Tagged: territorial jurisdiction

Ukraine Expands Its Acceptance of ICC Jurisdiction

POST WRITTEN BYProf. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

Violence in Ukraine has troubled that nation and the world community for about two years. Recently, Ukraine has renewed and expanded its efforts to afford the International Criminal Court jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for mass crimes committed on its territory. Ukraine is now alleging that Russia is responsible, in part, for such crimes.

Ukraine is not a State Party to the ICC’s Rome Statute. However, as written about in April 2014 post, Ukraine lodged an Article 12(3) declaration, which allows a non-Party State to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes within its subject matter jurisdiction that are committed on the State’s territory. Ukraine’s 2014 declaration alleged that crimes against humanity were committed during internal strife in Ukraine between November 2013 and February 2014, responsibility for which it alleged was attributable to Ukraine’s former President and possibly other senior officials in his government. The ICC Prosecutor has been conducting a preliminary investigation regarding this matter but has not yet decided whether to seek authorization to open a formal investigation that would expand her investigative powers and allow for filing of charges against individuals.

Ukraine has now gone further. In a September 8, 2015 press release the ICC reported that the ICC Registrar acknowledged receipt of a second Article 12(3) declaration by Ukraine, in which Ukraine expands its acceptance of ICC temporal jurisdiction from beyond February 2014 to the indefinite future. Importantly, the declaration attributes responsibility for post-February 2014 war crimes and crimes against humanity to “senior officials of the Russian Federation and leaders of terrorist organizations.” Thus, Ukraine’s second declaration opens a politically potent issue, asking the ICC Prosecutor to conduct at least a preliminary investigation into Russia’s alleged involvement in the violence in Ukraine.

In its September 8 press release, the ICC noted that “[t]he provisions of Part 9 of the Statute relating to international cooperation and judicial assistance apply.” Part 9 of the Rome Statute imposes on State Parties the responsibility “to cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” The Russian Federation, however, is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and thus has no such responsibility to the ICC.

It will be interesting to see how this matter will develop.

The ICC Prosecutor Addresses Allegations Against ISIS

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On April 8, 2015, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda issued a statement responding to inquiries her Office has received regarding the widely publicized violence attributed to armed forces acting on behalf of the military and political organization known as ISIS. She noted that such violence is reported to include

mass executions, sexual slavery, rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, torture, mutilation, enlistment and forced recruitment of children and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, not to mention the wanton destruction of cultural property.

The International Criminal Court is the only standing international criminal court available to investigate and prosecute crimes of an international character (such as those attributed to ISIS) when such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted by national courts. However, as a treaty-based institution, ICC jurisdiction is limited by rules consented to by State Parties relating to the alleged crimes at issue (subject matter jurisdiction) and to territorial and other requirements.

On August 15, 2014, the U.N. Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII powers took measures with respect to international peace and security and adopted S/RES/2170 (2014), condemning ISIS and other groups “for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts aimed at causing the deaths of civilians and other victims, destruction of property and of cultural and religious sites, and greatly undermining stability.” Res. 2170 calls on U.N. Member States to take measures to interdict the flow of funding and recruits to ISIS. The Security Council has not as yet, however, referred the matter of ISIS-related violence to the ICC, as it could do under Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.

The crimes allegedly committed by ISIS are of a scale and nature that would likely meet the ICC subject matter jurisdiction requirements – at least for initiating a preliminary investigation by the Prosecutor. However, that by itself is not sufficient to allow the Prosecutor, acting on her own initiative, to pursue an investigation. In the absence of a Security Council referral, either territorial jurisdiction (the alleged crimes were committed on the territory of a State Party) or personal jurisdiction (the alleged crimes were committed by a national(s) of a State Party) would need to be met.

The crimes alleged against ISIS were reported to be committed on the territory of Syria and Iraq, neither of which is an ICC State Party. Either country could nevertheless lodge an Article 12(3) declaration allowing the ICC to investigate, but at this point, neither has done so. Therefore, territorial jurisdiction is currently lacking.

As to the other alternative, the Prosecutor stated that she has information that “significant numbers” of ISIS fighters are nationals of ICC State Parties, including Tunisia, Jordan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia. She noted that some of these individuals may have committed crimes within the ICC’s subject matter jurisdiction. She noted also, however, that the information available to her Office indicates that the leadership of ISIS is composed primarily of nationals of the non-Party States of Iraq and Syria. Accordingly, given the OTP’s policy to focus on those most responsible for the commission of mass crimes, the prospect of exercising personal jurisdiction over any nationals of State Parties “appears limited” and “the jurisdictional basis for opening a preliminary examination into this situation is too narrow at this stage.”

Noting that “ISIS continues to spread terror on a massive scale in the territories it occupies,” the Prosecutor stated that she “remain[s] profoundly concerned by this situation” and that she will continue efforts, in consultation with relevant States, to gather further information. She emphasized the international community’s “collective duty … to respond to the plight of victims whose rights and dignity have been violated.”

The ICC Prosecutor Proactively Addresses the Situation in Nigeria

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On February 2, 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, issued a statement calling on all parties to refrain from violence in the Nigerian elections, which were originally scheduled to be held in February 2015.

The Prosecutor’s statement regarding the danger of election-related violence is grounded in ICC experience. She noted that “[e]xperience has shown that electoral competition, when gone astray, can give rise to violence and in the worst case scenarios, even trigger the commission of mass crimes that ‘shock the conscience of humanity.’” Severe factional post-election violence in Kenya (in 2007-08) and Ivory Coast (in 2010-11) led the Prosecutor to bring criminal charges against individuals in both countries.

The Prosecutor’s warning regarding Nigeria has teeth because preliminary examination conducted by her Office into previous violence in Nigeria have advanced to phase 3 (of four phases). Analysis in phase 3 follows upon previous determination that there is a reasonable basis to believe that requirements for the ICC’s subject matter and territorial jurisdiction can be met, and focuses on the question of whether investigation by national authorities is sufficient so as to preclude further investigation by the ICC.

The Prosecutor is looking into allegations of violence committed by Nigerian security forces, while also giving particular focus to widely reported actions by the Nigerian insurgent group, Boko Haram. On May 8, 2014, the Prosecutor issued a public condemnation of Boko Haram’s abduction of over 200 schoolgirls. In her February 2, 2015 statement, she noted that such actions, “which shock the conscience of humanity,” must be prosecuted by Nigerian authorities or by the ICC.

The ICC’s authorizing statute focuses on the investigation and prosecution of crimes already committed. It does not explicitly set out specific responsibility for the Prosecutor to take proactive measures to prevent future crimes. Nevertheless, in its November 2013 Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) stated that “prevention of crimes” is one of “the overarching goals of the statute.” Accordingly, the OTP will work “proactively,” which includes “issu[ing] public, preventive statements in order to deter the escalation of violence and the further commission of crimes ….”

To achieve these goals, the Prosecutor noted that she was sending a team from her Office to Nigeria “to further engage with the authorities and encourage the prevention of crimes.” She forcefully stated, “[n]o one should doubt my resolve, whenever necessary, to prosecute individuals responsible for the commission of ICC crimes.”

Following the Prosecutor’s February 2 statement, the Nigerian electoral commission announced that it was postponing the elections until March 28, 2015. The commission said the postponement was necessary because troops needed to protect polling stations in northern Nigeria, which had been diverted to address an upsurge of violence by Boko Haram. The postponement has met with diverse reactions in Nigeria and elsewhere. While some view it as necessary to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters in the north, others suspect it is part of an effort to keep the current government in power.