Impunity Rises from the Ashes?: The Extent of the Rome Statute's Jurisdiction in the Event of State Succession

Abstract

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) deterrence effect in situations of armed conflict extends only to the reach of its jurisdiction.1 State succession, which often involves massive human rights violations,2 casts doubt on the jurisdiction of the Court and the protection it offers because of questions regarding the continuity of treaty obligations, including those under the Rome Statute, formerly binding upon the predecessor State. This Note argues that customary international law supports the continued application of the Rome Statute in instances of State succession because the treaty articulates the necessary human rights and humanitarian law principles to fall under the customary international law rule for the continuation of human rights and humanitarian law treaties. Two basic types of international law exist: treaties and customary international law.3 Treaties arise out of express negotiations between State parties, resulting in certain rights and obligations to which the parties agree.4 Human rights and humanitarian treaties obligate State parties to protect individuals living under those treaties.5 Customary international law, on the other hand, arises not from express negotiations between sovereign States,6 but rather from the practice of nations followed out of a sense of legal obligation.7 However, customary international law—as with the law of treaties—imposes human rights and humanitarian obligations