Thematic Prosecution Doctrine as a Factor in the Gravity Assessment at the International Criminal Court

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

دانشگاه تیلبرگ هلند

Abstract

Selectivity at the International Criminal Court (Court/ICC) is unavoidable and inevitable. The Court is not able to investigate and prosecute all cases and situations fallen within its jurisdiction. The Court’s intervention is an exception to prosecution at the domestic level. The Prosecutor’s discretion in selecting situations and cases, however, is not unfettered. The gravity requirement plays a leading role in the ICC situation and case selection regime. In practice, the Prosecutor, based on her interpretation of the gravity notion, has prioritized the prosecution of crimes against culture property and children and sexual crimes over other ICC-identified crimes. This article inquiries about the reason behind such a prioritization, and examines its consistency with the ICC’s constituent objectives. Studying prosecutorial policies and practices directs to the thematic prosecution doctrine. This doctrine orients prosecution around some criminal themes that are often untouched at the domestic level. Because of being under-prosecuted, the victims of these crimes need special attention and protection. From this perspective, that is consistent with the expressive mandates of the court, the prosecutor targets those themes that suffer a thicker culture of impunity.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdulhak T. (2011). Complementarity of Procedures: How to Avoid Reinventing the Wheel’, in Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge University Press.
  2. Amann M. (2013). Children and the First Verdict of the International Criminal Court, Washington University Global Studies Law Review.
  3. Ambos K. (2012). ‘Thematic Investigations and Prosecution of International
Sex Crimes: Some Critical Comments from a Theoretical
and Comparative Perspective’, in Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
  4. Arsanjani M. and Reisman W. (2005). ‘The Law-in-Action of the International Criminal Court’, the American Journal of International Law.
  5. Buss D. (2011). ‘Performing Legal Order: Some Feminist Thoughts on International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review.
  6. Cronin-Furman K. and Taub A. (2013). ‘Lions and Tigers and Deterrence. Oh My: Evaluating Expectations of International Criminal Justice’, in William A. Schabas, Yvonne McDermott and Niamh Hayes (eds.), Th e Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives, Ashgate.
  7. De  Brouwer A. (2015). ‘The Importance of Understanding Sexual Violence in Conflict for Investigation and Prosecution Purposes’, Cornell International Law Journal.
  8. De Guzman M. M. (2008). ‘Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’, Fordham International Law Journal.
  9. De Guzman M.M. (2011). ‘Giving Priority to Sex Crime Prosecutions: Th e Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda’, International Criminal Law Review.
  10.  De Guzman M.M. (2012, A). ‘An Expressive Rationale for the Th ematic Prosecution of Sex Crimes’, in Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Th ematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
  11.  De Guzman M.M. (2012, B) ‘Choosing to Prosecute at the International Criminal Court’, Michigan Journal of International Law.
  12.  El Zeidy M. M. (2008). Th e Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
  13.  Greenawalt A. (2007). ‘Justice without Politics: Prosecutorial Discretion and the International  Criminal Court’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.
  14.  Guariglia F. (2012). Those Most Responsible’ versus International Sex Crimes: Competing Prosecution Themes, in Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
  15.  Guariglia Fabric and Rogier E. (2015). ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn (ed.), The Law and Pratice of the Internatioanl Criminal Court, Oxford University Press.

16. Haldemann F. (2011). ‘Drawing the Line: Amnesty, Truth Commissions and Collective Denial’, in Rianne Letschert and Roelof Haveman, Anne-Marie de Brouwer and Antony Pemberton, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes: Africa, Intersentia

17. International Justice Monitor (2015). Dominic Ongwen Confirmation of Charges Hearing Concludes, accessible at https://www.ijmonitor.org/2016/01/dominic-ongwen-confirmation-of-charges-hearing-concludes/.

18. Kaleck W. (2015). Double Standards: International Criminal Law and the West, Torkel Opsahl Academic Publisher

19. Nouwen S. (2011). ‘Complementarity in Uganda: Domestic Diversity or International Imposition?’, in Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), Th e International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Th eory to Practice, Cambridge University Press.

20. OTP (2003). Paper on Some Policy Issues before the Office of the Prosecutor, September.

21. OTP (2008). Abu Garda case, Summary of the Prosecutor’s Application under Article 58.

22. OTP (2013). Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations.

23. OTP (2014). Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: Article 53(1) Report.

24. OTP (2016, A). Policy on Children.

25. OTP (2016, B). Report on the Preliminary Examination Activities.

26. OTP, Strategic Plan (2009 – 2012), para. 16.

27. Politi M. (2011). ‘Reflections on complementarity at the Rome Conference and beyond’ in Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge University Press.

28. Schabas W. (2005). ‘Prosecutorial Discretion and Gravity’, in Carsten Stahn and Göran Sluiter (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

29. Schabas William (2011). An Introduction to International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press.

30. Shoamanesh S.S. and Dutertre G. (2016). The ICC and Cultural Property: Reinforced Legal Enforcement of the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict, accessible at: https://www.international-criminal-justice-today.org/arguendo/the-icc-and-cultural-property/

31. Sloane R. (2006). Expressive Capacity of International Punishment, Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers

32. Smeulers, Alette and Hola, Barbora and Berg, Tom van den  (2013). Sixty-Five Years of International Criminal Justice: Facts and Figures, International Criminal Law Review

33. Stahn and El Zeidy M.M. (eds.) (2011). The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge University Press

34. Stahn C. (2008). ‘Complementarity: A Tale of Two Notions’, Criminal Law Forum

35. Stahn C. (2011). ‘Taking Complementarity Seriously: On the Sense and Sensibility of ‘Classical’, ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Complementarity’, in Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge University Press.

36. Stegmiller I. (2011). ‘Interpretative Gravity under the ICC Statute: Identifying Common Gravity Criteria’, in Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge University Press

37. Tallgren I. (2002). “The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law”, European Journal of International Law.

38. Valdez-Arroyo F.M. (2012). ‘Prospect for Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes in Latin America’, in Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics