Advertisement

Pre-Investigation Considerations

  • Seada Hussein AdemEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Criminal Justice Series book 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.

Keywords

Admissibility complementarity interest of justice temporal jurisdiction preliminary examination situation in Palestine 

References

  1. Abdelbaqi M (2006) Introduction to the Palestinian criminal justice system. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law 1–56.Google Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Adalah (2015) Report to The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict. Adalah, Haifa.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Ambos K (2016) Treaties on international criminal law: International criminal procedure, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Amnesty International (2009) Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction. Amnesty International Publications, London.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Askin D (1997) War crimes against women: Prosecution in international war crimes tribunals. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Bantekas I (2010) International criminal law, 4th edn. Bloomsbury Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  10. Bassiouni M (2013) Introduction to international criminal law, 2nd rev. edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  11. Boas G (2007) The Milosevic trial: Lessons for the conduct of complex international criminal proceedings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. B’Tselem (2016) The Occupation’s fig leaf: Israel’s Military law enforcement system as a whitewash mechanism. B’Tselem, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  15. Caban P (2011) Preliminary examinations by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. CYIL 2:199–216.Google Scholar
  16. Calvo-Goller N (2006) The trial proceedings of the International Criminal Court: ICTY and ICTR precedents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. El Zeidy M (2008) The principle of complementarity in international criminal law: Origin, development and practice. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Ellis M (2014) Sovereignty and justice: Balancing the principle of complementarity between international and domestic war crimes tribunals. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. FIDH (2014) Trapped and punished: The Gaza civilian population under Operation Protective Edge. FIDH, Gaza.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Gompert D, Shine K, Robinsons G, Neu CR, Green J (2005) Building a successful Palestinian state. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.Google Scholar
  27. Guilfoyle D (2016) International criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Hayner P (2013) Libya: The ICC enters during war. https://www.ecfr.eu/ijp/case/libya. Accessed 20 September 2016.
  29. Human Rights Watch (2015a) Dispatches: Israeli Supreme Court upholds ‘anti-boycott law’. Human Rights Watch, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Human Rights Watch (2015b) World Report 2015: Israel/Palestine. Human Rights Watch, New York.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Jurdi N (2011) The International Criminal Court and national courts: A contentious relationship. Routledge, Oxon.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Kittrie O (2016) Lawfare: Law as a weapon of war. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Kleffner J (2008) Complementarity in the Rome Statute and national criminal jurisdictions. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Knoops G (2014) An introduction to the law of international criminal tribunals: A comparative study, 2nd edn. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
  38. Kuczyńska H (2015) The accusation model before the International Criminal Court: Study of convergence of criminal justice systems. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Nissel A (2004) Continuing crimes in the Rome Statute. Michigan Journal of International Law 25:653–689.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. OTP (2015a) Report on preliminary examination activities. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-PE-rep-2015-Eng.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.
  50. OTP (2015b) Strategic plan: 2016–2018. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/EN-OTP_Strategic_Plan_2016-2018.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.
  51. OTP (2016) Report on preliminary examination activities https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=161114-otp-rep-PE. Accessed 20 September 2016.
  52. Olásolo H (2005) The triggering procedure of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Orentlicher D (2010) That someone guilty be punished: The impact of the ICTY in Bosnia. Open Society Justice Initiative, New York.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Schabas W (2011) An introduction to the International Criminal Court, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. Schabas W, Bernaz N (2011) Routledge handbook of international criminal law. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitt M (2011) Investigating violations of international law in armed conflict. Harvard National Security Journal 2:31–84.Google Scholar
  61. 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.
  62. Smith C (2012) The rise and fall of war crimes trials: From Charles I to Bush II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Stegmiller I (2011) The pre-investigation stage of the ICC: Criteria for situation selection. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Stigen J (2008) The relationship between the International Criminal Court and national jurisdictions: The principle of complementarity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) (2016) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Munich.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. UNCTAD (2015) Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. UNCTAD, Geneva.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. UNHRC (2010) Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/50.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. UNSC (1970) Resolution 1970, UN Doc. S/RES/197.Google Scholar
  75. UNSC (2005) Resolution 1593, UN Doc. S/RES/1593.Google Scholar
  76. Vagias M (2014) The territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  77. 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.
  78. Wagner M (2003) The ICC and its jurisdiction- myths, misconceptions and realities. Max Planck UNYB 7:409–512.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of international criminal law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  81. 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.

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations