The Catalysing Effect of the Rome Statute in Africa: Positive Complementarity and Self-Referrals

IF 0.9 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminal Law Forum Pub Date : 2020-06-02 DOI:10.1007/s10609-020-09398-7
Patricia Hobbs
{"title":"The Catalysing Effect of the Rome Statute in Africa: Positive Complementarity and Self-Referrals","authors":"Patricia Hobbs","doi":"10.1007/s10609-020-09398-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) policy and practice of self-referrals has attracted some degree of academic criticism. This has been due partly because the procedure itself was, according to some opinions, never quite envisaged in the original Rome Statute, and partly because the concept of a State self-referral appears to contradict the Rome Statute objective of the ICC as a Court of complementarity. Following Gabon’s self-referral in 2016, and in view of the recent termination of the ICC Prosecutor’s Preliminary Examinations in Gabon, this paper argues that African States’ self-referral practice continues to represent a step backwards for African local justice and accountability. The fact that in this particular situation the necessary threshold was not met is actually not relevant for the argument put forward in this paper, namely that this practice should now be put under scrutiny rather than accepting, at face value, a self-referral whenever an (African) State proposes it. The strengthening of local accountability and the transformation of the local justice landscape should be considered as the ICC long-term objectives, and more dialogue (as well as political pressure) should be contemplated in order to gently coerce States to take on investigations and prosecutions of international crimes.","PeriodicalId":43773,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Law Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-020-09398-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) policy and practice of self-referrals has attracted some degree of academic criticism. This has been due partly because the procedure itself was, according to some opinions, never quite envisaged in the original Rome Statute, and partly because the concept of a State self-referral appears to contradict the Rome Statute objective of the ICC as a Court of complementarity. Following Gabon’s self-referral in 2016, and in view of the recent termination of the ICC Prosecutor’s Preliminary Examinations in Gabon, this paper argues that African States’ self-referral practice continues to represent a step backwards for African local justice and accountability. The fact that in this particular situation the necessary threshold was not met is actually not relevant for the argument put forward in this paper, namely that this practice should now be put under scrutiny rather than accepting, at face value, a self-referral whenever an (African) State proposes it. The strengthening of local accountability and the transformation of the local justice landscape should be considered as the ICC long-term objectives, and more dialogue (as well as political pressure) should be contemplated in order to gently coerce States to take on investigations and prosecutions of international crimes.
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
《罗马规约》在非洲的催化作用:积极互补和自我参照
国际刑事法院(ICC)的自我移交政策和实践引起了一定程度的学术批评。造成这种情况的部分原因是,根据一些意见,最初的《罗马规约》从未完全设想过程序本身,部分原因是,国家自行提交的概念似乎与《罗马规约》关于国际刑事法院作为一个互补法院的目标相抵触。继2016年加蓬的自我移交之后,鉴于最近国际刑事法院在加蓬的检察官初步审查被终止,本文认为,非洲国家的自我移交做法继续代表着非洲地方司法和问责制的倒退。在这种特殊情况下,没有达到必要的门槛这一事实实际上与本文件提出的论点无关,即现在应该审查这一做法,而不是在表面上接受(非洲)国家提出的自我移交。应将加强地方问责制和改变地方司法格局视为国际刑事法院的长期目标,并应考虑进行更多的对话(以及施加政治压力),以便温和地迫使各国对国际罪行进行调查和起诉。
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
Criminal Law Forum
Criminal Law Forum Multiple-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Criminal Law Forum is a peer-review journal dedicated to the advancement of criminal law theory, practice, and reform throughout the world. Under the direction of an international editorial board, Criminal Law Forum serves the global community of criminal law scholars and practitioners through the publication of original contributions and the dissemination of noteworthy public documents. Criminal Law Forum is published pursuant to an agreement with the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, based in Vancouver, British Columbia.
期刊最新文献
National Security Whistleblowing. Reflections on the Rationale for Exempting from Criminal Liability the Unauthorised Disclosure of Classified Information for the Purpose of Exposing State Wrongdoing Judging Gender: The Sentencing of South African Mothers Who Murder Their Children An integrated model for criminal responsibility in action: How Swedish criminal law operates without an insanity defence An Empirical Study of Publicly Appointed and Privately Retained Defense Lawyers in Plea Bargaining: The Chinese Experience The Four Faces of Intoxication in the Botswana Criminal Justice System: “Defence”, Extenuation, Mitigation, and Aggravation
×
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