Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concluding Observations and Final Remarks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law

  • 587 Accesses

Abstract

An International Convention for the Prevention, Prosecution and Punishment of Core Crimes could constitute evidence of a duty to prosecute of the territorial State and of an obligation to submit to prosecution of the custodial State. If it will be widely ratified it would impose such duties. If not, it could still pave the way for the formation of a rule of customary international law. The exercise of universal jurisdiction by States, provided it be undertaken fairly and not in absentia, could anyway be a preferred course of action to a prosecution under the vertical system of enforcement. Criminal justice will be predominantly meted out by domestic criminal courts, exercising various forms of jurisdiction, particularly territorial, but also resorting to and availing themselves of universal jurisdiction. It will also be delivered by the ICC, and by hybrid tribunals which are most likely to gain importance in the near future since their flexible and customised nature facilitate their creation and establishment. Since the ICC’s jurisdiction can never be all-encompassing due to limitations rationae temporis, rationae loci, rationae personae and rationae materiae, hybrid tribunals are likely to blossom in countries and/or regions post-conflict. There might be some place for sui generis trials, such as the Lockerbie trials. These could also take the form of specialized country-specific tribunals. There is increasingly more room for special courts, such as, inter alia, the EAC. One notes that the UNGA has adopted a Resolution establishing the IIIM which has a unique quasi-prosecutorial role, scope and functions.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although ‘the ECtHR has been described as a “sort of world court of human rights ” due to the fact that its jurisprudence exercises formal authority over courts within Europe and is of persuasive force in courts outside Europe ’ (Attanasio 1996, p. 16, cited in Usacka 2016, p. 294, n. 57), it is not the human rights counterpart of the ICC . One must also keep in mind that ‘at the international level, there are no individual complaints mechanisms available to the victims of violations of international humanitarian law .’ (Hastie and Crepeau 2015, p. 1320).

  2. 2.

    van der Wilt 2012, p. 172.

  3. 3.

    van der Have 2018, p. 30.

  4. 4.

    Hovell 2018, p. 455.

  5. 5.

    Rastan 2010, p. 127.

  6. 6.

    Carter 2013, p. 461, cited in Usacka 2016, p. 285, n. 17.

  7. 7.

    This is deemed to be the cornerstone of international penal matters (Bassiouni 2008, p. 45).

  8. 8.

    Krings 2012, p. 740.

  9. 9.

    HRC, Summary Record of the 1519th Meeting: Perú, Fifty-seventh session, U.N. Doc., CCPR/C/SR.1519, para 44.

  10. 10.

    Siebert-Fohr 2009, p. 205.

  11. 11.

    Kleffner 2008, pp. 309–339.

  12. 12.

    Rastan 2010, p. 131.

  13. 13.

    Triffterer 2008, pp. 1–11, cited in Kleffner 2008, p. 244, n. 41.

  14. 14.

    Within the Islamic world , only Jordan , Afghanistan and Uzbekistan have ratified the ICC Statute . In central, southern and eastern Asia [besides the above mentioned States], only Cambodia , Mongolia , Japan and South Korea have ratified it. Most importantly, Russia , China and the USA are not State Parties thereto. A graphic look at the State Parties shows that a very great majority of those States which have neither signed nor ratified the ICC Statute are neighbouring Asian States , to the extent that one may speak about quasi-global consensus with the marked exception of a region (continent) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court. Accessed 19 October 2016]. In other words, the phrase ‘Asian dissent to the ICC ’, coined by myself, could be fitting nowadays. In fact in a courtesy visit paid by myself in my capacity as Chairperson of the COJUR-ICC Working Group of the Council of the EU , at the ICC on 23 May 2017 (EU Day Against Impunity ), the ICC President Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi expressed concern in view of a low rate of ratifications by Asian States to the ICC Statute . In truth, however, African States have increasingly shown discomfort with the ICC notwithstanding that the Chief Prosecutor is African too. This has evidently emerged from the 11 October 2013 ministerial meeting and the 12 October 2013 summit of AU member States in Ethiopia , where, in the light of the international arrest warrants issued against Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta and Sudan ’s Omar Al Bashir , a resolution was adopted to the effect that no sitting African Head of State should appear before an international court [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/11/us-africa-icc-idUSBRE99A0BS20131011, accessed 29 August 2016, and http://www.france24.com/en/20131012-africa-nations-african-union-attacks-unfair-icc-international-criminal-court-trial-Kenyatta-Ruto, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24506006, accessed on 29 August 2016] and culminated in the withdrawals of Burundi , South Africa and The Gambia [see Chap. 2, notes 41–43]. Yet only the former withdrawal still stands [see Chap. 2, notes 46 and 47].

  15. 15.

    See the list in Kleffner 2008, p. 276, n. 201.

  16. 16.

    A detailed analysis of such practice, particularly in Australia , Austria , Belgium , Canada , Denmark , France , Germany , Israel , the Netherlands , Senagal, Spain , Switzerland , the UK and the USA until 2003 may be found in Reydams 2003, pp. 86–219.

  17. 17.

    A few, amongst whom Bruce Broomhall, contend that Nuremberg created a duty to prosecute core crimes on behalf of the international community on the grounds of universal jurisdiction , this duty being an obligation erga omnes (Broomhall 2003, p. 56, cited in Melandri 2009, p. 534, n. 12).

  18. 18.

    This is generally undertaken by elimination and hierarchically. The first port of call, the territorial State, is initially examined. If this is either unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute, the prospects of a UNSC Resolution are realistically analysed. If this is not a realistic prospect, a hybrid tribunal can be examined next (see, for example, Sayapin 2016).

  19. 19.

    The UNGA Resolution [UNGA (2016) Resolution 71/248 (2016), UN Doc. A/RES/71/248] adopted, in its seventy-first session, the IIIM [see UN Doc. A/71/L.48, para 4].

  20. 20.

    This term was used by Deputy Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the EU, Stephan Barriga, in a keynote address undertaken at a meeting of COJUR (Public International Law) Working Group of the Council of the EU chaired by myself and held at Justus Lipsius building, Brussels, on 1 June 2017.

  21. 21.

    Nebehay S (2018) War Crimes Evidence in Syria Overwhelming, Not All Can be Pursued: UN. Reuters World News. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-warcrimes/war-crimes-evidence-in-syria-overwhelming-not-all-can-be-pursued-u-n-idUSKBN1H22GN. Accessed 25 August 2018.

  22. 22.

    Mahnad 2018.

  23. 23.

    The fact that only high-level suspects will be prosecuted before the ICC may be deduced from Articles 1 and 5(1) of the ICC Statute (which allow the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern ). Although it is not associated with (legal) gravity per se under Articles 17(1)(d) and 53(2)(b) of the ICC Statute (see Ambos and Stegmiller 2012, p. 401), the criterion mirrors the gravity threshold (see Article 17(1)(d) of the ICC Statute ). The OTP policies convey that the focus on those bearing the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes should be taken into account for the purposes of the admissibility test [OTP (2013) Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations. ICC -OTP , November 2013, p. 11. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-policy_paper_preliminary_examinations_2013-eng.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016]. It must be highlighted that this criterion is a policy matter, not a legal requirement (Ambos and Stegmiller 2012, p. 401).

  24. 24.

    Garcia Ramirez 2004, pp. 154–156.

  25. 25.

    Mackenzie et al. 2010, p. 244.

  26. 26.

    Dancy 2017, p. 627.

  27. 27.

    Kirsch 2008, p. 291.

  28. 28.

    Kaul 2012, p. 683.

  29. 29.

    Tutuianu 2013, p. 135.

  30. 30.

    Gargiulo 1999, p. 103.

  31. 31.

    Margariti 2017, pp. 119–120.

  32. 32.

    A slow pace can however be advantageous for the purposes of establishing admissibility (Akhavan 2016, pp. 1048–1050).

  33. 33.

    Tofan and van der Wolf 2011, p. 1.

  34. 34.

    Heinze 2018, pp. 22–23.

  35. 35.

    Chan and Wouter 2015, p. 168.

  36. 36.

    For a definition and thorough understanding of hybrid, internationalised tribunals, see Williams 2012, pp. 201–252.

  37. 37.

    See, for example, severe criticisms of the IHT in Sect. 9.3.

  38. 38.

    The ICC cannot prosecute crimes the alleged consummation of which precedes 1 July 2002.

  39. 39.

    The ICC ’s jurisdiction is limited over the territories of State Parties.

  40. 40.

    The ICC ’s jurisdiction is limited over natural persons who are nationals of ICC State Parties .

  41. 41.

    The ICC can only prosecute crimes which fall within its subject-matter jurisdiction, these being the four core crimes.

  42. 42.

    These establish an expiration period during which the competent authorities must prosecute the accused, failing which the criminal action and any potential criminal liability of the accused would be extinguished. It may be safely concluded that customary international law precludes the use of statutes of limitations over core crimes (Naqvi 2010, pp. 192–214). This seems to have been cast in stone when it was decided that ‘prescription does not seem to be a principle of international criminal law and appears to be irreconcilable with the character of the offences… Their imprescriptibility is inherent in their nature. Therefore, we find that, as a matter of customary international law , crimes against humanity cannot prescribe and that this principle is directly applicable in the domestic legal order ’ [Tribunal of First Instance, Brussels (Investigating Magistrate Damien Vandermeersch), re Pinochet , 8 November 1998]. Moreover, signatories to the Convention on the non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968) , must respect the prohibition. The non-applicability of statutory limitations , however, does not ipso facto translate itself into an absolute duty of the State to prosecute. In fact, this duty is not expressly stipulated within the above mentioned Convention. It may only be said to be implied, at best.

  43. 43.

    Mackenzie et al. 2010, p. 245.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Jackson 2016, p. 1069.

  46. 46.

    Hobbs 2017, p. 191.

  47. 47.

    Hobbs 2017, p. 190.

  48. 48.

    Mackenzie et al. 2010, p. 245.

  49. 49.

    Ryngaert 2012, p. 652.

  50. 50.

    Dickinson 2015, p. 493.

  51. 51.

    Mégret 2005, p. 725, cited in Hobbs 2017, p. 192, n. 115.

  52. 52.

    Hobbs 2017, p. 193.

  53. 53.

    Malta ’s leading newspaper has confirmed that the lead investigator had personally lobbied USA authorities to pay two Maltese witnesses in order to secure the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi for the purposes of the Lockerbie case {Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary, Scotland, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate, 14 March 2002, C/104/01} [http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20131124/local/new-documents-on-lockerbie-tragedy-published-in.495996#.UpWO9cri4Ww. Accessed 21 September 2018].

  54. 54.

    Orentlicher 2004, p. 226.

  55. 55.

    See Sect. 13.2.

  56. 56.

    Staff Writers (2017) Colombia to Set up Special War Crimes Court , Terra Daily. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Colombia_to_set_up_special_war_crimes_courts_999.html. Accessed 9 February 2018.

  57. 57.

    Jurist Twenty 2017.

  58. 58.

    See Sect. 13.4.

  59. 59.

    Cassese 2009, p. 130.

  60. 60.

    Sarkin 2005, pp. 105–106.

  61. 61.

    Roper and Barria 2006, p. 96.

  62. 62.

    These include ‘efforts in economic development and expanded education opportunities’ (see Saxon 2012, p. 603).

  63. 63.

    Kingsbury 2012, pp. 215–221.

  64. 64.

    Bhuta and Nerlich 2009, p. 575.

  65. 65.

    Bassiouni 1974, Preface, p. vii.

  66. 66.

    The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , adopted by all UN member States in 2015, urged countries to take concrete measures and action on seventeen fronts, the penultimate being ‘peace, justice and strong institutions’ [UN Department of Public Information 2016].

  67. 67.

    Totten 2007, p. 17.

References

  • Akhavan P (2016) Complementarity Conundrums: The ICC Clock in Transitional Times. JICJ 14(5):1043–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Stegmiller I (2012) Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court: Is There a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy? CLSC 58(4):391–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Attanasio J (1996) Rapporteur’s Overview and Conclusions: Of Sovereignty, Globalization and Courts. Journal of International Law and Politics 28(1–2):1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1974) International Extradition and World Public Order. OPI, AW Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (2008) The Duty to Prosecute and/or Extradite: Aut Dedere Aut Judicare. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: Multilateral and Bilateral Enforcement Mechanisms, Volume II, 3rd edn. MNP, Leiden/Boston, pp. 35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhuta NC, Nerlich V (2009) National Prosecution of International Crimes: Cases and Legislation. JICJ 7(3):575–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Broomhall B (2003) International Criminal Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter LE (2013) The Future of the International Criminal Court: Complementarity as a Strength or a Weakness. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 12(3):451–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2009) The Rationale for International Criminal Justice. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. OUP, Oxford, pp. 123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan K, Wouters J (2015) Constructing the International Criminal Court’s Rule of Law Identity. In: De Baere G, Wouters J (eds) The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law. Leuven Global Governance Series. EE, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp. 127–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crime Against Humanity (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy G (2017) Searching for Deterrence at the International Criminal Court. ICLR 17(4):625–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson L (2015) The Promise of Hybrid Tribunals. AJIL (2003) 97:295. In: O’Connell ME, Scott RF, Roht-Arriaza N, Bradlow DD (eds) The International Legal System: Cases and Materials, 7th edn. FP, St. Paul, MN, USA, pp. 493–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Ramirez S (2004) Principio de Complementaridad en el Estatuto de Roma, Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, Vol. 4. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, pp. 149–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo P (1999) The Controversial Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and the Security Council. In: Lattanzi F, Schabas WA (eds) Essays on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol. 1. Il Sirente, Ripa Fagnano Alto, AQ, Italia, pp. 67–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie B, Crepeau F (2015) Special Rules on Refugees. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P, Sassòli M (eds) van der Heijden I, Nuzov I, Grignon J, Hylton A, Haeck T (assistant eds) The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary. OUP, Oxford, pp. 1313–1323

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze A (2018) The 20th Anniversary of the Rome Statute: A Review Essay About the Nuremberg Forum 2018. CLF 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-018-9361-z. Accessed 24 December 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs H (2017) Towards a Principled Justification for the Mixed Composition of Hybrid International Criminal Tribunals. LJIL 30(1):177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovell D (2018) The Authority of Universal Jurisdiction. EJIL 29(2):427–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M (2016) Regional Complementarity: The Rome Statute and Public International Law. JICJ 14(5):1061–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurist Twenty (2017) Documenting Law Since 1996, Supported by University of Pittsburgh School of Law. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/. Accessed 13 December 2018

  • Kaul H-P (2012) International Criminal Court. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Volume V. Published under the Auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. OUP, Oxford, pp. 667–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (2012) International Courts: Uneven Judicialisation in Global Order. In: Crawford J, Koskenniemi M (eds) Ranganathan S (assistant ed) The Cambridge Companion to International Law. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 203–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch P (2008) The Role of the International Criminal Court in Enforcing International Criminal Law. In: Ellis MS, Goldstone J (eds) The International Criminal Court: Challenges to Achieving Justice and Accountability in the 21st Century. International Debate Education Association, NY, Amsterdam, Brussels, pp. 285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner JK (2008) Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions. International Courts and Tribunals Series, OUP, Oxford

    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 

  • Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P (2010) The Manual on International Courts and Tribunals, 2nd edn. International Courts and Tribunals, OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahnad PL (2018) An Independent Mechanism for Myanmar: A Turning Point in the Pursuit of Accountability for International Crimes. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-turning-point-in-the-pursuit-of-accountability-for-international-crimes/. Accessed 13 December 2018

  • Margariti S (2017) Defining International Terrorism: Between State Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism. International Criminal Justice Series, Volume 15. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2005) In Defence of Hybridity: Towards a Representational Theory of International Criminal Justice. CILJ 38(3):725–751

    Google Scholar 

  • Melandri M (2009) The Relationship Between State Sovereignty and the Enforcement of International Criminal Law under the Rome Statute (1998): A Complex Interplay. ICLR 9(3):531–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naqvi YQ (2010) Impediments to Exercising Jurisdiction Over International Crimes. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orentlicher DF (2004) The Future of Universal Jurisdiction in the New Architecture of Transnational Justice. In: Macedo S (ed) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 214–239

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Rastan R (2010) Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? In: Bergsmo M (ed.) Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes. Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian law, Publication Series No. 7, TOAEP and PRI, Oslo, pp. 83–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Reydams L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. Oxford Monographs in International Law, OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roper SD, Barria LA (2006) Designing Criminal Tribunals: Sovereignty and International Concerns in the Protection of Human Rights. Ashgate Aldershot, Hampshire, UK/Burlington, VT, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2012) Arrest and Detention. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International Prosecutors. OUP, Oxford, pp. 647–699

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkin J (2005) Justice for Serious International Crimes, reviewing Lattmer M, Sands S (eds) (2003) Justice for Crimes Against Humanity. HP, Oxford. CLF 16(1):103–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxon D (2012) The Prosecution of Human Rights Abuses. In: Cushman T (ed) Handbook of Human Rights. Routledge, T & F, London/NY, pp. 598–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2016) A “Hybrid” Tribunal for Daesh? EJIL: Talk! http://www.ejiltalk.org/a-hybrid-tribunal-for-daesh/. Accessed 29 May 2018

  • Siebert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tofan C, van der Wolf R (2011) (eds) The Long and Winding Road to… Rome: A Brief History of the ICC. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Totten S (2007) The Prevention and Intervention of Genocide: An Annotated Bibliography. Routledge, T & F, NY/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O (2008) Preambles, margins 16-17. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Observers’ Notes, Article by Article. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutuianu S (2013) Towards Global Justice: Sovereignty in an Interdependent World. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UN Department of Public Information (2016) Sustainable Development Goals, Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs. Accessed 13 July 2018

  • UNGA (2016) Resolution 71/248 (2016), UN Doc. A/RES/71/248

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (2017) Resolution 2379 (2017), UN Doc. S/RES/2379

    Google Scholar 

  • Usacka A (2016) Constitutionalism and Human Rights at the International Criminal Court. In: Scheinin M, Krunke H, Aksenova M (eds) Judges as Guardians of Constitutionalism and Human Rights. EE, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp. 281–305

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Have N (2018) The Prevention of Gross Human Rights Violations under International Human Rights Law. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2012) On the Hierarchy Between Extradition and Human Rights. In: de Wet E, Vidmar J (eds) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford, pp. 148–175

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams S (2012) Hybrid and Internationalised Criminal Tribunal: Selected Jurisdictional Issues. HP, Bloomsbury, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Laws, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta

    Christopher Soler

Authors
  1. 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

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Soler, C. (2019). Concluding Observations and Final Remarks. 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_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_23

  • Published:

  • 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

Search

Navigation