Defining International Terrorism: Between State Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism
In: International Criminal Justice Series v.15
Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction -- Abstract -- 1.1 Definitions of International Crimes, State Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism -- 1.2 Why Do We Need a Definition for Terrorism? -- 1.3 Terrorism and the ICC: Why Terrorism Was Not Included into the Rome Statute -- 1.3.1 Efforts to Include Terrorism into the Rome Statute -- 1.3.2 Why Terrorism Was Not Included into the Rome Statute -- 1.4 State Sovereignty Theories and International Law -- 1.4.1 State-Centric Theory and Cosmopolitanism in International Law -- 1.4.2 Procedural and Substantive Issues of the Relationship Between State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law -- 1.5 The Architecture of the Book: The Interplay Between State Sovereignty Theories and Cosmopolitanism on the Process of Criminalisation and Definition of Aggression and Terrorism -- References -- 2 State Sovereignty, Cosmopolitanism and the International Criminal Court -- Abstract -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 The Two Theories -- 2.2.1 The Traditional State-Centric Theory About the Relationship Between Sovereignty and International Law -- 2.2.2 Cosmopolitan Theory and International Law -- 2.3 Sovereignty and International Law: The UN Charter Provisions -- 2.4 Sovereignty and International Law: The Rome Statute and the Principle of Complementarity -- 2.4.1 Complementarity in Principle -- 2.4.1.1 Conditions of Inadmissibility: Article 17 -- 2.4.1.2 'Inability' as Lack of Compatible Domestic Legislation -- 2.4.2 Complementarity in Practice -- 2.4.2.1 The Lubanga and Katanga Precedents: An Intrusive ICC? -- 2.4.3 The Applicability of the Complementarity Regime on Cases of Aggression -- 2.5 Conclusion -- References -- 3 The Paradigm of Aggression: State-Centric and Cosmopolitan Approaches in the Effort to Outlaw and Criminalise Aggression -- Abstract -- 3.1 Introduction