The International Criminal Court’s Gravity Jurisprudence at Ten

Margaret M. deGuzman
{"title":"The International Criminal Court’s Gravity Jurisprudence at Ten","authors":"Margaret M. deGuzman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2428779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Essay, prepared for a symposium on “The International Criminal Court at Ten,” analyzes the ICC’s early jurisprudence on the gravity threshold for admissibility in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. It argues that the threshold, while useful in garnering support for ratification of the Rome Statute, now seems destined to play a minor role in determining the ICC’s reach. While there are multiple possible explanations for this development, an important doctrinal cause identified in the jurisprudence is that the gravity threshold for admissibility is in tension with the Rome Statute’s provisions regarding jurisdiction. At least with regard to the admissibility of cases (as opposed to “situations”), the judges have concluded that interpreting the gravity threshold to exclude certain types of defendants or crimes from the Court’s reach would amount to an impermissible revision of the Court’s jurisdiction. To avoid this outcome, the judges have developed a flexible multi-factor approach to the gravity threshold that enables them to justify admitting virtually any case within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Essay concludes by arguing that, in light of the tension between admissibility and jurisdiction, the judges are right to relegate the gravity threshold to a minor role in determining the cases the Court adjudicates. To the extent the judges seek to limit the ICC’s reach, they should do so by interpreting the Court’s jurisdictional provisions directly rather than through the back door of admissibility.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2428779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

This Essay, prepared for a symposium on “The International Criminal Court at Ten,” analyzes the ICC’s early jurisprudence on the gravity threshold for admissibility in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. It argues that the threshold, while useful in garnering support for ratification of the Rome Statute, now seems destined to play a minor role in determining the ICC’s reach. While there are multiple possible explanations for this development, an important doctrinal cause identified in the jurisprudence is that the gravity threshold for admissibility is in tension with the Rome Statute’s provisions regarding jurisdiction. At least with regard to the admissibility of cases (as opposed to “situations”), the judges have concluded that interpreting the gravity threshold to exclude certain types of defendants or crimes from the Court’s reach would amount to an impermissible revision of the Court’s jurisdiction. To avoid this outcome, the judges have developed a flexible multi-factor approach to the gravity threshold that enables them to justify admitting virtually any case within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Essay concludes by arguing that, in light of the tension between admissibility and jurisdiction, the judges are right to relegate the gravity threshold to a minor role in determining the cases the Court adjudicates. To the extent the judges seek to limit the ICC’s reach, they should do so by interpreting the Court’s jurisdictional provisions directly rather than through the back door of admissibility.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际刑事法院的重力法理学
本文是为“国际刑事法院十周年”专题讨论会准备的,分析了国际刑事法院在《罗马规约》第17条中关于可受理性严重性阈值的早期判例。它认为,这一门槛虽然有助于争取支持批准《罗马规约》,但现在似乎注定要在决定国际刑事法院的权限方面发挥次要作用。虽然对这一发展有多种可能的解释,但法理学中确定的一个重要理论原因是,可受理性的严重性阈值与《罗马规约》关于管辖权的规定相冲突。至少在案件的可受理性方面(相对于“情况”而言),法官们的结论是,解释严重性门槛,将某些类型的被告或罪行排除在法院的管辖范围之外,将等于对法院的管辖权进行不允许的修改。为了避免这种结果,法官们对严重性阈值制定了一种灵活的多因素办法,使他们能够证明接受法院管辖范围内的几乎任何案件是合理的。文章最后指出,鉴于可受理性和管辖权之间的紧张关系,法官在决定法院裁决的案件时,将严重性门槛降至次要地位是正确的。如果法官试图限制国际刑事法院的权限,他们应该直接解释法院的管辖规定,而不是通过可受理性的后门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
'Your Old Road is/Rapidly Agin': International Human Rights Standards and Their Impact on Forensic Psychologists, the Practice of Forensic Psychology, and the Conditions of Institutionalization of Persons with Mental Disabilities Can the United States Impose Trade Sanctions on China for Currency Manipulation The Nuremberg Trial, Seventy Years Later What Investigative Resources Does the International Criminal Court Need to Succeed?: A Gravity-Based Approach The International Criminal Court’s Gravity Jurisprudence at Ten
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1