The principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity: how do the two principles intermesh?

Abstract

This article addresses the relationships between the principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity and the difficulties in their implementation. Even if the two principles are well known, there are still a number of obstacles -legal and non-legalto proper and better implementation. Moreover, universality and complementarity are quite often to be applied in a difficult political environment, keeping in mind that these principles have to deal with international and national constraints. The number of obstacles is such that the two principles face many challenges. This article advocates that the principle of complementarity represents one aspect of the principle of universality and should rely on its general acceptance to further its efficiency and implementation. In conclusion, the article explores some possible ideas to be developed to reach this goal.Can something original or new be discovered or asserted about the principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity? 1 Many articles have been written on these heavily debated topics, and it is hard to believe that something new could be revealed. However, the controversy over the principle of complementarity that arose with the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the judicial proceedings against former heads of state * The article reflects the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of the ICRC.

The Principal Jurisdictional Maxims in International Criminal Law: Opting the Uncontested and the Feasible One

“…The principle of Complementarity is one of the main governing principles upon which the operation of the International Criminal Court is premised (El Zeidy, 2002). It can be defined as a functional principle aimed at granting jurisdiction to a subsidiary body when the main body fails to exercise its primary jurisdiction (Philippe, 2006). This is nothing other than a principle of priority among several bodies able to exercise jurisdiction (Brown, 1998).…”

Displacement and dispossession: redefining forced displacement and identifying when forced displacement becomes pillage under international humanitarian law

“…Research highlights that states have begun prosecuting their own citizens as perpetrators of acts of forced displacement under legislation in accordance with IHL (Personal Interview 2014a, 2014b. Since 2002, the ICC has provided complementary support to numerous states to during the alignment of their jurisprudence with the Rome Statute (RS) (Seils 2016;Philippe 2006). Research indicates the majority of states have provided universal jurisdiction over international crimes within their national courts; however, the extent to which IHL is adopted into national law varies greatly (Amnesty 2012;Philippe 2008;IJRC 2016;ICJ 1945).…”

Constitution-Building in Africa

“…As already stated above, apart from Botswana and Mauritius, the constitutions that operate today in African countries are either new or substantially revised versions of pre-1990 constitutions. 20 But during this period of 23 years, a good number of these countries (for example, Angola in 1991 and 2010, Central African Republic in 1994and 2004, Guinea in 1990and 2010, Republic of Congo in 1992and 2002, DR Congo in 1994and 2006and Rwanda in 1991and 2003 have rewritten their constitutions twice. Egypt has replaced the Constitution of 2012 with a new one 21 Zambia has for the last few years been working on a new constitution to replace that of 1991 and by the end of which it would have changed its constitutions twice.…”