The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

Abstract

There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; compétence de la compétence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections.

The International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Towards The Deportation Issues In Myanmar

“…The second argument concerns the ICC's territorial jurisdiction, which (2019) described as the principle and head of other jurisdictions. It allows the state to exercise its judicial authority against crimes that occur in its territory regardless of the perpetrator's nationality (Vagias, 2011). Although this is based on Article 12 paragraph (2) (a) that the ICC's jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed in the territorial area of a party state, the Statute article does not explain the scope of the actions further.…”

“…Meanwhile, based on the theory of ubiquity, which is the development of the territorial jurisdiction principle, a country can exercise its authority over crimes where at least one of the elements, either the crime (subjective territorial jurisdiction) or the result (objective jurisdiction) occurs in its territory (Maillart, 2018). The subjective territorial jurisdiction permits a state to prosecute crimes that begin in their territory but are completed in another country (Vagias, 2011). Conversely, the objective territorial jurisdiction is justified by the continuous action doctrine, which states that a criminal act is considered to persist when consequences still occur in another country (Ilias, 2011).…”

Male rape and sexual crimes in International Criminal Law jurisprudence: a critical appraisal

“…The fact that international criminal justice has to deal with sexual and gender-based crimes as a form of discrimination as perceived by human rights law has already been codified in the Rome Statute, in particular Article 21(3) 110 . At the same time, it is duty of the Court to ensure that the interpretation and application of the Rome Statute is compatible with international human rights law and free of stereotypes of a distinct nature.…”

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

“…96 This is supported by a teleological reading of Article 12(2)(a), whereby assertion of jurisdiction under the constituent element/effects principle would allow Court to address jurisdictional loopholes (such as those addressed above in relation to IS) that foster impunity. 97 Additionally, with respect to the rules of international law, it has been asserted that international criminal law accepts that if a constituent element of an act has been committed in the territory of a State, 98 or if the act occurs elsewhere and causes consequences in the territory of a State, 99 then the State in which the constituent element or consequences/effects take place may exercise jurisdiction over the act.…”