Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-89lq7 Total loading time: 0.35 Render date: 2022-06-27T19:25:29.288Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

3 - Procedures related to primacy and complementarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

Gideon Boas
Monash University, Victoria
James L. Bischoff
U.S. Department of State
Natalie L. Reid
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York
B. Don Taylor III
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
Get access


National courts bear the primary responsibility for trying international crimes, under one or more of five bases of jurisdiction recognised in international law: territoriality, nationality, the protective principle, passive personality, and universality. Yet for a variety of reasons, states have usually failed to exercise any of these forms of jurisdiction to prosecute domestically. Most common among these reasons are a lack of domestic implementing legislation; a structural inability to prosecute, such as a dearth of judicial competence or catastrophic events damaging the legal system's integrity; or an unwillingness to prosecute, as could result from a judiciary that is corrupt, biased, or not independent from political leaders' whims. Seeking to prevent impunity for those who would otherwise escape prosecution in a national court, the international community has set up various international and hybrid criminal tribunals in the last two decades as supplements to or substitutes for national courts. In the principal tribunals examined in this series – the ICTY, ICTR, ICC, and SCSL – the tribunal's statute does not purport to strip national courts of jurisdiction, but instead establishes the tribunal's jurisdiction as concurrent with that of national courts.

Concurrent jurisdiction reinforces the obligation of states, in the first instance, to prosecute international crimes, but also acknowledges the inability of international tribunals to handle the hundreds or thousands of potential cases themselves.

International Criminal Law Practitioner Library
International Criminal Procedure
, pp. 46 - 101
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Ratner, Steven R., Abrams, Jason S., and Bischoff, James L., Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (3rd edn 2009), pp. 178–180
Burke-White, William W., ‘The Domestic Influence of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Creation of the State Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina’, (2008) 46 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law279, 296–302Google Scholar
Cogan, Jacob Katz, ‘International Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects’, (2002) 27 Yale Journal of International Law111Google Scholar
Fritz, Nicole and Smith, Alison, ‘Current Apathy for Coming Anarchy: Building the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, (2001) 25 Fordham International Law Journal391, 416–417Google Scholar
Frulli, Micaela, ‘The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Some Preliminary Comments’, (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law857, 862 (lamenting this weakness as possibly allowing a large number of suspects to flee Sierra Leone and take refuge in neighbouring states)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Bartram S., ‘Primacy or Complementarity: Reconciling the Jurisdiction of National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals’, (1998) 23 Yale Journal of International Law383, 398, 407–408Google Scholar
Boas, Gideon, Bischoff, James L., and Reid, Natalie L., Elements of Crimes Under International Law (2008) (‘Boas, Bischoff, and Reid, Elements of Crimes’), pp. 357–358, 362–363 (same)
Holmes, John T., ‘Complementarity: National Courts Versus the ICC’, in Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paola, and Jones, John R.W.D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. 1 (2002), pp. 667, 668–669Google Scholar
Morris, Madeline H., ‘The Trials of Concurrent Jurisdiction: The Case of Rwanda’, (1997) 7 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law349, 353Google Scholar
Cryer, Robert, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (2005), pp. 129–130
Murphy, Sean D., ‘Progress and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law57, 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, William A., An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (2nd edn 2004), p. 85
Sautenet, Vincent, ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Activities in 2004’, (2005) 4 Chinese Journal of International Law515, 562 n. 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundis, Daryl A., ‘The Judicial Effects of the “Completion Strategies” on the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals’, (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law142, 147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Sarah, ‘The Completion Strategy of the ICTY and the ICTR’, in Michael Bohlander (ed.), International Criminal Justice: A Critical Analysis of Institutions and Procedures (2007), pp. 170–172
Blumenstock, Tilman and Pittman, Wayde, ‘The Transfer of Cases Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to Competent National Jurisdictions’, (2008) 21 (2) Journal of International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (Humanitäres Völkerrecht-Informationsschriften) 106Google Scholar
Aptel, Cecile, ‘Closing the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Completion Strategy and Residual Issues’, (2008) 14 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law169, 175–183Google Scholar
Møse, Erik, ‘The ICTR's Completion Strategy – Challenges and Possible Solutions’, (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice667, 672–674Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio, ‘The ICTY: A Living and Vital Reality’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice585, 595 (‘early prosecution strategy of starting with … low-level defendants flooded the Tribunal with minor cases and created a backlog of (relatively) petty defendants’)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlander, Michael, ‘Referring an Indictment from the ICTY and ICTR to Another Court: Rule 11bis and the Consequences for the Law of Extradition’, (2006) 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Sarah, ‘ICTY Referrals to National Jurisdictions: A Fair Trial or a Fair Price?’, (2006) 17 Criminal Law Forum177, 216–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, Mark B. and Gaynor, Fergal, ‘Prosecuting Massive Crimes with Primitive Tools: Three Difficulties Encountered by Prosecutors in International Criminal Proceedings’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahar, Alexander, ‘International Court and Private Citizen’, (2009) 12 New Criminal Law Review569, 578–579Google Scholar
Shraga, Daphna, ‘Politics and Justice: The Role of the Security Council’, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (2009), p. 173Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘Reflections on the Prosecution of War Crimes by International Tribunals’, (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law551, 561Google Scholar
Schabas, William A., ‘United States Hostility to the International Criminal Court: It's All About the Security Council’, (2004) European Journal of International Law701, 703, nn. 5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleffner, Jann K., ‘The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of Substantive International Criminal Law’, (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udombana, Nsongurua J., ‘Pay Back Time in Sudan? Darfur in the International Criminal Court’, (2005) 13 Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law1, 14–18Google Scholar
Condorelli, Luigi, and Ciampi, Annalisa, ‘Comments on the Security Council Referral of the Situation in Darfur to the ICC’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurmendi, Silvia A. Fernández, ‘The Role of the International Prosecutor’, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (1999), pp. 176–181Google Scholar
Lee, Roy S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (1999), p. 50
Tallgren, Immi, ‘Article 20: Ne Bis in Idem’, in in Otto Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article (1999), pp. 430–431Google Scholar
Finlay, Lorraine, ‘Does the International Criminal Court Protect Against Double Jeopardy: An Analysis of Article 20 of the Rome Statute’, (2009) 15 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy221, 229–232Google Scholar
Guzman, Margaret M., ‘Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’, (2009) 32 Fordham International Law Journal1400Google Scholar
Murphy, Ray, ‘Gravity Issues and the International Criminal Court’, (2006) 17 Criminal Law Forum281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadat, Leila Nadya, The International Criminal Court and the Transformation of International Law: Justice for the New Millennium (2002), pp. 122–123 (Council referral places the situation on the ‘fast track’ with respect to challenging admissibility because Article 18 will not apply)
Gaeta, Paola, ‘Is the Practice of “Self-Referrals” a Sound Start for the ICC?’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice949, 950–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreß, Claus, ‘“Self-Referrals” and “Waivers of Complementarity”: Some Considerations in Law and Policy’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice944, 946–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsanjani, Mahnoush H. and Reisman, W. Michael, ‘The Law-in-Action of the International Criminal Court’, (2005) 99 American Journal International Law385, 392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke-White, William W., ‘Complementarity in Practice: The International Criminal Court as Part of a System of Multi-Level Global Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, (2005) 18 Leiden Journal of International Law557, 567–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydams, Luc, ‘The ICTR Ten Years On: Back to the Nuremberg Paradigm?’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, David, ‘The International Criminal Court: High Hopes, “Creative Ambiguity” and an Unfortunate Mistrust of International Judges’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice56, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreß, Claus, ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline: Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’, (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice603, 615–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeidy, Mohamed M. El, ‘The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law’, (2002) 23 Michigan Journal of International Law869, 909–910, 918, 969–970Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats