The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and Non-Governmental Organizations

1999 ◽  
pp. 189-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Pace
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Relationship

NGOs for International Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Relative Lack ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Oriented Approach

Kjersti Lohne describes the impact of non-governmental organizations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular discussing the relative lack of regard for defendants’ rights, and especially highlighting the difficulties encountered by those acquitted. After the Coalition for the International Criminal Court contributed to the establishment of the ICC itself in the fight against impunity for international crimes, that Coalition has continued a victim-oriented approach, arguably at the expense of defendants’ rights. The ICC’s focus on victims, ‘truth’, and ‘memory’ may challenge the legitimacy of the Court in the longer run.

The ‘End’, the ‘Beginning of the End’ or the ‘End of the Beginning’? Introducing Debates and Voices on the Definition of ‘Aggression’

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
CARSTEN STAHN
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Constructive Dialogue ◽  
Significant Step ◽  
Broad Variety ◽  
Age Of Accountability ◽  
Definition Of

On 11 June 2010, the first Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted Resolution RC/Res. 6 on the ‘Crime of Aggression’ by consensus, after years of debates and negotiations in the framework of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court and the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. The resolution includes a definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime, while making the actual exercise of jurisdiction ‘subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017’ by states parties. This outcome has triggered a broad variety of reactions. The UN praised it as a ‘historic agreement’ and a significant step towards a new ‘age of accountability’. Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed concerns that the compromise deepens the gaps between states and leaves accountability loopholes. US legal advisor Harold Koh qualified the compromise as an opportunity for further constructive dialogue and positive engagement with the ICC.

Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.16 Deferral of investigation or prosecution/Sursis à enquêter ou à poursuivre

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter comments on Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 16 addresses the tension that may exist between the Court and the Security Council, where the latter is of the view that a prosecution should not proceed. The Security Council can also refer a situation to the Court, but the Prosecutor is under no obligation to proceed. Finally, the relationship between the Court and the Security Council may arise should the Court be empowered to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. As the travaux préparatoires indicate, the relationship between the Court and the Security Council was extremely contentious. Article 16 represents a compromise but one with which many States were not pleased. Moreover, international human rights non-governmental organizations opposed article 16, viewing it as an unacceptable encroachment upon the independence of the Court.

Myanmar

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Haacke
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
Communal Violence ◽  
Internal Armed Conflict ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Cyclone Nargis

Myanmar has been linked to alleged past and potential future mass atrocities by international non-governmental organizations and, at times, the UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights. To date there has been no international commission of inquiry, let alone any referral to the International Criminal Court. Looking beyond controversial efforts to justify the forcible delivery of assistance following Naypyidaw’s problematic response to Cyclone Nargis, this chapter contextualizes and describes the extent of alleged R2P atrocities in Myanmar, outlines how the Myanmar government as well as the United Nations and regional organizations such as ASEAN and other key actors in the international community have implemented R2P either directly or indirectly, and offers a provisional explanation as regards the limited nature of the international community’s response to concerns that Naypyidaw has at least at times failed to exercise its R2P in the contexts of internal armed conflict and communal violence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document