INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE ON THE CASPIAN: ASSESSING AZERBAIJAN'S JOURNEY TOWARDS ICC STATUTE IMPLEMENTATION
Abstract
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has emerged as a cornerstone of the international legal landscape, exemplifying the evolution of global jurisprudence and the imperative for collective state action to address critical international concerns. Functioning as a universal treaty-based judicial entity, the ICC collaborates with national criminal justice systems to uphold international law and order. This paper traces the genesis of the ICC within the context of its antecedents, notably the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, whose efficacy and evenhandedness were questioned. The ad hoc tribunals faced allegations of partiality, particularly the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which was criticized for its perceived focus on the Serbs. This paper highlights the concerns raised regarding politicization and selectivity, contending that the ICC was established to rectify such deficiencies and bolster the global rule of law. The ICC's underpinning legal foundation and its mandate have garnered significant support from numerous states. Unlike its predecessors, which were established by the UN Security Council, the ICC was instituted through a universal international treaty, the Rome Statute. This inclusive approach allows participating states to voluntarily extend the Court's jurisdiction, fostering a more legitimate and equitable basis for its functioning. Drawing inspiration from the Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal and subsequent developments in international law, the ICC's Statute amalgamates elements from diverse conventions and resolutions, enshrining principles of individual accountability for international crimes. A pivotal aspect of the ICC's framework is its harmonization with national criminal justice systems, intervening only when domestic mechanisms falter or prove ineffective. By operating in tandem with national authorities, the ICC supplements their efforts and reinforces the enforcement of international law. This symbiotic relationship with national jurisdictions affords the ICC a dual role as a supportive adjunct and an autonomous mechanism, ensuring that accountability for grave international transgressions is not contingent upon the limitations of domestic systems. While the ICC has realized notable successes, exemplified by the conviction of individuals like Dominic Ongwen, challenges persist. Criticisms center around perceived biases and constraints on its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the ICC's enduring significance in the global battle against impunity remains undeniable. As a testament to the maturation of international legal norms, the ICC stands as an emblem of collective commitment to justice, reflecting the shared aspiration to combat the gravest crimes affecting the international community.
Keywords:
International Criminal Court, ICC, international law, ad hoc tribunals, Rome StatuteDownloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Carrasco, S.H

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Milanović, M. (2016). The Impact of the ICTY on the Former Yugoslavia: An Anticipatory Postmortem. The American Journal of International Law, 110(2), 233-259.
Scharf, M. P. (2002). The International Trial Of Slobodan Milosevic: Real Justice Or Realpolitik?, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 8(2), 389-401.
Zimmermann, A. (1998). Creation of Permanent International Criminal Court. In: Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2, 169-238
Benzing, M. (2003). The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity, 7 MAX PLANCK Y.B. U.N. L. 591N92.
Ladan, M. T. (2013). An overview of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: jurisdiction and complementarity principle and issues in domestic implementation in Nigeria. Afe Babalola University: Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 1(1), 37-53.
Helfer, L., & Slaughter, A. M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication // 107 Yale Law Journal, 273.
Karl, Z. (2000). New trends in the enforcement of erga omnes obligations. In: Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 4, 1-52.
Buergenthal, T. (2001). Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good or Bad? // Leiden Journal of International Law, 14.
Croquet, N. A. J. (2011). The International Criminal Court and the Treatment of Defence Rights: A Mirror of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence?. Human Rights Law Review, 11(1), 91–131.
Kim, S. (2011). Maintaining the Independence of the International Criminal Court: The Legal and Procedural Implications of an Article 16 Deferral Request. Agenda Internacional, Año 18(29), 175-212.
Arsanjani, M. H., & Reisman, W. M. (2005). The Lawin-Action of the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 99(2), 385-403.
Lüder, S. R. (2002). The legal nature of the International Criminal Court and the emergence of supranational elements in international criminal justice. IRRC, 84, 79-92.
Wenqi, Z. (2006). On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court. International review of the Red Cross, 88(861), 87-110. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/XrefXML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17701&lang=en https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Legalframework/Cooperation-agreements/Cooperationagreements-Global-international-organizations
Carrasco, S. H. (2010). Implementation of War Crimes in Latin America: An Assessment of the Impact of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Law Review, 10, 461–473.
Wabrick, C., McGoldrick, D., & Cryer, R. (2002). Implementation of the Criminal Court Statute in England and Wales. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(3), 733-743.
Birkett, D. J. (2019). Twenty Years of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Appraising the State of National Implementing Legislation in Asia. Chinese Journal of International Law, 18(2), 353-392.
Abdul Mahir, H. (2021), A Critical Analysis of the Rome Statute Implementation in Afghanistan. Florida Journal of International Law, 31(1), 1-31.
Boas, G. (2004). An Overview of Implementation by Australia of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(1), 179–190.
Bassiouni, M. Ch., & Manikas, P. (1996). The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Transnational Publishers, p 1092.
Dana, S. H. (2009). Beyond retroactivity to realizing justice: a theory on the principle of legality in international criminal law sentencing. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(4), 857-928
Marchuk, I., & Wanigasuriya, A. (2021). Venturing East: The Involvement of the International Criminal Court in Post-Soviet Countries and its Impact on Domestic Processes, 44. FORDHAM INT'L L. J., 735, 735-769. https://www.state.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/03-0828-Azerbaijan-UNand-Related-Organization-International-CriminalCourt-2.26.2003.pdf https://static2.president.az/media/W1siZiIsIjIwMTgvMDMvMDkvNHQzMWNrcGppYV9Lb25zdGl0dXNpeWFfRU5HLnBkZiJdXQ?sha=c440b7c5f80d645b
Bachmann, S. D. D., & Nwibo, E. L. (2018). Pull and Push- Implementing the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute of the ICC within the AU: Opportunities and Challenges, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L., 457, 457-543,
Philippe, X. (2006). The principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity: how do the two principles intermesh?. International review of the Red Cross, 88(862), 375-398.
Shamsi, N. (2016). The ICC: A political tool? How the Rome Statute is susceptible to the pressures of more power states. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, 24(1), 85-104.