The State Obligation to Cooperate under International Law

Soler, Christopher

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_10

Christopher Soler²

779 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This chapter seeks to establish the extent to which States are entitled to assess if the ICC enjoys jurisdiction in order to determine whether they are obliged to surrender a suspect thereto. The ICC Statute only imposes direct obligations on States which have ratified such treaty. The ICC cooperation model is best described as slanted, neither vertical nor horizontal. There is no harmonised international procedure relating to the national execution of an ICC cooperation request. Although States cannot rely on the absence of domestic law to justify non-compliance, the effect of ICC requests largely hinges on the degree to which States have domestically promulgated procedures intended to facilitate cooperation. The complementarity regime prevailing therein endows States with some discretion. Non-State Parties may only be invited by the ICC to cooperate. Yet, even non-State Parties to the ICC would need to implement legislation to execute a UNSC Resolution which directly invokes the cooperation of States. The potential repercussions of the failure to cooperate by the State may lead to the finding of a violation either by the ICC and a referral of the matter to the ASP in terms of Article 87(7) of the ICC Statute and Regulation 109 of the ICC, or else to a referral to the UNSC when the case had been triggered by a UNSC Resolution. Notwithstanding recent jurisprudence, it is still unclear whether the ASP can take any action beyond making the finding of non-compliance. Some ideas to strengthen the fragile ICC cooperation regime are suggested.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Meernik and Aloisi 2009, pp. 267–268.
2.
Harmen van der Wilt states that Article 21 of the ICC Statute (ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), fails to give ICC dicta such effect (van der Wilt 2008, p. 256).
3.
Article 87(5) of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
4.
Wenqi 2006, p. 108.
5.
Gallant 2003, p. 583.
6.
As a matter of fact, ‘jus cogens norms recognized by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the purposes and principles of the UN itself, impose limits on the powers of the Security Council that should be monitored’ {ECFI, Second Chamber (Extended Composition) Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barkakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2005], 21 September 2005, T-306/01, paras 277–282; ECFI, Second Chamber (Extended Composition) Yasin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2005], 21 September 2005, T-315/01, paras 226–231, both judgments being cited in Gordillo 2012, p. 292, n. 12}.
7.
UNSC (2005) Resolution 1593 (2005), S/RES/1593, para 2.
8.
Swart and Sluiter 1999, pp. 105–110.
9.
Prost 2011, p. 464.
10.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 459.
11.
Rastan 2008, p. 432.
12.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 461; Sluiter 2003a, p. 651.
13.
BBC (2011) Leaning Tower of Pisa : A Work in Progress. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fast_track/9568633.stm. Accessed 11 April 2012.
14.
Holmes 2002, p. 672.
15.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in Uganda , Prosecutor v Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the Admissibility of the Case under Article 19(1) of the Statute, 10 March 2009, Case No. ICC -02/04-01/05, para 45, cited in Stahn 2011, p. 240, n. 34.
16.
This is known as ‘la compétence de la compétence’ in French (see Chap. 21).
17.
ICTY Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Duško Tadić , Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction , 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94-1, para 17.
18.
Prosecutor v Joseph Kony et al ., above n. 15, para 45.
19.
Sluiter 2002a, p. 131.
20.
Simbeye 2004, p. 29.
21.
Simbeye 2004, p. 33.
22.
In the context of judicial powers and as described here above, the words ‘implied’, ‘implicit’ and ‘inherent’ are used inter-changeably.
23.
The telos of such powers is that ‘if an organ has been endowed with specific powers, it may solicit State cooperation if this is necessary for an effective exercise of these powers’ (Sluiter 2003b, p. 121). In other words, inherent powers are ‘those powers which are derived from the very existence of the organization’ (ICJ , Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France) , 20 December 1974, ICJ Rep 1974, p. 253, para 23).
24.
Even where the vertical relationship is strong and effective, such as in the case of the ad hoc tribunals , ‘the system of State cooperation within these criminal tribunals is mainly ‘judge-made’, meaning that as the Statutes of these tribunals are not conclusive with respect to these criteria, the judges before these tribunals ultimately created more clarity through their judgments’ (Cassese 2003, p. 356).
25.
Merrills 1993, para 231, cited in Forowicz 2010, pp. 13–14, notes 59 and 60.
26.
Sluiter 2009, p. 188.
27.
Kreẞ 2003, pp. 603–617.
28.
ICC , Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in the DRC , Decision to Convene a Status Conference, 17 February 2005, Case No. ICC -01/04; ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in the DRC , Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6, 17 January 2006, Case No. ICC -01/04, cited by Zappalà 2009, p. 221, n. 24.
29.
Zappalà 2009, pp. 220–221.
30.
Zappalà 2009, p. 223.
31.
These are an internal source of law and are constituted by means of a legal text the status of which is regulated by Article 9 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2. This legal provision stipulates that the ICC Elements of Crimes (1998) International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, must be applied by the ICC but are not binding upon it. Instead, they are meant to be of assistance to the ICC in the interpretation and application of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has concluded that they must be applied unless the competent Chamber finds an irreconcilable contradiction between the ICC Elements of Crimes (see above) on the one hand and the ICC Statute (above n. 2) on the other hand, in which case the ICC Statute , above n. 2, shall prevail (ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in Darfur , Sudan , Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest Against Omar Hassan Al Bashir , 4 March 2009, Case No. ICC -02/05-01/09, paras 128 and 131, cited in Bitti 2015, p. 421, notes 46 and 47).
32.
Vasiliev 2014, p. 46.
33.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in the DRC , Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest under Article 58, 10 February 2006, Case No. ICC -01/04-01/06, cited in Schabas 2008, p. 757, n. 119.
34.
Robinson 2010, p. 102.
35.
Schabas 2010, p. 344.
36.
ICC Appeals Chamber, Situation in the DRC , Prosecutor v Germain Katanaga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case, 25 September 2009, Case No. ICC -01/04-01/07 OA8, paras 75–78 confirming the Prosecutor’s submissions outlined in para 66.
37.
Jørgensen 2009, p. 123.
38.
See, inter alia, Duffy 2001, pp. 6–8.
39.
For an analysis of the related doctrine of constitutional autonomy and case-law connected thereto, see d’Aspremont and Brolmann 2010, pp. 130–133; see also Tzanakopoulos 2010, pp. 70–72.
40.
By way of example, ‘the rejection of a request for surrender by the ICC is virtually impossible’ due to the legal provisions of German Law to Implement the Rome Statute of the ICC of 17 July 1998 [Entwurfeines Gesetzeszur Ausfuehrung des Roemischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998] {Draft Act Implementing the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998}, Act Amending the Basic Law (Federal Law Gazette 2000, I 1633) 29 November 2000 (Wilkitzki 2001, p. 201; see also Ambos and Stegmiller 2008, pp. 181–198).
41.
d’Aspremont and Brolmann 2010, p. 118.
42.
Jensen 2003, pp. 4–55.
43.
Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the IBA, held that ‘implementing legislation is currently the missing link between the obligations within the Rome Statute and their implementation by State Parties ’ (Ellis (2008) IBA, News Release, 14 November 2008, London. http://www.iccnow.org/documents/IBA_NEWS_RELEASE.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2011).
44.
This process is called ‘reverse complementarity ’ and has been adopted by Spain, Belgium and Germany (Pinto Soares 2012, p. 190, n. 68).
45.
Bekou 2009a, p. 468.
46.
The term ‘cooperation’ used within the Statute ‘carries insufficient weight and leads States to misinterpret the meaning of the obligation’ since it ‘implies willingness to assist and work towards the same end’ (Demirdjian 2010, pp. 182–183).
47.
A distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, the challenge of orders, id est the objection to requests for cooperation on the basis of a ground for refusal and, on the other hand, the challenge of jurisdiction . The Opacić and Rukundo cases are merely intended to illustrate, by analogy, the difference between the regimes of the ad hoc tribunals and that of the ICC .
48.
District Court of The Hague, Dragan Opacić v the Netherlands , 30 May 1997, KG 97/742.
49.
Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Appeal Judgment, Rukundo v Federal Office of Justice , 3 September 2001, Case Numbers 1A.129/2001 and 1A.130/2001.
50.
The fact that the admissibility of a case is not a pre-requisite for the issuance of an international arrest warrant (see also Chap. 11, n. 12) manifests such discretion. As Dov Jacobs points out in his criticism of the fact that ‘the review of admissibility is not compulsory,’ timing is of the essence (Jacobs 2010, p. 116). Likewise, the ICC Statute , above n. 2, ‘acknowledges that the timing of arrest and surrender requires strategy and policy-oriented decision-making’ (Stahn 2010, p. 671).
51.
Christian Tomuschat defines this corpus juris as one which aims to ‘reconcile the effectiveness of State power with the protection against the same State power’ (Tomuschat 2008, p. 8).
52.
ECtHR Former Third Division, Vasiliy Kononov v Latvia , 24 July 2008, Application No. 36376/04, para 108.
53.
Cassese 1999, p. 165.
54.
Knoops and Amsterdam 2006, p. 264; Young 2001, p. 340; see also Mutyaba 2012, p. 944.
55.
Stahn 2010, pp. 666–670.
56.
Stahn 2010, p. 661.
57.
Sluiter 2003a, p. 651.
58.
Currie 2007, pp. 378–379.
59.
Bellelli 2010, p. 212.
60.
Ibid.
61.
Stahn 2010, p. 666.
62.
Mégret 2010, p. 187.
63.
Swart 2002, p. 1688.
64.
OTP 2003, p. 19, n. 24, and also cited in Schabas 2010, pp. 342–343.
65.
Soler 2014, p. 292.
66.
OTP 2003, p. 19, n. 24.
67.
Buchan and Johnsson 2012, p. 105.
68.
Schabas 2007, p. 2.
69.
Nsereko 2013, p. 446.
70.
Krings 2012, pp. 748 and 749.
71.
OTP 2003, p. 7.
72.
Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui , above n. 36, para 78.
73.
OTP 2013, p. 12.
74.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 688.
75.
Article 86 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
76.
This is connected to the ne bis in idem rule which will be considered under Sect. 11.1.2.
77.
Sluiter 2003b, p. 121.
78.
Regulation 109(2) of the ICC .
79.
Sluiter 1999, p. 285.
80.
Swart 2002, p. 1640.
81.
Llewllyn and Raponi 1999, pp. 83–84.
82.
Ruiz Verduzco 2015, p. 43.
83.
Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui , above n. 36, para 59.
84.
Article 86 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2, should not be considered as tantamount to a residual obligation to cooperate in situations other than those addressed by specific obligations.
85.
Article 88 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
86.
Article 93 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
87.
Articles 59 and 89 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
88.
Vide Article 12(2)(a) dealing with territorial jurisdiction , Article 12(3) concerning the acceptance of ICC jurisdiction by a non-State Party {with the situations in Côte d’Ivoire and Ukraine constituting classical examples of this}, and Article 13 which deals with the trigger mechanisms; see also van der Wilt 2005, p. 100.
89.
D’Amato 2004, p. 185.
90.
‘…when operative as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness, consent suspends the international obligations which are incumbent on States, whereas when functional pursuant to the law of treaties, consent creates, modifies, or extinguishes the rules whence such obligations stem forth’ (Farhang 2014, p. 55).
91.
Heyder 2006, pp. 652–653.
92.
d’Aspremont and Brolmann 2010, p. 117.
93.
Stahn 2010, p. 667.
94.
Sulzer 2007, p. 125.
95.
Ibid.
96.
Sluiter 2003a, p. 611.
97.
Swart 2002, p. 1687.
98.
This portrays that ‘persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction ’. Göran Sluiter , whilst disagreeing with the ICJ ’s interpretation {ICJ , Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 26 February 2007, ICJ Rep. 2007, p. 43} of Article VI which presupposes that the duty to cooperate under international law is a pre-requisite for the acceptance of jurisdiction of an international penal tribunal, argues that the ICC , a beneficiary of Article VI, constitutes an international penal tribunal and that the requirements of ‘acceptance of jurisdiction ’ on the one hand, and ‘the existence of a duty to cooperate on the other’ should be separated (Sluiter 2010, pp. 370–371).
99.
Others, including Paola Gaeta, concur, though Paola Gaeta argues that Omar Al Bashir is shielded by diplomatic privileges and immunities as a sitting Head of State. However, William Schabas disagrees (Schabas 2011). This matter has sparked a lot of debate at all levels in international criminal law circles, including before the COJUR -ICC Working Group of the EU Council which was chaired by myself between January and June 2017.
100.
Gillet 2012, pp. 63–96, but particularly pp. 93 and 95.
101.
Dascalopoulou-Livada 2008, p. 59.
102.
Vidmar 2012, pp. 18–19.
103.
Coalition for the ICC 2008.
104.
For a thorough legal analysis of deferrals, particularly the conditions and criteria which are required to invoke Article 16 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2, see Ruiz Verduzco 2015, pp. 52–60.
105.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Decision on the Postponement of the Execution of the Request to Surrender of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi Pursuant to Article 95 of the Rome Statute, 1 June 2012, Case No. ICC -01/11-01/11, para 28.
106.
Tillier 2013, p. 515.
107.
Oberg 2005, pp. 879 and 891, cited in Akande 2009, p. 347, n. 44.
108.
Gallant 2003, p. 583.
109.
There is, however, some evidence that domestic and regional courts have found themselves competent to review Chapter VII resolutions in order to determine whether the Security Council has acted ultra vires or otherwise (de Wet and Nollkaemper 2002, p. 166, cited by Tzanakopoulos 2012, p. 50, n. 47). Such review , however, is most unlikely in such case since the UNSC has been rather cautious in using its powers of referral to the ICC on the pretext of the alleged commission of core crimes. In fact, since the ICC has been established, the UNSC has only resolved so twice.
110.
These norms, their nature and characteristics, are dealt with in Parts II and IV of this book.
111.
UNGA 1996, para 323, cited in Young 2001, p. 344.
112.
Frowein and Krisch 2002, p. 708.
113.
For an examination as to whether this is at all possible, see references to the Lockerbie case [ICJ , Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v UK) , Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, ICJ Rep. 1992, p. 114] in Sect. 13.4.
114.
Tzanakopoulos 2011, p. 110.
115.
Sluiter 2010, p. 377.
116.
This legal provision is important since it arguably constitutes the only exception to the fact that the ICC Prosecutor does not have the power to rely on coercive measures without ensuring State cooperation. In fact, this legal provision allows the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise the ICC Prosecutor to take coercive measures without ensuring State cooperation in failed State situations (de Meester 2009, p. 280). Göran Sluiter upheld that the discharge of the ICC ’s mandate and the need to ensure effective prosecutions might justify the exercise of such powers (Sluiter 2002b, p. 309). For an understanding of failed State situations, see Chaps. 5 and 6.
117.
For a comprehensive analysis of this important Convention, see van der Wilt et al. 2012, passim.
118.
Article 29 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
119.
Sluiter 2010, p. 366.
120.
Regulation 107 of the ICC .
121.
Hafner 2001, p. 245.
122.
In terms of Article 2 of the VCLT (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, these are States not party to a treaty, hence non-State Parties .
123.
UN (2004) Press Release: Prosecutor Receives Referral of the Situation in the DRC . 19 April 2004, Doc. AFR/903-L/3067, cited in Mutyaba 2012, p. 956.
124.
Hafner 2001, p. 252.
125.
Hafner 2001, p. 244.
126.
For an understanding of the impact of UNSC Resolutions on the ICJ , see Greenwood 1999, pp. 81–86.
127.
Duijzentkunst 2008, p. 190.
128.
Akande 2012, p. 299.
129.
Sluiter 2010, p. 372.
130.
Orakhelashvili 2005, p. 61.
131.
Duijzentkunst 2008, p. 196.
132.
Swart 2002, p. 1677. For a contrary view, as a result of which human rights instruments possess a normative superiority vis-à-vis binding UNSC Resolutions, see Rukundo v Federal Office of Justice , above n. 49.
133.
ICJ , Advisory Opinion, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Namibia case) , 21 June 1971, 1971 ICJ 16, para 131, cited in Paust 2010, p. 3.
134.
ICTR, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v Joseph Kanyabashi , Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction , 18 June 1997, Case No. ICTR-96-15-T, paras 28–29
135.
Swart 2002, p. 1677.
136.
ICJ , Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v UK) , Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, ICJ Rep. 1992, p. 114, para 39.
137.
Schabas 2010, p. 340.
138.
A situation refers to a larger set of circumstances, whereas a case refers to circumstances in which an individual suspect has been identified. For an explanation as to the relevance of the distinction for the purposes of the admissibility test , see Olásolo 2003, pp. 99–100; see also Rastan 2011, pp. 421–459.
139.
Schabas 2010, p. 365.
140.
Graefrath 1993, p. 201.
141.
See Sect. 10.2.
142.
Barnes 2011, p. 1595.
143.
The ASP , established by Article 112(1) of the ICC Statute , above n. 2, is not an organ of the ICC and is separate and distinct therefrom [vide Article 34 of the ICC Statute , above n. 2]. Its role and function in the cooperation saga is best explained in terms of its political clout. The more States ratify the ICC Statute , above n. 2, the more influential the ASP would be, and consequently the more likely it would affect co-operative relations between third States [non-State Parties ] and the ICC (Wenqi 2006, p. 108).
144.
This is commonly referred to as a judicial finding of non-compliance (Sluiter 2011) and may not be appealed (Sluiter 2018a, p. 387). Article 87(7) proceedings are administrative in nature (Sluiter 2018a, p. 387).
145.
OTP 2003, p. 18.
146.
Such measures follow the negotiation mechanism contemplated by Article 119(2) of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
147.
Mutyaba 2012, p. 953.
148.
Schabas 2004, p. 130.
149.
Kelley 2007, p. 573, cited in Hillebrecht and Straus 2017, p. 171, n. 14.
150.
Ruiz Verduzco 2015, p. 49.
151.
UNGA 2018, pp. 6–113, also cited in ICC Report 2017, pp. 6–99 – 6–118.
152.
UNSC (2017) http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/. Accessed 11 November 2017.
153.
Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the UN (2015) http://redesign.nigeriaunmission.org/. Accessed 12 January 2016.
154.
Tladi 2015, pp. 1027–1047; see also de Wet 2015, pp. 1049–1071; see also Ventura 2015, pp. 995–1025, all of which were articles published for the purposes of the symposium entitled ‘On President Al-Bashir’s Presence at the AU Summit in South Africa and the Non-Execution of the ICC Arrest Warrant’.
155.
The resolution stipulates that ‘…African Union member States shall not cooperate pursuant to the provisions of Article 98 of the Rome Statute of the ICC relating to immunities, for the arrest and surrender of President Omar El Bashir of the Sudan ’ (AU 2009, cited in Okowa 2014, p. 236, n. 35).
156.
Boschiero 2015, pp. 625–653.
157.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in Darfur , Sudan , Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir , Decision on the Cooperation of the DRC Regarding Omar Al Bashir ’s Arrest and Surrender to the Court, 9 April 2014, Case No. ICC -02/05-01/09, para 33.
158.
Ibid.
159.
Ruiz Verduzco 2015, p. 45.
160.
ICC 2014, also cited in Zakerhossein and DeBrouwer 2015, pp. 218–219, n. 138.
161.
ICC Appeals Chamber, Situation in the Republic of Kenya , Prosecutor v Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta , Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s V(B)’s ‘Decision on Prosecution’s Application for a Finding of Non-Compliance under Article 87(7) of the Statute’, 19 August 2015, Case No. ICC -01/09-02/11 OA 5, paras 94–96.
162.
Woolaver and Palmer 2017, p. 656.
163.
ICC , Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in Darfur , Sudan , Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir , Decision under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Non-compliance by South Africa with the Request by the Court for the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Al Bashir , 6 July 2017, Case No. ICC -02/05-01/09, para 137.
164.
Sluiter 2018b.
165.
ICC , Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in Darfur , Sudan , Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir , Decision under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by Jordan with the Request by the Court for the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Al-Bashir, 11 December 2017, Case No. ICC -02/05-01/09, para 53.
166.
du Plessis 2017.
167.
Decision on Jordan ’s non-compliance, above n. 165, para 47.
168.
Sluiter 2018a, pp. 390–393.
169.
Sluiter 2018a, p. 399.
170.
The ICC , using a critical tone, has noted that ‘the past 24 meetings of the Security Council of the United Nations following the adoption of Resolution 1593 (2005), including meetings held on the occasion of the biannual reports made by the Prosecutor to the Security Council of the United Nations, have not resulted in measures against State Parties that have failed to comply with their obligations to cooperate with the Court, despite proposals from different States to develop a follow-up mechanism concerning the referral of States to the Security Council by the Court’ [Decision on South Africa ’s non-compliance, above n. 163, para 138].
171.
Cryer 2015, p. 280.
172.
ICC 2013.
173.
For this purpose, some basis of jurisdiction must be laid pursuant to Article 36 of the ICJ Statute [ICJ Statute (1946) Statute of the International Court of Justice]. Moreover, a referral of the matter to the ICJ would most likely decelerate the entire procedure (Demirdjian 2010, p. 189).
174.
Sluiter 2009, p. 198.
175.
Articles 25, 41 and 103 of the UNC .
176.
Article 112(8) of the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
177.
Ciampi 2002, p. 1635.
178.
Jurists have attempted to counteract the ICC ’s vulnerability by proposing the following alternative enforcement mechanisms:
1. (a)
  the use of economic aid inducements;
2. (b)
  the use of diplomatic and economic sanctions on uncooperative governments;
3. (c)
  freezing the assets of indicted individuals;
4. (d)
  offering individual cash rewards for information or assistance leading to the arrest or the conviction of indicted individuals;
5. (e)
  the use of luring by deception for locating and apprehending suspects; and
6. (f)
  the use of military force to execute apprehension and confinement of suspects.
(Scharf 2000, pp. 925–927). Others have suggested that the ICC should possess its own police force (see, inter alia, Scheffer 1995, pp. 649–660; see also Perritt 1999, pp. 281–324).
179.
Danner 2003, p. 529. Three laudable recommendations for the improvement of the cooperation regime have been proposed by Göran Sluiter (Sluiter 2008, p. 884).
180.
ASP 2013a, paras 26–27, cited in O’Donohue 2015, p. 133, n. 209.
181.
ASP 2011, para 10, cited in O’Donohue 2015, p. 137, n. 240.
182.
Demirdjian 2010, p. 189.
183.
Sluiter 2003a, pp. 650–651.
184.
Bassiouni and Manikas 1996, p. 792.
185.
Schabas 2010, p. 1124.
186.
Kreẞ 2018, p. 12.
187.
See Article 61(2) of the ICC Statute , above n. 2, which, in Carsen Stahn’s rather optimistic view, is a more powerful tool than Rule 61 proceedings in the context of the ad hoc tribunals (Stahn 2010, p. 669).
188.
Ambach 2015, p. 1280.
189.
Just as the ICC Statute , above n. 2, triggers the obligation to cooperate, such obligation equally stems from ad hoc agreements and/or arrangements . Their breach would hence equally entail the State responsibility of the defaulting State just as though the defaulting State were a signatory of (and would have ratified) the ICC Statute , above n. 2, in the first place. In substantiation of this, Zhu Wenqi upholds that ‘if a non-Party State has expressed a willingness to co-operate and has reached agreement with the ICC on a specific case, it has consequently incurred an obligation to co-operate in that particular case just like the State parties . The ICC or State parties to the Court are entitled to ask it to perform its co-operation obligations’ (Wenqi 2006, pp. 107–108).
190.
See Chap. 7.
191.
Ciampi 2002, p. 1636.
192.
Ambos 2007, p. 61.
193.
ASP 2013b, paras 49–50, and Stagno Ugarte 2012, cited in Ruiz Verduzco 2015, p. 61, n. 185.
194.
The ASP has already established the Committee on Budget and Finance, the Staff Pension Committee, the Trust Fund for Victims, and the Oversight Committee on Permanent Premises.
195.
Tolbert and Kontić 2011, p. 905.
196.
Former ICTY President McDonald, in her final letter as ICTY President to the UNSC , expressed the serious problem of non-enforcement of its orders as follows:
During the past four years, my predecessor, Judge Antonio Cassese and I have reported, on numerous occasions, State non-compliance and many of these matters remain unresolved. In fact, notwithstanding action by the Security Council, including resolutions 940 and 1207 and several Presidential Statements, the States concerned have continued to flaunt the will of the international community, refusing to co-operate with the Tribunal and failing to carry out their legal obligations. This is simply unacceptable, and I respectfully request that the Security Council take steps to address the troubling situation (Harmon and Gaynor 2004, p. 420).
197.
See above n. 170.
198.
Knottnerus 2014, p. 221.
199.
Mistry and Ruiz Verduzco 2012, p. 9.
200.
Ibid.
201.
By virtue of Article 103 of the UNC , the legality of UN sanctions cannot be reviewed {Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation, above n. 6; Kadi, above n. 6, paras 281, 299 and 316}.
202.
Article 18 of the UNC .
203.
Article 6 of the UNC .
204.
Murray 2011, p. 612.
205.
Vinjamuri 2015, p. 15.
206.
Ruiz Verduzco 2015, p. 31.
207.
Grono and de Courcy Wheeler 2015, p. 1243.
208.
Grono and de Courcy Wheeler 2015, p. 1225. One must here acknowledge that these views have been criticized by some who contend that the very nature of core crimes renders them resistant to deterrence through prosecutions which risk prolonging conflicts (Branch 2007, p. 2, cited in Grono and de Courcy Wheeler 2015, pp. 1225–1226, n. 5).
209.
Knottnerus 2014, p. 204; see also Condorelli and Villalpando 2002, p. 579.
210.
A valid deferral (i) should be limited to a period of twelve months; (ii) should include an express request by the UNSC to the ICC so that such ICC does not commence or proceed with an investigation or prosecution; (iii) must be issued by means of a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UNC ; and (iv) such UNSC ’s powers must be so exercised on a case-by-case basis (Knottnerus 2014, pp. 198–200).
211.
Ciampi 2002, p. 1611.
212.
Trahan 2013, p. 425.
213.
The word ‘sprouting’ is hereby used by myself to reflect the (arguably) shaky foundation of the responsibility to protect which, in the views of some jurists, consistitutes a mere aspiration rather than a fully-fledged duty. In fact it has been stated that many critics, one of whom is Philip Cunliffe (see Cunliffe 2010) ‘…argue either that the responsibility to protect is a dangerous and imperialist doctrine that threatens to undermine the national sovereignty and political autonomy of the weak or that it is little other than rhetorical posturing that promises little tangible improvement in the protection of vulnerable people. To complicate matters, profound disagreements have emerged about the function, meaning and proper use of responsibility to protect ’ (Bellamy et al. 2011, pp. 2–3).
214.
Schiff argues that the responsibility to protect hinges on international political mobilization whereas the ICC depends on legal judgment (Schiff 2015, p. 8, cited in Birdsall 2015, p. 55, n. 7).
215.
This connotes ‘a naturalistic relationship between the result of a crime and wilful action’ (Murmann 2014, p. 283), and may be defined as ‘the process of connecting an act (or omission) with an outcome as cause and effect’ (Plakokefalos 2015, p. 471).
216.
HRW 1991, p. 87.
217.
The 2009 UN Secretary-General’s report stipulates that ‘by seeking to end impunity , the ICC and the UN-assisted tribunals have added an essential tool for implementing the responsibility to protect ’ and considers the ICC as ‘one of the key instruments relating to the responsibility to protect ’ (UNGA 2009, para 10, cited in Birdsall 2015, p. 54, n. 4).
218.
Birdsall 2015, pp. 54–55.
219.
Contarino and Lucent 2011, p. 196.
220.
Ibid.
221.
Contarino and Lucent 2011, p. 197.
222.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001, also cited in Contarino and Lucent 2011, p. 197.
223.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001, also cited in Contarino and Lucent 2011, p. 195, n. 9.
224.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001, also cited in Contarino and Lucent 2011, pp. 197–198, n. 15.
225.
Tzanakopoulos 2011, p. 198.
226.
Tzanakopoulos 2011, p. 200.
227.
See an analysis of the status of international organisations in Voetelink 2015, pp. 169–187.
228.
Sluiter 2009, p. 200.
229.
Swart and Sluiter 1999, p. 101.
230.
Swart 2002, p. 1640.
231.
Kreẞ and Prost 2016, p. 2011
232.
Ibid.
233.
Stahn 2010, p. 667.
234.
See Sect. 11.3.1.
235.
Hall 2008, p. 1152.
236.
No person can judge a case in which he or she is a party.
237.
Sluiter 2008, p. 875.
238.
For a detailed analysis of Article 11bis of the ICTY Statute see Bekou 2009b, pp. 726–769.
239.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in Uganda , Decision on Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal in Part Pre-Trial Chamber II’s Decision on the Prosecutor’s Applications for Warrants under Article 58, Unsealed Pursuant to Decision ICC -02/04-01/05-52 dated 13 October 2005, Situation in Uganda , 19 August 2005, Case No. ICC -02/04-01/05-20-US-Exp, paras 7–8.
240.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in Darfur , Sudan , Prosecutor v Ahmad Muhammad Harun (Ahmad Harun) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al Rahman (Ali Kushayb) , Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute, 27 April 2007, Case No. ICC -02/05-01/07, paras 56–57.
241.
Schabas 2010, p. 981.
242.
Article 119(1) allows the ICC to determine and conclusively settle any dispute relating to its own judicial functions.
243.
Sluiter 2003a, p. 651.
244.
ICC Appeals Chamber, Situation in the DRC , Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor Against the Decision of Trial Chamber I Entitled ‘Decision on the Consequences of Non-Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials Covered by Article 54(3)(e) Agreements and the Application to Stay the Prosecution of the Accused, Together with Certain Other Issues Raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008’, 21 October 2008, Case No. ICC -01/04-01/06 OA 13, para 77, cited in Vasiliev 2014, p. 135.
245.
Vasiliev 2014, p. 135.
246.
Sluiter 2008, p. 878.
247.
Rastan 2008, pp. 447–449.
248.
Swart and Sluiter 1999, pp. 103–105.
249.
Sometimes, the term ‘absolute liability’ is inter-changeably used (Simester et al. 2010, p. 173).
250.
This is a ‘complex legal notion, and may be subject to various interpretations’ (Sluiter 2008, p. 877).
251.
This phrase has not been given a precise meaning within the meeting preceding the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1593 (Sluiter 2008, p. 876).
252.
Tzanakopoulos 2011, p. 58.
253.
Non-State Parties and/or third parties should be construed to mean those States which have not ratified the ICC Statute , above n. 2.
254.
These include both populous and powerful States such as Egypt , India , Indonesia , Iran , Israel, Pakistan , China , Russia , Sudan and the USA .
255.
Wenqi 2006, p. 108.
256.
Cryer et al. 2011, p. 512.
257.
The former ICC Chief Prosecutor clarified that ‘international airspace’ meant ‘outside of Sudan ’.
258.
See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/albashir-arrest-warrant-i_n_171703.html. Accessed 13 January 2011.
259.
Mutyaba 2012, p. 937.
260.
See Regulations of the International Criminal Court (2004) Regulations of the Court, ICC -BD/01-01-04.
261.
Cassese 1999, p. 166.
262.
Mistry and Ruiz Verduzco 2012, p. 10.
263.
Hawkins 2008, p. 107.
264.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 475; see also Sluiter 2009, p. 199.
265.
Decision on Jordan ’s non-compliance, above n. 165, para 24.

References

Akande D (2009) The Legal Nature of Security Council Referrals to the ICC and its Impact on Al Bashir’s Immunities. JICJ 7(2):333–352
Article Google Scholar
Akande D (2012) The Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the International Criminal Court. JICJ 10(2):299–324
Google Scholar
Ambach P (2015) A Look Towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt” In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1277–1295
Google Scholar
Ambos K (2007) Prosecuting International Crimes at the National and International Level: Between Justice and Realpolitik. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 55–68
Google Scholar
Ambos K, Stegmiller I (2008) German Research on International Criminal Law: Book Reviews. CLF 19(1):181–198
Article Google Scholar
Apartheid Convention (1973) Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
Google Scholar
ASP (2011) Report of the Secretariat on Complementarity, Official Records, Vol. I, Tenth Session of the ASP, 12–21 December 2011, Doc. ICC-ASP/10/2
Google Scholar
ASP (2013a) Report of the Bureau on Non-Cooperation. Twelfth Session, 20–28 November 2013, Doc. ICC-ASP/12/34
Google Scholar
ASP (2013b) Report of the Court on the Status of Ongoing Cooperation between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, including in the Field. Twelfth Session, 20–28 November 2013, Doc. ICC-ASP/12/42
Google Scholar
AU (2009) Decision of the 13th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government. Assembly/AU/Dec. 245 (XIII)
Google Scholar
Barnes GP (2011) The International Criminal Court’s Ineffective Enforcement Mechanisms: The Indictment of President Omar Al Bashir. FILJ 34(6):1585–1619
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC, Manikas P (1996) The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. TP, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY
Google Scholar
Bekou O (2009a) A Case for Review of Article 88, ICC Statute: Strengthening A Forgotten Provision. NCLR 12(3):468–483
Google Scholar
Bekou O (2009b) Rule 11Bis: An Examination of the Process of Referrals to National Courts in ICTY Jurisprudence. FILJ 33(3):723–791
Google Scholar
Bellamy AJ, Davies SE, Glanville L, Introduction. In: Bellamy AJ, Davies SE, Glanville L (eds) The Responsibility to Protect and International Law. MNP, Leiden/Boston, pp. 1–12
Google Scholar
Bellelli R (2010) Obligation to Cooperate and Duty to Implement. In: Bellelli R (ed) International Criminal Justice: Law and Practice from the Rome Statute to Its Review. MPG Books Group, Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, pp. 211–240
Google Scholar
Birdsall A (2015) The Responsibility to Prosecute and the ICC: A Problematic Relationship? CLF 26(1):51–72
Article Google Scholar
Bitti G (2015) Article 21 and the Hierarchy of Sources of Law Before the International Criminal Court. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 421–443
Google Scholar
Boschiero N (2015) The ICC Judicial Finding on Non-Cooperation Against the DRC and No Immunity for Al Bashir Based on UNSC Resolution 1593. JICJ 13(3):625–653
Article Google Scholar
Branch A (2007) Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention. Ethics and International Affairs 21(2):179–198
Article Google Scholar
Buchan R, Johnsson C-EJ (2012) Reviewing Jurdi NN (2011) The International Criminal Court and National Courts: A Contentious Relationship. Ashgate, Farnham. ICLR 12(1):104–109
Google Scholar
Cassese A (1999) The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections. EJIL 10(1):144–171
Google Scholar
Cassese A (2003) International Criminal Law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Ciampi A (2002) The Obligation to Cooperate. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1607–1638
Google Scholar
Coalition for the ICC (2008) Factsheet: Chronology of the Adoption of Security Council Resolutions 1422/1487 and Withdrawal of the Proposed Renewal in 2004. http://www.iccnow.org/documents/FS-1422and1487Chronology_26March2008.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2011
Condorelli L, Villalpando S (2002) Can the Security Council Extend the ICC’S Jurisdiction? In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. I. OUP, Oxford, pp. 571–582
Google Scholar
Contarino M, Lucent S (2011) Stopping the Killing: The International Criminal Court and Judicial Determination of the Responsibility to Protect. In: Bellamy AJ, Davies SE, Glanville L (eds) The Responsibility to Protect and International Law. MNP, Leiden/Boston, pp. 196–198
Google Scholar
CAT (1984) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Google Scholar
Cryer R (2015) The ICC and its Relationship to Non-State Parties. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 260–280
Google Scholar
Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2011) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Cunliffe P (2010) Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Currie RJ (2007) Abducted Fugitives Before the International Criminal Court: Problems and Prospects. CLF 18(3–4):349–393
Article Google Scholar
D’Amato A (2004) International Law: Sources; Collected Papers, Vol. III. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
d’Aspremont J, Brolmann C (2010) Challenging International Criminal Tribunals Before Domestic Courts. In: Reinisch A (ed) Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts. OUP, Oxford, pp. 111–136
Chapter Google Scholar
Danner AM (2003) Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court. AJIL 97(3):510–552
Article Google Scholar
Dascalopoulou-Livada P (2008) The Principle of Complementarity and Security Council Referrals. In: Politi M, Gioia F (eds) The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions. Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, UK, pp. 57–62
Google Scholar
de Meester K (2009) Coercive Measures, Privacy Rights and Judicial Supervision in International Criminal Investigations: In Need of Further Regulation. In: Sluiter G, Vasilev S (eds) International Criminal Procedure: Towards a Coherent Body of Law. CMP, London, pp. 273–309
Google Scholar
de Wet E (2015) The Implications of President Al Bashir’s Visit to South Africa for International and Domestic Law. JICJ 13(5):1049–1071
Google Scholar
de Wet E, Nollkaemper A (2002) Review of Security Council Decisions by National Courts. GYIL 45:166–202
Google Scholar
Demirdjian A (2010) Armless Giants: Cooperation, State Responsibility and Suggestions for the ICC Review Conference. ICLR 10(2):181–208
Google Scholar
du Plessis M (2017) Time to Resolve the Debate Over Immunity and the International Criminal Court. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/time-resolve-debate-over-immunity-and-international-criminal-court. Accessed 3 December 2018
Duffy H (2001) National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court. DJCIL 11(5):5–38
Google Scholar
Duijzentkunst BS (2008) Interpretation of Legislative Security Council Resolutions: Student Paper. ULR 4(3):188–209
Article Google Scholar
Farhang C (2014) The Notion of Consent in Part One of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility. LJIL 27(1):55–73
Article Google Scholar
Forowicz M (2010) The Reception of International Law in the European Court of Human Rights. International Court and Tribunals Series, OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
French Law No. 95-1 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia Since 1991, 2 January 1995
Google Scholar
French Law No. 96-432 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 Establishing the International Tribunal for Rwanda, 22 May 1996
Google Scholar
Frowein JA, Krisch N (2002) Chapter VII. Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression. In: Simma B, Mosler H, Randelzhofer A, Tomuschat C, Wolfrum R (eds) Paulus A, Chaitidou E (assistant eds) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Volume I, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp. 701–763
Google Scholar
Gallant KS (2003) The International Criminal Court in the System of States and International Organizations. LJIL 16(3):553–591
Article Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949a) Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949b) Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949c) Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949d) Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Google Scholar
Genocide Convention (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Google Scholar
German Law to Implement the Rome Statute of the ICC of 17 July 1998 [Entwurfeines Gesetzeszur Ausfuehrung des Roemischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998] {Draft Act Implementing the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998}, Act Amending the Basic Law (Federal Law Gazette 2000, I 1633) 29 November 2000
Google Scholar
Gillet M (2012) The Call of Justice: Obligations under the Genocide Convention to Cooperate with the International Criminal Court. CLF 23(1–3):63–96
Google Scholar
Gordillo LI (2012) Interlocking Constitutions: Towards an Interordinal Theory of National, European and United Nations Law. HP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Graefrath B (1993) Leave to the Court What Belongs to the Court: The Libyan Case. EJIL 4(2):184–205
Article Google Scholar
Greenwood CJ (1999) The Impact of Decisions and Resolutions of the Security Council on the ICJ. In: Heere WP (ed) International Law and The Hague’s 750th Anniversary. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 81–86.
Google Scholar
Grono N, de Courcy Wheeler A (2015) The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1225–1244
Google Scholar
Hafner G (2001) The Status of Third States Before the International Criminal Court. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity. Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, UK, pp. 239–253
Google Scholar
Hall C (2008) On Article 59. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 2nd edn. CH Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munchen/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp. 1147–1158
Google Scholar
Harmon MB, Gaynor F (2004) Prosecuting Massive Crimes with Primitive Tools: Three Difficulties Encountered by Prosecutors in International Criminal Proceedings. JICJ 2(2):403–426
Article Google Scholar
Hawkins D (2008) Power and Interests at the International Criminal Court. The SAIS Review of International Affairs 28(2):107–119
Article Google Scholar
Heyder C (2006) The U.N. Security Council’s Referral of the Crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court in Light of U.S. Opposition to the Court: Implications for the International Criminal Court’s Functions and Status. BJIL 24(2):650–671
Google Scholar
Hillebrecht C, Straus S (2017) Who Pursues the Perpetrators? State Cooperation with the ICC. HRQ 39(1):162–188
Article Google Scholar
Holmes JT (2002) Complementarity: National Courts versus the International Criminal Court. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. I. OUP, Oxford, pp. 667–686
Google Scholar
HRW (1991) El Salvador’s Decade of Terror: Human Rights Watch Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, HRW Report. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/10/01/el-salvador-s-decade-terror-human-rights-assassination-archbishop-romero. Accessed 13 August 2011
ICC (2013) Press Statement of the Defence for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, ICC, The Hague, 25 November 2013. http://www.iccnow.org/documents/Libya_Defense_PR.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2015
ICC (2014) Statement of the Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, on the Withdrawal of Charges Against Mr. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, 5 December 2014. https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-statement-05-12-2014-2. Accessed 13 May 2015
ICC Elements of Crimes (1998) International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes
Google Scholar
ICC Report (2017) 1 August 2016 – 31 July 2017, A/72/349, 17 August 2017. In: Muller J, Sauvant KP (2018) Annual Review of United Nations Affairs 2016/2017, Volume VI. OUP, Oxford, pp. 6-99–6-118
Google Scholar
ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Google Scholar
ICJ Statute (1946) Statute of the International Court of Justice
Google Scholar
ICTY Statute (1993) Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Google Scholar
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. Report adopted by the UNGA in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. International Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2011
Jacobs D (2010) Commentary on Arrest Warrants and Admissibility. In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Court 2005–2007, Vol. 23. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp. 113–122
Google Scholar
Jensen R (2003) Cooperating with the International Criminal Court: Potential Implications for National Criminal Justice Personnel. http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ICC%20Reports/NCJP_Guide_English.PDF. Accessed 22 June 2011
Jørgensen NHB (2009) The Proprio Motu and Interventionist Powers of Judges at International Criminal Tribunals. In: Sluiter G, Vasiliev S (eds) International Criminal Procedure: Towards a Coherent Body of Law. CMP, London, pp. 121–147
Google Scholar
Kelley J (2007) Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements. American Political Science Review 101(3):573–589
Article Google Scholar
Knoops G-JA, Amsterdam RR (2006) The Duality of State Cooperation within International and National Criminal Cases. FILJ 30(2):260–295
Google Scholar
Knottnerus AS (2014) The Security Council and the International Criminal Court: The Unsolved Puzzle of Article 16. NILR 61(2):195–224
Article Google Scholar
Kreẞ C (2003) The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline: Anatomy of a Unique Compromise. JICJ 1(3):603–617.
Article Google Scholar
Kreẞ C (2018) On the Activation of ICC Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression. JICJ 16(1):1–17
Article Google Scholar
Kreẞ C, Prost K (2016) Part 9: International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. CH Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munchen/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp. 2003–2157
Google Scholar
Krings BL (2012) The Principles of Complementarity and Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: Antagonists or Perfect Match? GJIL 4(3):737–763
Google Scholar
Llewllyn J, Raponi S (1999) The Protection of Human Rights Through International Criminal Law: A Conversation with Madam Justice Louise Arbour, Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. UTFLR 57(1):83–99
Google Scholar
Meernik J, Aloisi R (2009) I Do Declare: Politics, Declarations and the International Criminal Court. ICLR 9(2):253–273
Google Scholar
Mégret F (2010) In Search of the ‘Vertical’: Towards an Institutional Theory of International Criminal Justice’s Core. In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 178–224
Chapter Google Scholar
Merrills JG (1993) The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd edn. MUP, Manchester
Google Scholar
Mistry H, Ruiz Verduzco D (Rapporteurs) (2012) The United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court. International Law Meeting Summary, with Parliamentarians for Global Action, Chatham House, London. http://www.pgaction.org/pdf/activity/Chatham-ICC-SC.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2016
Murmann U (2014) Problems of Causation with regards to (Potential) Actions of Multiple Protagonists. JICJ 12(2):283–294
Article Google Scholar
Murray ARJ (2011) Does International Criminal Law Still Require a ‘Crime of Crimes’? A Comparative Review of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. GJIL 3(2):589–615
Google Scholar
Mutyaba R (2012) An Analysis of the Cooperation Regime of the ICC and its Effectiveness in the Court’s Objective in Securing Suspects in its Ongoing Investigations and Prosecutions. ICLR 12(5):937–962
Google Scholar
Nsereko D (2013) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity in Practice. LJIL 26(2):427–447
Google Scholar
O’Donohue J (2015) The ICC and the ASP. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 105–138
Google Scholar
Oberg E (2005) The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ. EJIL 16(5):879–906
Article Google Scholar
Okowa P (2014) The Security Council, the African Union and the International Criminal Court: Anatomy of a Problematic Relationship. In: Ebbesson J, Jacobsson M, Klamberg M, Langlet D, Wrange P (eds) International Law and Changing Perceptions of Security, Liber Amicorum Said Mahmoudi. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Olásolo H (2003) The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Before the Initiation of Investigations: A Quasi-Judicial or a Political Body? ICLR 3(2):87–150
Google Scholar
Orakhelashvili A (2005) The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. EJIL 16(1):59–88
Article Google Scholar
OTP (2003) Informal Expert Paper: The Principle of Complementarity in Practice. ICC-01/04-01/07-1015-Anx. https://www.icc-cpi.int/RelatedRecords/CR2009_02250.PDF. Accessed 17 July 2017
OTP (2013) Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations. ICC-OTP, November 2013. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-policy_paper_preliminary_examinations_2013-eng.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016
Paust JJ (2010) The United Nations is Bound by Human Rights: Understanding the Full Reach of Human Rights, Remedies, and Non-immunity. HILJ 51:1–13
Google Scholar
Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the UN (2015) http://redesign.nigeriaunmission.org/. Accessed 12 January 2016
Perritt HH (1999) Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces. WILJ 17:281–324
Google Scholar
Pinto Soares P (2012) Tangling Human Rights and International Criminal Law: The Practice of International Tribunals and the Call for Rationalized Legal Pluralism. CLF 23(1–3):161–191
Google Scholar
Plakokefalos I (2015) Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity. EJIL 26(2):471–492
Article Google Scholar
Prost K (2011) The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and its Relationship with National Jurisdictions: Powers, Limits, and Misconceptions. In: Swart B, Zahar A, Sluiter G (eds) The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. OUP, Oxford, pp. 434–468
Google Scholar
Rastan R (2008) Testing Co-operation: The International Criminal Court and National Authorities. LJIL 21(2):431–456
Article Google Scholar
Rastan R (2011) Situation and Case: Defining the Parameters. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy MM (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Volume I. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 421–459
Google Scholar
Regulations of the International Criminal Court (2004) Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-01-04
Google Scholar
Robinson D (2010) The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity. CLF 21(1):67–102.
Article Google Scholar
Ruiz Verduzco D (2015) The Relationship Between the ICC and the Security Council. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 30–64
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2004) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2008) Prosecutorial Discretion v Judicial Activism. JICJ 6(4):731–761
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2007) Complementarity in Practice: Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts. Paper for Presentation at the 20th Anniversary Conference for the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Vancouver. http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/Schabas.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2011
Schabas WA (2010) The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford Commentaries on International Law. OUP, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2011) What Should the ICC do About the ICC Situation? Human Rights and International Criminal Law ICC Forum, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law with the support of the OTP of the ICC. http://iccforum.com/darfur. Accessed 31 March 2013
Scharf MP (2000) The Tools for Enforcing International Criminal Justice in the New Millennium: Lesson from the Yugoslavia Tribunal. DPLR 49(4):925–979
Google Scholar
Scheffer DJ (1995) UN Peace Operations and Prospects for a Standby Force. CILJ 28(3):649–660
Google Scholar
Schiff B (2015) The ICC and the R2P: Problems of Individual Culpability and State Responsibility. International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Montreal 2011 Conference
Google Scholar
Simbeye Y (2004) Immunity and International Criminal Law. Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, UK
Google Scholar
Simester AP, Spencer JR, Sullivan GR, Virgo GJ (2010) Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 4th edn. HP, Oxford/Portland, Oregon
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (1999) Prosecutor v Blaškić, State Cooperation and Subpoena, Commentary following ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, IT-95-14-AR 108bis, 29 October 1997. In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 1993–1998, Vol. 1. Intersentia, Antwerp/Groningen/Oxford/Vienna, pp. 247–285
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2002a) State Cooperation with the International Criminal Court. In: Yepes-Enriquez R (ed) Treaty Enforcement and International Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 127–137
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2002b) International Criminal Adjudication and the Collection of Evidence: Obligations of States. Intersentia, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2003a) The Surrender of War Criminals to the International Criminal Court. LLAICLR 25:605–651
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2003b) Commentary on Release of Ntuyahaga. In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 1994–1999, Vol. 2. Intersentia, Antwerp/Groningen/Oxford/Vienna, pp. 118–122
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2008) Obtaining Cooperation From Sudan – Where is the Law? JICJ 6(5):871–884
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2009) Cooperation with International Criminal Tribunals. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. OUP, Oxford, pp. 187–200
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2010) Using the Genocide Convention to Strengthen Cooperation with the International Criminal Court in the Al Bashir Case. JICJ 8(2):365–382
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2011) There is a Duty to Cooperate for States in the Arrest and Surrender of Al Bashir, under the Genocide Convention and/or the ICC Statute and/or UN Security Council Resolution 1593. Human Rights and International Criminal Law International Criminal Court Forum, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law with the support of the OTP of the ICC. https://iccforum.com/darfur#Sluiter. Accessed 23 December 2016
Sluiter G (2018a) Enforcing Cooperation: Did the Drafters Approach It the Wrong Way? JICJ 16(2):383–402
Article Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2018b) Key Reforms for the Next Decade of the ICC (International Criminal Court) – Towards a Stronger Judicial Role in the Investigations and a More Robust System of Enforcing State Cooperation. Anniversary Debate, Human Rights and International Criminal Law ICC Forum, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law with the support of the OTP of the ICC. https://iccforum.com/anniversary. Accessed 17 December 2018
Soler C (2014) A Conceptual Re-characterisation of Universal Criminal Jurisdiction. Id-Dritt 24:285–315
Google Scholar
Stagno Ugarte B (2012) Strengthening the Rule of Law through the United Nations Security Council, Workshop held at the Australian National University on 17–18 December 2012 by the Australian Government’s Australian Civil-Military Centre and the ANU Centre for International Governance and Justice, Working Paper No. 6.2. http://regnet.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2015-05/Ugarte_6.2_0_0.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2013
Stahn C (2010) Arrest and Surrender under the ICC Statute: A Contextual Reading. In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 659–685
Chapter Google Scholar
Stahn C (2011) Taking Complementarity Seriously: On the Sense and Sensibility of “Classical”, “Positive” and “Negative” Complementarity. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy MM (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Volume I, CUP, Cambridge, pp. 233–282
Google Scholar
Sulzer J (2007) Implementing the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in France. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 125–137
Google Scholar
Swart B (2002) Arrest and Surrender. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1639–1703
Google Scholar
Swart B, Sluiter G (1999) The International Criminal Court and International Criminal Co-operation. In: von Hebel HAM, Lammers JG, Schuking J (eds) Reflections on the International Criminal Court. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 91–127
Chapter Google Scholar
Tillier J (2013) The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity: Strengthening the Rule of Law? ICLR 13(3):507–591
Article Google Scholar
Tladi D (2015) The Duty on South Africa to Arrest and Surrender President Al Bashir under South African and International Law: A Perspective from International Law. JICJ 13(5):1027–1047
Google Scholar
Tolbert D, Kontić A (2011) The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) and the Transfer of Cases and Materials to National Judicial Authorities: Lessons in Complementarity. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy MM (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Volume II. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 888–919
Google Scholar
Tomuschat C (2008) Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Trahan J (2013) The Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council: Parameters and Best Practices. CLF 24(4):417–473
Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos A (2010) Domestic Court Reactions to United Nations Security Council Sanctions. In: Reinisch A (ed) Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts. OUP, Oxford, pp. 54–76
Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos A (2011) Disobeying the Security Council: Countermeasures Against Wrongful Sanctions. Oxford Monographs in International Law, OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos A (2012) Collective Security and Human Rights. In: de Wet E, Vidmar J (eds) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford, pp. 42–70
Chapter Google Scholar
UN (2004) Press Release: Prosecutor Receives Referral of the Situation in the DRC. 19 April 2004, Doc. AFR/903-L/3067
Google Scholar
UNC (1945) Charter of the United Nations
Google Scholar
UNGA (1996) Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court Committee Report, Vol. I, Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee During March-April and August 1996. GAOR Fifty-First Session, Supplement No. 22, UN Doc. A/51/22
Google Scholar
UNGA (2009) Report of the Secretary-General, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Sixty-Third Session. Follow-up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit, UN Doc. A/63/677
Google Scholar
UNGA (2018) Report of the ICC on its Activities 2016/17, 1 August 2016 – 31 July 2017, 17 August 2017, UN Doc. A/72/349. https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/A72349/170817-rep-UNSC_ENG.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2018
UN-ICC Negotiated Relationship Agreement (2004) Negotiated Relationship Agreement Between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations
Google Scholar
UNSC (1993) Resolution 827 (1993), UN Doc. S/RES/827
Google Scholar
UNSC (1994) Resolution 955 (1994), UN Doc. S/RES/955
Google Scholar
UNSC (2005) Resolution 1593 (2005), UN Doc. S/RES/1593
Google Scholar
UNSC (2011) Resolution 1970 (2011), UN Doc. S/RES/1970
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2005) Bilateral Agreements Between the United States and State Parties to the Rome Statute: Are They Compatible with the Object and Purpose of the Statute? LJIL 18(1):93–111
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2008) Equal Standards? On the Dialectics Between National Jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court. ICLR 8(1):229–272
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2011) States’ Obligations to Investigate and Prosecute Perpetrators of International Crimes: The Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy MM (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Volume II. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 685–706
Google Scholar
van der Wilt HG, Vervliet J, Sluiter GK, Houwink ten Cate JThM (eds) The Genocide Convention: The Legacy of 60 Years. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Vasiliev S (2014) International Criminal Trials: A Normative Theory, Vol. 1: Nature, Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the UvA, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
VCLT (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Google Scholar
Ventura MJ (2015) Escape from Johannesburg?: Sudanese President Al Bashir Visits South Africa, and the Implicit Removal of Head of State Immunity by the UN Security Council in Light of Al-Jedda. JICJ 13(5):995–1025
Article Google Scholar
Vidmar J (2012) Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law: Towards a Vertical International System? In: de Wet E, Vidmar J (eds) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford, pp. 13–41
Google Scholar
Vinjamuri L (2015) The ICC and the Politics of Peace and Justice. In: Stahn C (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. OUP, Oxford, pp. 13–29
Google Scholar
Voetelink J (2015) Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction Over Military Personnel Abroad. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Wenqi Z (2006) On Co-operation by States not Party to the International Criminal Court. IRRC 88(861):87–110
Article Google Scholar
Wilkitzki P (2001) The German Law on Co-operation with the International Criminal Court. ICLR 2(2):195–212
Google Scholar
Woolaver H, Palmer E (2017) Challenges to the Independence of the International Criminal Court from the Assembly of State Parties. JICJ 15(4):641–665
Article Google Scholar
Young SNM (2001) Surrendering the Accused to the International Criminal Court. BYIL 71(1):317–356
Article Google Scholar
Zahar A, Sluiter G (2008) International Criminal Law: A Critical Introduction. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Zakerhossein MH, DeBrouwer A-M (2015) Diverse Approaches to Total and Partial In Absentia Trials by International Criminal Tribunals. CLF 26(2):181–224
Google Scholar
Zappalà S (2009) Judicial Activism v Judicial Restraint in International Criminal Justice. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. OUP, Oxford, pp. 216–223
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Laws, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta
Christopher Soler

Authors

Christopher Soler
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Soler .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Soler, C. (2019). The State Obligation to Cooperate under International Law. In: The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_10

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_10
Published: 19 September 2019
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-334-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-335-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics