Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court against the Perpetrators of International Crimes
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Journal of Social and Political

Sciences

ISSN 2615-3718 (Online)

ISSN 2621-5675 (Print)

asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
asia insitute of research, journal of social and political sciences, jsp, aior, journal publication, humanities journal, social journa
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 22 February 2023

Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court against the Perpetrators of International Crimes

Adnan Madjid, Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar, Arinal Achsana

Universitas Pertahanan (Indonesia), Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta (Indonesia)

journal of social and political sciences
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1991.06.01.396

Pages: 94-101

Keywords: International Criminal Court, Perpetrators of International Crimes, State Sovereignty

Abstract

Crimes do not only occur at the national level, but have also occurred at the level of international crimes, especially crimes that violate human rights. The failure of national law to resolve international crime cases is the reason for the birth of the International Criminal Court to try perpetrators of international crimes who are unable or unwilling to carry out settlements by the state. The international criminal court is only able to have jurisdiction over countries that are members of the Rome Statute, so the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is very limited to arrest perpetrators of international crimes which are not participants in the Rome Statute. The international criminal court is only a complement to the national court because of the principle of state sovereignty. For this reason, the awareness of both the state and the international community is the basis for smooth law enforcement for perpetrators of international crimes.

References

  1. Acquaviva, G. (2005). Subjects of international law: A power-based analysis. Vand. J. Transnat'l L., 38, 345.

  2. Akande, D. (2004). International law immunities and the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 98(3), 407-433.

  3. Altman, A., & Wellman, C. H. (2004). A defense of international criminal law. Ethics, 115(1), 35-67.

  4. Alvarez, J. E. (2011). Are corporations subjects of international law. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 9, 1.

  5. Arsanjani, M. H. (1999). The Rome Statute of the international Criminal court. American Journal of International Law, 93(1), 22-43.

  6. Benzing, M. (2003). The complementarity regime of the International Criminal Court: international criminal justice between state sovereignty and the fight against impunity. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online, 7(1), 591-632.

  7. Benzing, M. (2003). The complementarity regime of the International Criminal Court: international criminal justice between state sovereignty and the fight against impunity. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online, 7(1), 591-632.

  8. Brubacher, M. R. (2004). Prosecutorial Discretion within the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(1), 71-95.

  9. Caesius, A. (1999). The Statute of the International Criminal Court: some preliminary reflections. European Journal of International Law, 10(1), 144-171.

  10. Carter, L. E. (2010). The principle of complementarity and the International Criminal Court: the role of ne bis in idem. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 8, 165.

  11. Chang, M. H., & Barker, R. P. (2017). Victor’s justice and Japan’s amnesia: The Tokyo war crimes trial reconsidered. In Japanese war crimes (pp. 33-58). Routledge.

  12. El Zeidy, M. M. (2001). The principle of complementarity: A new machinery to implement international criminal law. Mich. J. Int'l L., 23, 869.

  13. Florea, D., Gales, N., & Terec-Vlad, L. (2019). The premise of the Establishment of the International Criminal Court. Eur. JL & Pub. Admin., 6, 213.

  14. Glasius, M. (2002). Expertise in the cause of justice: Global civil society influence on the statute for an international criminal court. Global civil society, 2002, 137-168.

  15. Hagan, J., & Greer, S. (2002). Making war criminal. Criminology, 40(2), 231-264.

  16. Harris, W. R. (2007). A world of peace and justice under the rule of law: from Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 6, 689.

  17. Hirsch, F. (2020). Soviet judgment at Nuremberg: a new history of the international military tribunal after World War II. Oxford University Press.

  18. Irham, A. (2020). Penegakkan Yurisdiksi International Criminal Court Atas Kejahatan Agresi Pasca Kampala Amendments Diadopsi Dalam Rome Statute. SASI, 26(4), 540-556.

  19. Johnson, C. (2010). Dismantling the empire: America's last best hope. Metropolitan Books.

  20. Kleffner, J. K. (2003). The impact of complementarity on national implementation of substantive international criminal law. Journal of international criminal justice, 1(1), 86-113.

  21. Lee, R. S. (Ed.). (1999). The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute: issues, negotiations and results (No. 110). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

  22. Leveau, F. (2013). Liability of child soldiers under international criminal law. Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy, 4(1), 36-66.

  23. Luban, D. (2008). Fairness to rightness: jurisdiction, legality, and the legitimacy of international criminal law. Georgetown Public Law Research Paper, (1154117).

  24. Macedo, S. (Ed.). (2006). Universal jurisdiction: national courts and the prosecution of serious crimes under international law. University of Pennsylvania Press.

  25. Meron, T. (2006). Reflections on the prosecution of war crimes by international tribunals. American Journal of International Law, 100(3), 551-579.

  26. Murphy, R. (2006). Gravity Issues and the International Criminal Court. Crim. lf, 17, 281.

  27. Nyssanbekova, L., Toktybekov, T., Yessetova, S., & Zhanat, Z. (2016). Some aspects of personality of individual in international law (rights of individual in the international criminal court, rights of migrants, refugees, rights of women and children in international humanitarian law, rights of investors). Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 7(6 (20)), 1461-1470.

  28. Sarooshi, D. (1999). The Statute of the International Criminal Court. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(2), 387-404.

  29. Schabas, W. A. (2004). United States hostility to the International Criminal Court: It’s all about the security council. European Journal of International Law, 15(4), 701-720.

  30. Schabas, W. A. (2006). The UN international criminal tribunals: the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Cambridge University Press.

  31. Schabas, W. A. (2009). Victor's Justice: Selecting Situations at the International Criminal Court. J. Marshall L. Rev., 43, 535.

  32. Stahn, C. (2005). Complementarity, amnesties and alternative forms of justice: some interpretative guidelines for the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(3), 695-720.

  33. Stigen, J. (2008). The relationship between the International Criminal Court and national jurisdictions: the principle of complementarity. Brill.

  34. Van der Vyver, J. D. (2000). Personal and Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Emory Int'l L. Rev., 14, 1.

bottom of page