INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Law

International law

Referring to the crime scene and Peter killing his rich uncle in State C The first principle is that the country in which the relevant ship/aircraft is registered has jurisdiction. If that country can't or won't take action though, then international law recognises the right of the country of a person involved (the victim generally) to take jurisdiction. However, there are some crimes where any country can accept jurisdiction to prosecute: piracy, slave trading or narcotics smuggling for example are subject to specific international laws. This notion of humanity forms the basis of an international legal identity of individuals who can now be parties to these legal disputes. Second, a commitment to the rule of law includes a commitment to a certain standard of behaviour, violations of which threaten the integrity of the law; as such, crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court are not only morally condemned, they undermine the fundamental legality of the system in which they occur.

Therefore, in the jurisdictional triangle, this notion of humanity and the commitment to the rule of law are what connect the parties, the crime, and the entity seeking prosecution. The first difference is that the Court will exercise jurisdiction over individuals on the international level. In other words, even though the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction presuppose the involvement of multiple states, the actual prosecution occurs in domestic courts, and the perpetrator is subject to domestic sanctions. However, individuals can only bring actions against their own state, and only after having exhausted all other domestic legal remedies. The International Criminal Court extends individual legal identity, and, as an international tribunal, promises to be more effective, having procedures in place to hold individuals accountable in meaningful ways. There are four features of the Statute which illustrate the fundamental differences between the International Criminal Court and other international legal entities.

This question is answered by the principle of complementarity, a central concept of the Court, as well as one of the most significant features of the Statute that has led to its success. This principle holds that the Court will complement, not replace, national courts. Thus, a case is inadmissible when a state has already initiated an investigation, unless the state is “unwilling or genuinely unable” to carry out the investigation or prosecution. If the Court is to have jurisdiction over crimes committed only after the ratification of the Statute, then this raises the question of whether or not perpetrators of genocide before the establishment of the Court who have not yet completed their crime can be brought before the court. The fourth relevant principle is expressed in Article 25; the principle of individual criminal responsibility establishes that the Court will have jurisdiction over natural persons, and a person (not the state) who commits a crime under the Statute is individually responsible and liable for punishment.14 In order to preserve state sovereignty, this Article declares further that this principle in no way affects the scope of the authority of ...