{"title":"积极互补的行动:国际刑事司法与乌克兰持续的武装冲突","authors":"Iuliia Anosova, Karolina Aksamitowska, Vasilka Sancin","doi":"10.1163/15718123-bja10211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Complementarity has been traditionally understood in a twofold manner. On the one hand, the principle of complementarity explicates the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, it has been conceptualised as the broader principle that governs the functioning of the international criminal justice system built after the entry into force of the Rome Statute. Understood in this sense, complementarity outlines the interplay between different (domestic and international) accountability actors, including national authorities and civil society. This article explores the ways in which the principle of complementarity has been operationalised in Ukraine since 2014, in an attempt to highlight the challenges faced by domestic and international justice actors in the situation of atrocities being committed in an ongoing armed conflict. It puts forward an argument that <jats:italic>ad hoc</jats:italic> responses introduced in cooperation and coordination with local and international partners—including the civil society—have been prioritised over permanent legislative solutions. These <jats:italic>ad hoc</jats:italic> responses have the potential to influence the expansion of the complementarity architecture, shape the coordinated accountability approaches and advance positive complementarity for core international crimes in ongoing armed conflicts.","PeriodicalId":55966,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Law Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Positive Complementarity in Action: International Criminal Justice and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine\",\"authors\":\"Iuliia Anosova, Karolina Aksamitowska, Vasilka Sancin\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718123-bja10211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Complementarity has been traditionally understood in a twofold manner. On the one hand, the principle of complementarity explicates the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, it has been conceptualised as the broader principle that governs the functioning of the international criminal justice system built after the entry into force of the Rome Statute. Understood in this sense, complementarity outlines the interplay between different (domestic and international) accountability actors, including national authorities and civil society. This article explores the ways in which the principle of complementarity has been operationalised in Ukraine since 2014, in an attempt to highlight the challenges faced by domestic and international justice actors in the situation of atrocities being committed in an ongoing armed conflict. It puts forward an argument that <jats:italic>ad hoc</jats:italic> responses introduced in cooperation and coordination with local and international partners—including the civil society—have been prioritised over permanent legislative solutions. These <jats:italic>ad hoc</jats:italic> responses have the potential to influence the expansion of the complementarity architecture, shape the coordinated accountability approaches and advance positive complementarity for core international crimes in ongoing armed conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Positive Complementarity in Action: International Criminal Justice and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine
Complementarity has been traditionally understood in a twofold manner. On the one hand, the principle of complementarity explicates the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, it has been conceptualised as the broader principle that governs the functioning of the international criminal justice system built after the entry into force of the Rome Statute. Understood in this sense, complementarity outlines the interplay between different (domestic and international) accountability actors, including national authorities and civil society. This article explores the ways in which the principle of complementarity has been operationalised in Ukraine since 2014, in an attempt to highlight the challenges faced by domestic and international justice actors in the situation of atrocities being committed in an ongoing armed conflict. It puts forward an argument that ad hoc responses introduced in cooperation and coordination with local and international partners—including the civil society—have been prioritised over permanent legislative solutions. These ad hoc responses have the potential to influence the expansion of the complementarity architecture, shape the coordinated accountability approaches and advance positive complementarity for core international crimes in ongoing armed conflicts.
期刊介绍:
Thus there is also a need for criminological, sociological and historical research on the issues of ICL. The Review publishes in-depth analytical research that deals with these issues. The analysis may cover: • the substantive and procedural law on the international level; • important cases from national jurisdictions which have a bearing on general issues; • criminological and sociological; and, • historical research.