Guiding interpretive principle

Leena Grover

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107705586.004

3 - Guiding interpretive principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014

Leena Grover

Show author details

Leena Grover: Affiliation:
Universität Zürich

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In Chapter 2, a representative sample of the ICTY’s and ICTR’s jurisprudence was canvassed in order to glean insights on developing a method of interpretation. One of the findings of that study is that no widely accepted and recognized primary principle has emerged to guide judges in their interpretive reasoning. Accordingly, the next three Chapters are dedicated to identifying a guiding interpretive principle for crimes in the Rome Statute, articulating that principle’s content in a manner that could be useful to judges and lawyers and cataloguing arguments that are (in)consistent with it.

To appreciate the interpretive imperatives set out in the Rome Statute, this Chapter begins by recalling the normative tensions underlying international criminal law. Next, the interpretive imperatives in articles 21(3) and 22 of the Rome Statute – interpretation consistent with international human rights and interpretation consistent with the principle of legality – will be examined. It will be argued that the guiding interpretive principle for crimes in the Rome Statute is legality. An attempt will therefore be made to reconcile article 21(3) with this reading and to give it content that is consistent with legality.

Type: Chapter
Information: Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , pp. 102 - 133

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107705586.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Robinson, D, ‘The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law’ (2008) 21 LJIL925CrossRef Google Scholar

Danner, AM and Martinez, JS, ‘Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’ (2005) 93 California L Rev75Google Scholar

Ratner, SR, ‘The Schizophrenias of International Criminal Law’ (1998) 33 Texas Int’l LJ237Google Scholar

Cassese, A, International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press 2008) 36ffGoogle Scholar

McCrudden, C, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 EJIL655CrossRef Google Scholar

Christoffersen, J, ‘Impact on General Principles of Treaty Interpretation’ in Kamminga, MT and Scheinin, M (eds.), The Impact of Human Rights Law on General International Law (Oxford University Press 2009) 37CrossRef Google Scholar

Provost, R, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2002) 136CrossRef Google Scholar

Pictet, J, Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff 1985)Google Scholar

Schabas, WA, ‘Customary Law or “Judge-Made” Law: Judicial Creativity at the UN Criminal Tribunals’ in Doria, J, Gasser, H-P and Bassiouni, MC (eds.), The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 77Google Scholar

Broomhall, B, ‘Article 22’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 713, 719Google Scholar

Ashworth, A and Horder, J, Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn (Oxford University Press 2013) 69–71CrossRef Google Scholar

Schabas, WA, ‘Interpreting the Statutes of the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ in Vohrah, LC (ed.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese (Kluwer 2003) 887Google Scholar

Cassese, A, ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’ (1999) 10 EJIL144, 152CrossRef Google Scholar

Schabas, WA, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press 2004) 94CrossRef Google Scholar

Packer, HL, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press 1968) 94–95Google Scholar

Ad Hoc Committee, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (1995) UN Doc. A/50/22, paras. 52, 57

Preparatory Committee, ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during Mar.–Apr. and Aug. 1996)’, vol. I, UN Doc. A/51/22, paras. 52, 180, 185

Lamb, S, ‘Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law’ in Cassese, A and Others (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. I (Oxford University Press 2002) 733, 747Google Scholar

Ambos, K, ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law’ in Haveman, R and Olusanya, O (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law (Intersentia 2006) 17Google Scholar

Gallant, KS, The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar

Kreß, C, ‘Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege’ in Wolfrum, R (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2008–)

von Feuerbach, PJA Ritter, ‘The General Principles of International Criminal Law: The Foundations of Criminal Law and the Nullum Crimen Principle’ in Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 11th edn (Heyer 1832) 12–19, translation by Fraser, IL in (2007) 5 J Int’l Crim Justice 1005Google Scholar

Bassiouni, MC, ‘Principles of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law’ in Bassiouni, MC (ed.), International Criminal Law, vol. II, 3rd edn (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 73Google Scholar

Haveman, R, ‘The Principle of Legality’ in Haveman, R, Kavran, O and Nicholls, J (eds.), Supranational Criminal Law: A System Sui Generis (Intersentia 2003) 39Google Scholar

Glaser, S, ‘Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’ (1942) 24 J Comp Legis & Int’l L29Google Scholar

Boot, M, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Intersentia 2002)Google Scholar

Van Schaack, B, ‘Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals’ (2008) 97 Georgetown LJ119, 176Google Scholar

Raz, J, The Authority of Law (Oxford University Press 1979) 214–15Google Scholar

App. No. 14307/88, Kokkinakis v. Greece, ECHR (1993) Series A, No. 260, para. 52

United States v. Davis, 576 F.2d 1065, 1069 (3d Cir. 1978) (Aldisert, J. concurring), cited in Paust, JJ, ‘Nullum Crimen and Related Claims’ (1997) 25 Denver J Int’l L & Policy321, 325Google Scholar

Akande, D suggests that where an ambiguity exists, the legality principle bars resort to travaux préparatoires pursuant to article 32 of the Vienna Convention (1969) to resolve it in a manner unfavourable to the suspect or accused

‘The Sources of International Criminal Law’ in Cassese, A (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press 2009) 41, 45

Shahabuddeen, , ‘Does the Principle of Legality Stand in the Way of Progressive Development of Law?’ (2004) 2 J Int’l Crim Justice1007CrossRef Google Scholar

Sinclair, I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn (Manchester University Press 1984) 115Google Scholar

Gardiner, R, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2008) 145Google Scholar

Nolte, G, ‘Second Report for the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time: Jurisprudence under Special Regimes relating to Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice’ in Nolte, G (ed.), Treaties and Subsequent Practice (Oxford University Press 2013) 210Google Scholar

Bianchi, A, ‘Textual Interpretation and (International) Law Reading: The Myth of (In)determinacy and the Genealogy of Meaning’ in Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts (Cambridge University Press 2010) 34, 36CrossRef Google Scholar

Pellet, A, ‘Applicable Law’ in Cassese, A and Others (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. II (Oxford University Press 2002) 1051Google Scholar

Jessberger, F, ‘Bad Torture – Good Torture? What International Criminal Lawyers may Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany’ (2005) 3 J Int’l Crim Justice1059CrossRef Google Scholar

Gaeta, P, ‘May Necessity be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?’ (2004) 2 J Int’l Crim Justice785)CrossRef Google Scholar

Eser, A, ‘Article 31’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 863Google Scholar

Schabas, WA, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford University Press 2010) 397CrossRef Google Scholar

de Guzman, M McAuliffe, ‘Article 21’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 701, 711Google Scholar

Trechsel, S, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford University Press 2005)Google Scholar

Gallant, KS, ‘Individual Human Rights in a New International Organization: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ in Bassiouni, MC (ed.), International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Transnational Publishers 1999) 693Google Scholar

Jennings, R and Watts, A, Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edn (Longman, Harlow 1992) 1280Google Scholar

Piragoff, DK, ‘Article 69’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 1301, 1333Google Scholar

Sluiter, G, ‘Human Rights Protection in the ICC Pre-Trial Phase’ in Stahn, C and Sluiter, G (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Brill 2009) 459Google Scholar

Clark, R, ‘Article 106’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 1663Google Scholar

Simma, B and Alston, P, ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles’ (1988–1989) 12 Australian Ybk Int’l L82, 105–06 (citing Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep. 4, 22: ‘obligations…based…on certain general and well-recognized principles’, among them ‘elementary considerations of humanity’)Google Scholar

Orentlicher, D, ‘Criminalizing Hate Speech in the Crucible of Trial: Prosecutor v. Nahimana’ (2005) 12 New England J Int’l & Comp L 17

Cassese, A, ‘The Influence of the European Court of Human Rights on International Criminal Tribunals – Some Methodological Remarks’ in Bergsmo, M (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Martinus Nijhoff 2003) 157Google Scholar

Ashworth, A, Emmerson, B and Macdonald, A, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, 2nd edn (Sweet & Maxwell 2007)Google Scholar

Clayton, R and Tomlinson, H, The Law of Human Rights, vol. I, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press 2009) ss. 4.05–4.20Google Scholar

Summers, RS and Taruffo, M, ‘Interpretation and Comparative Analysis’ in MacCormick, DN and Summers, RS (eds.), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1991) 461, 471Google Scholar

Safferling, C, International Criminal Procedure (Oxford University Press 2012) 109ffCrossRef Google Scholar

Hafner, and Binder, note that article 21(3) should be interpreted in light of article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention (1969)

Schabas, W, ‘Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus ad Bellum’ (2007) 40:2 Israel L Rev592, 602CrossRef Google Scholar

d’Aspremont, J, ‘Articulating International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: Conciliatory Interpretation under the Guise of Conflict of Norms-Resolution’ in Fitzmaurice, M and Merkouris, P (eds.), The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Legal and Practical Implications (Martinus Nijhoff 2013) 4, 26Google Scholar

Møse, E, ‘Impact of Human Rights Conventions on the Two Ad Hoc Tribunals’ in Bergsmo, M (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Martinus Nijhoff 2003) 179Google Scholar

Robinson, D, ‘Defining “Crimes against Humanity” at the Rome Conference’ (1999) 93 AJIL43, 53CrossRef Google Scholar

Boot, M, Dixon, R and Hall, C (revised by Hall, C), ‘Article 7’ in Triffterer, O (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 159, 230ffGoogle Scholar

Kälin, W and Künzli, J, The Law of International Human Rights Protection (Oxford University Press 2009) 132ffGoogle Scholar

Koskenniemi, M, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission’ (4 April 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 109

Pauwelyn, J, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2003) 257–63CrossRef Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, M, ‘Study on the Function and Scope of the Lex Specialis Rule and the Question of “Self Contained Regimes”’ (2004) UN Doc. ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1 and Add.1, 4

Prud’homme, N, ‘Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship?’(2007) 40:2 Israel L Rev 355Google Scholar

Lindroos, A, ‘Addressing the Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented System: the Doctrine of Lex Specialis’ (2005) 74 Nordic J Int’l L27CrossRef Google Scholar

McCarthy, C, ‘Legal Conclusion or Interpretive Process? Lex Specialis and the Applicability of International Human Rights Standards’ in Arnold, R and Quénivet, N (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 101Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (2006) II Ybk of the ILC, Conclusions10 and 26Google Scholar