Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword by HE Judge Sang-Hyun Song
- Foreword by Patricia O’Brien
- Foreword by Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction: bridge over troubled waters?
- PART I General reflections
- PART II Origin and genesis of complementarity
- 4 The genesis of complementarity
- 5 Reflections on complementarity at the Rome Conference and beyond
- 6 The rise and fall of complementarity
- PART III Analytical dimensions of complementarity
- PART IV Interpretation and application
- PART IV (Continued) Interpretation and application
- PART V Complementarity in perspective
- PART VI Complementarity in practice
- Index
- References
4 - The genesis of complementarity
from PART II - Origin and genesis of complementarity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword by HE Judge Sang-Hyun Song
- Foreword by Patricia O’Brien
- Foreword by Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction: bridge over troubled waters?
- PART I General reflections
- PART II Origin and genesis of complementarity
- 4 The genesis of complementarity
- 5 Reflections on complementarity at the Rome Conference and beyond
- 6 The rise and fall of complementarity
- PART III Analytical dimensions of complementarity
- PART IV Interpretation and application
- PART IV (Continued) Interpretation and application
- PART V Complementarity in perspective
- PART VI Complementarity in practice
- Index
- References
Summary
[A]n effect of tremendously disparate complementaries which strengthen each other by their juxtaposition.
(Vincent van Gogh describing the utility of employing the concept of complementarity of colours in art in his famous painting ‘Irises’, 1890.)Abstract
This chapter examines the genesis of the concept of complementarity. It argues that, unlike the common perception among many scholars, complementarity is not a novel concept attributed to the sole work of the International Law Commission or any subsequent effort. Rather, the concept existed a long time before the International Law Commission was seized of its mandate to prepare a draft statute establishing an international criminal court. The parameters and the legal conditions that organized the concept's operation developed over a period of seventy-nine years starting from 1919 and ending with the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998. The elaboration of these legal criteria throughout this lengthy period led to the emergence of different models of complementarity, one of which is the 1998 Rome Statute's model. Every model was introduced during a certain period for quite different, but often overlapping philosophical and legal reasons. The common premise that underlined these complementarity models was that, irrespective of the reasons, an international criminal jurisdiction may do that which the national criminal jurisdiction was not in a position to do.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The International Criminal Court and ComplementarityFrom Theory to Practice, pp. 71 - 141Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
Legal Officer, Pre-Trial Division, The International Criminal Court; Judge, Senior Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor, Egyptian Ministry of Justice (1997–2007); Ph.D. and LL.M. (Ireland,); LL.M. (Cairo); Licence en Droit and Bachelor of Police Sciences (Cairo). The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the International Criminal Court. This chapter is adapted and updated from Part A of the author's monograph, infra note 11
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd edn, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 296
Collins English Dictionary: 21st Century Edition (5th edn, London, Harper Collins Publishers, 2001) 327
, The Tao of Physics: An Explanation of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (3rd edn, 1992) 173–4
, ‘Discussion: Quantum Physics in Private Law’ (2001) 14 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 249, 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity’ (1950) 111 Science 51, 54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (rev. edn, 1988) 118 (quoting Niels Bohr)
(ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (1995) 191–2
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Preamble, para. 6 (recalling that ‘it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes’)
(ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues Negotiations Results (1999), 41–2
, The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice (2008) 1–5
, ‘Understanding the Complexities of International Criminal Tribunal Jurisdiction’ in and (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Criminal (2011) 197 (also available online, Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 10–03–1, 9, at )
, The International Criminal Court: the Principle of Complementarity (2006) 21
and , ‘An Empire of Law?: Legalism and the International Criminal Court’ (2003–4) 79 Notre Dame Law Review 55, 93Google Scholar
, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2010) 336–7
(ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2nd edn, 2008) 607Google Scholar
(ed.), The International Criminal Court: Comments on the Draft Statute (1998) 9
, ‘Establishing an International Criminal Court and an International Criminal Code: Observations from an International Criminal Law Viewpoint’ (1996) 7 European Journal of International Law 519; see also notes 16–21
, Complementarity, supra note 11, at 11–137
, ‘The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law’ (2002)
, ‘Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 167 Military Law Review 20, 53
, The Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (2008) 31–56
, ‘Complementary Jurisdiction and International Criminal Justice’ (2002) 84 International Review of the Red Cross 145, 151Google Scholar
, ‘Completing the “International Criminal Order”: the Rhetoric of International Repression and the Notion of Complementarity in the Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court’ (1998) 67 Nordic Journal of International Law 107, 120Google Scholar
, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (2008) 60–1, 70–6
(1990) I YILC 31
(1992) II(2) YILC 64
(1994) II(1) YILC 48
See (1994) II(1) YILC 61 (‘Consideration should be given to making a suitable reference, perhaps in the preamble to the statute, to this relationship and to the respective roles and complementarity of the national and international processes’ (emphasis added)). Ibid
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Division of International Law), Reports of Majority and Dissenting Reports of American and Japanese Members of the Commission of Responsibilities: Conference of Paris 1919 (1919) 1–3
, ‘The Peace Conference of Paris, 1919: Its Organization and Method of Work’ (1919) 13 American Journal of International Law159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Treaty of Versailles: The Essential Text and Amendments (1940) 74
, ‘Some Legal Questions of the Peace Conference’ (1919) 13 American Journal of International Law 631, 648 (noting that the Tribunal was of an international military character)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.), International Criminal Law: Enforcement (2nd edn, 1999) vol. II, 33–4
, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (New York, 1992) 17 (noting that the Allies produced a list of 854 individuals, including political and military figures)Google Scholar
, Hitlerite Responsibility under Criminal Law (1945) 22 (noting that the list included 890 people)
, War Crimes: An Attempt to Define the Issues (London: Stevens & Sons, 1945) 79 (noting that the list embodied 896 alleged war criminals)Google Scholar
, ‘Punishment of Offenders Against the Laws and Customs of War’ (1920) 14 American Journal of International Law 70, 77 n. 18 (noting that the number of requested people was 896)
, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law (1992) 199–200
, ‘World War I: “The War to End All Wars” and the Birth of a Handicapped International Criminal Justice System’ (2002) 30 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 244, 281–2Google Scholar
, Prologue to Nuremberg: the Politics and Diplomacy of Punishing War Criminals of the First World War (1982) 118
, et al., International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (1996) 709
(ed.), International Criminal Law: Enforcement (2nd edn, 1999) 172
German War Trials: Report of the Proceedings Before the Supreme Court in Leipzig (1921) 4
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference 1919 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946) vol. VIII, 214 (‘PRFRUS’)
, Al Mahkama Al Genaia Al Dewaliah: Nashatoha Wa Nezameha Al Asasy Maa Derasah Ltarikh Legan Al Tahkik Al Dewaliah Wa Al Mahakem Al Genaia Al Dewaliah Al Sabekah [The International Criminal Court: Its Establishment and Its Statute with a Study of the History of the International Investigative Commissions and the Former International Criminal Tribunals] (2001) 18
Leipzig Report, supra note 45, at 4, 17–18. But see the contrary finding of the United Nations War Crimes Commission concerning the interpretation of Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty of Versailles. ‘[W]hen one reads Articles 228 and 229 of the Versailles Treaty it is obvious that the German offer to try the war criminals before their own courts was in complete opposition with the letter and with the spirit of the Treaty’, History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War (London: HMSO, 1948) 51
The Council of Four: Minutes of Meeting May 1, Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson's House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Thursday, May 1 1919, at 11 a.m.’ (IC–178D)
, The Leipzig Trials: An Account of the War Criminals Trials and a Study of German Mentality (1921) 9, 24, 26
, ‘Punishment of War Criminals’ (1943) 37 American Society of International Law Proceedings 39, 41Google Scholar
, ‘By What Tribunal Shall War Offenders be Tried?’ (1943) 56 Harvard Law Review 1059, 1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.), International Criminal Law: Enforcement (1987) vol. III, 36
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria, signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 September 1919, reprinted in, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Treaties of Peace 1919–1923 (1924) vol. I, 265
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, and Protocol, signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine, 27 November 1919, reprinted in (1920) 14 American Journal of International Law 185
, The Versailles Settlement: Peace Making in Paris (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1991) 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey, signed at Sèvres, 10 August 1920, reprinted in (1921) 15 American Journal of International Law 179
, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference: the Diplomatic History of the Treaty of Trianon (1942) 235
and (eds.), The Treaty of St. Germain: A Documentary History of Its Territorial and Political Clauses with a Survey of the Documents of the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference (1935) 210–11
, ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ (1946) 23 British Yearbook of International Law vl
, 181–2Google Scholar
et al. (eds.), Genocide Perspectives II: Essays on Holocaust and Genocide (2003) 135
, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (2002) 14
, ‘Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: the World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal Ramifications’ (1989) 14 Yale Journal of International Law 221, 284–5Google Scholar
, Stay the Hand of Vengeance: the Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (2000) 128
, ‘Armenian Genocide, Court-Martial of Perpetrators’ in I. W. Charny (ed.), Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999) vol. I, 88 (noting that most of the detainees were Ittihadist ministers and were transferred to Malta)
, ‘The Armenian Genocide and the Legal and Political Issues in the Failure to Prevent or to Punish the Crime’ (1998) 29 University of West Los Angeles Law Review 43, 62Google Scholar
, War Crimes and RealPolitik: International Justice from World War I to the 21st Century (2004) 60
‘Treaty with Turkey and Other Instruments Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923’, reprinted in (1924) 18 American Journal of International Law 1
, ‘Combating Impunity for International Crimes’ (2000) 71 University of Colorado Law Review 409, 413–14Google Scholar
, ‘The Historical and Legal Interconnections Between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust: From Impunity to Retributive Justice’ (1998) 23 Yale Journal of International Law 503, 511Google Scholar
, ‘An International Criminal Court and the Resolutions of the Jurists’ (1922–3) 3 British Yearbook of International Law 79, 82
, ‘Do We Need an International Criminal Court?’ (1927) 8 British Yearbook of International Law 81, 83Google Scholar
, International Terrorism: Two League of Nations Conventions, 1934–1937 (1991) 10–11
P. Kovác, ‘La société des nations et son action aprés l'attentat contre Alexandre, roi de Yugoslavie’ (2004) 6 Revue d’Histoire du Droit International 65 (outlining the circumstances of the assassination and the reactions afterwards)
, ‘International Terrorism and International Criminal Jurisdiction’ (1973) 67 American Journal of International Law 508
, ‘A Tale of Two Courts: the “Creation” of a Jurisdiction?’ (2004) 9 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 71, 86; Dubin, supra note 101, at 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Problem of the Creation of a Permanent International Criminal Court (1966) 18–19
See ‘Records of the Seventeenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly: Minutes of the First Committee’ (1936) League of Nations Official Journal 47, 50 (Special Supplement No. 156)
M. Hudson, International Legislation (1941), vol. VII, 862, 865–6, 868
, ‘The Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court’ (1938) 19 British Yearbook of International Law216Google Scholar
and , ‘The Problem of International Criminal Jurisdiction’ (1976) 14 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 283, 285Google Scholar
, ‘Towards the Definition of International Terrorism’ (1973) 67 American Society of International Law Proceedings 94, 95Google Scholar
, ‘Defining International Terrorism: A Way Out of the Quagmire’ (1989) 19 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 13, 15Google Scholar
, ‘Towards an International Criminal Court’ (1950) 44 American Journal of International Law 37, 37–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘“The Supreme…Crime” and Its Origins: the Lost Legislative History of the Crime of Aggressive War’, (2002) 102 Columbia Law Review 2324, 2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Case for an International Court of Criminal Justice and the Formulation of International Criminal Law’ (1964) 13 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1255, 1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibid. A similar view was espoused by Lord Maugham during the debates in the House of Lords concerning the question of war crimes. He argued that there were some instances where national courts could not try certain cases. These situations included: ‘(a) crimes against persons deprived of their nationality; (b) cases of mass murder as the consequences of an order, such as the drastic removal of food stuffs ordered by a German officer or by some sort of German tribunal, resulting in widespread starvation of the population; (c) similar acts causing death by exposure; (d) orders for the removal of young women to unknown destinations, obviously for the purpose of prostitution; (e) cases where two or more courts of different Allied States have jurisdiction; (f) cases where it is uncertain which of two or more such courts have the necessary jurisdiction, and finally (g) cases where, owing to political unrest in the country where the crime was committed, it might be difficult to hold a proper trial’. See History of the UNWCC, supra note 48, at 442 (debates in the House of Lords, 7 October 1942)
, ‘Towards an International Criminal Court’ (1950) 44 American Journal of International Law 56, n. 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations War Crimes Commission Progress Report, C.48 (12 September 1944) 1
‘The Tripartite Conference at Moscow, 19–30 October 1943’, reprinted in (1943) 395 International Conciliation 599 (‘Moscow Declaration’)
1950 ILC Report (1950) II YILC 378
In commenting on the limitation provided in Article 27 of the Committee's draft, the Dutch government stated: ‘it [is] advisable not to recommend deletion of article 27 because in that case there is a great chance that the court will not come into being at all’. See Comments Received from Governments regarding the Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, Official Records of the General Assembly, seventh session. Agenda Item 52, UN Doc. A/2186 and Add. 1., 9; But see Q. Wright, ‘Proposal for an International Criminal Court’ (1952) 46 American Journal of International Law 60, 68 (noting that the provision ‘permits a government, by refusing to extend jurisdiction, to exempt its officials or nationals accused of international crimes from trial and thus does away with the principle, accepted in the Nuremberg Charter, that international criminal law is superior to national legislation’). Ibid
, A Draft International Criminal Code and Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal (1987) 5, 7
, ‘Some Observations on the Scheme for the Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court’ (1952) 30 Revue de Droit International de Sciences Diplomatiques et Politiques 227, 228Google Scholar
, ‘Law Without Borders: the Constitutionality of an International Criminal Court’ (1995) 33 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 73, 85Google Scholar
, ‘Le projet de Statut de la Cour Criminelle Internationale’ (1951) 29 Revue de Droit International de Sciences Diplomatiques et Politiques363Google Scholar
, ‘From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy-Five Years: the Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court’ (1997) 10 Harvard Human Rights Journal 11, 53
, ‘Notes on Legal Questions Concerning the United Nations: The Establishment of an International Criminal Court – the Second Phase’ (1953) 47 American Journal of International Law 638, 648
(1990) II(2) YILC 23
(1990) I YILC 32
(1991) II(1) YILC 43
(1993) II(1) YILC, 111
(1993) II(2) YILC 106
(1994) I YILC 2
(1994) II(2) YILC 20
(1994) II(1) YILC 24
(1994) I YILC, 2 (1994) II(1) YILC 24
London Agreement of 8 August 1945, reprinted in (1997) 1 Trial of Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal 8, 9
International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences, 1 October 1946, reprinted in (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law 333 (‘Nuremberg Judgment’)
et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002), vol. I, 7
N. Boister and R. Cryer (eds.), Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgments (2008) 7 et seq
and , The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: A Reappraisal (2008) 50–69
(ed.), The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-Conflict Justice (2010), vol. I, 280
See ‘Activities and Developments: Apprehension, Trial, and Punishment of War Criminals in the Far East’ (1947) 16 Department of State Bulletin 804, 805
and (eds.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of Japan (1993) 107
, ‘From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy-Five Years: the Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court’ (1997) 10 Harvard Human Rights Journal 11, 35–6Google Scholar
(1988) I YILC 105; (1989) I YILC 294
and ; (1989) I YILC 295
(1994) I YILC 2; (1994) II(2) YILC 20 (‘1994 ILC Report’ or ‘1994 ILC draft statute’)
(1994) II(1) YILC 24
(1994) I YILC 2; (1994) II(1) YILC 24
UN Doc. A/CN.4/457, 23 (‘Some representatives insisted on the importance of the criterion of the seriousness of the crimes. One of them said that the court's jurisdiction should be limited to the most serious crimes, those which most deeply offended the conscience of the international community. Another representative pointed out that the court should clearly not deal with petty offences. It should be activated only in cases of such gravity as to require the involvement of the international community as a whole. Accordingly…the tribunal should be empowered to make that distinction in individual cases’). See also in the same vein a statement made by the Czech Republic in its observations on the 1993 working group report: ‘It would not be appropriate to overburden the tribunal with cases which can be effectively punished by States themselves. A certain degree of seriousness of the breach should therefore also be a precondition for the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The mechanism of the tribunal should be reserved for the most serious international crimes, especially in the event when prosecution before domestic courts cannot be guaranteed’. (1994) II(1) YILC 39
. See (1994) I YILC 193
(1994) I YILC 9. Similarly, in its observations on the 1993 working group draft statute, Chile argued in similar terms that the competence of the tribunal ‘should be subsidiary to that exercised by national courts’. International criminal jurisdiction should, therefore, as a general rule, come into play only in the absence of national jurisdiction: (1994) II(1) YILC 36
Ibid. 33. This was also one of the main concerns that the United States had raised in its observation on the 1993 working group draft. The United States urged the Commission to take into account that the ‘budgetary and administrative requirements of the tribunal must be handled with great care. The tribunal could be an extraordinarily expensive undertaking, especially if it is used at any one time for extensive investigation or more than a limited number of cases’. (1994) II(1) YILC 80
(1994) I YILC 9, 191
See 1994 ILC Report, 37
(1994) I YILC 27, 33 and 210
(1994) I YILC 27, 193, 210
Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN GAOR, 50th sess., Supp. No. 22, UN Doc. A/50/22 (1995), para. 154
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN GAOR, 51st sess., vol. 1, Supp. No. 22, UN Doc. A/51/22 (1996), paras. 154, 161
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 51st sess., vol. 2, Supp. No. 22, UN Doc. A/51/22 (1996) p. 3
(ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999) 46
See Report of the Inter-Sessional Meeting from 19 to 30 January 1998 in Zutphen, the Netherlands, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/L.13 (1998), Article 11, at 42–3
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute and Draft Final Act, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1 (1998), Article 15 (‘1998 Draft Final Act’)
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/2 (14 April 1998) Article 15
and , ‘Article 17: Issues of Admissibility’ in Otto Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008) 611–12
This interpretation also finds support in a statement made by a member of the ILC in commenting on the 1993 draft prepared by the 1993 working group on the basis of which the jurisdictional clauses of the 1994 draft were prepared: ‘It should not be forgotten that the court's jurisdiction was not only a conferred, but also a concurrent, jurisdiction…it did not mean that a case must automatically be judged by the court. A case that might be under the jurisdiction of the international criminal court could well remain in the national courts. If a State decided to put a case before the international criminal court, by so doing it renounced the jurisdiction of the national courts’. See (1994) I YILC 29
and (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009) 247 et seq
, ‘Complementarity in Practice: Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum 5, 12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘From Primacy to Complementarity and Backwards: (Re)-Visiting Rule 11bis of the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ (2008) 57 ICLQ403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by