The principle of complementarity is the corner stone for the operation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It organizes the functional relationship between domestic courts and the ICC. This is the first careful study of the historical antecedents of the principle of complementarity, which has become so central to the operation of contemporary international criminal law. The study draws upon the first efforts at international prosecution, after the First World War, and then traces the evolution of the concept through the drafting of the 1937 treaty on terrorism, and the post-Second World War tribunals. It examines in an exhaustive manner the work of the International Law Commission that led to the drafting of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, up to the deposit of the draft statute with the UN General Assembly in 1994. It considers the travaux preparatoires of the Rome Statute itself, in a most thorough manner.It also examines the post-Rome developments, particularly the original interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Statute by both the Office of the Prosecutor and the Pre-Trial Chambers. This is a study that is of intrinsic historical interest, but also one that may help to guide interpreters of the Statute in the years to come. 'The concept of complementarity lies at the heart not only of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is in many respects the underlying paradigm of international criminal justice as a whole. In this important study, Mohamed El Zeidy has drawn on historical sources, tracing the evolution of the concept and then showing how it has become operationalised in the first cases before the International Criminal Court. This book belongs in the library of every international criminal lawyer' - Prof. William A. Schabas, OC MRIA National University of Ireland, Galway.
Author(s): Mohammed M. El Zeidy
Publisher: Brill
Year: 2008
Language: English
Pages: 401
Table of Contents......Page 6
Table of Cases......Page 10
List of Abbreviations......Page 28
Foreword......Page 30
Introduction......Page 34
Part A......Page 42
1. Peace Treaties during the 20th Century: The Treaty of Versailles......Page 44
2. Other Peace Treaties: St Germain-En-Laye, Trianon, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, and Sèvres......Page 51
3. The 1920 Advisory Committee of Jurists......Page 59
4. The 1922 – 1924 Conferences of the International Law Association......Page 64
5. 1925 Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference......Page 67
6. 1926 International Congress of Penal Law......Page 71
7. 1937 League of Nations Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court......Page 76
Concluding Observations......Page 89
1. London International Assembly......Page 92
2. International Commission for Penal Reconstruction and Development......Page 97
3. Draft Convention for the Establishment of a United Nations War Crimes Court prepared by the United Nations
War Crimes Commission......Page 103
4. The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal......Page 107
5. The Principle of Complementarity in the Drafting History of the Geno cide Convention......Page 109
6. The Role of the International Law Commission in the Development of the Principle of Complementarity (1950 – 1994)
......Page 116
6.1 The 1951 Draft Code of Offences against the Peace & Security of Mankind......Page 117
6.2 The 1954 Draft Code of Offences against the Peace & Security of Mankind......Page 120
6.3 The 1949 – 1950 Meetings of the International Law Commission Concerning the Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction
......Page 123
6.4 The 1951 Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction......Page 125
6.5 The 1953 Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction......Page 132
6.6 Draft Code of Offences against the Peace & Security of Mankind (Resumed- First Phase 1983 – 1989)
......Page 135
6.7 Second Phase (1990 – 1994)......Page 142
6.8 The Final Phase for the Adoption of the Principle of Complementarity (1995 – 1998)
......Page 159
6.9 The 1919 – 1994 Complementarity Models vis-à-vis the Rome Statute Model......Page 165
7. The Primacy of the Ad hoc Tribunals......Page 170
7.1 From Primacy to Complementarity......Page 173
7.2 The Legal Foundation of the Arising Complementarity Models......Page 174
Concluding Observations......Page 185
Part B......Page 188
1. The Rome Statute Complementarity Model......Page 190
1.1 The Determination of Complementarity under Article 17......Page 191
1.2 The Criterion of Unwillingness......Page 196
1.2.1 Shielding a Person from Criminal Responsibility......Page 203
1.2.2 The Leipzig Precedent......Page 205
1.2.3 Some Guidelines Reflecting the Notion of Shielding......Page 208
1.2.4 The Criterion of Unjustified Delay......Page 214
1.2.4.1 Complexity of the Case......Page 220
1.2.4.2 The Conduct of the Applicant......Page 221
1.2.4.3 The Conduct of the Relevant Authorities......Page 222
1.2.5 The Criterion of Independent or Impartial Proceedings......Page 228
1.2.6 The Concept of Proceedings in Article 17(2) (a) – (c)......Page 236
1.2.7 Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court versus Not Bringing the Person to Justice......Page 238
2. The Impact of Human Rights Bodies' Decisions on Complementarity Determinations......Page 240
3. The Practice of Self-referrals and Waivers of Complementarity......Page 244
4. The Criterion of Inability......Page 255
4.1 Pre-Trial Chamber I's Approach to Self-referrals and Waivers of Complementarity Coupled with Inability in the DRC Case
......Page 261
4.2 Pre-Trial Chamber II's Approach to Self-referrals and Waivers of Complementarity in Light of Inability in the Uganda Case
......Page 266
Concluding Observations......Page 269
1. Preliminary Rulings Regarding Admissibility in the Rome Statute Complementarity Model......Page 272
2. Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case......Page 280
3. Consequences of Self-referrals and Waivers of Complementarity in Light of Articles 18 – 19 and 53
......Page 307
3.1 Consequences of a Self-referral or Waiver in Light of Article 53......Page 308
3.2 Consequences of a Self-referral or Waiver in the Light of Article 18......Page 309
3.3 Consequences of a Self-referral or Waiver in Light of Article 19......Page 312
4. The Relationship between Complementarity and Ne Bis In Idem......Page 316
5. Final Thought on Complementarity: Positive – Dynamic versus Traditional Complementarity......Page 331
Concluding Observations......Page 339
Conclusions......Page 342
Bibliography......Page 358
Index......Page 382
