Open Access Research Article
THE ICCS JURIDICAL CONTINUUM A STUDY IN LEGAL EVOLUTION
Published Paper
Article Details
THE ICC'S JURIDICAL CONTINUUM: A
STUDY IN LEGAL EVOLUTION
AUTHORED BY
- UTKARSH PANDEY & SNEH PANDEY
LIST OF CASES
1.
Kupreskic
ICT T. Ch. II 14.1.2000
2.
Prosecutor
v. Vasiljevic´ (Case No. IT-98-32)
4.
Furundz?ija
ICTY T. Ch. II 10.12.1998
5.
Erdemovic´,
ICTY A. Ch. 7.10.1997
6.
Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, PT. Ch. I, ICC-02/11-02/11), 31
December 2014
7.
Prosecutor v. Katanga et al., ICC PT. Ch. I, Decision on the
confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, 30 September 2008).
8.
Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Decision on the
Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al
Bashir, 4
March 2009
9.
Krs?tic´
ICTY A. Ch. 19.4.2004
10.
Prosecutor
v. Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-1/07, Decision on the
Con?rmation of Charges, ¶¶ 506–08 (Sept. 30, 2008).
ABSTRACT
Until the Rome Statute came into
force, international treaties were of lesser importance for international
criminal law. Today, as it is the case, the ICC Statute is the main source of
international criminal law. International criminal law owes its origin to
various sources. Crimes such as war crimes have their source in laws and
customs of war through which individuals are accorded protection during
conflict. Crimes against humanity and most importantly, genocide, are a product
of barbaric actions even of one’s own government., so as to protect persons
from gross violations of human rights. This study explores the sources of
international criminal law that have helped evolve the International Criminal
Court. The International Court of Justice exists that can prosecute
individuals, but post the establishment of International Criminal Court, new
concept of ‘individual criminal responsibility’ have been coined in such manner
that individuals alone can be prosecuted no matter the place of committing of
war crime. The Rome Statute under Article 24(2) takes note of position of
change in law beforehand and at such times it is the applicable law found in
treaties and customary international law as well as general principles that
determine whether change in customary law can be considered sufficient to
consider it as change in international law so as to give protection under
Article 24(2). Generally, the sources of law are considered to be treaties,
customary international law, general principles and previous decisions of the
Courts. The ICJ Statute provides sources of law that are applicable in no order
of merit on which nearly all international tribunals including ICTY and ICTR
have relied. However, this study also brings out the position as it stands due
to the hierarchy of sources of law that find place under Article 21. The study
also studies the source of origins of well-established principles such as that
of the principle of legality (nullum crimen and nullum peona). The study also
focusses on caveat that needs to be maintained while different sources of law
are being used for interpretation.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
1. Are the sources of international
criminal law analogous to the International Criminal Court?
2. What have been the reasons for the
ICC to rely on sources other than the Statute itself?
3. What is the irreconcilable
contradiction test to understand the precedence of one source of applicable law
over the other in the light of Al Bashir case?
4. How has the
source of law international criminal law evolved with specific reference to the
ICC?
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The project followed empirical method
and the researcher went through various commentaries of the Rome Statute,2000,
journals, articles and books.
HYPOTHESIS
The study begins with the
presumptions that the sources of international criminal law are nearly same for
all kinds of tribunals, be it the predecessor tribunals, Ad Hoc Tribunals or
the permanent international criminal court of that of International Criminal
Court and all apply law in a similar manner.
RESEARCH
DESIGN
The study has been divided into 4 different
chapters. The first chapter deals with the Introduction with insights as to the
setting up of the ICC, and its history with specific reference to the Rome
Conference, 1998. The second chapter deals with the sources of law, covering
treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, and limited
recourse to judicial decisions. The sources have been explained with the help
of relevant case laws as to know to what extent the Courts consider the binding
sources of different sources of law and to ascertain the source of law of well-established
principle of legality. The role of ad hoc courts and tribunals, the
predecessors to the ICC that provided significant development to the ICC have
also been discussed. It further discusses the evolution of ICC as had been
after the spurt in need of a permanent international court by studying in brief
the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunal and the ICTY and ICTR by acknowledging the
origin of modern concepts of law dated back to these tribunals. The Third
Chapter explains the evolution of
ICC in context of applicable law which studies the hierarchy of sources and the
extent to which the source of elements of crime shall apply. The same is understood in the light of
the Al Bashir case. Lastly, the fourth chapter concludes the study.
I.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORY OF SETTING UP
OF THE ICC
Gustav Monere, who was one of the
founders of the international committee of the Red Cross is considered to be
the first one who mooted for the establishment of an international court in the
year 1872. He was concerned over the fact that the domestic judges would not be
able to act fairly and charge offenses committed during wars in which their countries
were involved. After that the Nuremberg trial and even the Second World war
came to be of no credit as the objective sort to be achieved fell short. It was
at the time of negotiations during the 1948 Genocide Convention that the
proposal to set up a permanent national Criminal Court was made, that too was
left to be set up in the future. Relevant provision was the 1948 genocide
convention Article 6 which provided for holding persons accountable and
charging them in the territory where they committed genocide or alternatively
by such international penal tribunal that may have jurisdiction once the
contracting parties have accepted its jurisdiction. Finally, in the year 1950 a
Special Committee was appointed that drafted a draft statute. However, it again
could not be culminated into setting up of a permanent international court as
no consensus could be sought as to the definition of aggression. Also, the idea
of the concept of a permanent international criminal court was not well
conceived obviously due during the Cold War allegations and it was viewed skeptically
especially by the superpower countries from the lens of a propaganda. Due to
the illegal drug trade and drug trafficking menace the Prime Minister of
Trinidad and Tobago revived the demand for setting up of a permanent
International Criminal Court and urged the General Assembly after which the
latter passed resolution to once again task the international Law Commission
with the aim of drafting the statute. In the meantime, 2 Ad hoc tribunals the
ICTY and the ICTR were also established which again boosted momentum for the
need of a permanent International Criminal Court.
Initially States were skeptical about
setting up an international common criminal Court. However, a group of
like-minded states emerged During the Preparatory Committee meetings, a
‘Like-Minded Group’ of States supportive of a new court emerged, and agreement
was reached to hold a conference in Rome in the summer of 1998 to finalize and
conclude the treaty. The draft statute which had emerged from the Preparatory
Committee, with its numerous alternative texts, served as the basis for
negotiation at the Rome Conference.
I.I. The Rome Conference 1998
The Rome conference was convened in
1998 by the General Assembly so as to complete the finalization of the statute.
There were different issues ranging from the duration of the new court as to
how broad it will be to some countries putting forward the conflicting interest
as they were not prepared to accept but without an amendment to the vote. Even
Indian delegation asked for a vote on its proposal to include a crime related
to use of weapons of mass destruction and urged to exclude any role for the Security
Council. The Rome Statute was ratified by 60 countries and it came into force
on first July 2002 thereby establishing the International Criminal Court.
II.
SOURCES OF
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
It can be said that as the International
Criminal law is a subset of the international law its sources are similar. As
regards the International Criminal law, the statute of the International Court
of Justice prescribes 4 clauses that are treaty, customary law, general
principles of law which are considered as subsidiary means of determining the
law and also judicial decisions including the writings of most qualified
publicists. Even the Ad Hoc tribunals rely on these sources being part of the
International Criminal law. However, if we talk about the ICC statute it has
its own regime of sources to apply. On the face of it they appear to be
analogous to the ICJ sources, and are in part can even be said to be so however
the main difference lies in the interpretation as the former creates a
hierarchy of sources. In other words, article 21 of the Rome Statute 2002 is
the most important provision. While it can be said that International Criminal
law is an all pervasive law through which all the codes and tribunals derive
its sources, yet the ICC ranks the sources of law in order of applicability. In
which the Rome Statute read along with the rules of procedure and evidence and
the elements of crime are to be considered the primary source of law. Also,
Article 9 and 51 of the Rome Statute makes it specifically clear that the
statute shall have an overriding effect over the rules of procedure and
elements of crime in case there is a conflict. As will be seen later in this
study, since the ICC makes a departure from other kinds of tribunal by making
it explicit the primary source of law there have been cases in which the ICC
was caught up in giving precedence to one type of source over the other despite
the expressly clear reading of the statute as well as the International
Criminal norms.
A. TREATIES
Under article 21 of the Rome Statute
one of the sources of criminal court is the applicable treaties. Treaty such as
in 1907 Hague regulations, 1948 Genocide Convention, and 1949 Geneva
Conventions with the 2 Additional Protocols form the basis of many of the
crimes on which the International Criminal Court and even the Ad Hoc tribunals rely.
Now the question is whether these treaties directly apply or are simply served
as an aid to the interpretation of crimes and their definitions has varied from
case to case as will also be seen later in the study. As far as the ICC is
concerned the states retain the primary responsibility in in the prosecution of
international crimes. The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crime against
humanity and genocide which are mostly covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention
and the two additional protocols of 1987. The ICC statute that list the
definition of crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction is a is of course a
treaty itself. The Security Council resolution of 2003 and 2004 that set up the
ICTY and ICTR respectively were adopted pursuant to the UN charter powers
dovetailed under Chapter 7 that derives its binding force from article 25 of
the UN Charter. The Conventions of 1899 and 1907 prohibits the warring parties
on use of certain methods and means of war. On the other hand, the Convention
of 1864 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions along with two additional protocols of
1977 protects persons that are no longer part of the hostilities. Thus, the Hague
convention and the Geneva Convention helps in identification of numerous
violations of norms including war crimes as well. So, there is no one document
alone instead list of war crimes finds its place in international humanitarian
law International Criminal law an international customary law as well.
While
the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have been ratified by all Member States of the
UN, the 2 Additional Protocols do not have similar acceptance. Still, most of
the rules in these treaties have been considered customary law as such and are
thus binding whether or not the States have actually ratified those specific
treaties or not. In addition, many rules of customary international law apply
in both international and non-international armed conflict, expanding in this
way the protection afforded in non-international armed conflicts, which are
regulated only by common article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II.
B. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
The ICTY in the case of Kupreskic[1]
conceded to the view that when a matter is outside the scope of a statute, customary
international law and general principles must be referred to. However, reliance
on customary international law in International Criminal law has quite a few
times been criticized on the grounds of being too vague to hold a person
criminally liable or not liable for that matter. It is believed that no law
which is not written should suffice to read down criminal liability on a person.
These assertions can be studied in the light of the principle of nullum crimen
sine lege. In the case of Vasiljevic[2],
the Trial Chamber was of the view that since the customary law did not provide a
sufficient clarity with respect to definition of the offense in question which
was related to the offense of ‘violence to life and person’ the accused was
acquitted of that charge. Thus a strict standard of the nullum crimen principle
was taken by holding the view that the defendant couldn’t have been reasonably
aware of his acts at the time at which was committed by applying the nullum
crimen principle taking into account the specificity or specific demands of
customary international law. The report of the Secretary General of the
Security Council in its resolution 808 (though it was related to ICC) suggested
only those rules should be applied by international tribunals that are beyond
any doubt of customary law so that adherence to customary law by the States remains
untainted even if they are not ratified parties. However, this formulation
suffers from a vice as all that is important as regards the nullum crimen
principle is not whether the treaty does or does not reflect the actual
customary law but the only test is only whether such treaty is applicable to
the relevant armed conflict.
Customary international law can be
considered as the one of the main and primary sources of International Criminal
law as well as they ICC statue. In the case of Prosecutor v. Milojevic[3], the
ICT Clarified that article 27 that talks about relevance of official capacity
at the time of committing international cime is no defense based on the
principle of exception of immunity rations materiae that has been developed in
the Nuremberg trial which reflects none other than customary international law.
The ICC relied on this doctrine in the case of Prosecutor v. Omar al Bashir to
hold that the heads of the states even of non parties to the Rome Statute do
not enjoy any kind of immunity according to international law which finds is
space in the declaratory nature of customary international law.
C. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
General principles of law are to be
understood in the sense that ICTY and ICTR both have resorted to laws of
national jurisdiction in order to assist them while determining the relevant
international law question. The Furundzija[4] case
is of significance here where in it was observed that the International Criminal
Court should be wary of uncritical reliance on the general principles derived
from only one of the major legal systems of the world. Instead, International Criminal
Courts must derive such concepts and apply them only if they are common to all
the major legal systems of the world. Also, it is believed that since the
principles of criminal law being general in nature are not ideal and that
should be used only as a last resort. In fact, in the case of Erdemovic[5],
Justices McDonald and Vohrah opined the fact that criminal law is not really
the ideal law where general principles can be found and applied as times there
exists simply no principle general enough to apply. So, it can be safely said
that the general principles of law are a weaker source when it comes to
International Criminal Law. With specific reference to the ICC statute, as
discussed earlier, if we go by the hierarchy of sources it is only when the
first 2 categories or clauses of sources or law do not provide enough guidance
on the question of interpretation of criminal law it is only then that the
general principles of law that have been derived from national Courts of
different jurisdictions can be relied on by the court as deemed appropriate
Which is also qualified by the provisio that such principle should not be
inconsistent with the statute itself and also with international law and it’s
recognize norms and standards. It was held in the Loongah case that the though
the general principles are at maintaining uniformity by adopting a comparative
approach to criminal law yet the readily inference cannot be resorted to
because the precedents of the Ad Hoc tribunals are in no way binding and that
procedural rules and jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals cannot be made
applicable without careful and due analysis.
However, in the case of Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé[6], the Chamber specifically gave the reason
for holding the perpetrator of a perpetrator responsible under article 25
(3)(a) for the offense of indirect perpetration. Out of the 3 reasons that the
chamber gave one of the reasons was that holding a person responsible on the
notion that he was accused who committed the crime or the incriminatory conduct
through another person has been increasingly used in national jurisdictions. It
also observed that the notion of control over crime has been constantly
addressed in the evolving jurisprudence of international tribunals such as in
the case of Katanga[7].
Thus, in this case it was recognized that the approach of or the concept of
perpetrator behind the perpetrator is widely accepted as the legal doctrine in
various domestic jurisdictions and is therefore an established legal doctrine
to be relied on even by the International Criminal Court.
D. THOUGH NOT BOUND BY STARE DECISIS,
YET RECOURSE TO OWN JUDICIAL DECISIONS IS NO BAR
The ICC is not bound by the common
law principle of the stare decisis. The ICC, however may regard such principles
and rules of law as evolved by it in its previous decisions if need be if the
other sources of international criminal law are found to be inadequate. The
ICTY and ICTR, however, had frequent recourse to judicial decisions for
determining points of law and revisited such precedents thereby evolving its
own jurisprudence. Finally, although the writings of scholars are not, in
themselves, sources of international criminal law, it is widely known and
accepted that a reasonable inference is possible. However, wherever statement
of an author is being used as a source to aid international criminal law,
caveat exists so that only account of law as it exists is taken into
consideration than author’s subjective opinion of how law should ideally be,
most importantly to preserve nullum crimen sine lege principle.
One unique feature in the Rome
Statute is the principle of legality. Need for incorporating Articles 22 and 23
were vivid as soon as 1996 when the Preparatory Commission acknowledged that
the definition of crimes should be clear, precise and the specificity required
for criminal law should be according to the principle of legality. These
principles, i.e, nullum crimen and nulla poena are well established principles
whose drafting in the Rome Statute stood effortless to be already
well-established in customary international law.[8]
In the Katanga(supra) case the
Pre-Trial Chamber defined the term ‘other inhumane acts’ as serious violations
of international customary law’. It added that they are basic human rights that
are derived from international human law.
E. AD HOC COURTS AND TRIBUNALS:
PREDECESSORS TO THE ICC THAT PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT TO THE ICC
The Nuremberg tribunal and the Tokyo
tribunal are considered to be the starting point for International Criminal
prosecutions. They were established to make criminals responsible for the worst
of the crimes inter alia, genocide, mass execution of political opponents,
ethnic cleansing and systematic rape of a particular ethnic group however due
to the unwillingness or inability of these Tribunals they went unpunished. There
was felt a need for a reliable system as these national Courts in the form of Ad
Hoc Tribunals proved to be biased therefore hardly willing to hold criminals
responsible. As highlighted their establishment of ignited a hope that a
permanent institution might soon be created but the Cold War allegation stalled
the efforts which were only elevated after the Berlin Wall fall. It is no doubt
that the ICTY and the ICTR which were set up by the Security Council in the year
1993 and 1994 respectively were a step in the direction of setting up a
permanent International Criminal Court, however they had their own pitfalls.
The ICTY and ICTR provided alternatives for trying perpetrators that have been
accused of gross crimes against humanity in national Courts that provided
impetus to the proposal of a common International Criminal Court. Many jurists
consider it to be the missing link in the international legal system. The Ad
Hoc Tribunals were also tainted of being accused of political bias them being
established by the decision of the UN Security Council instead of a result of a
treaty. Also, the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Tribunals is limited in scope both
of territory and subject matter of war crimes. So, the atrocities specific to
the situations was the reason for bringing ICTY and ICTR for other matter any other
tribunal into place which could never substitute the need for a permanent
international court. The statement given by Jose Lassow, the former United
Nations High Commissioner for human rights also highlighted the fact that there
is a need to end impunity despite the significance of the Nuremberg and Tokyo
and also the 2 ad hoc tribunals just is not really served as most perpetrators
went unpunished for the reasons highlighted above. Despite being called out for
being tainted by Victor’s justice, the Nuremberg tribunal was successful in
establishing 3 significant precedents which were holding individual responsible
for war crimes instead of the state, second, the recognition of crimes against
humanity and lastly, the universal jurisdiction concept which passes on the
jurisdiction to the ICC no matter where the crime has been committed and thus
the power to prosecute individuals has been exemplified on any willing country
in case of most of the serious international crimes. Like the Nuremberg The
Geneva Convention of 1949 also strengthened the position of holding criminal
responsible or in other words individual criminal liability for grave breaches.
The International Criminal law also finds its prevalence in the 1985 convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment all punishment
where in both the concepts of universal jurisdiction and crimes against
humanity have also been recognized.
III.
EVOLUTION OF ICC IN
CONTEXT OF APPLICABLE LAW: STUDY ON HIERARCHY OF SOURCES
The Statute has created a hierarchy
of sources. The ICC differs from ICJ to the extent that it has under article 21
of the statute given ranks to different sources of international Criminal law
in mandatory terms. The said article is titled as the applicable law. The
Statute itself is followed by elements of crime and its rule and procedure is
first as the primary source in interpretation. Next, it is followed by ‘where
appropriate, applicable treaties, principles and rules of international law’. Lastly the
general principles of law that are derived from Courts of national jurisdiction.
The second clause also provides liberty and does not bind the ICC to rely on its
own previous decisions. Thus, the ICC statute provides precedence of one source
of law to the other. The treaties are given the highest rank in
contradistinction to customs and general principles evolved by domestic
jurisdiction. However, it is not as harmonious as it is believed to be. This is
because it is fairly believed that some of the crimes and also their
definitions have been accepted as jus cogens norms. The ICC has used the
irreconcilable difference theory to determine the precedence of customary
statement of element of crimes despite the fact that the definition of crimes
that exists in treaties ( Geneva Convention) was succinctly determinative.
The Al Bashir[9]
arrest case suffice the fact that interpretation of the hierarchy of sources is
not that simple. The prosecutor approached the Pre trial chamber to issue a
arrest warrant on the grounds of three war crimes. The warrant was, however
issued for war crimes and crime against humanity but not on account for
genocide. The next segment of the study examines the same.
III.I. THE QUESTION: TO WHAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF ELEMENTS OF CRIME SHALL
APPLY
Elements
of crime was the demand of the United States and it was already observed in the
Preparatory Committee which was submitted by it to the United Nations. It was
of the view that it was consistent with the need to define crimes with clarity
that many jurisdictions follow[10].
Along with the US, Japan also stressed the need of incorporating the source of
elements of crime during Rome Conference.
Coming back to
the Al Bashir Case (supra), the Rome Statute or the ICC defines genocide under
Article 6. It has been derived from Article II of Genocide Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Crime 1948. So, in essence since the Statute
itself restricts itself to the definition of genocide to what is provided
therein, the ICC must have bound itself to the definition alone. However, the court
took the additional requirement that found place in the Elements of Crime under
article 21(1)(a) to include the requirement of such an act being taking place
in context of a manifest pattern of a conduct that is against such particular group.
Or that such conduct itself produced such destruction. Thus the ICC went a step
further to warrant conviction only if there is no threat short of concrete one.
The reasons, as I understand have been more of political. The ICC was wary in
invoking jurisdiction in every such case of genocide and thus turned away from
being involved every time there are ‘random racist killings. It is of the view
that such matters are best left to the discretion of national jurisdiction.
Consequentially, despite the controversial nature of Element of Crimes as a
customary status, the Pre Trial Chamber applied it. The Pre-trial chamber even
though concurred to the decision of ICTY and ICTR maintaining that there was no
such analogous provision in the 1948 Genocide Convention. In its decision the Pre-Trial
Chamber accepted that there is only one requirement of constituting genocide
which is existence of such an intent to destroy whole or in part the targeted
group. As soon as this is established there is no further need of proving
latent threat of having been converted into a concrete one. It still decided to
use the element despite its incompatibility with the customary law. However, it
failed to take into consideration that in previous decisions it was also held
by the Appeals Chamber the attempt to use this particular element had already been
expressly rejected in the case of Krstic[11].
It is not that
the elements of crime are not to be considered while interpreting, but they are
in the nature of non-binding and have to be in consonance with the statute as
such they are limited to be used for the purposes of guidance rather than
authoritative text.
International
Criminal law draws is its source from the statute, treaties, customary
international law the latter being converted in the just cogens norms. The ICC
is not aloof do this standard. Yet limiting the scope of the definition of
genocide in the case of genocide mentioned above, despite it falling squarely
under the ambit of the Rome Statute stands counter to both the hierarchy of
sources as enshrined under article 21 as well as the customary international
law supra case.
There have been
cases such as those of Katanga and Njudjolo(supra)[12] where
the ICC applied the determinative text of the statute and the statutory
definitions rejecting the applicability of custom. Although it is unnecessary
to question its decision in this piece but the fact is that the ICC departed from
the International Criminal law and ignored the intention of the drafter by
giving considering elements of crime as binding source of law contrary to what
had been the intention of the framers (Al Bashir case). The majority, thus
applied the irreconcilable contradiction test by weighing elements of crime as
against the Statue and held former as binding so to acquit the accused by
applying this test thereby limitng the definition of genocide and giving
mandatory precedence to the source of Elements of Crime over and above the
statutory definition. The best that the
court could do specially in the Al Bashir case was to use elements of crime
only to the extent of assisting the ICC in interpretation of the crimes, the
crime of genocide, rather than to reconcile and apply the texts per se.
IV.
CONCLUSION
On the face of
it, apparently the applicable law of all tribunals and courts are the sources
of international criminal law that are common to all. However, with specific
reference to the International Criminal Court, as also made amply clear through
the cases, there have been reasons where Court went beyond the simple and plain
text of the Statute. While it is permissible, to go beyond to understand the
intention of the framer as well as to provide better of the applicable laws to
the accused, but when there exists no inconsistency resort to international
customary laws can prove to be dreadful that might as well lead to loss in
faith in its very existence. The crime of genocide and its definition is wide
enough to cover all possible aspects as it is highly doubtful, in my
perspective, to look beyond the Statute that eventually led to the acquittal of
the perpetrator by relying on customary laws. What is a customary law, may
again even lead to more ambiguous acquittals which were the very biggest
drawbacks of Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals and even the two Ad Hoc ones. It is
not that customary laws or elements of crime cannot be resorted to, but to what
extent namely only to aid or apply them per se is a matter that is best left to
the discretion of the Court. In conclusion, the best at hand is to understand
the intention of the drafters behind the simplistic hierarchy of sources and
construe them harmoniously so that the perpetrators of war crimes do not go
unpunished due to unscrupulous and unwarranted reference of one source over the
other.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
STATUTES AND CONVENTIONS:
1907 Hague regulations
1948 Genocide Convention
1949 Geneva Conventions with the 2 Additional
Protocols
Rome Statute,1998
WEBSITES:
ARTICLES:
Royalism and the
King: Article 21 of the Rome Statute and the Politics of Sources Author(s):
Robert Cryer
BOOKS:
An introduction
to ICL and Procedure by Cambridge
[1]
Kupreskic ICTY T. Ch. II 14.1.2000 para. 591
[2]
Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic´ (Case No. IT-98-32)
[4]
Furundz?ija ICTY T. Ch. II 10.12.1998 para. 178
[5]
Erdemovic´, ICTY A. Ch. 7.10.1997 Opinion of Judges McDonald and Vohrah, paras.
56–72.
[6] Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, PT. Ch. I, ICC-02/11-02/11),
31 December 2014, paragraph 134.
[7] (Prosecutor v. Katanga et al., ICC PT. Ch. I, Decision
on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, 30 September 2008).
[8] Lamb in Cassese, 2002, p. 734-735 [Broomhall in
Triffterer, 2008, p. 715].
[9] Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Decision on the
Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al
Bashir,
4 March 2009
[10] [Schabas, 2010,
p. 407, citing the Proposal submitted by
the United States of America, Elements of offences of the International
Criminal Court, UN Doc, A/AC.249/1998/DP.11]. [Schabas 2010, p. 407]
[12]
Prosecutor v. Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-1/07, Decision on
the Con?rmation of Charges, ¶¶ 506–08 (Sept. 30, 2008).
Article Information
THE ICCS JURIDICAL CONTINUUM A STUDY IN LEGAL EVOLUTION
Authors: UTKARSH PANDEY, SNEH PANDEY
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/25
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.