Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Palestine and the International Criminal Court pp 79–110Cite as

Pre-Investigation Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 683 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 21))

Abstract

Following the submission of the second Palestinian ad hoc declaration in 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine. During preliminary examinations, the Prosecutor employs a four-tier filtering mechanism to determine whether the examination could proceed into investigation or not. The examination on the situation in Palestine, similar to others, requires a determination on issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and interest of justice. This chapter, therefore, examines these issues in light of, among others, the practice of the Office of the Prosecutor and the Rome Statute. In view of the situation in Palestine, it covers temporal, material, territorial and personal jurisdiction, followed by a discussion of the fundamental concepts of complementarity and gravity to determine the admissibility of potential cases before the International Criminal Court. Similar to other considerations, the chapter concludes that the last pre-investigation consideration, namely ‘interest of justice’, is also satisfied in the context of Palestine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ICC, Press release: Palestine declares acceptance of ICC jurisdiction since 13 June 2014, 9 May 2017, ICC-CPI-20150105-PR1080; Kittrie 2016, p. 218.

  2. 2.

    ICC, Press release: The state of Palestine accedes to the Rome Statute, 7 January 2015, ICC-ASP-20150107-PR1082.

  3. 3.

    ICC, Press release: The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine, 16 January 2015, ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083; Kittrie 2016, p. 219.

  4. 4.

    OTP 2015a, p. 17.

  5. 5.

    Askin 1997, p. 202; Bantekas 2010, p. 389; Glaser 2008, pp. 55 et seq.; Kelsen 2008, pp. 274 et seq.; Olásolo 2005, p. 35; Smith 2012, p. 80; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 5.

  6. 6.

    Bantekas 2010, pp. 412, 445, 450; Bassiouni 2013, pp. 742, 756, 762, 771; Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 114, 121–127.

  7. 7.

    Guilfoyle 2016, pp. 105, 130 et seq.; Kuczyńska 2015, pp. 117–118; Schabas 2011, p. 157.

  8. 8.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute), Article 13; Ambos 2016, p. 255; Bantekas 2010, p. 426; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 110.

  9. 9.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 53(1); ICC, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted 9 September 2002, ICC-ASP/1/3 part II.A (Rules of Procedure and Evidence), Rule 104.

  10. 10.

    Jalloh 2014, p. 14; Jurdi 2011, p. 95; Kuczyńska 2015, pp. 117–118; Stigen 2008, p. 349.

  11. 11.

    OTP 2013b, pp. 3–6. Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1368. See also Peschke 2011, p. 198; Kuczyńska 2015, pp. 117–118.

  12. 12.

    Caban 2011, pp. 200–201.

  13. 13.

    L. Louman, Report: Preliminary examination and legacy/sustainable exit: reviewing policies and practices—part 1, 26 October 2015, http://postconflictjustice.com/report-preliminary-examination-and-legacysustainable-exit-reviewing-policies-and-practices-part-1/ (accessed 31 March 2016); Kuczyńska 2015, pp. 117–118.

  14. 14.

    Cryer et al. 2010, p. 75; Stone 2015, p. 291.

  15. 15.

    OTP 2015b, p. 20. Schabas and Bernaz argue that there is empirical proof that a mere threat of prosecution may prevent conflict and to end wars more quickly. See Schabas and Bernaz 2011, p. 454.

  16. 16.

    OTP 2013b, p. 18; Ellis 2014, p. 38.

  17. 17.

    Stegmiller 2013, p. 487.

  18. 18.

    On the basis of Article 15(2) and Rule 104(2), the procedure provided in Rule 47 allows the Prosecutor to receive oral and written testimonies at the seat of the Court. Rules of Procedure and Evidence, above n. 9, Rules 47 and 104(2); Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 15(2). Stegmiller 2011, p. 224.

  19. 19.

    OTP 2013b, p. 19; Ellis 2014, p. 38.

  20. 20.

    Stegmiller 2011, p. 230; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1370

  21. 21.

    ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an investigation into the situation in the Republic of Kenya, 31 March 2010, ICC-01/09-19 (Situation in the Republic of Kenya 2010), para 35; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1371.

  22. 22.

    Stegmiller 2011, pp. 230–231.

  23. 23.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 54(2).

  24. 24.

    Pursuant to Article 86, States parties have a general obligation to cooperate with the Court. However, the provision explicitly refers to ‘investigation and prosecution’, which do not include pre-investigation activities. On what appears to be a result of concerns from States sensitive to the broad power of the Prosecutor, State party cooperation becomes obligatory after a confirmation decision from the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Prosecutor could, however, seek voluntary cooperation. For more on cooperation see Stegmiller 2011, p. 228; and Kuczyńska 2015, pp. 117–118.

  25. 25.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence, above n. 9, Rule 104(2).

  26. 26.

    OTP 2013b, p. 21. See also Pellegrino 2014, p. 7.

  27. 27.

    Stegmiller 2011, p. 212; Olásolo 2005, pp. 35 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 15(4); Ambos 2016, p. 264; Stegmiller 2011, p. 212; Stone 2015, p. 219.

  29. 29.

    OTP 2013b. The Policy Paper provides the criteria employed in assessing situations under Preliminary Examination. It details the raison d’être of the standard employed and the policy behind the criteria in light of the Statute and other policy documents.

  30. 30.

    Wagner 2003, p. 412.

  31. 31.

    Ambos 2016, pp. 242–243; Calvo-Goller 2006, pp. 181 et seq.; Guilfoyle 2016, pp. 105 et seq.; Knoops 2014, pp. 77 et seq.; Vagias 2014, pp. 47–60; Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 96 et seq.

  32. 32.

    OTP 2013b, p. 9.

  33. 33.

    See generally Knoops 2014, pp. 77 et seq.; Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 96 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 657.

  35. 35.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 126(2).

  36. 36.

    Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 658.

  37. 37.

    Bougon 2002, p. 549; Schabas 2011, p. 73; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 658–660.

  38. 38.

    Van Schaack 2011, p. 101.

  39. 39.

    This is not the case for the ad hoc Tribunals. The prohibition of retroactive criminalisation under the Rome Statute is different from the ad hoc Tribunals and national war crimes Trials that were established to deal with crimes that were committed before their establishment. The issue of Nullum Crimen was not considered relevant as the violations were considered a violation of international criminal law. See Boot 2002, p. 372.

  40. 40.

    The Rome Statute provides non-retroactivity also in respect to crimes that the ad hoc Tribunals retroactively prosecuted. See, for instance, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Trial Chamber ICTY, 16 November 1998, IT-96-21-T, para 293. See also Boot 2002, p. 372; Nissel 2004, p. 676.

  41. 41.

    The question of enforced disappearance as a continuing crime has been established in various case laws including IACHR, Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Judgment, 4 September 2012; IACHR, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment, 29 July 1988; Human Rights Committee, Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France, Communication No. 196/1985, 3 April 1989, UN Doc. CCPR/C/35/D/196/1985 (1989) (Human Rights Committee 1989). See also Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 664–667.

  42. 42.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 8(2)(e)(viii).

  43. 43.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(vii).

  44. 44.

    Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire 2011, above n. 44, paras 179–180.

  45. 45.

    See ibid. The ad hoc Tribunals have also adopted a similar approach. See, for instance, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, Judgement, 2 December 2008, ICTR-01-72-T, para 27; ICTR, Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Judgement, 28 November 2007, ICTR-99-52-A, paras 41, 315.

  46. 46.

    Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 662 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 24(1). See also Boot 2002, p. 372.

  48. 48.

    Schabas 2011, pp. 75 et seq.; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 662.

  49. 49.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN (Lubanga 2007), para 248.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.; ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (Lubanga 2012), para 618. See also Human Rights Committee 1989, above n. 41, para 10; and Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 665.

  51. 51.

    ICC, Elements of Crimes, 2002, ICC-ASP/1/3 part II.B (Elements of Crimes), Article 8(2)(e)(vii).

  52. 52.

    See ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi).

  53. 53.

    The crime of enforced disappearance is treated as a continuing crime in various judgements, among others, see IACHR, Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Judgment, 2 July 1996, IACHR Series C no. 27, paras 35–39, 29–40; IACHR, Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Judgment, 24 January 1998, IACHR Series C no. 36, para 130; ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94, paras 40, 132. Various human right instruments have also prohibited the conduct. See Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 1992, A/RES/47/133, Article 17(1); Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, OAS Treaty Series no. 68, entered into force 28 March 1996, Article 3. See also Nissel 2004, pp. 664, 668.

  54. 54.

    Boot 2002, p. 371; and Nissel 2004, p. 687.

  55. 55.

    Lubanga 2007, above n. 49, para 248; Lubanga 2012, above n. 50, para 618.

  56. 56.

    Although the initial attack referred under footnote 24 occurred earlier than the date the Statute came into force, as far as the attack is continuing past the latter date, the Court enjoys jurisdiction. See Nissel 2004, p. 670.

  57. 57.

    See Lubanga 2007, above n. 49, para 248; Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire 2011, above n. 44, paras 179–180.

  58. 58.

    OTP 2015a, p. 12.

  59. 59.

    ICC, Press release: The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine, 16 January 2015, ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083.

  60. 60.

    OTP, Situation in Palestine, 3 April 2012, https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/C6162BBF-FEB9-4FAF-AFA9-836106D2694A/284387/SituationinPalestine030412ENG.pdf (accessed 30 July 2015, para 5.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., paras 5–8.

  62. 62.

    Some argue that in contrast to the other two crimes, the definition of war crimes under the Statute has no quantitative dimension. The introductory paragraph of the crime could be read as a guidance to focus the jurisdiction of the Court on situations with a threshold similar to what is provided to other definitions. See OTP, Letter of the Prosecutor on the situation in Iraq, 9 February 2006, https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/04D143C8-19FB-466C-AB77-4CDB2FDEBEF7/143682/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf (accessed 25 May 2005); Schabas 2011, p. 94.

  63. 63.

    Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 170.

  64. 64.

    Schabas 2011, p. 94.

  65. 65.

    OTP 2013b, pp. 9–10.

  66. 66.

    UNHRC 2009.

  67. 67.

    OTP 2012, above n. 60.

  68. 68.

    Abrams 2015; Erakat 2014; UNHRC 2015, paras 668–675; Human Rights Watch, Israel/Palestine, https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/israel/palestine (accessed 11 April 2016).

  69. 69.

    OTP 2015a, pp. 11, 16.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., pp. 14–16.

  71. 71.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 12(2). See also Ambos 2016, p. 244; Calvo-Goller 2006, pp. 181 et seq.; Knoops 2014, pp. 77 et seq.; Vagias 2014, pp. 47–60; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 683; Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 96 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Schabas 2011, p. 77; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 683–684.

  73. 73.

    OTP 2016, p. 18; Kittrie 2016, p. 220.

  74. 74.

    Similarly, the Court would not be able to investigate and prosecute minors and UN personnel. See Rome Statute, above n. 8, Articles 26, 121(5). See also ICC, Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, entered into force 4 October 2004, ICC-ASP/3/Res.1, Article 19. Palestine signed the Kampala amendments in 2016. However, the ASP activated the jurisdiction in 2017 and allowed the Prosecutor to prosecute the crime effective July 2018.

  75. 75.

    Ash 2009, pp. 12–13.

  76. 76.

    Different from the first ad hoc declaration, the territorial and political fragmentation between the West Bank and Gaza do not affect the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The de facto governing body of Gaza, Hamas, has given consent to the intervention of the Court, although the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank made the declaration. See Reuters, Hamas Voices Support for Membership of ‘Palestine’ in ICC, The Jerusalem Post, 23 August 2014. For a comparative perspective regarding the same issue on the first ad hoc declaration See S. Adem, Palestine and the ICC: a critical appraisal of the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor on the Palestine ad hoc declaration (Unpublished thesis, University of the Western Cape, 2015), pp. 24–25.

  77. 77.

    OTP 2015a, pp. 14–16.

  78. 78.

    OTP 2013b, p. 10; Ambos 2016, pp. 266 et seq.; Schabas 2011, p. 188.

  79. 79.

    Cameron 2004, p. 83.

  80. 80.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 17(1). See also ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial by Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the admissibility of the case, 25 September 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07 (Katanga and Chui 2009), para 78.

  81. 81.

    Situation in the Republic of Kenya 2010, above n. 21, paras 50, 182, 188; Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire 2011, above n. 44, paras 190–191, 202–204; ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Request for authorization of an investigation pursuant to Article 15, 26 November 2009, ICC-01/09-3, paras 51, 107. See also Ambos 2016, pp. 268, 282 et seq.; OTP 2013b, p. 11.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s application for a warrant of arrest, Article 58, 10 February 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06-8 (Lubanga 2006), para 29; Ambos 2016, pp. 282 et seq.; El Zeidy 2008, p. 160.

  84. 84.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 14668 (entered into force 23 March 1976), Article 41(1)(c); American Convention on Human Rights, signed 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978), Article 46; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986), Articles 50 and 56(5). See also European Court of Human Rights, Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, Decision as to the Admissibility of app no. 46113/99, 1 March 2010, paras 50–57; IACHR, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment on preliminary objections, 26 June 1987, IACHR Series C no. 1, paras 87–88.

  85. 85.

    Guilfoyle 2016, pp. 109 et seq.; El Zeidy 2008, p. 159 ; Kleffner 2008, pp. 248 et seq.; Schabas 2011, p. 191; Stone 2015, p. 288.

  86. 86.

    El Zeidy 2008, p. 160.

  87. 87.

    Mégret 2006, p. 37.

  88. 88.

    Cryer et al. 2010, p. 153; Stone 2015, p. 288; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 793–798.

  89. 89.

    Jones 2015, p. 102.

  90. 90.

    Katanga and Chui 2009, above n. 80, para 78.

  91. 91.

    Lubanga 2006, above n. 83, paras 31, 37; ICC, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Harun & Ali Kushayb, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute, 27 April 2007, ICC-02/05-01/07-1, paras 24–25.

  92. 92.

    Since the Prosecutor may not identify specific cases at the preliminary examination stage, her assessment could not necessarily be case specific. See Cryer et al. 2010, p. 154.

  93. 93.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011, 30 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-307, para 1, 47; ICC, Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al- Senussi, 11 October 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-466 (Gaddafi 2013), para 66; Lubanga 2006, above n. 83, para 37. In the latter case Lubanga was in custody in Democratic Republic of Congo for crimes of Genocide and crimes against humanity. The ICC, however, argued that he is not charged with the crime of recruiting child soldiers, for which the Chamber issued an arrest warrant. See also OTP 2013b, p. 12.

  94. 94.

    Gaddafi 2013, above n. 93, para 66. See also OTP 2013b, p. 12.

  95. 95.

    OTP 2013b, p. 12. See also OTP 2005, pp. 3–4.

  96. 96.

    UNHRC 2010, paras 21–25; Schmitt 2011, pp. 35–48.

  97. 97.

    UNHRC 2015, paras 618–651; UNHRC 2010, paras 35–64; UNHRC 2009, paras 1815–1835; Yesh Din 2011.

  98. 98.

    The Commission is officially known as the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010. It was established on 14 June 2010 by the government of Israel with a mandate to investigate the Gaza flotilla incident of 31 May 2010 and the naval blockade imposed on Gaza. It was headed by a former Supreme Court judge named Jacob Turkel. At the end of the investigation, the commission published two reports on the mechanisms of Israel to deal with violations of law of armed conflicts. The official page of the commission is http://www.turkel-committee.gov.il/index-eng.html (accessed 05 April 2016). See also Weill 2012, p. 110.

  99. 99.

    UNHRC 2015, para 618.

  100. 100.

    B’Tselem, Israeli authorities have proven they cannot investigate suspected violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Gaza Strip, 5 September 2014, http://www.btselem.org/accountability/20140905_failure_to_investigate (accessed 17 March 2016).

  101. 101.

    UNHRC 2015, para 610; Israeli human rights organizations B’Tselem and Yesh Din: Israel is unwilling to investigate harm caused to Palestinians, 4 September 2014, http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140905_failure_to_investigate (accessed 21 March 2016).

  102. 102.

    UNHRC 2015, para 619; UNHRC 2009, para 1792.

  103. 103.

    Weill 2012, p. 110.

  104. 104.

    B’Tselem, Israeli authorities have proven they cannot investigate suspected violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Gaza Strip, 5 September 2014, http://www.btselem.org/accountability/20140905_failure_to_investigate (accessed 17 March 2016).

  105. 105.

    The 18 recommendations of the commission do not offer a solution to the dual role of the MAG and do not specify the circumstances that necessitate investigation of civilian deaths. See Adalah 2015, p. 12.

  106. 106.

    Turkel Commission 2013, p. 382.

  107. 107.

    Ibid.; UNHRC 2015, paras 620 et seq.

  108. 108.

    See UNHRC 2015, paras 650–651; and Yesh Din, Data Sheet, September 2014 http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/datasheets/YeshDin%20-%20DataSheet%20Metzach%209_14%20-%20Eng%20(1)%20(1).pdf (accessed 21 March 2016).

  109. 109.

    Amnesty International 2009, p. 90.

  110. 110.

    UNHRC 2015, paras 650–651; Yesh Din 2014, above n. 108.

  111. 111.

    Ibid.

  112. 112.

    Supreme Court of Israel, Avneri v. The Knesset, Decision, HCJ 5239/11, 15 April 2015; the decision of the Court on Admittance committees Law is published in Hebrew, https://www.adalah.org/uploads/oldfiles/Public/files/Hebrew/Legal_Advocacy/Decisions/Decision_on_community_towns_september_2014.pdf (accessed 29 March 2017). See Human Rights Watch 2015a. See also Adalah, Israeli Supreme Court upholds “Admissions Committees Law” that allows Israeli Jewish communities to exclude Palestinian Arab citizens, 17 September 2014, https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/8327 (accessed 23 May 2016); and B’Tselem 2016.

  113. 113.

    UNHRC 2015, paras 652–657; UNHRC 2009, paras 1838, 1840.

  114. 114.

    UNHRC 2015, paras 652–657; UNHRC 2009, paras 1838, 1840. See also Gompert et al. 2005, p. 50.

  115. 115.

    The investigations and prosecutions conducted with regard to incidents of killings and torture within the Gaza Strip in the context or in connection with Military operation, as per the authorities, are rather ‘family revenge cases or individual revenge cases’. UNHRC 2009, para 1840.

  116. 116.

    UNHRC 2015, paras 652–657.

  117. 117.

    Amnesty International 2009 p. 90

  118. 118.

    Abdelbaqi 2006, p. 9; Gompert et al. 2005, pp. 49–51.

  119. 119.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrant of Arrest, Article 58, 10 February 2006, ICC-01/04-520-Anx2, para 46.

  120. 120.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Preamble, para 9.

  121. 121.

    OTP, Statement by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: Informal meeting of Legal Advisors of Ministries of Foreign Affairs, 24 October 2005, https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/9D70039E-4BEC-4F32-9D4A-CEA8B6799E37/143836/LMO_20051024_English.pdf, pp. 8–9.

  122. 122.

    Situation in the Republic of Kenya 2010, above n. 21, para 56.

  123. 123.

    Ambos 2010, pp. 48–50; Ambos 2016, pp. 284 et seq.; Stegmiller 2011, pp. 332–335.

  124. 124.

    Lattanzi 2010, p. 197.

  125. 125.

    OTP 2006, above n. 62, p. 9. On his response the Prosecutor stated that the situation did not meet the necessary threshold in the Statute as the alleged crimes committed in Iraq do not qualify ‘as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission’. He also pointed out that the number of victims is small compared to other situations under examination. Following the receipt of additional information on alleged crimes committed in Iraq, the OTP has reopened the preliminary examination on the situation of Iraq on 13 May 2014. See OTP, Statement: Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, re-opens the preliminary examination of the situation in Iraq, 14 May 2014, https://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-Statement-iraq-13-05-2014.aspx (accessed 22 March 2016). See also Kittrie 2016, p. 220.

  126. 126.

    OTP 2014, para 142. On 16 July 2015, following an application for review by the Union of Comoros, the Pre-Trial Chamber requested the Prosecutor to reconsider her decision. See ICC, Decision on the request of the Union of the Comoros to review the Prosecutor’s decision not to initiate an investigation, Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, 16 July 2015, ICC-01/13-34.

  127. 127.

    OTP, Statement by Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, 14 October 2005, https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/9AC37606-6662-448F-8689-7317E341E6D7/277305/Uganda_LMO_Speech_141020091.pdf (accessed 25 May 2017), p. 3; Schabas 2009, p. 232.

  128. 128.

    The Pre-Trial Chamber has defined the term ‘potential cases’ to include the groups of people involved and the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are likely to be the object of investigation. See Situation in the Republic of Kenya 2010, above n. 21, paras 58–60.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., paras 188–9; ICC, Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, 15 November 2011, ICC-02/11-14-Corr, para 204; OTP 2013b p. 15; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1373

  130. 130.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58’, 13 July 2006, ICC-01/04-169, paras 68–82. See also Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 813.

  131. 131.

    Situation in the Republic of Kenya, above n. 21, paras 61–62; OTP 2013b, p. 15. Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1373.

  132. 132.

    As a result of the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, it is reported that over 1,000 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed, and 11,000 Palestinians and 1,600 Israelis were injured. Various reports have also indicated the incalculable damage incurred to the extent of making Gaza uninhabitable in the near future. See OTP 2015a, pp. 14–16; and FIDH 2014; Human Rights Watch 2015b; and UNCTAD 2015.

  133. 133.

    OTP 2015a, pp. 14–16.

  134. 134.

    OTP 2013b p. 16; OTP 2007, p. 2.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., pp. 2–3; Peschke 2011, pp. 198 et seq.

  136. 136.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 53(1)(c). See Peschke 2011, p. 198.

  137. 137.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 53(2).

  138. 138.

    OTP 2007.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., p. 4. See also Kleffner 2008, p. 291.

  140. 140.

    OTP 2013b, pp. 16–17.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., p. 17. See also Kleffner 2008, pp. 254 et seq.

  142. 142.

    Mnookin 2013, p. 148.

  143. 143.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 16; Stegmiller 2011, p. 367.

  144. 144.

    Rashid 2013, p. 62.

  145. 145.

    The situation in Sudan Darfur was a result of a Security Council referral to the prosecutor in 2005. In the history of international criminal Tribunals, Al-Bashir became the first sitting head of State to be indicted. The Pre-Trial Chamber issued an arrest warrant against Al-Bashir in March 2009. See ICC, Situation in Darfur, Sudan, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009; Security Council Resolution 1593, ICC-02/05-01/09, 31 March 2005; UNSC 2005. See also Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 110.

  146. 146.

    In June 2011, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued an arrest warrant against the then leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi. The prosecutor began the investigation in Libya following a UN Security Council referral of the situation in February 2011. Arrest warrants were also issued against Gaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Gaddafi and the chief of the secret service of Libya, Abdullah Al-Senussi. See ICC, Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Warrant of Arrest for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-13; UNSC 1970. See also Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 111.

  147. 147.

    After the arrest warrant against Gaddafi was issued, the African Union published a Statement indicating that none of its member States would execute the Arrest warrant. See African Union, Decision on the Implementation of the Assembly Decisions on the International Criminal Court: Doc. EX.CL/670(XIX), 1 July 2011, Assembly/AU/Doc.366 (XVII), para 6. See also Mnookin 2013, p. 149.

  148. 148.

    Al Jazeera, Mixed reaction to Bashir Warrant, 5 March 2009, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2009/03/2009357272395326.html (accessed 29 March 2016).

  149. 149.

    Hayner 2013; S. Tisdall, This arrest warrant could make Gaddafi more dangerous, The Guardian, 27 June 2011.

  150. 150.

    For more on timing of indictments see Mnookin 2013, p. 159.

  151. 151.

    Rashid 2013, p. 62. Boas, on the other hand argues that the Prosecution of Milosević is far from ‘best practice’. He States, the prosecution strategy is reactive, not well planned and executed. The structure, scope and nature of the indictments, in addition to the Court and Milosević himself could be blamed for the way the trial run the way it did. See Boas 2007, pp. xvii, 1, 79.

  152. 152.

    In 1997, the Prosecutor Charged Karadzic for the Srebrenica massacre. The Trial Chamber of ICTY acquitted Karadzic of the first count of Genocide in June 2012. The decision was later reversed by the Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal. See ICTY, Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Judgment, 11 July 2013, IT-9S-SI18-AR98bis.l.

  153. 153.

    Mladic was initially indicted on 25 July 1995. The operational indictment was issued in December 2011 after he was arrested in May 2011 and transferred to the Tribunal.

  154. 154.

    The Dayton Agreement signed in December 1995 in Paris ended the worst conflict in the history of Europe since WWII. It was signed between the then Presidents of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia, Iztbegov, Milosević and Tudjman, respectively. Orentlicher 2010, p. 26. See also Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 115.

  155. 155.

    Boas 2007, p. 1; Rashid 2013, p. 62. Milosević died on 11 March 2006 before the completion of the trial.

  156. 156.

    As discussed in Chap. 3, former Prosecutor Ocampo took more than three years to reach a decision on the first Palestinian ad hoc declaration.

  157. 157.

    The Prosecutor has kept the situation in Afghanistan under Preliminary Examination since 2007. See OTP 2015a, p. 26; Mnookin 2013, pp. 163–164.

  158. 158.

    See also Murithi 2014, pp. 183–185.

  159. 159.

    The Colombian judiciary has prosecuted thousands of perpetrators during this period. For more see Seils 2014.

  160. 160.

    See OTP 2013a.

  161. 161.

    OTP 2013b, pp. 7–8.

  162. 162.

    Ibid.

  163. 163.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 42; OTP 2013b, p. 7; Triffterer and Ambos 2016, p. 1270.

  164. 164.

    Israel announced that it has reversed its policy towards the ICC and has decided to open for dialogue on 9 July 2015, only to clarify later on that the aim of the dialogue was to explain that the Court has no authority to entertain Palestinian complaints. See B. Ravid, Exclusive: Israel decides to open dialogue with ICC over Gaza Preliminary examination, Haaretz, 9 July 2015.

  165. 165.

    The deleterious effect of non-cooperation on collecting evidence and apprehending suspects has been seen in the practice of ad hoc Tribunals, notably in the Barayagwiza case in the ICTR and the Blaškić case in the ICTY. See ICRC, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Decision, 3 November 1999, ICTR-97-19; and Blaškić 2000, above n. 150. See also Cryer 2009, p. 201.

  166. 166.

    Refusal to allow entry to the Prosecutor may not be a smart political decision to the Israeli officials bearing in mind the bad publicity that it may risk, and also considering the agreement of Russia, which is in a similar situation as Israel, to cooperate with the Court for the investigation on the situation of Ukraine and Georgia. Russia is now within the target of the Court for the second time. With regard to the Situation in Ukraine, Russia could possibly argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Crimea, an argument similar to the one raised by Israel and its allies in relation to Palestine. See Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, Russia Says Will Cooperate with ICC Georgia War Probe, 5 April 2016, http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-says-will-cooperate-with-icc-probe-of-war-crimes/27520262.html (accessed 5 April 2016).

  167. 167.

    Following the agreement between Egypt and the PA to open the Rafah crossings, the outlet was giving passage to Palestinians in 2015. After the coming to power of the Al-Sisi government in Egypt, the Rafah crossings are, reportedly closed indefinitely. J. Khoury, Egypt, the PA Agree on Re-opening Rafah Crossing, Fatah Official Says, HAARETZ, 17 November 2015. See also P. Strickland and E. Zanoun, Palestinians in Gaza mass for rare Rafah border opening, Aljazeera, 13 February 2016.

  168. 168.

    Rome Statute, above n. 8, Article 54(1)(a); ICC, Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor, entered into force 23 April 2009, ICC-BD/05-01-09, Regulation 34(1).

  169. 169.

    Triffterer and Ambos 2016, pp. 1382–1383. See also OTP 2013b, p. 8.

  170. 170.

    RT, ‘ICC Credibility Test’: Palestinians submit first war crimes evidence against Israel, 25 June 2015, https://www.rt.com/news/269803-palestinians-submit-evidence-icc/ (accessed 31, March 2016). As per the OTP’s 2015 Report on Preliminary examination activities, Palestine has submitted communications to the office on 25 June, 3 August and 30 October 2015. The Israeli government has also published a report on the ‘factual and legal aspects’ of the 2014 conflict in Gaza. See OTP 2015a, pp. 16–17.

  171. 171.

    Israel is looking into possible ‘large-scale prosecution’ of the heads of the PA in the US. See BBC News, Will ICC membership help or hinder the Palestinians’ cause? 1 April 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30744701 (accessed 1 April 2016).

  172. 172.

    OTP 2015a, p. 3. See also OTP 2013b, p. 8; Kuczyńska 2015, p. 76; Kittrie 2016, p. 219.

  173. 173.

    D. Li, Palestine and the ICC, MERIP, http://www.merip.org/palestine-icc (accessed 1 April 2016).

  174. 174.

    Regulation 19(4) of the OTP provides that preliminary Examinations should continue ‘as long as the situation remains under investigation’.

  175. 175.

    El Zeidy 2015, p. 185; Stegmiller 2011, p. 230.

  176. 176.

    The Chamber stated that in many parts of the Statute terminologies such as ‘reasonable time’, ‘without delay’, ‘promptly’ and ‘in an expeditious manner’ are used with regard to the many functions of the Court. It appears that the Court has derived the ‘reasonable time’ standard for preliminary examinations from such provisions. See ICC, Situation in the Central African Republic, Decision Requesting Information on the Status of the Preliminary Examination of the Situation in the Central African Republic, 30 November 2006, ICC-01/05-06 (Situation in the Central African Republic 2006), para 4. See also Kuczyńska 2015, p. 76; Nouwen 2011, p. 229.

  177. 177.

    Situation in the Central African Republic 2006, above n. 176, para 4; and Kuczyńska 2015, p. 76.

  178. 178.

    For a discussion on the supervisory role of the PTC at the pre-investigation stage, see Stahn 2009, p. 276; Stegmiller 2011, pp. 232–236.

  179. 179.

    The impact of ICC intervention is a catalyst to complementarity as Israel has made efforts to better its judicial framework following the Gaza flotilla incident. See Sect. 4.4.1.1.

References

  • Abdelbaqi M (2006) Introduction to the Palestinian criminal justice system. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams E (2015) Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the question of Hamas, Gaza, and Israel. https://www.cfr.org/blog/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-and-question-hamas-gaza-and-israel. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • Adalah (2015) Report to The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict. Adalah, Haifa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2010) The Colombian peace process and the principle of complementarity of the International Criminal Court: An inductive situation based approach. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2016) Treaties on international criminal law: International criminal procedure, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2009) Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction. Amnesty International Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash R (2009) Is Palestine a ‘state’? A response to Professor John Quigley’s article ‘The Palestine declaration to the International Criminal Court: the statehood issue’. Rutgers Law Records 36:186–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin D (1997) War crimes against women: Prosecution in international war crimes tribunals. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas I (2010) International criminal law, 4th edn. Bloomsbury Publishing, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni M (2013) Introduction to international criminal law, 2nd rev. edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas G (2007) The Milosevic trial: Lessons for the conduct of complex international criminal proceedings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boot M (2002) Nullum crimen sine lege and the subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. School of Human Rights Research, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougon S (2002) Jurisdiction ratione temporis. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • B’Tselem (2016) The Occupation’s fig leaf: Israel’s Military law enforcement system as a whitewash mechanism. B’Tselem, Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caban P (2011) Preliminary examinations by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. CYIL 2:199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo-Goller N (2006) The trial proceedings of the International Criminal Court: ICTY and ICTR precedents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron I (2004) Jurisdiction and admissibility issues under the ICC statute. In: McGoldrick D, Rowe P, Donnelly E (2004) The permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and policy issues. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R (2009) Means of gathering evidence and arresting suspects in situations of state’s failure to cooperate. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Zeidy M (2008) The principle of complementarity in international criminal law: Origin, development and practice. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Zeidy M (2015) Ad hoc declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction: the Palestinian situation under scrutiny. In: Stahn C (ed) The law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 179–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis M (2014) Sovereignty and justice: Balancing the principle of complementarity between international and domestic war crimes tribunals. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erakat N (2014) Humanitarian law and Operation Protective Edge: A survey of violations and remedies. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/183320/738d0446fdfbae889f723f019683c6b3.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • FIDH (2014) Trapped and punished: The Gaza civilian population under Operation Protective Edge. FIDH, Gaza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser S (2008) The charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and new principles of international law. In: Mettraux G (ed) Perspectives on the Nuremberg trial. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompert D, Shine K, Robinsons G, Neu CR, Green J (2005) Building a successful Palestinian state. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle D (2016) International criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayner P (2013) Libya: The ICC enters during war. https://www.ecfr.eu/ijp/case/libya. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • Human Rights Watch (2015a) Dispatches: Israeli Supreme Court upholds ‘anti-boycott law’. Human Rights Watch, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2015b) World Report 2015: Israel/Palestine. Human Rights Watch, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalloh C (ed) (2014) The Sierra Leone Special Court and its legacy: The impact for Africa and international criminal law. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A (2015) Tailoring justice for mass atrocities: The constraints of international law and the ICC’s complementarity regime. In: Saul M, Sweeney J (eds) International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge, Oxon, pp. 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurdi N (2011) The International Criminal Court and national courts: A contentious relationship. Routledge, Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (2008) Will the judgment in the Nuremberg Trial constitute a precedent of international law? In: Mettraux G (ed) Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 274–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittrie O (2016) Lawfare: Law as a weapon of war. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner J (2008) Complementarity in the Rome Statute and national criminal jurisdictions. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoops G (2014) An introduction to the law of international criminal tribunals: A comparative study, 2nd edn. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuczyńska H (2015) The accusation model before the International Criminal Court: Study of convergence of criminal justice systems. Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattanzi F (2010) Concurrent jurisdictions between primacy and complementarity. In: Belleli R (ed) Law and Practice from the Rome Statute to its review. Routledge, Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2006) Why would states want to join the ICC? A theoretical exploration based on the legal nature of complementarity. In: Kleffner J, Kor G (eds) Complementary views on complementarity: Proceedings of the International Roundtable on the complementary nature of the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam, 25/26 June 2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin R (2013) Rethinking the tension between peace and justice: The international criminal prosecutor as diplomat. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 18:147–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murithi T (2014) Between political justice and judicial politics: Charting a way forward for the African Union and the International Criminal Court. In: Werle G, Vormbaum M (eds) Africa and the International Criminal Court. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissel A (2004) Continuing crimes in the Rome Statute. Michigan Journal of International Law 25:653–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen S (2011) Fine-tuning complementarity. In: Brown B (ed) Research handbook on international criminal law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Gloucestershire, pp. 206–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • OTP (2005) First report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mr Luis Moreno Ocampo, to the Security Council pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005). https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/71FC0D56-11FC-41B9-BF39-33FC54F2C2A1/223633/ICCOTPST20080605ENG6.pdf.

  • OTP (2007) Policy paper on interests of justice. https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/772C95C9-F54D-4321-BF09-73422BB23528/143640/ICCOTPInterestsOfJustice.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • OTP (2013a) Code of conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/docs/Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20the%20office%20of%20the%20Prosecutor.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • OTP (2013b) Policy paper on preliminary examinations. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Policy_Paper_Preliminary_Examinations_2013-ENG.pdf.

  • OTP (2014) Situation on registered vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: Article 53(1) Report. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • OTP (2015a) Report on preliminary examination activities. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-PE-rep-2015-Eng.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • OTP (2015b) Strategic plan: 2016–2018. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/EN-OTP_Strategic_Plan_2016-2018.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • OTP (2016) Report on preliminary examination activities https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=161114-otp-rep-PE. Accessed 20 September 2016.

  • Olásolo H (2005) The triggering procedure of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orentlicher D (2010) That someone guilty be punished: The impact of the ICTY in Bosnia. Open Society Justice Initiative, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino A (2014) The International Criminal Court through the lens of international relations: The politics of law. Centro de Direito Internacional 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschke K (2011) The ICC investigation into the conflict in northern Uganda: Beyond the dichotomy of peace versus justice. In: Brown B (ed) Research handbook on international criminal law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Gloucestershire, pp. 178–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashid F (2013) The interests of justice under the ICC Prosecutor power: Escaping forward. In: Esin C, Johanssen J, Lake C, Schwartz P, Tamboukou M, Rashid F (eds) Crossing conceptual boundaries. University of East London, London, pp. 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2009) Prosecutorial discretion and gravity. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp. 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2011) An introduction to the International Criminal Court, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W, Bernaz N (2011) Routledge handbook of international criminal law. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2011) Investigating violations of international law in armed conflict. Harvard National Security Journal 2:31–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seils P (2014) Intolerance of impunity does not make ICC an enemy of peace. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/paul-seils/intolerance-of-impunity-does-not-make-icc-enemy-of-peace.

  • Smith C (2012) The rise and fall of war crimes trials: From Charles I to Bush II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahn C (2009) Judicial review of prosecutorial discretion: Five years on. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp. 247–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmiller I (2011) The pre-investigation stage of the ICC: Criteria for situation selection. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmiller I (2013) The International Criminal Court and Mali: Towards more transparency in international criminal law investigations? Criminal Law Forum 24:475–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigen J (2008) The relationship between the International Criminal Court and national jurisdictions: The principle of complementarity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone C (2015) Widening the impact of the International Criminal Court: The Prosecutor’s preliminary examinations in the larger system of the international criminal justice. In: Minow M, True-Frost CC, Whiting A (eds) The first global prosecutor: Promise and constraints. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) (2016) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkel Commission (2013) Israel’s mechanisms for examining and investigating complaints and claims of violations of the laws of armed conflict according to international law (2nd report). Turkel Commission, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2015) Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. UNCTAD, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2009) Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2010) Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/50.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2015) Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/CRP.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (1970) Resolution 1970, UN Doc. S/RES/197.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (2005) Resolution 1593, UN Doc. S/RES/1593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagias M (2014) The territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schaack B (2011) The principle of legality in international criminal law. Santa Clara University Legal Studies Research Paper 10-08. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1657999.

  • Wagner M (2003) The ICC and its jurisdiction- myths, misconceptions and realities. Max Planck UNYB 7:409–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill S (2012) The follow up to the Goldstone Report and its legal impact in Israel and BEYOND. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of international criminal law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yesh Din (2011) Alleged investigation: The failure of investigations into offenses committed by IDF Soldiers against Palestinians. https://www.yesh-din.org/en/alleged-investigation-the-failure-of-investigations-into-offenses-committed-by-idf-soldiers-against-palestinians. Accessed 25 May 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alexandria, VA, USA

    Seada Hussein Adem

Authors
  1. Seada Hussein Adem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seada Hussein Adem .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Adem, S.H. (2019). Pre-Investigation Considerations. In: Palestine and the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 21. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-291-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-291-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-290-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-291-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation