Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword by HE Judge Sang-Hyun Song
- Foreword by Patricia O’Brien
- Foreword by Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction: bridge over troubled waters?
- PART I General reflections
- PART II Origin and genesis of complementarity
- PART III Analytical dimensions of complementarity
- PART IV Interpretation and application
- 14 The application of the principle of complementarity to the decision of where to open an investigation
- 15 Situation and case: defining the parameters
- 16 The inaction controversy
- 17 The admissibility procedures
- 18 The evolution of the ICC jurisprudence on admissibility
- 19 Interpretative gravity under the Rome Statute
- 20 Complementarity and burden allocation
- PART IV (Continued) Interpretation and application
- PART V Complementarity in perspective
- PART VI Complementarity in practice
- Index
- References
19 - Interpretative gravity under the Rome Statute
Identifying common gravity criteria
from PART IV - Interpretation and application
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword by HE Judge Sang-Hyun Song
- Foreword by Patricia O’Brien
- Foreword by Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction: bridge over troubled waters?
- PART I General reflections
- PART II Origin and genesis of complementarity
- PART III Analytical dimensions of complementarity
- PART IV Interpretation and application
- 14 The application of the principle of complementarity to the decision of where to open an investigation
- 15 Situation and case: defining the parameters
- 16 The inaction controversy
- 17 The admissibility procedures
- 18 The evolution of the ICC jurisprudence on admissibility
- 19 Interpretative gravity under the Rome Statute
- 20 Complementarity and burden allocation
- PART IV (Continued) Interpretation and application
- PART V Complementarity in perspective
- PART VI Complementarity in practice
- Index
- References
Summary
The notion of gravity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is very complex. Articles 53 and 17 of the Rome Statute provide for a complicated corset that allows the Prosecutor to exercise prosecutorial selection. One essential part of this selection process is the application of the gravity requirement. This chapter shows that neither the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) nor the Chambers have developed a congruent gravity approach. They address certain aspects of the prong ‘gravity’ but fail to arrive at an all-embracing interpretative approach.
In his survey, the author commences with an interpretation of the gravity notion as such and, in a second step, he tries to arrive at common criteria for gravity. From the author's point of view, the notion of gravity entails four different facets: a legal gravity threshold with regard to situations and cases, linked to Articles 53(1)(b) and 17(1)(d) and Articles 53(2)(b) and 17(1)(d) of the Rome Statute, and a relative (discretionary) gravity assessment with regard to situations and cases, linked to Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Statute.
The concepts of ‘legal’ an‘relative’ gravity allow for a better distinction of legal and policy criteria. While a mixed quantitative-qualitative perception is (generally speaking) favourable as a common gravity basis, the differentiation of ‘legal’ and ‘relative’ gravity leads to a more nuanced approach.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The International Criminal Court and ComplementarityFrom Theory to Practice, pp. 603 - 641Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
Doctor in law (conferral by the Law Faculty of the Georg-August University of Göttingen; supervisor Prof Dr Kai Ambos). I am indebted to Ousman Njikam for a final language revision. This chapter is partly based on my doctoral thesis The Pre-investigative Stage of the ICC: Criteria for Situation Selection (Duncker & Humblot, 2011), and constitutes an extended and updated version of a previous paper, ‘The Gravity Threshold under the ICC Statute: Gravity Back and Forth in Lubanga and Ntaganda’ (2009) 9 ICLR 547
, ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice: A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC’ in K. Ambos, J. Large and M. Wierda (eds.), Building a Future on Peace and Justice: Studies on Transitional Justice, Conflict Resolution and Development (2009) 19, 73–4Google Scholar
, ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’ in C. Stahn and G. Sluiter (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009) 209, 214Google Scholar
, ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 19 CLF 35, 39Google Scholar
and (eds.), Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2009) 1, 2
, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 6 JICJ 731, 736; El Zeidy, supra note 5, at 35Google Scholar
and , ‘The Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 23 AUILR 807, 808Google Scholar
, ‘Gravity under the Rome Statute: Procedural Filter or Instrument of Shaping Criminal Policy?’ (2008) 21 HuV-I 73Google Scholar
, ‘How Should the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Choose its Cases? The Multiple Meanings of “Situational Gravity”’ (2009) Hague Justice Portal 1Google Scholar
ILC draft statute for an international criminal Court 1994, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, GA 49th session, 1 September 1994 (A/49/10 (Supp.)) 105, Article 35(1)(c): ‘is not of such gravity to justify further action by the Court’; also War Crimes Research Office, the Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court Legal Analysis and Education Project (2008) 12
, ‘Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 69 YLS Student Scholarship Series 1, 12–13Google Scholar
(1994) I Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Summary records of the meetings on the forty-sixth session, A/CN.4/SER.A/1994 (1994) 25, para. 41, 27, para. 59; ILC draft statute 1994, supra note 12, at 32; WCRO Report, supra note 12, at 12
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/50/22 (1995) para. 54 et seq., 11–12
(ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999) 47
(ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2008) Article 17, mn 13
Official Records, vol. III, Reports and other documents, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/13 (vol. III) (2002) 27 with n. 49
, The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (2008) 186
ICC OTP, Report on the Activities Performed During the First Three Years (June 2003–June 2006) (2006) 8
, ‘The Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 83 Friedenswarte 11, 20–1Google Scholar
ICC OTP, Paper on Some Policy Issues Before the Office of the Prosecutor (September 2003) 7; Schabas, supra note 6, at 737
ICC OTP Press Release (Uganda), ‘Press conference on the Uganda arrest warrants, statement by Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’, ICC-OTP-20051014–109 (2005)
Third Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the Security Council pursuant to UNSC 1593 (2005) 2; Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, 10 February 2006, 4; WCRO Report, supra note 12, at 19
, ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure: Adversarial, Inquisitorial or Mixed?’ in (ed.), International Criminal Justice: A Critical Analysis of Institutions and Procedures (2007) 429, 438–9Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrant of Arrest, Article 58, supra note 4; Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58, of 10 January 2006, incorporated in the record of the case pursuant to Decision ICC-01/04–520, 21 July 2008
, supra note 11, at 78; McAuliffe de Guzman, supra note 13, at 36; I. Stegmiller, The Pre-investigative Stage of the ICC: Criteria for Situation Selection (Dunker & Humblot, 2011) 549
, ‘Inventing the Laws of Gravity: the ICC's Initial Lubanga Decision and its Regressive Consequences’ (2008) 8 ICLR 331, 335Google Scholar
(ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2008) Article 53, mn 19
, The ICC: the Principle of Complementarity (2006) 39
, ‘The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatment of Complementarity and the Role of the Office of the Prosecutor’ (2005) 5 ICLR 121, 127 with n. 11Google Scholar
(ed.), Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases (2009) 147, 151 et seq., 155 et seq
OTP Reg. 29(2); Draft Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations (4 October 2010) para. 70. On the Draft Policy Paper and the mentioned ‘gravity’ factors, see in detail P. Seils, ‘The Selection and Prioritization of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’ in Bergsmo, supra note 95, at 55, 57
HRW, The Selection of Situations and Cases for Trial before the International Criminal Court: A Human Rights Watch Policy Paper (2006) 5
and , ‘Pursuing Justice in Ongoing Conflict: A Discussion of Current Practice’ in Ambos, Large and Wierda, supra note 4, at 263, 297
and (eds.), Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa (2008) 37, 38
, ‘Suggestions concerning International Criminal Court Prosecutorial Policy and Strategy and External Relations’, Contribution to an expert consultation process on general issues relevant to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, 28 March 2003, 1, 21; McAuliffe de Guzman, supra note 13, at 35Google Scholar
, supra note 11, at 2
Eighth Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the Security Council pursuant to UNSC 1593 (2005) para. 56
, ‘The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law’ (2002) 23 Mich. J. Int'l L 869, 905Google Scholar
‘Five Minutes with Luis Moreno-Ocampo: An Interview with the ICC Prosecutor’ (2006) XV International Affairs Review2Google Scholar
In this survey, I have integrated earlier ideas with regard to the ICTY's/ICTR's sentencing case law, which were presented by HRW, Policy Paper: the Meaning of the “Interests of Justice” in Article 53 of the Rome Statute (June 2005) 1, 16
, and , ‘Is ICTY Sentencing Predictable? An Empirical Analysis of ICTY Sentencing Practice’ (2009) 22 LJIL 79, 80, 96–7Google Scholar
, and , ‘The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: Five Years On’ (2008) 19 CLF 1Google Scholar
, and (eds.), The Rome Statute of the ICC: A Commentary (2002) vol. II, 1137, 1154
, and , ‘The International Criminal Court's Office of the Prosecutor: Navigating Between Independence and Accountability?’ (2008) 8 ICLR 273, 297Google Scholar