Fourteenth Waldemar A. Solf lecture in international law: A negotiator's perspective on the international criminal court

Military Law Review

Volumn , Issue 167, 2001, Pages 1-18

  Scheffer, David J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035594469     PISSN: 00264040     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. U.S. State Department, Remarks, Testimony, and Briefings, at http:// www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/.
2. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998) (United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998) [thereinafter Rome Statute].
3. President William J. Clinton, Statement by the President: of the International Criminal Court Treaty (Dec. 31, 2000), 2000 WL 6008.
4. See Madeline Morris, High Crimes and Misconceptions: The ICC and Non-Party States, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 13 (2001).
5. Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Newton, Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 167 MIL. L. REV. 20 (2001).
6. See U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGICC-UN/DP, 17 (2000).
7. See Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Finalized Draft Text of the of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/ INF/3/Add.1 (2000) [hereinafter Draft Rules].
8. Letter from Monroe Leigh, Former Legal Advisor to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to Editor, The Washington Times (Dec. 30, 2000), in Proposed International Court Will Protect Civil Liberties, WASH. TIMES, Dec. 30, 2000, at A12.
9. See, e.g., Douglas Cassel, Empowering United States Courts to Hear Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 393 (2001); Douglass Cassel, The ICC's New Legal Landscape: The Need to Expand U.S. Domestic Jurisdiction to Prosecute Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity, 23 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 378 (1999); Douglass Cassel, The Rome Treaty for an International Criminal Court: A Flawed but Essential First Step, 6 BROWN J. WORLD AFF. 41 (1999).
10. See, e.g., Douglas Cassel, Empowering United States Courts to Hear Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 393 (2001); Douglass Cassel, The ICC's New Legal Landscape: The Need to Expand U.S. Domestic Jurisdiction to Prosecute Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity, 23 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 378 (1999); Douglass Cassel, The Rome Treaty for an International Criminal Court: A Flawed but Essential First Step, 6 BROWN J. WORLD AFF. 41 (1999).
11. See, e.g., Douglas Cassel, Empowering United States Courts to Hear Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 393 (2001); Douglass Cassel, The ICC's New Legal Landscape: The Need to Expand U.S. Domestic Jurisdiction to Prosecute Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity, 23 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 378 (1999); Douglass Cassel, The Rome Treaty for an International Criminal Court: A Flawed but Essential First Step, 6 BROWN J. WORLD AFF. 41 (1999).
12. See Major Jan E. Aldykiewicz & Major Geoffrey S. Corn, Authority to Court-Martial Non-U.S. Military Personnel for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed During Internal Armed Conflicts, 167 MIL. L. REV. 74 (2001).
13. 18 U.S.C. § 1091 (2000).
14. See Captain Mark E. Eichelman, International Criminal Jurisdiction Issues for the United States Military, ARMY LAW., Aug. 2000, at 24-26.
15. Military and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3261-3267 (2000). See generally Captain Glenn R. Schmitt, The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act: The Continuing Problem of Criminal Jurisdiction over Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces Abroad - Problem Solved?, ARMY LAW. Dec. 2000, at 1.
16. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2000) (five years); 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (five years for non-capital offenses).
17. Rome Statute, supra note 4, art, 29.
18. Id. art. 98(2).
19. Draft Rules, supra note 7, R. 195(2).
20. Rome Statute, supra note 4, art. 124.
21. Id. art 121(5).