Contents

• Introduction
• Complementary jurisdiction: international jurisdiction vs. domestic jurisdiction
• Elaboration of articles 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
• Cryer’s arguments
• Reydam’s arguments
• Kleffner’s arguments
• Macedo’s arguments
• References

Description

This paper will outline the principle of complementary jurisdiction in the ICC Statute and will contrast international jurisdiction with universal jurisdiction as provided for in the preamble. It will comment on the manner in which the ICC acquires jurisdiction over states, both parties and non-parties with reference to articles 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. The paper will particularly reflect on the significance of universal jurisdiction and the issues of “shielding” suspects through state investigations of proceedings (17 (2) a); delay (17(2) b) and partiality (17 (2) c). The paper will analyze the manner in which the scope of international jurisdiction of the ICC is limited by the statute’s reference to “most serious” international crimes. The paper will illustrate the discussion with references to examples and will engage with arguments inter alia of Kleffner, Reydams, Macedo and Cryer.