end of his trial, Saddam Hussein was prosecuted and sentenced to death before the Iraqi High Tribunal, and Omar al-Bashir has recently been the subject of a request for an arrest warrant from the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Surely international criminal law reaches its iconographic apogee with the prosecution of such leaders,  brought down to size by the majesty of the law (if not the grandeur of the often aseptic courtrooms)?<br /&gt

Towards an integrated regime for the prosecution of international crimes

This thesis investigates the extent to which there is an integrated system of prosecution of international crimes, involving the prosecution of international crimes by national and international criminal tribunals operating in tandem. It also seeks to investigate the extent that the values protected by international criminal law have been accepted into the structure of international society and how they have altered it. It does these things by looking at two different aspects of the prosecution of international crimes. First, how international criminal tribunals have overcome the problems encountered by national courts and the structural inadequacies of the bilateral, inter-State model of the nature of the international system. Secondly, it investigates whether or not international criminal tribunals have managed to avoid the criticism that the actual enforcement of universal crimes has been selective, and primarily directed against suspects who are not affiliated with the regime that is prosecuting them. It concludes that international criminal tribunals have, to differing extents overcome the problems of national courts and the supposed bilateral nature of international system. Selectivity, both in terms of who is prosecuted, and what they are prosecuted for, remains a problem. Although the coming into being of the ICC will alleviate some of the jurisdictional selectivity rationae personae, particularly as it creates a powerful national interest for States to prosecute offences by their own officials, nationals, or occurring on their territory, the definitions of crimes in the Rome Statute mean that selectivity in relation to the law applied remains, to some extent, problematic