The LNA maintains that he is facing justice in Libya, implicitly excluding the surrender of the suspect to the ICC. As a result, in the second arrest warrant the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I addressed the admissibility of the case and declared that the proceedings initiated by the LNA do not satisfy the requirements of the complementarity test. This unexpected finding presents the Court with an inescapable question concerning its relationship with non-state entities, that the PTC I deliberately avoided answering: is the ICC required to assess its complementarity with respect to criminal prosecutions undertaken by non-state actors? ICC Judge Kovács, presiding over the chamber, had already suggested that a rigid approach should be rejected when dealing with entities having both undisputed control over a territory and the capacity to exercise criminal jurisdiction. Moving from that hint, this article first shows that the issue is not unique to the Libyan situation and that the ICC can easily find itself confronted with criminal proceedings run by courts of non-state actors. It then restricts the analysis to non-state actors that control a territory, are capable of exercising criminal jurisdiction and have a legal basis in international law to do so. Finally, it submits that the combined effect of the ne bis in idem principle and the command responsibility regime under the Rome Statute provides a solid argument allowing the Court to answer the question in the affirmative.

No abstract

The 2020 Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) is a complex instrument, consisting of a general agreement dealing with national issues and six additional agreements negotiated in parallel "tracks," separately addressing the multiple regional conflicts that have beset Sudan in recent decades. The purpose of the article is to provide a legal analysis of the JPA and to assess its implications for both peacebuilding in Darfur and the democratization of Sudan. After situating the agreement in the context of Sudan's comprehensive peace process, the article presents the structure of the document, sheds light on its legal nature, and introduces the core issues addressed therein. It then focuses on the Darfur Agreement, considering the importance of the Darfur conflict to both the recent history of Sudan and the success of the peace process. Based on this analysis, the article assesses the main achievements and potential challenges to an effective implementation of the JPA.

The Leuven Manual on the International Law Applicable to Peace Operations (Leuven Manual) belongs to the class of publications that deserve a prominent place in every bookshelf on peace operations and public international law. The Leuven Manual provides a restatement of all international norms applicable to peace operations, 1 thereby filling a gap in a field where political priorities and situational specificities hinder a comprehensive legal regulation. Its systematic analysis of the applicable international law responds to pressing calls by practitioners, policy-makers and academics, and will serve as an indispensable tool for better decision-making in future operations.

Domestic law, case law and policies play a decisive yet underestimated role in ensuring that partnered operations are carried out in compliance with international law. Research on the legal framework of partnered operations has so far focused on clarifying existing and emerging obligations at the international level. Less attention has been devoted to understanding whether and how domestic legal systems integrate international law into national decision-making which governs the planning, execution and assessment of partnered operations. This article tries to fill the gap by focusing on the practice of selected States (the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and Italy), chosen for their recent or current involvement in partnered operations. By using the International Committee of the Red Cross's “support relationships” framework and based on a comparative analysis of practice, the study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of national laws, case law and policies according to their ability to prevent or mitigate the risk of humanitarian consequences posed by partnered warfare.