Prosecuting Crimes of International Concern: Islamic State at the ICC?

Abstract

The rise of Islamic State (IS) has fundamentally altered the conception of terrorism, a development which international criminal law is arguably unprepared for. Given the scale and gravity of the group's crimes, questions abound as to how those responsible will be held accountable. In the absence of significant domestic prosecutions and short of the establishment of a dedicated accountability mechanism, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as the forum of last resort in which IS members could stand trial. Such a proposition is not without significant challenges, however. This article addresses some key issues facing any potential prosecutions from the perspective of: (i) jurisdiction; (ii) applicable crimes; and (iii) modes of liability. First, as Syria, Iraq, and Libya are not States Parties to the Rome Statute, the available avenues for asserting jurisdiction will be assessed, namely: a Security Council referral; jurisdiction over so called 'foreign fighters' who are State Party nationals; and jurisdiction over attacks on the territory of a State Party and whether they could be considered part of a broader series of criminal acts in IS held territory. Second, as there is no crime of terrorism in the Rome Statute, the question of prosecuting acts encapsulated in a systematic campaign of terror through existing provisions will be assessed. Third, the regime of accountability at the ICC will be analysed in light of IS's purported structure and the crimes with which it stands accused. Focus will be directed to those responsible for the propagation of genocidal propaganda and individuals who provide aid or assistance to IS which contributes to its crimes. These questions are far from theoretical. The UN has designated IS a threat to international peace and security. There follows an expectation that international criminal law should play a role in tackling one of the major criminal concerns of our time and ensure that impunity for those responsible for IS's atrocities is avoided.

Performance anxiety in professional musicians: a systematic review on prevalence, risk factors and clinical treatment effects

“…In the past, unspecific measurements of anxiety like the STAI-T or STAI-S (Spielberger et al ., 1982) or self-developed questionnaires were used to assess (changes in) MPA, making it impossible to interpret the results or compare the outcomes to other studies. There are disorder-specific instruments available measuring MPA [like K-MPAI (Kenny, 2009), Performance Anxiety Questionnaire (PAQ) (Cox and Kenardy, 1993) or PAI (Nagel et al ., 1981)] with the K-MPAI being validated (Chang et al ., 2018). For German studies, there is a validated German version of the PAQ available: the ‘Bühnenangstfragebogen’ by Fehm et al .…”

“…To measure MPA, different questionnaires were used [e.g. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Kenny, 2009), Performance Anxiety Inventory (PAI) (Nagel et al ., 1981) or State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) (Spielberger et al ., 1982)]. Furthermore, self-ratings of anxiety or performance quality (rated by a jury or self-rating of musicians) were used as measures of MPA.…”

Repatriation as a Human Rights Approach to State Options in Dealing with Returning ISIS Foreign Terrorist Fighters

“…On one hand, the ICC does not have a clear mandate and capacity to prosecute the vast majority of detained FTFs. Jurisdictional obstacles prevent ISIS members from being tried by the ICC (The Guardian, 2015; Kenny, 2017). It is argued that if it is likely that traditional routes are closed, unconventional methods should be conducted by the ICC to avoid appearing entirely impotent in the face of brazen crimes against humanity (Elkin, n.d.).…”

The Significance of Justice in the Psychotherapeutic Treatment of Traumatized People After War and Crises

“…On a political level, critics argue that pursuing justice in the midst of ongoing conflicts can have a domino effect. They argue that it can interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid, ongoing peace negotiations, and agreements, especially when powerful actors can block such an agreement, because they may fear punishment for past actions or have not signed the Rome status, like Syria or Iraq (49).…”