COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ICC IMPLEMENTATION: AZERI PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
Abstract
The establishment and functioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC) mark a pivotal development in international law, reflecting the imperative for coordinated global efforts to address significant international issues. As a universal treaty-based judicial body, the ICC serves as a crucial complement to national criminal justice systems, aiming to uphold international law and order. This paper delves into the historical context that led to the creation of the ICC, highlighting the shortcomings of earlier ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Before the ICC's inception, ad hoc tribunals faced criticisms regarding their legality and perceived bias in focusing on specific parties to conflicts. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in particular, sparked concerns of politicization and a double standard, with accusations of anti-Serb sentiments from the outset. The disproportionate focus on Serbs and the lack of attention to crimes committed by other parties fueled skepticism and eroded the tribunals' credibility. The death of former Yugoslav leader S. Milošević during tribunal proceedings further tainted its image.
In response to these challenges, the ICC emerged as a unique entity with a solid legal foundation and a mandate to collaborate with national criminal justice authorities. Unlike its ad hoc predecessors, the ICC was established through a universal international treaty—the Rome Statute. This treaty allows states to voluntarily decide on participation in the constituent act and the subsequent extension of the Court's jurisdiction.
By 2016, the Rome Statute garnered support from 123 states, underscoring widespread international endorsement for the ICC. The Court's legal basis and its commitment to impartiality have resonated positively with many states, positioning the ICC as a beacon for justice on the international stage. This paper navigates through the historical evolution of international criminal justice, emphasizing the ICC's role in addressing the limitations of ad hoc tribunals and fostering a more inclusive and impartial approach to maintaining international law and order.
Keywords:
International Criminal Court (ICC), Rome Statute, Ad Hoc Tribunals, International Law, Global JusticeDownloads
Published
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10556454Issue
Section
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Farid Hasanov Alizadeh
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=enhttps://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). VenturingEast: 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.
