Introductory observations on the STL appeals chamber decision: context and critical remarks

Powderly, Joseph

doi:10.1007/s10609-011-9151-3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…116 As Powderly notes, it helps avoid numerous time-consuming interlocutory appeals. 117 In the Tribunal's practice, Rule 68(G) has been used to seek appellate guidance on important matters, such as the crime of terrorism 118 and the crime of criminal association. 119 The decision to refer is usually premised on considerations such as the efficient, coherent and transparent administration of justice 120 or the need to ensure a fair and expeditious trial in the interests of justice.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prosecutor’s Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions

Vagias¹

2018

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 9 April 2018, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed a request seeking the composition of a Pre-Trial Chamber, in order to decide whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction over the Rohingya deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh as a crime against humanity. This filing is a first for the Court on at least two fronts; it is the first time the Prosecutor has asked the Court to interpret Article 12(2)(a) and apply qualified territoriality; it is also the first time the Prosecutor has asked for a ruling on jurisdiction under Article 19(3).This study explores certain procedural questions emerging from this request, such as the Court’s authority to decide while its jurisdiction is ‘dormant’; the function of Article 19(3) within the Rome Statute’s overall system concerning jurisdictional determinations; issuing a decision on jurisdiction, while avoiding prejudice to subsequent proceedings and without rendering meaningless the right to challenge jurisdiction under Article 19(2) of the Statute. The article accepts that the request is a step in the right direction, as it signals the Prosecutor’s determination to investigate the Rohingya crisis. However, the manner and timing of its presentation give rise to plausible claims of incompatibility with the Court’s procedural framework. Arguably, the Court may well instruct the Prosecutor to assume the risk of wasting precious resources and proceed with further investigations, pending the final determination of the jurisdictional question at a later stage.

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prosecutor’s Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions

Vagias¹

2018

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Introductory observations on the STL appeals chamber decision: context and critical remarks

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

The Prosecutor’s Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions

The Prosecutor’s Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About