The ICC’s investigation into the situation in Ukraine on the basis of referrals by third states parties to the Rome Statute: A commentary

Q2 Social Sciences
Bernard Ntahiraja
{"title":"The ICC’s investigation into the situation in Ukraine on the basis of referrals by third states parties to the Rome Statute: A commentary","authors":"Bernard Ntahiraja","doi":"10.2478/iclr-2023-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary This commentary discusses the decision taken by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation into the situation in Ukraine on the basis of referrals by a number of state parties to the Rome Statute. In particular, it is interested in the prior decision that the Prosecutor had to make and actually made for that move to be procedurally possible. Indeed, the Prosecutor had to renounce to his steps towards an investigation proprio motu, i.e. on his own initiative. The most important of these steps was the request of judicial authorisation by the ICC Pre-trial Chamber. This commentary argues that for that reason, the Prosecutor’s decision was ill-advised, despite being in conformity with the Rome Statute. It argues that in that specific situation where neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation are parties to the Rome Statute and where the Security Council has not and could not play its Rome Statute role, judicial oversight was an important – arguably the most important – legitimising factor for the investigation. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) could therefore not have neglected it. Going into the details of the starting investigation, the commentary also weighs the pros and cons of the Prosecutor’s decision. In other words, it balances what was actually lost and what was supposed to be gained by way of that change of procedural paths to investigation.","PeriodicalId":36722,"journal":{"name":"International and Comparative Law Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International and Comparative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2023-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary This commentary discusses the decision taken by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation into the situation in Ukraine on the basis of referrals by a number of state parties to the Rome Statute. In particular, it is interested in the prior decision that the Prosecutor had to make and actually made for that move to be procedurally possible. Indeed, the Prosecutor had to renounce to his steps towards an investigation proprio motu, i.e. on his own initiative. The most important of these steps was the request of judicial authorisation by the ICC Pre-trial Chamber. This commentary argues that for that reason, the Prosecutor’s decision was ill-advised, despite being in conformity with the Rome Statute. It argues that in that specific situation where neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation are parties to the Rome Statute and where the Security Council has not and could not play its Rome Statute role, judicial oversight was an important – arguably the most important – legitimising factor for the investigation. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) could therefore not have neglected it. Going into the details of the starting investigation, the commentary also weighs the pros and cons of the Prosecutor’s decision. In other words, it balances what was actually lost and what was supposed to be gained by way of that change of procedural paths to investigation.
国际刑事法院根据第三缔约国提交的《罗马规约》对乌克兰局势的调查:评注
本评论讨论了国际刑事法院(ICC)检察官根据《罗马规约》若干缔约国提交的情况,决定对乌克兰局势展开调查。它特别感兴趣的是检察官必须作出的事先决定,以及为使这一行动在程序上可行而实际作出的决定。的确,检察官不得不放弃他自行进行调查的步骤,即主动进行调查。这些步骤中最重要的是请求国际刑事法院预审分庭给予司法授权。这篇评注认为,由于这个原因,检察官的决定是不明智的,尽管它符合《罗马规约》。它认为,在乌克兰和俄罗斯联邦都不是《罗马规约》缔约国以及安全理事会没有也不能发挥其《罗马规约》作用的具体情况下,司法监督是使调查合法化的一个重要因素- -可以说是最重要的因素。因此,检察官办公室不可能忽视这一点。评论还详细介绍了开始调查的细节,权衡了检察官决定的利弊。换句话说,它平衡了实际损失和通过改变调查程序途径应该获得的东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信