On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court

International Review of the Red Cross

Volumn 88, Issue , 2006, Pages 87-110

  Wenqi, Zhu ^a  

^a RENMIN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930509910     PISSN: 18163831     EISSN: 16075889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1816383106000063     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Article 126 of the Rome Statute of the ICC provides that: “This Statute shall enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” On 11 April 2002, nine states ratified or acceded to the Statute of the ICC, raising the number of states that had ratified or acceded to it from 57 to 66 at one stroke. For the names of the specific states, see the ICC Monitor, the newspaper of the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Issue 28, November 2004, at, http://www.iccnow.org. (last visited 1 March 2006).
2. ICC Monitor, Article 13.
3. ICC Monitor, Article 12, para. 3.
4. ICC Monitor, Article 12, paras. 1–2.
5. ICC Monitor, Articles 13–15.
6. ICC Monitor, Articles 1 and 17.
7. “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General”, 25 January 2005, at, http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf. (last visited 1 March).
8. “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General”.
9. Beijing Evening News, 1 April 2005, p. 8.
10. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. the United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 114, para. 220.
11. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua.
12. See UN Security Council Resolution 681 (1990), 20 December 1990, para. 5
13. UN Security Council Resolutions ES-10/2, 25 April 1997, ES-10/3, 15 July 1997, and ES-10/6, 9 February 1999, and the report by the chairman of the Meeting of Experts on the Four Geneva Conventions that was held in Geneva on 27–28 October 1998.
14. For the backgrounds of all eighteen judges and the status of work since they took office, see Hans-Peter Kaul, “Construction site for more justice: The International Criminal Court after two years”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 370, 375–79.
15. ICC Press Release, “Election of the Prosecutor - Statement by the President of the Assembly of States Parties, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein”, 25 March 2003.
16. ICC Press Release, “Prosecutor receives referral of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, 19 April 2004
17. ICC Press Release, “The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens its first investigation”, 23 June 2004.
18. ICC Press Release, “Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens an investigation into northern Uganda”, 29 July 2004.
19. Kaul, above note 18, p. 373.
20. “Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens an investigation into northern Uganda”,.
21. ICC Press Release, “Registrar confirms that the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court”, 15 February 2005.
22. 1996 Yearbook of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter ICTY Yearbook), chapter V, “State co-operation”, p. 226.
23. For the texts of the laws adopted by these states on co-operation with the ICTY, see “State co-operation”
24. 1995 ICTY Yearbook.
25. “Judicial assistance to the International Tribunal shall be furnished in accordance with the applicable provisions relating to judicial assistance in criminal cases in Australia”, Australia, International War Crimes Tribunals Legislation 1995 (unofficial translation), Section Two, “Judicial assistance”.
26. See 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 233.
27. Article XIII (4) of Annex 6 (Agreement on Human Rights) of the Dayton Agreement provides that “All competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall co-operate with and provide unrestricted access to the organizations established in this Agreement of International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; and any other organization authorized by the UN Security Council with a mandate concerning human rights or humanitarian law.” See 1996 ICTY Yearbook, Chapter V, “State co-operation”, p. 229.
28. Article IX of the Dayton Agreement declares that “The Parties shall co-operate fully with all entities involved in implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Annexes to this Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to the obligation of all Parties to co-operate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.” Article X of Annex 1-A, entitled “Agreement on the military aspects of the peace settlement” calls for the full co-operation of the parties “with all entities involved in implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the General Framework Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the United Nations Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia”. See 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 321.
29. Article 19 of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal (Decree with Force of Law on Extradition at the Request of the International Tribunal) provides that “In the case of one or more criminal proceedings being conducted in the Republic against the same accused person for whom the extradition request has been submitted, the Supreme Court shall suspend the criminal proceedings for those acts in favour of the criminal acts referred to in Article 1 of the Decree (in the ICTY). See 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 337.
30. Germany's “Law on co-operation with the International Tribunal in respect of the former Yugoslavia”, Article 2, stipulates as follows: Status vis-à-vis criminal proceedings in the Federal Republic of Germany (1) At the Tribunal's request, criminal proceedings involving offences which fall within its jurisdiction shall be transferred to the Tribunal at any stage. (2) Should a request pursuant to paragraph 1, be submitted, no proceedings may be conducted against any person for an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which they are standing or have stood trial before that Tribunal. (ICTY Yearbook, p. 345)
31. See 1996 ICTY Yearbook, chapter V, “State co-operation”, p. 228.
32. See Article 13 of the Rome Statute on the “Exercise of jurisdiction” of the ICC.
33. See 1996 ICTY Yearbook, chapter V, “State co-operation”, p. 232.
34. “State co-operation”, p. 228.
35. Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, Article 4, para. 4
36. see also 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 347.
37. Switzerland, Federal Order on Cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, Article 22. ICTY Yearbook, pp. 330–331.
38. For IFOR's co-operation and support to the ICTY, see 1996 ICTY Yearbook, p. 232.
39. Article 17 of the Federal Order on Cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law provides that “Excluding any other condition, assistance shall be granted if the request and the attached documents demonstrate that the offence: a. falls within the jurisdiction of the international tribunal and b. is punishable under Swiss law if the measures requested by an international tribunal are coercive as provided by the law of procedure. See 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 329.
40. The original text of Article 3 of Croatia's Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal in respect of the Former Yugoslavia reads: “The request for co-operation or enforcement of a decision of the Tribunal shall be granted by the government of the Republic of Croatia if the request or decision is founded on appropriate provisions of the Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal, and if it is not in contravention of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.” See 1996 ICTY Yearbook, p. 249.
41. 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 329.
42. “The Court of Appeal shall render judgment declaring that the conditions for the surrender of the accused have not been met only in any one of the following cases … a final judgment was pronounced in the Italian State for the same fact and against the same person”, Italy, Decree-Law No. 544 of December 1993 (unofficial translation), 1994 ICTY Yearbook, p. 167.
43. “The Act contains a number of miscellaneous provisions including the following: there are a number of circumstances under which the Attorney-General may decline to comply with requests for assistance by the Tribunals, including (I) where compliance with the request would prejudice the sovereignty, security, or national interest of New Zealand.” See 1995 ICTY Yearbook, p. 349.
44. Letter of the ICTY President to the President of the Security Council of the United Nations, 22 May 1996 1996 ICTY Yearbook, p. 231.
45. For instance, statement by Judge Antonio Cassese, President of the ICTY, at the Florence Mid-Term Conference on the Implementation of the Dayton Accord (13–14 June 1996), ICTY Yearbook, pp. 261–264.
46. “On compliance and co-operation by the parties in the former Yugoslavia”, status report by the Office of the Prosecutor, 3 June 1996, at p. 1
47. “On compliance and co-operation by the parties in the former Yugoslavia”, p. 231.
48. ICC Press Release, “Registrar confirms that the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court”, 15 February 2005.