Source: http://docplayer.net/9413115-The-jurisdiction-of-the-international-criminal-court-over-nationals-of-non-parties-legal-basis-and-limits.html
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 08:14:00
Document Index: 389483656

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 2', 'arty 38', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 35', 'sui generis', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 5', 'Art 25', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 16']

The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non- Parties: Legal Basis and Limits - PDF
Download "The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non- Parties: Legal Basis and Limits"
1 The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non- Parties: Legal Basis and Limits Dapo Akande* Abstract This article examines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over nationals of states not party to the ICC Statute. The article first addresses the US argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties without the consent of that non-party would be contrary to international law. The author considers the principles which support the delegation of criminal jurisdiction by states to international tribunals and discusses the precedents for such delegations. It is further argued that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over acts done pursuant to the official policy of a non-party state would not be contrary to the principle requiring consent for the exercise of jurisdiction by international tribunals. Finally, the article explores the limits to the jurisdiction of the ICC over non-party nationals. In particular, the article addresses the circumstances in which ICC parties are precluded from surrendering nationals of non-parties to the ICC. 1. Introduction This article examines the competence of the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over nationals of states that are not parties to the Rome Statute without the consent of those states. Under the ICC Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties in three circumstances. First, the ICC may prosecute nationals of non-parties in situations referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the UN Security Council. 1 Secondly, non-party nationals are subject to ICC jurisdiction when they have committed a crime on the territory of a state that is a party to the ICC Statute or has otherwise accepted the * Lecturer in Law, University of Durham. I am grateful to Sangeeta Shah for comments on an earlier draft and to Professor Colin Warbrick for helpful discussions on many of the ideas contained in this article. 1 Art. 13 ICCSt.... Journal of International Criminal Justice 1 (2003), Journal of International Criminal Justice 1, 3 Oxford University Press, All rights reserved
2 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 619 jurisdiction of the Court with respect to that crime. 2 Thirdly, jurisdiction may be exercised over the nationals of a non-party where the non-party has consented to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a particular crime. 3 In either of the first two circumstances, the consent of the state of nationality is not a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction. At least one state that is not party to the Rome Statute the United States (US) has vigorously objected to the possibility that that the ICC may assert jurisdiction over its nationals without its consent. 4 As a result of its opposition to the ICC, the US has sought to use a variety of legal and political tools to ensure that the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction over its nationals. This strategy has included: the enactment of legislation restricting cooperation with the ICC and with states that are parties to the ICC; 5 the conclusion of agreements with other states prohibiting the transfer of US nationals to the ICC; 6 and the adoption of Security Council (SC) resolutions preventing the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over those nationals of non-parties that are involved in UN authorized operations. 7 Section 2 of this article considers the legal objections to the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over non-party nationals. That section argues that not only are states legally entitled to delegate the criminal jurisdiction they possess over non-nationals to a treaty-based court, but that there is a significant amount of precedent for that delegation. It is also argued that the ICC will not be acting in violation of international law even in cases in which it exercises jurisdiction in respect of official acts of non-parties to the ICC Statute. Section 3 examines the limits to the jurisdiction of the ICC over non-party nationals. That section considers the legal tools by which non-parties may exclude at least some of their nationals from ICC jurisdiction. In particular, the section considers the circumstances in which officials or other nationals of non-parties that are on the territory of ICC parties will be exempt from surrender to the ICC. 2 Art. 12(2)(a) and (3) ICCSt. 3 Ibid. 4 See United States State Department Fact Sheet on the International Criminal Court [http://www.state.gov/ s/wci/rls/fs/2002/9978.htm]. D. Scheffer, The United States and the International Criminal Court, 93 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) (1999) 12, The American Servicemember s Protection Act, 2002, Pub. L. No For an analysis of this statute, see Johnson, The American Servicemember s Protection Act: Protecting Whom?, 43 Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) (2003) See Section 3(b) below. 7 SC Res (2002) and SC Res (2003). For discussion, see Section 3(c) below.
3 620 JICJ 1 (2003), The Legal Basis of ICC Jurisdiction Over Non-Party Nationals In addition to a number of objections to the ICC, based on policy or political concerns, 8 the US has argued that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over US nationals without the consent of the US would be contrary to international law. This argument, described as the principal American legal objection 9 to the ICC, was initially based on the view that such an assertion of jurisdiction over US nationals would be a violation of the well-established principle 10 that a treaty may not impose obligations on non-parties without the consent of those parties. 11 However, there is no provision in the ICC Statute that requires non-party states (as distinct from their nationals) to perform or to refrain from performing any actions. The Statute does not impose any obligations on or create any duties for non-party states. 12 To be sure, the prosecution of non-party nationals might affect the interests of that non-party but this is not the same as saying that obligations are imposed on the non-party. Likewise, whilst the provisions of the Statute, particularly those dealing with complementarity, 13 create incentives or pressures for non-parties to take certain action (such as the prosecution of their nationals), 14 this is not the same as the imposition of an obligation as no legal responsibility arises from the failure to take such action. 15 Thus, this argument of the US does not withstand scrutiny. Those who support the US view that the exercise of jurisdiction over non-party nationals would be illegal, have turned to two alternative arguments. First, Professor Madeline Morris has argued that whilst the ICC Statute does not impose obligations on non-parties, it unlawfully seeks to abrogate the rights of non-parties by subjecting their nationals to the exercise of a jurisdiction unrecognized by international law. 16 In particular, she argues that states do not have the power to delegate their criminal 8 See the State Department Fact Sheet, supra note 4; American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court, Remarks of Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 6 May 2002 [http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm]; J. Bolton, The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America s Perspective, 41 VJIL (2000) See D. Scheffer, Letter to the Editors, 95 AJIL (2001) at 624, 625; M. Leigh, The United States and the Statute of Rome, 95 AJIL (2001) 124, See Art. 34, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). 11 See D. Scheffer, supra note See M. Scharf, The ICC s Jurisdiction over the Nationals of Non-Party States: A Critique of the U.S. Position, 64 Law & Contemporary Problems (2001) 67, 98; D. Arnaut, When in Rome... The International Criminal Court and the Avenues for U.S. Participation, 43 VJIL (2003) 525, ; Johnson, supra note 5, at Arts ICCSt. For discussion, see Section 3(d) below. 14 See R. Wedgwood, The Irresolution of Rome, 64 Law & Contemporary Problems (2001) 193, 199. See Section 3(d) below. 15 See D. Arnaut, supra note 12, at M. Morris, High Crimes and Misconceptions: The ICC and Non-Party States, Law & Contemporary Problems (2001) 13, 27.
4 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 621 jurisdiction over non-nationals to an international criminal tribunal unless the state of nationality consents. 17 Secondly, Professor Morris and Professor Ruth Wedgwood have argued that the ICC will be acting unlawfully if it exercises jurisdiction over non-party nationals who have acted pursuant to the official policy of that non-party. 18 According to this argument, a non-party state is a real party in interest in any case in which an individual is indicted for acts carried out under the authority of, and as part of, the policy of that non-party. Although the Court will only formally exercise its jurisdiction over the indicted individual and not the state, Professors Morris and Wedgwood argue that these types of cases will effectively relate to inter-state disputes. They argue that in these cases the ICC would effectively be exercising jurisdiction over the state concerned without its consent. According to them, this would breach the principle that an international tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction in cases in which the rights or responsibilities of a non-consenting third party form the very subject matter of the dispute. 19 A. Delegation of Jurisdiction by States to the ICC It is clear that parties to the ICC possess a territorial criminal jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties where those non-party nationals commit a crime within the territory of the ICC party. Likewise, in cases in which an alleged crime is subject to universal jurisdiction under international law, an ICC party that has custody over the perpetrator would ordinarily be entitled to prosecute him irrespective of his nationality. 20 Consent of the state of nationality of the accused would not be required in either case for the exercise of state jurisdiction. The power of the ICC to try nationals of non-parties where they commit crimes on the territory of a party constitutes a delegation to the ICC of the criminal jurisdiction possessed by ICC parties because the Court is given the power to act only in cases where the parties could have acted 17 M. Morris, ibid; Likewise, Wedgwood, supra note 14, at , argues that: There is no ordinary precedent for delegating national criminal jurisdiction to another tribunal, international or national, without the consent of the affected states, except in the aftermath of international belligerency. See also D. Scheffer, supra note 4, at 625; and W. Lietzau, International Criminal Law After Rome: Concerns from a U.S. Military Perspective, 64 Law & Contemporary Problems (2001) 119, Wedgwood, supra note 14, 199; Morris, supra note 16, 14 15, Monetary Gold Case (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States), ICJ Reports (1954) 19; East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports (1995) The exercise of universal jurisdiction in absentia under customary international law has come under challenge in recent years. See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 2002; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Congo v. France), (Provisional Measures Request), 2003.The challenge has not related to cases in which the alleged offender is ordinarily present in the territory of the forum state. See L. Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) at However, it should be noted that it has been argued that not all the crimes provided for in the ICC Statute are crimes of universal jurisdiction. Morris, supra. note 16, at 28 29; R. Wedgwood, The International Criminal Court: An American View, 10 EJIL (1999) 93, 100.
5 622 JICJ 1 (2003), individually. 21 The main question that arises is whether the parties to the ICC Statute have the right to delegate their criminal jurisdiction to an international tribunal without the consent of the state of nationality of the accused person. The view that such delegations of jurisdiction are unlawful rests upon two related arguments. First it is argued that delegations of criminal jurisdiction by states are generally impermissible without the consent of the state of nationality of the accused. Alternatively, it is argued, that even if delegations of judicial jurisdiction by one state to another are permissible, such a delegation to an international tribunal is unprecedented. 22 Neither of these arguments is persuasive. 1. Delegations of Criminal Jurisdiction from One State to Another The argument that states may not delegate their criminal jurisdiction without the consent of the state of nationality 23 fails to properly account for the many treaties by which states delegate their criminal jurisdiction to other states. In an interesting exchange, Professors Morris and Scharf debate whether anti-terrorism treaties which generally require parties with custody of an alleged offender to prosecute him if they do not extradite him to a state with jurisdiction 24 represent examples of the creation of universal jurisdiction by treaty. 25 Professor Scharf, and others, have asserted that because these treaties impose an obligation on the state of custody to prosecute the alleged offender, even in the absence of any link between that state and the crime or the offender, these treaties create universal jurisdiction. 26 Scharf therefore argues that since these treaties permit prosecution of 21 M. Scharf, supra note 12, 98 et seq.; M. Danilenko, ICC Statute and Third States, in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and J. Jones, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 1871, 1874; J. Paust, The Reach of ICC Jurisdiction Over Non-Signatory Nationals, 11 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (2000) 1, See supra note Ibid. 24 Such treaties usually require States Parties to prohibit certain acts, and contain a list of states with jurisdiction to punish these acts. These states will hereafter be referred to as the States of primary jurisdiction. Examples of such treaties include: the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, 1963; the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970; Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971; the New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, 1973; the New York Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979; Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, 1984; the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988; UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988; the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, 1994; the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1998; the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, For a discussion of the extradite or prosecute provisions in these treaties, see Reydams, supra note 20, chapter See Scharf, supra note 12, ; K. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law, 66 Texas Law Review (1988), 785, 815 et seq.; C. Blakesley, Jurisdictional Issues and Conflicts of Jurisdiction, in M. Bassiouni (ed.) Legal Responses to International Terrorism: U.S. Procedural Aspects, (Dordrecht; Boston: M. Nijhoff; Norwell, MA, 1988) 131, 142; Van Krieken, Terrorism and the International Legal Order, 36 (2002). See also Danilenko, supra note 21, 1879.
6 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 623 nationals of non-parties, they constitute a precedent for the ICC with respect to the conferral of jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties. 27 However, it is extremely doubtful whether states can by treaty confer universal jurisdiction on themselves in circumstances where there is no universal jurisdiction under customary international law. 28 States not party to the relevant treaty would not be bound by such an extension of jurisdiction and would have grounds for objecting if such conventional jurisdiction were exercised over their nationals. However, the debate about whether these treaties create universal jurisdiction misses the point. In the first place, the ICC Statute is not based on universal jurisdiction but is limited to jurisdiction based on the consent of either the state of territoriality or the state of nationality. 29 Secondly, the fact that these treaties do not confer a proper universal jurisdiction does not exhaust their relevance as a precedent for the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties. A better explanation for the right of the state with custody of a person accused of crimes under the anti-terrorism treaties to prosecute is that there is a delegation of jurisdiction by the states of primary jurisdiction to the state of custody. Since there are often multiple states that potentially have jurisdiction, 30 and because these treaties are so widely ratified, 31 it will almost always be the case that at least one party to the treaty has primary jurisdiction over the offender. The extradite or prosecute power then allows the state of custody to exercise a secondary jurisdiction by delegation from one of the states of primary jurisdiction. In none of the treaties under discussion is the consent of the state of nationality of the offender (be it a party or a non-party) required for prosecution by a state of custody or a state with primary jurisdiction. In treaties where the state of nationality of the offender is not even listed as one of the states of primary jurisdiction, 32 the state of custody has an obligation to notify the state of nationality of the fact that it has a national of that state in its custody. However, the obligation to notify does not extend to an obligation to refrain from prosecution where the state of nationality does not consent. 27 Scharf, supra note 12 at See Morris, supra note 16 at 61 66, arguing that treaties cannot in themselves create universal jurisdiction but can only contribute to a customary law process that may create such jurisdiction. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), at also expresses scepticism that these treaties create a proper universal jurisdiction. See also Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, Arrest Warrant Case, supra note 20, paras 39 and 41; United States v. Yousef & ors, 327 F 3d 56, 96 (2d Cir. 2003). 29 Art. 12 ICCSt. 30 See supra note E.g., in mid-2003, there were: 178 parties to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971; 176 parties to the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970; and 176 parties to the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, See 32 See Art. 4 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970, and Art. 5 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971.
7 624 JICJ 1 (2003), The US is a party to many of these anti-terrorism treaties and, like other states, has initiated domestic prosecutions under these treaties, of non-party nationals, without seeking the consent of the state of nationality. 33 Thus far, there have been no protests by states of nationality of accused persons regarding the exercise of jurisdiction by states of custody. This is significant evidence that no state has hitherto taken the view that states may not delegate their jurisdiction to other states without the consent of the state of nationality. A more explicit delegation of criminal jurisdiction in the terrorism area is the EU Council Framework Decision which permits any EU member to exercise jurisdiction over acts of terrorism committed on the territory of other EU members. 34 The relevant provision is not limited to nationals of the EU and would extend to acts of terrorism committed within the EU by nationals of non-eu states. Even more explicit delegations of criminal jurisdiction are to be found in two treaties which permit parties to transfer criminal proceedings begun in one party to another party. 35 Whilst Professor Morris accepts that these treaties represent an example of a delegation of criminal jurisdiction, she doubts that these treaties permit such a delegation in cases involving the nationals of non-parties absent the consent of the non-party. 36 However, as Scharf has demonstrated a close examination of the text of the European Convention, its legislative history, and the writings of experts on its application reveal that the Convention does in fact permit transfer of proceedings in the absence of consent of the state of nationality. 37 The fact that the overwhelming majority of states have been prepared to delegate and to accept delegations of jurisdiction, even in cases where the state of nationality of the offender has not given its consent, is evidence that states generally take the view that such delegations of jurisdiction are lawful. In fact there are very few states (if any) that are not party to at least one treaty which involves a delegation of criminal jurisdiction to another state. States have been particularly willing to delegate jurisdiction in respect of crimes deemed to be of concern to the international 33 See Scharf, supra note 12, , citing United States v. Yunis, 924 F 2d 1086 (DC Cir. 1991) and United States v. Rezaq, 134 F 3d 1121 (DC Cir. 1998). See also United States v. Yousef & ors, 327 F 3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003). 34 Art. 9(1), a Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Combating Terrorism, Official Journal L164, 22/06/2002. This Framework Decision was adopted under Title VI (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters) of the Treaty of European Union. 35 See European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, 1972, European Treaty Series, No. 73; [http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/whatyouwant.asp?nt=073&cm=7&df=]. In April 2003, there were 18 States Parties to this Council of Europe convention. See also the Agreement between Member States of the European Communities on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters 1990 concluded under European Political Cooperation arrangements of the European Community. See 36 Morris, supra note 16, 44. It is clear that the treaties in question constitute a delegation of jurisdiction because these treaties permit the transfer of criminal proceedings even in cases in which the state to which jurisdiction is transferred would not otherwise have jurisdiction. See Art. 2(a) 1972 Convention, and Art Agreement; as well as the Explanatory Report to the 1972, Part II, comment on Art Scharf, supra note 12, 113.
8 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 625 community and where broad jurisdictional measures are needed to prevent and repress those crimes. Delegations of jurisdiction by the territorial state to the ICC fits into this mould very well because the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC are the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole Delegations of Criminal Jurisdiction to International Tribunals: Principles and Precedents If the delegation of criminal jurisdiction to other states is lawful, do such delegations become unlawful when made to an international tribunal such as the ICC? Professor Morris has argued that delegation of criminal jurisdiction (be it territorial or universal) to an international tribunal is impermissible because the consequences of the exercise of that jurisdiction are fundamentally different when carried out by an international tribunal as opposed to a national court. 39 Morris rightly points out that States would have reason to be more concerned about the political impact of adjudications before an international court than before an individual State s courts. 40 Whilst decisions of foreign national courts in prosecutions for international crimes resulting from official acts can be dismissed by the state of nationality as a disagreement between equals, a decision by an international court would carry more weight and have greater political impact. 41 As a result of this Morris argues that consent to universal jurisdiction exercised by States is not equivalent to consent to delegated universal jurisdiction exercised by an international court, [and] the customary law affirming the universal jurisdiction of States cannot be considered equivalent to customary law affirming the delegability of that jurisdiction to an international court. 42 There are many reasons why states may not wish to have cases touching upon their interests or involving their nationals heard by an international court. Certainly, the prestige of the court and the resulting embarrassment from any adverse decisions suggesting that a policy approved by senior state officials is unlawful are high among those reasons. Nevertheless, this political embarrassment does not of itself mean that the international court has no legal competence to act. As will be demonstrated below, the fact that the decision of an international court implies that a state may have acted unlawfully does not mean that there has been a violation of the principle of consent or of the Monetary Gold doctrine. 43 There are important reasons of principle and sufficient precedents to suggest that delegations of national jurisdiction to international courts, in general, and to the ICC, in particular, are lawful. Whilst the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over non-party 38 Preamble, ICCSt. 39 Morris, supra note 16, Ibid., Ibid. 42 Ibid., See supra note 19.
9 626 JICJ 1 (2003), nationals is based on the territorial jurisdiction of State Parties, 44 it is significant that the majority of ICC crimes are crimes in respect of which states have universal jurisdiction when the accused is present in their territory. 45 International law permits (or, in certain cases, requires) all states to exercise criminal jurisdiction in respect of certain crimes because those crimes are deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of the international community as a whole. 46 States that have no link of territoriality or nationality to offences which fall within the scope of universal jurisdiction are permitted to exercise jurisdiction because effective deterrence and punishment for these offences depends on there being as broad a basis for prosecution as possible. The state exercising universal jurisdiction is in effect acting on behalf of the international community as a whole. 47 Given all of this, it would be extraordinary and incoherent if the rule permitting prosecution of crimes against the collective interest by individual states acting as agents of the community simultaneously prevented those states from acting collectively in the prosecution of these crimes. The natural assumption, failing the existence of a specific rule to the contrary, should be that where states are acting individually to protect collective interests and values, they are not prohibited, and should rather be encouraged, to take collective action for the protection of those collective interests. Thus, the same principle permitting individual states to prosecute individuals for international crimes, on the basis of universal jurisdiction and without the consent of the state of nationality, suggests that those states should be able to act collectively to achieve the same end. This may be done by setting up an international tribunal which exercises the joint authority of those states to prosecute. 48 In this sense, the rule permitting delegation of universal jurisdiction to international courts can be regarded as a structural rule of international law that does not require the positive consent of states but rather is deduced from other clearly-established rules Art. 12 ICCSt. This is apart from cases in which prosecution is triggered by the UN SC under Art. 13(b). 45 Scharf, supra note 12, 79 98; B. Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) For qualifications, see supra note Broomhall, ibid., at A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), ; Broomhall, ibid., at Danilenko, supra note 21, See J. Crawford, International Law and Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions, 53 British Yearbook of International Law (BYIL) (1983) at 75, 85 86, where he distinguishes structural rules of international law from positive rules. According to Crawford, To establish a rule of law requires either a sufficiently general consensus on the existence of the rule as such... together with some agreement on key aspects of its formulation, or it requires that the rule be inducible by recognized methods of reasoning from other clearly established rules; in the latter case support for the induced rule can be taken to exist in the absence of clear indications to the contrary. Rules can thus be isolated or positive, or they can be structural or systematic, deriving part at least of their validity from the assumption that international law is a system, not merely a set of primary norms... Where there is sustained disagreement over a rule, but agreement that the area is in principle subject to legal regulation, the presumption is that the structural rule represents the law, a presumption which depends for its strength on the inferential or inductive links between that rule and other accepted rules.
10 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 627 The structural rule established above is supported by pre-and post-icc delegations of criminal jurisdiction by states to international tribunals, including the delegation of jurisdiction over nationals of states not party to the relevant treaty. International tribunals 50 are usually set up to decide on the international law rights and responsibilities of states (or other subjects of international law). 51 However, these tribunals are sometimes empowered to exercise the judicial jurisdiction that would otherwise be within the national jurisdiction of the relevant states. In these latter cases, there is a delegation of national jurisdiction to the international tribunal. As will be seen, there are many examples falling within this latter group of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by international tribunals over the nationals of states not party to the relevant agreement. (a) The Nuremberg Tribunal It is worth examining whether the ICC would be the only international criminal tribunal with competence over nationals of states not party to the treaty creating the tribunal. Professor Scharf, and others, have argued that the Nuremberg Tribunal, established to prosecute Nazi leaders after World War II, was a collective exercise of universal jurisdiction by a treaty-based international court and constitutes a precedent for the ICC. 52 However, others have argued that the Allied States that established the Tribunal were exercising sovereign powers in Germany at the relevant time and that the Nuremberg Tribunal was thus based on the consent of the state of nationality. 53 Thus, although the Nuremberg Tribunal is an example of the delegation by states of criminal jurisdiction to an international tribunal, the differing arguments regarding the basis of the Tribunal s jurisdiction mean that one cannot rely with any 50 The term international tribunal is used to describe a tribunal that is (i) established by an international agreement or some other international instrument (such as the decision of an international organization) and (ii) usually, though not necessarily, operates in relation to more than one state. 51 In cases in which an international tribunal is determining the international law rights and responsibilities of states or an international organization it is exercising a truly international jurisdiction and not acting by delegation. In these cases, the tribunal is not acting as a substitute for, or in place of, national jurisdiction. These observations apply to tribunals such as the ICJ, the World Trade Organization (WTO) panels and Appellate Body. Similarly international or regional human rights bodies (such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or the Human Rights Committee) exercise a proper international jurisdiction as opposed to a delegated jurisdiction because they are established to consider the responsibility of the state in international law for violations of the relevant treaties. This is so despite the fact that cases are generally only considered by human rights bodies after they have been considered by national courts. Contra, G. Hafner, K. Boon, A. Rübesame, and J. Huston, A Response to the American View as Presented by Ruth Wedgwood, 10 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) (1999) 108, at 117, note Scharf, supra note 12, ; Danilenko, supra note 21, ; Paust, supra note 21, 3 5. Also arguing that the Nuremberg Tribunal was based on universal jurisdiction are E. Schwelb, Crimes Against Humanity, 23 BYIL (1946) 178, 208; R.K. Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in International Law (New York: Prager, 1962) at 87 89; Randall, supra note 26, Morris, supra note 12, See also the works cited at Woetzel, ibid., 78 at note 62, and H. Kelsen, The Legal Status of Germany According to the Declaration of Berlin, 39 AJIL (1945) 518.
11 628 JICJ 1 (2003), certainty on the Nuremberg Tribunal as a precedent for delegation without the consent of the state of nationality. 54 (b) The International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda When the SC exercises its powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it is exercising powers delegated to it by the member states collectively. 55 Therefore, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) constitute examples of the delegation by states of criminal jurisdiction to international tribunals. 56 Although, these Tribunals are created by SC resolutions, 57 the ultimate legal basis for their creation is the UN Charter (Article 25). 58 Whilst the practicallyuniversal membership of the UN means that the question of the authority of the Tribunals over nationals of non-members has not been a pressing problem, the question has arisen in relation to the prosecution of nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) by the ICTY. In 1999, the ICTY issued indictments for the then President of the FRY, Slobodan Milosević and four other senior officials of the FRY in relation to crimes committed in Kosovo part of the FRY. 59 This was at a time when the UN SC and General Assembly (GA) had decided that the FRY could not automatically assume the membership of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in the UN and needed to apply for new membership. 60 Although the FRY 54 The contention that the allies were entitled to exercise sovereign powers in Germany after World War II (as opposed to the powers of belligerent occupiers) has been disputed by Woetzel, supra note 51, (and the writers cited in notes of that work). Supporters of the universal jurisdiction theory often rely on the following passage from the Nuremberg Judgment: The Signatory Powers created this Tribunal, defined the law it was to administer, and made regulations for the proper conduct of the trial. In doing so, they have done together what any one of them might have done singly; for it is not to be doubted that any nation has the right thus to set up special courts to administer law. International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences, 41 AJIL (1947) 172, 216. However, that paragraph is vague and there is nothing in it that excludes the possibility that the Tribunal s jurisdiction was based on the fact that the Allied Powers were exercising sovereign rights in Germany or based on nationality or protective jurisdiction. The Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, UN doc. A/CN.4/5 (statement of the UN Secretary-General). 55 D. Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security; The Delegation by the UN Security Council of its Chapter VII Powers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Scharf, supra note 12, at SC Res. 827 (1993), and SC Res. 955 (1994), respectively establish the ICTY and the ICTR. 58 Under Art. 25, The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. 59 See Prosecutor v. Milosević, Milutinović, Sainović, Ojdamić & Stojiljković 60 See SC Res. 777 (1992) and GA Res. 47/1 (1992). For an analysis of the position of the FRY as a result of these resolutions see, Y. Blum UN Membership of the New Yugoslavia: Continuity or Break?, 86 AJIL (1992) 830; M. Scharf, Musical Chairs: The Dissolution of States and Membership in the United Nations, 28 Cornell International Law Journal (1995) 29; M. Wood, Participation of Former Yugoslav States in the United Nations and in Multilateral Treaties, 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1997) 231, ; and M. Craven, The Genocide Case, The Law of Treaties and State Succession, (1997) 68 BYIL 127,
12 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 629 maintained, at the time, that it was a UN member by automatic succession to the SFRY, other states, relying on the relevant UN resolutions, disputed this. 61 In Prosecutor v. Milutinović, Ojdanić & Sainović (a case against FRY nationals in relation to crimes committed in Kosovo), a Trial Chamber of the ICTY held that despite the decisions of the competent UN organs, the FRY was at all material times a UN member. 62 Despite this decision, there are at least three reasons why the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICTY over FRY nationals provides a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by a court that is ultimately treaty-based over nationals of a state that was not a party to that treaty and without the consent of that state. 63 First, the decision in Prosecutor v. Milutinović, Ojdanić & Sainović that the FRY was, at the relevant time, a UN member for certain purposes is unpersuasive. Whilst some of the membership rights of a state (e.g., voting rights) may be taken from a member of the organization, a state is either a member or it is not. It cannot be a member for certain purposes but not for others. Furthermore, the Chamber s references to the FRY retaining membership or to the fact that the competent UN bodies did not suspend or terminate the FRY s membership 64 are misguided. To the extent that it was not a continuation of the SFRY, the FRY was never a member of the UN and therefore could not retain that membership. It was the SFRY that was a member of the UN. Whilst it 61 In the Legality of the Use of Force cases (FRY v. Belgium & others), ICJ Reports (1999) 124, , at paras (Request for Provisional Measures), [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket], Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK argued that the FRY was not a UN member and not entitled to make a declaration under Art. 36(2) ICJSt. The ICJ avoided making a decision on this issue at the Provisional Measures stage of this case and in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), ICJ Reports (1993) 3, 14, at paras (Request for Provisional Measures), and ICJ Reports (1996) 595 (Preliminary Objections). At the provisional measures stage of the latter case, the ICJ was content to rely on Art. 35(2) of the Statute dealing with states not party to the Statute. 62 Prosecutor v. Milutinović, Ojdanić and Sainović, May The Trial Chamber, held that while the FRY s [UN s] membership was lost for certain purposes, it was retained for others (para. 38) and found (para. 39) that, as regards the SC s establishment of the Tribunal, the FRY was in fact a member of the United Nations both at the time of the adoption of the Statute in 1993 and at the time of the commission of the alleged offences in In addition, the Chamber held (para. 59) that: the fact that the alleged crimes were committed in Kosovo, a part of the FRY, which, in the submission of the Defence, was not a member of the United Nations either at the time of the establishment of the Tribunal or of the commission of the offence is immaterial to its jurisdiction. What is material is that the Security Council certainly had the authority in 1991 to deal with the conflict before the break-up of the SFRY, which was an original member of the United Nations. It does not lose that jurisdiction either as a result of the subsequent break-up of the former SFRY, or by the circumstances of the non-united Nations membership of one or more of the States after that break-up. 63 Whilst it is arguable that the FRY accepted the obligation to cooperate with the ICTY in the Dayton Peace Agreements terminating the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina [see J. Jones, The Implications of the Peace Agreement for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 7 EJIL (1996) 226], nothing in the FRY s acceptance of those Agreements explicitly indicates its consent to jurisdiction over FRY nationals and in relation to crimes on FRY territory. In signing the Dayton General Framework Agreement, the FRY was essentially acting as guarantor in relation to the fulfilment by the warring parties in Bosnia of their obligations. Furthermore, the FRY consistently argued that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the FRY. See Press Statement of the ICTY Prosecutor Regarding the Kosovo Investigation, ICTY Doc. CC/PIS/379 E (20 January 1999). 64 Prosecutor v. Milutinović & others, paras
13 630 JICJ 1 (2003), is true that the SC and the GA did not terminate or suspend that Yugoslavia s membership, 65 the competent UN organs did not regard the FRY to be that Yugoslavia but a different legal person. 66 As regards the FRY, there was no membership in 1992 to terminate or suspend. The only logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the FRY was not a continuation of the SFRY 67 is that the FRY was not a member of the UN following the dissolution of the SFRY. The fact that FRY officials participated in some UN work does not change this conclusion. After all, even non-members participate in the work of the UN. In 2000, the FRY was admitted to the UN as a new member state. This can be nothing but confirmation that the FRY was not a member between 1992 and Secondly, whilst the Chamber appeared keen to base its decision on as narrow a ground as possible, there is nothing in its decision that denies the general power of the SC to establish a tribunal which operates in relation to nationals of non-un members. On the contrary, the Tribunal s statement that a crime committed by any person, whatever his nationality, in a country that is part of the SFRY, is triable by the Tribunal 69 appears to support the competence of the SC to provide for jurisdiction over all nationalities in cases where the crime occurred on the territory of a state that was a UN member. In short, as long as there was territorial jurisdiction, questions of nationality are irrelevant. This is similar to the position with respect to the ICC. Thirdly, and most importantly, many of the states, including the US, that supported the ICTY assertion of jurisdiction over FRY nationals, 70 did not regard the FRY as a UN member, 71 and were aware that the FRY did not consent to the exercise of jurisdiction 65 See letter of the UN Legal Counsel dated 29 September 1992, UN doc. A/47/485, Annex (1992). 66 Supra note In its Opinion No. 8 (1992), Arbitration Commission, EC Conference on Yugoslavia, 92 ILR (1992) 199 held that the SFRY no longer existed and the FRY was a new state. In Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Genocide Convention Case (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), February 2003, para. 70, the ICJ stated that: FRY s claim to continue the international legal personality of the Former Yugoslavia was not generally accepted GA Res. 55/12(2000), and SC Res (2000). In Application for Revision case, previous note, the FRY argued that its admission to the UN as a new member in 2000 showed that it was not a UN member in The ICJ did not explicitly accept or reject this argument but simply noted that the FRY had a sui generis position as regards the UN between 1992 and Ibid., para Supra note 61, at para SC Res (1998), mandating the Prosecutor to begin gathering information related to the violence in Kosovo that may fall within its jurisdiction was unanimously adopted. In addition, in 1998, the US provided $400,000 to the ICTY in support of the investigations in Kosovo, see Briefing by the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, remarks/1999/ scheffer kosovo.html. Likewise, in June 1999, Canada, France, Switzerland and the UK entered into agreements with the ICTY to provide personnel to assist with the Kosovo investigations, See ICTY Press Release, CC/PIS/412 E (25 June1999), 71 See supra note 60. For a US statement denying that the FRY was a UN member see, Statement of the US Perm. Rep. to the UN, 23 June 2000, 079.htm.
14 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 631 in relation to Kosovo, 72 This demonstrates that states, such as the US, accepted that a treaty-based international court could exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties. (c) The Special Court for Sierra Leone The Special Court for Sierra Leone, 73 which was created under a treaty between the UN and Sierra Leone to prosecute persons that may have committed serious international crimes in Sierra Leone, 74 provides another example of the delegation by a state of its criminal jurisdiction to a treaty-based international court. There is nothing in the Court s Statute that limits the jurisdiction of the Court to nationals of Sierra Leone. At the time of writing, the Special Court had indicted one non-national: the Head of State of the neighbouring state of Liberia in respect of his participation in the armed conflict in Sierra Leone. 75 Although Liberia has instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that the indictment and arrest warrant issued against its Head of State do not respect the immunity that international law confers on heads of states, 76 neither Liberia nor any other state appears to have argued that Sierra Leone is not able to delegate its criminal jurisdiction to an international court or that the Court is not entitled to exercise Sierra Leone s territorial jurisdiction over foreign nationals. 77 On the contrary, the Court has the strong support of the US and the international community, 78 and some states have 72 Supra note 62. The ICTY repeatedly informed the SC that the FRY did not accept its jurisdiction in Kosovo and was obstructing its work there. See ICTY Press Releases, CC/PIS/351 E (7 October 1998), CC/PIS/356 E (22 October 1998), CC/PIS/371 E (8 December 1998), JL/PIS/386 E (19 March 1999) 73 See R. Cryer, A Special Court for Sierra Leone?, 50 International Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) (2001) Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone 2002, [http://www.sierra-leone.org/specialcourtagreement.html]. The Statute of the Special Court is annexed to this Agreement [http://www.sierra-leone.org/specialcourtstatute.html]. SC Res (2000) encouraged the establishment of the Special Court but is not the legal basis for its creation. See Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN doc. S/2000/915, para See C. Romano and A. Nollkaemper, The Arrest Warrant Against The Liberian President, Charles Taylor, ASIL Insights, June See ICJ Press Release 2003/26 (5 August 2003). Since Sierra Leone had not, at the time of the Liberian application, given its consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Liberia, invited it to consent, pursuant to Art. 38(5) ICJSt. A similar invitation, issued by Congo was accepted by France in the Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Congo v. France) case, supra note Liberia s argument that [a]n arrest warrant of a Head of State issued by a foreign jurisdiction is also inconsistent with the internationally recognized principle that foreign judicial powers or authority may not be exercised on the territory of another State (Liberian Application) challenges the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the Special Court but does not challenge the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over non-nationals. 78 SC Res. 1315; US State Dept, Press Statement (18 January 2002) 2002/7348.htm.
15 632 JICJ 1 (2003), acted in support of the indictment of the Liberian leader. 79 The Court is therefore a significant example of what the US contends that parties to the ICC cannot lawfully do. (d) The delegation of criminal jurisdiction in other cases Quite apart from the international criminal tribunals discussed above, there have been other delegations by states of part of their national criminal jurisdiction over non-nationals to international tribunals. The first such delegation may be found in the Rhine Navigation Convention of Mannheim, Under this Convention, the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine is empowered to act as a court of appeal from decisions of national courts in criminal and civil cases concerning Rhine shipping. 80 Some of the cases before the Central Commission have involved nationals of states not party to the Mannheim Convention and these states have not objected to this exercise of jurisdiction over their nationals. 81 The delegation of criminal jurisdiction to the Rhine Central Commission is particularly important because this was probably the very first international organization to be created. 82 The fact that this organization was conferred with criminal jurisdiction indicates that, contrary to the position now espoused by the US, 83 states have always considered international organizations as capable of possessing a criminal jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over non-nationals. Another example of a delegation of criminal jurisdiction to an organ of international organization is, surprisingly, to be found in the preliminary reference procedure of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 84 Under Article 234 European Communities (EC) Treaty, questions concerning the interpretation or validity of EC law which arise in cases before national courts of EC states may (and in some cases, must) be referred to the ECJ. 85 This procedure of preliminary references to the ECJ 79 Swiss Freeze Taylor Accounts, (23 June 2003). 80 Arts. 37, 45(c) and 45bis Mannheim Convention. The parties to the treaty are Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. See also, Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Appeals of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (1969). See generally, B. Meißner, Rhine River, in R. Bernhardt (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2000), at 237; 81 Telephone conversation with Mr Bour, Registrar of the Appeals Chamber of the Central Commission (18 July 2003). 82 This organization was created by the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815) and is still in existence. 83 See the Remarks of Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, supra note 9: While sovereign nations have the authority to try non-citizens who have committed crimes against their citizens or in their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate. 84 One may wonder whether the imposition of penalties by EC on non-ec companies for breaches of EC Competition law is a precedent for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by international organizations over nationals of non-parties. However, the majority view is that these proceedings and penalties are administrative only and not criminal. See, L. Ortiz-Blanco, EC Competition Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 42 and 220; J. Joshua, The Right to be Heard in EEC Competition Procedures, 15 Fordham International Law Journal (1991) 16, See generally D.W.K. Anderson References to the European Court (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995).
16 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 633 extends to criminal proceedings in which questions of EC law arise. 86 The preliminary reference procedure constitutes a delegation of national judicial jurisdiction to the ECJ, because the ECJ, when it acts under this procedure, plays a decisive role in deciding cases that are within the jurisdiction of the Member States. 87 Some of the criminal proceedings in which the ECJ has participated under the preliminary reference procedure have involved persons that are not nationals of EC Member States. 88 No state has so far objected to this delegation of criminal jurisdiction. On the contrary, the preliminary reference procedure has been copied by other states and included in other treaties establishing a number of other international or regional courts. 89 The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), established by the member states of the Caribbean Community under a treaty, constitutes another example of the delegation of criminal jurisdiction to an international court. 90 In addition to its preliminary reference procedure, the CCJ is empowered to decide on civil and criminal appeals from the courts of the member states. 91 In that guise, it sits as the final court of appeal of the states concerned. Since the CCJ will be exercising a jurisdiction which otherwise belongs to the member states, it may deal with cases involving nationals of non-member states including those cases where jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of universal jurisdiction. (e) Concluding remarks on delegation of criminal jurisdiction When taken together, the precedents discussed above are evidence of extensive practice of states delegating part of their criminal jurisdiction over non-nationals either to other states or to tribunals created by international agreements, in circumstances in which no attempt is made to obtain the consent of the state of 86 E.g., Criminal Proceedings against Albert Heijn BV, Case 94/83, [1984] ECR 3263; Criminal Proceedings against Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV, Case 80/86, [1987] ECR Under Art. 35 EU Treaty [to be found in Title VI dealing with criminal cooperation], members of the EU may accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions and decisions on the interpretation of conventions established under this Title and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them. For discussion of this provision and the impact of EU law on criminal law, see A. Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice (Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 1999) 71 74; S. Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (Harlow: Longman, 2000) 46 48; Chapter Arnull, ibid., at 50: [t]he ruling given by the Court is an interlocutory one: it constitutes a step in the proceedings before the national court See Hüseyin Gözütok (C 187/01), (2003): criminal proceedings brought in Germany against a Turkish national. 89 For example, Arts. XII(1)c and XIV Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, 2001 [http://www.caricom.org/ccj-index.htm]; Benelux Court of Justice established by the Treaty of the Benelux Economic Union, 1958; Arts Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, 1996 (The Cochabamba Protocol) [http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/treaties/ trea/ande trie2.htm]; Art. 30 Treaty establishing the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, 1994 (COMESA Court of Justice), [http://www.comesa.int]. 90 Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, 2001 [http://www.caricom.org/ ccj-index.htm]. 91 See ibid., Art. XXV.
17 634 JICJ 1 (2003), nationality. 92 This practice, together with the lack of objections by states of nationality of accused persons, points to a general acceptance of the lawfulness of delegating criminal jurisdiction. This is particularly so in cases of delegation of universal jurisdiction where important principles support the rights of states to act collectively for the protection of interests of the international community as a whole. B. ICC Cases Dealing with Official Acts of Non-Parties The ICC does not have the power to formally indict states or to make rulings on state responsibility, 93 but can only exercise its jurisdiction over individuals. 94 However, it has been argued that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over officials of non-parties would be unlawful in cases in which the person has acted pursuant to the officially approved policy of that state. 95 According to this argument, the ICC will, in these types of cases, effectively be considering an inter-state dispute about the legality of the acts of the non-party state, without the consent of that state. The application of international criminal law, either by an international court or by a foreign domestic court, necessarily runs the risk that the court will be sitting in judgment over persons who act on behalf of the state. This is because crimes against international law are often committed by persons acting on behalf of the state. 96 In many respects, this is one of the distinguishing features of such crimes. In the case of an international armed conflict, those accused of war crimes will almost invariably be soldiers of a state army or other officials exercising state authority. The gravity and seriousness of international crimes are such that it is often only those with the machinery or apparatus of the state, or state-like bodies, that are able to commit such 92 An example of the delegation by the US of its judicial jurisdiction in administrative matters to an international tribunal are the binational panels established under Chapter 19 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). See 32 International Legal Materials (1993) 605; [http://www.nafta-secalena.org/english/index.htm]. See generally, J. Cannon, Resolving Disputes Under NAFTA Chapter 19 (Colorado Springs: Shepard s McGraw-Hill, 1994); J. Cannon, Resolving Disputes Under NAFTA Chapter 19 Appraisal in A. Lowenfeld, The Role of Government in International Trade: Essays over Three Decades (London: Cameron May, 2000). Significantly non-nationals of NAFTA parties may be forced to have recourse to these panels. Whilst some in the US have questioned the constitutionality of the delegation of US judicial authority to the NAFTA binational panels, there has been no assertion that it was invalid under international law. See M. Burton, Assigning the Judicial Power to International Tribunals: NAFTA Binational Panels and Foreign Affairs Flexibility, 88 Virginia Law Review (2002) 1529 (and the works cited at note 9 of that article). 93 See Art. 25(4) ICCSt.: No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law. 94 See Art. 25(1) ICCSt.: The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute. 95 See supra note 18. During the ICC Preparatory Commission, the US unsuccessfully tried to include a clause in the relationship agreement between the UN and the ICC which would have precluded the ICC from seeking or accepting the surrender of a non-party national without the consent of that non-party, if such nationals have acted under the overall direction of the non-party. See Wedgwood, supra note 14, 206, note See P.M. Dupuy, International Criminal Responsibility of the Individual and International Responsibility of the State, in Cassese, Gaeta, and Jones, supra note 21, at See also Commentary of the International Law Commission to Art. 5 of the Draft Code of Crimes (1996), Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 48th Session, UN doc A/51/10, p. 31. [ILC 48th Session Report].
18 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 635 devastation. Since one of the main reasons for an international criminal court is that states often fail to prosecute those who commit international crimes because of the complicity of those in power in that state, it can be easily predicted that there will be prosecutions before the ICC which will raise questions about the legality of the policies and acts of states. This will be most evident in cases in which senior state officials are indicted by the ICC, as well as in cases in which the state insists that the indicted soldier or official was acting under its authority and asserts the legality of their conduct. Nevertheless the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in such cases is consistent with international law even when such jurisdiction is asserted without the consent of the state on whose behalf the accused has acted. 1. The Monetary Gold Doctrine and the Principle of Consent In the Monetary Gold case, the ICJ held that it would not decide a case if this would involve adjudication on the rights and responsibilities of a third party not before the Court, and which had not given its consent to the proceedings. 97 Even if one assumes that the Monetary Gold doctrine applies to all international law tribunals, 98 it will not, in most cases, 99 be violated by the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC over nationals of non-parties in respect of official acts done pursuant to the policy of that non-party. The Monetary Gold doctrine does not prevent adjudication of a case simply because that case implicates the interests of non-consenting third parties or because a decision may cast doubt on the legality of actions of third-party states or imply the legal responsibility of those states. The case law of the ICJ under the Monetary Gold doctrine demonstrates that the doctrine is only properly applicable in cases where pronouncement by the court on the rights and responsibilities of the third state is a necessary prerequisite for the determination of the case before the court. 100 This limitation of the doctrine is evident from both the cases in which the Court has applied the doctrine and those in which the doctrine was pleaded by a party but not applied by the Court. In the Monetary Gold case, the Court applied the doctrine because it [was] necessary to determine whether Albania has committed any international wrong against Italy, and whether she is under an obligation to pay compensation. 101 Likewise in the East Timor Case, the Court applied the doctrine because in order to decide the claims of Portugal, it would have to rule, as a prerequisite, on the lawfulness of Indonesia s 97 Monetary Gold case (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States), ICJ Reports (1954) at For this view, see Larsen/Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Award, 119 ILR (2001) 566, , at para See below with respect to the crime of aggression. 100 See B. Ajibola, The International Court of Justice and Absent Third States, 4 African Yearbook of International Law (1996) Supra note 97, at 32.
19 636 JICJ 1 (2003), conduct in the absence of that state s consent. 102 By contrast, the Court did not apply the doctrine in the Nauru Phosphates case, where Nauru brought an action against Australia alone, but in relation to acts which were essentially carried out by Australia, the UK and New Zealand acting together. In that case, the Court held that:... the determination of the responsibility of New Zealand or the United Kingdom is not a prerequisite for the determination of the responsibility of Australia... In the present case, a finding by the Court regarding the exercise or the content of the responsibility attributed to Australia by Nauru might well have implications for the legal situation of the two other states concerned, but no finding in respect of that legal situation will be needed as a basis for the Court s decision on Nauru s claim against Australia. 103 In cases in which the ICC is exercising jurisdiction over individuals acting pursuant to the official policy of non-parties, it will not need to rule as a prerequisite on the responsibility of that non-party. In fact, the very purpose of international criminal responsibility is to separate the responsibility of individuals from that of the state and to focus on the personal responsibility of those who order, direct, or commit those crimes. 104 Whilst state responsibility will often flow from the fact that an official of the state has committed an international crime, 105 the ICC will not be engaged in making determinations about a state s legal responsibility, nor will it need to do so in order to convict an individual for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. 106 In cases of genocide (which require an intent to destroy a group) 107 and crimes against humanity (which require a widespread or systematic attack), 108 there will usually be a need for evidence of planning and preparation by a collective body which will often, though not always, be the state. 109 Nevertheless, the definition of those crimes do not 102 East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports (1995) 90, para. 35, [also paras 28 and 33]. See also the Larsen/Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration, supra note 98, para : The Tribunal cannot rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of the respondent in the present case if the decision would entail or require, as a necessary foundation for the decision between the parties, an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of the United States of America, or, indeed, the conduct of any other state which is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. [Emphasis added.] 103 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Reports (1992) 241, See also Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICJ Reports 1984, 392, 431; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier case, (El Salvador/Honduras), Application for Intervention by Nicaragua, ICJ Reports (1990), 92, 122: though a decision without Nicaragua s participation would evidently affect an interest of a legal nature of Nicaragua... that interest would not be the very subject matter of the decision in the way that the interests of Albania were in the case concerning Monetary Gold... See further, Ajibiola, supra note See Dupuy, supra note 96, at 1091 et seq. 105 Note that the state will be responsible even in cases in which the official has acted ultra vires his/her powers. See Arts. 4 and 7 International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). 106 Art 25(4) ICCSt. 107 See Art. 2, Genocide Convention of 1948; Art. 6 ICCSt. 108 See Art. 7(1) ICCSt. 109 In Prosecutor v Nikolić, 108 ILR, para. 36, (1995) the ICTY Trial Chamber stated that: Although [crimes against humanity] need not be related to a policy established at State level, in the conventional sense of the term, they cannot be the work of isolated individuals alone. See also Art. 7(2)(a) ICCSt.; Prosecutor v Blaškiç, 122 ILR 1,76, para. 205 (ICTY, 2000), and Prosecutor v. Akayesu (1998), para. 580.
20 The Jurisdiction of the ICC over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits 637 make the individual s criminal responsibility dependent on the responsibility of the state. 110 Doubtless, findings by the ICC regarding the planning, preparation, or execution of these crimes, will, in cases in which state involvement is shown, imply the responsibility of the state, and have deep political repercussions for that state. Even though these will be findings of fact only, and not decisions on the legal responsibility of the state concerned, many will regard them as conclusively establishing state responsibility. However, because the ICC will not be explicitly determining state responsibility, there is no legal impediment to it making these findings. 111 Depending on the definition of the crime of aggression that is ultimately adopted, 112 the ICC may, when it begins to exercise jurisdiction over that crime, be required to find that a state has committed aggression as a prerequisite to convicting an individual for that crime. The definition contained in Article 16 of the International Law Commission s 1996 Draft Code of Crimes requires such a finding. 113 If this decision is left to the Court, 114 such a finding would constitute a violation of the Monetary Gold doctrine where the state concerned is a non-party to the Rome Statute. However, if the decision is that of the SC, there will be no violation of the doctrine as the ICC will, in those circumstances, simply be accepting the responsibility of the state as a given without having to determine it itself The Act of State Doctrine (Immunity Ratione Materiae) Ultimately, the argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction is illegitimate in cases concerning official acts of non-party nationals, is based on the view that state officials ought not to be subject to criminal prosecution outside their state (and without the 110 Contrary to Dupuy, supra note 96, at 1088 there is no de jure dependence of the individual s responsibility on that of the State. Dupuy, himself notes that there is a separation between individual and state responsibility and that none of the international texts defining the most serious crimes affecting the whole of the international community except for aggression ([i.e.] genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes) define them by specific reference to the state. Ibid., at Larsen/Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Award, supra note 98, para : It is... possible that the [Monetary Gold] principle does not apply where the finding involving an absent third party is merely a finding of fact, not entailing or requiring any legal assessment or qualification of that party s conduct or legal position. 112 Under Art. 5(2) ICCSt., the ICC will only be able to exercise jurisdiction with respect to aggression when a review conference defines the crime and adopts considerations relating to prosecution for that crime. 113 ILC 48th Session Report, 83. The commentary to Art. 16 states that: The words aggression committed by a State clearly indicate that such a violation of the law by a state is a sine qua non condition for the possible attribution to an individual of responsibility for the crime of aggression.... the competent court may have to consider two closely related issues, namely, whether the conduct of the State constitutes a violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter and whether such conduct constitutes a sufficiently serious violation of an international obligation to qualify as aggression entailing individual criminal responsibility. Ibid., There has been a debate as to whether the decision concerning the commission of aggression by a state should be made by the ICC or left to the SC. See M. Arsanjani, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 93 AJIL (1999) 22, Larsen/Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Award, supra note 98, para : [I]f the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as given (for example, by reason of an authoritative decision of the Security Council on the point), the [Monetary Gold] principle may well not apply.