Transitional Justice: Toward a Differentiated Theory”,

46 page

Opportunities and Challenges Seeking Accountability for War Crimes in Palestine Under the International Criminal Court\u27s Complementarity Regime

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently conducting a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine, involving allegations against Israeli authorities and military personnel as well as what the Prosecutor refers to as “Palestinian armed groups.” The preliminary examination creates a framework for advancing accountability norms in the Palestinian context and globally for international crimes committed by States with significant resources. However, the road to accountability is anything but straightforward. Indeed, several challenges relating both to the applicable legal framework and broader policy issues, could delay—or potentially even undermine—the accountability process, if not properly understood and managed. One particularly important issue addressed in this Article relates to the ICC’s complementarity regime whereby the Court can only proceed with cases that are not subject to active and genuine investigation or prosecution domestically. Whereas this principle is usually seen as something that intrinsically advances accountability norms, this Article questions whether this is necessarily the case in situations involving global and regional powers. The Article makes three overarching arguments that advance our understanding of international criminal justice, in particular accountability for violations by states with significant resources. First, whereas the ICC is increasingly scrutinizing the actions of states with significant resources and seems willing to proceed with investigating highly sensitive situations, there are substantial challenges associated with achieving accountability for crimes committed by such states. Second, even if there are important variations in government responses, states with significant resources tend to take ICC intervention seriously, and there is some evidence that ICC interventions impact their behavior, although such change in behavior is not necessarily to the benefit of accountability. Third—and related to both of the above arguments—despite being typically viewed as something inherently “good” in terms of advancing accountability norms, the ICC’s complementarity regime often presents challenges for advancing accountability in situations involving states with significant resources

Opportunities and challenges seeking accountability for war crimes in Palestine under the International Criminal Court’s complementarity regime

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently conducting a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine, involving allegations against Israeli authorities and military personnel as well as what the Prosecutor refers to as “Palestinian armed groups.” The preliminary examination creates a framework for advancing accountability norms in the Palestinian context and globally for international crimes committed by States with significant resources. However, the road to accountability is anything but straightforward. Indeed, several challenges relating both to the applicable legal framework and broader policy issues, could delay—or potentially even undermine—the accountability process, if not properly understood and managed. One particularly important issue addressed in this Article relates to the ICC’s complementarity regime whereby the Court can only proceed with cases that are not subject to active and genuine investigation or prosecution domestically. Whereas this principle is usually seen as something that intrinsically advances accountability norms, this Article questions whether this is necessarily the case in situations involving global and regional powers. The Article makes three overarching arguments that advance our understanding of international criminal justice, in particular accountability for violations by states with significant resources. First, whereas the ICC is increasingly scrutinizing the actions of states with significant resources and seems willing to proceed with investigating highly sensitive situations, there are substantial challenges associated with achieving accountability for crimes committed by such states. Second, even if there are important variations in government responses, states with significant resources tend to take ICC intervention seriously, and there is some evidence that ICC interventions impact their behavior, although such change in behavior is not necessarily to the benefit of accountability. Third—and related to both of the above arguments—despite being typically viewed as something inherently “good” in terms of advancing accountability norms, the ICC’s complementarity regime often presents challenges for advancing accountability in situations involving states with significant resources

The UK military in Iraq: efforts and prospect for accountability for international crimes allegations? A discussion paper

This research has been carried out in order to contribute to public debate about the adequacy of the official response relating to allegations of serious abuses perpetrated by the UK military during the Iraq war and occupation, also taking into account the ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) preliminary examination concerning these allegations. The research has focused on reviewing and assessing the steps taken domestically to promote (or obstruct) accountability and developing recommendations regarding any accountability deficits concerning alleged abuses perpetrated by the UK military in Iraq. In our research we have considered the decision-making processes and rationales given for keeping open or closing domestic criminal investigations and not pursuing prosecutions, as well as decisions to transfer matters to inquiry processes in lieu of criminal processes; procedural and regulatory aspects relating to the few military investigations and related procedures which remain open and their progress; rulings of civil courts with oversight over certain matters relevant to the investigations; any lacunae in UK legislation as well as issues relating to the UK Government’s cooperation with the preliminary examination of the ICC Prosecutor and analysis of the ICC Prosecutor’s policy statements and practice regarding the concepts of complementarity, where relevant to the Iraq preliminary examination