Journal of International Criminal Law
Volume:2 Issue: 1, Winter 2021

International criminal law is a forceful response of the international community to the commission of grave violations of humanitarian law. On the other hand, the effectiveness and accountability mechanism of the ICC may be put in jeopardy because of the unwillingness of non-member states to cooperate with the warrant of arrest decisions issued by the Court. The extent of ratione personae immunity of the higher officials and representatives of non-member states is also a potential ban of the ICC jurisdiction. This article argues that the obligation of cooperation, including the surrender and the transfer of the accused persons, is binding upon all states in case of a referral by the UNSC and this obligation covers the non-states parties to the ICC even if the accused possesses ratione personae immunity. The conclusion relies on an analysis of the requirements on the effects of a referral by the UNSC and the character of the crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

This paper will first illustrate Italy’s role in the fight against impunity and the enforcement of international criminal law (ICL) in general, thereafter focusing on the need to incorporate in domestic law the crimes under the Rome Statute in compliance with the complementarity principle and the obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC). As we will show, the effective implementation of the Statute in the national system is fundamental to guarantee the prosecution of crimes under international law, and ensure that the ICC is able to operate successfully, thereby adhering to the general obligation of States to implement treaties in good faith as codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The creators of the International Criminal Court (ICC) made a bold and novel commitment to victims, through remarkable participation and reparation schemes. In doing so, it contemporaneously committed the Court to restorative and victim-centric ideals, and shifted the field of International Criminal Law (ICL) into unchartered territory. Victims of particularly unprecedented attention at the Court were those of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), who had been notoriously excluded from the ambit of the preceding ad hoc tribunals. The ICC now nears twenty years of operation, and so this article uses SGBV victims as a case study through which broader critiques of the ICC's institutional capabilities can be launched. It delves into the figure of the SGBV victim within a socio-cultural context to posit an 'ideal' justice response. Through this new lens, it turns to critique the Court’s commitment to deliver justice for victims, and the validity of the restorative and victim-centric ideals.

By signing and ratifying several international legal instruments, China has shown its support for the international legal system at a time when the world has not yet achieved a single legal and global order. However, in response to the International Criminal Court's Statute and its 2010 amendments, including, the definition of the Crime of Aggression, it took the opposite direction. China has argued that the Court's activities should not conflict with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, that it should be in coordination with the Charter of the United Nations on the definition of the crime of aggression. In this article, we intend to address China's concerns about the expansion of the Court's jurisdiction and its approach towards the definition of the crime of aggression. China claims that allegations regarding the crime of aggression are generally politically controversial. The UN Charter stipulates that the Security Council is the political body that must deal with the issue and that only by doing so will the UN be able to take its commitments in maintaining international peace and security. Therefore, the Court's intervention in such matters with political sensitivity, and prior to the Security Council’s appropriate actions, is not a proper process. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court's Prosecutor to intervene before the Security Council's decision undermines the credibility of both institutions. This article uses a descriptive-analytical method to examine China's approach towards the definition of the crime of aggression.

China is one of the most important countries in the international criminal justice system. On the one hand, China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and its role in the Security Council's referrals to the International Criminal Court is crucial, on the other hand, the country has not acted to limit or weaken the Court. China has not yet become a party to the Rome statute. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the crimes of Chinese nationals except in the case of the Security Council referral. Due to the membership of China in the Security Council, this issue also seems unlikely. China has always supported national proceedings and the need for a peaceful settlement of disputes. This paper seeks to examine the current position and substantive concerns of China towards the ICC.

The law of war involves rules in order to regulate the strategies and conduct of armed conflicts in a legal order and minimize their harmful effects by humanizing them as much as possible. The mission of this part of the law of war that is responsible for humanizing conflicts is international humanitarian law. International Criminal Law is a branch of public international law in which international crimes and the jurisdiction of international criminal courts to prosecute for the perpetrators of these crimes are studied. International humanitarian law and international criminal law, as two very important branches of international public law that interdependently, at the same time, they have gone through a period of history and various developments; the main purpose of this research is to survey the comparative study of the formal and substantive rules of international humanitarian law and international criminal law in the development and evolution of both legal systems. The method of the present research is descriptive-analytical in a library manner in order to survey the comparative study; in both legal systems. The results of this research showed that these two very important branches of public international law in the procedural and substantive rules have many similarities and differences for the development and evolution of each other.