The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – A Jurisdictional Rule of Reason for the Icc?

Vagias, Michail

doi:10.1017/s0165070x12000034

Cited by 16 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…62 The effect doctrine is based on the principle that a state has jurisdiction over actions abroad, which has effects within the state's territory, no matter how remote. 63 Developed and well used by the American courts and jurisprudence, 64 the earliest use of the doctrine was in 1945 in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (ALCOA). 65 In that case, it was stated that states might hold an individual liable for conduct outside its own territory if such conduct has consequences on its territory.…”

Section: Universal Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enforcement Quandary in Maritime Crimes: Espousing the Tangle of Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Abdulkadir

2023

PLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is inconceivable to have crimes without laws created prescribing or enforcing them. There must also be in existence a concomitant authority, either a state or an institution vested with the capacity to enforce these laws. In cases those crimes that occur on land, it is usually straightforward to determine the body vested with the legal power to prescribe and enforce these claims. Through qualitative and quantitative sampling, this study argues that for crimes that occur on the sea; territorial, internal or high seas, determining the state with jurisdiction is not so clear. This is because there is the possibility that various states could have competing rights to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce criminal laws in relation to a criminal offense. It is therefore important that a survey of these competing/concurrent rights of states be carried out. This research also investigates whether, by international law, these rights are actually concurrent or whether one is superior to the other. It also carried out an assessment of how the concurrent rights of states are exercised and how conflicts are resolved when they occur. The research founds that in real terms, one should be superior to the others and not so concurrent.

show abstract

Section: Universal Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enforcement Quandary in Maritime Crimes: Espousing the Tangle of Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Abdulkadir

2023

PLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…125 As such, it lacks sovereignty and, in turn, the territorial jurisdiction that goes with it. 126 While the Court may have the authority to decide the extent of its own jurisdiction, that determination is limited by territoriality as set out in the Statute. 127 States are generally protective of their sovereignty and wish to reserve for themselves the ultimate authority to control activities occurring within their own territory.…”

Section: A the Procedural Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights Enforcement at the Borders

Wheeler¹

2019

Journal of International Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In September 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reached a decision that could profoundly impact accountability for transnational human rights violations. In its decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber found that it has jurisdiction over the crime against humanity of deportation as it relates to the government of Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya ethnic group. This decision is remarkable for the fact that Myanmar is not a state party to the Rome Statute and therefore not directly subject to the ICC Statute. The Court circumvented this problem by ruling that a portion of the crime was committed in Bangladesh permitting the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter. This article endeavours to accomplish two goals. First, it analyses the Pre-Trial Chamber’s ruling to determine whether it is in compliance with the Rome Statute and international law. Secondly, it will discuss the ramifications of the decision and consider whether it can act as a partial solution for addressing transnational human rights violations being committed in the territory of non-states parties. The article concludes that the decision itself is open to question, creating a danger that it will be susceptible to challenge. The ICC needs to ensure that these sorts of controversial decisions have a firm legal foundation to better deliver justice to the victims of atrocity crimes, and protect the Court from criticism that it is failing victims.

show abstract

The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-States Parties

Cormier

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – A Jurisdictional Rule of Reason for the Icc?

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Enforcement Quandary in Maritime Crimes: Espousing the Tangle of Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Enforcement Quandary in Maritime Crimes: Espousing the Tangle of Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Human Rights Enforcement at the Borders

The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-States Parties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About