Suchergebnisse

The interests of justice are embedded in Article 53 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). They give the Prosecutor the right to decline to initiate an investigation or suspend a prosecution. In these cases, the interests of justice act as a basis for the Prosecutor to refrain from any action. This article argues that due to their non-positivist character, the interests of justice could serve as the platform also of prosecutorial action, acting as the legal vehicle for a broad interpretation of the Rome Statute in the name of justice. Nevertheless, such broad, interests of justice-instigated interpretation, cannot but have positivism as its outmost limit. The Rome Statute is an international criminal law instrument and international criminal law is governed by the legality principle, which narrows any hermeneutical endeavors. Along these lines, this article examines the nexus between the expansive interpretational interests of justice function and its limits by referring to cases where the International Criminal Court (icc) was called to endorse or not a broad interpretation of notions included in the Rome Statute. The article examines cases arising from situations referred to the icc by States and by the un Security Council.

The expansion of claims of extended territorial and extraterritorial criminal legislative jurisdiction and the increasing facility with which States are able to obtain custody over defendants by way of more effective extradition arrangements is leading to a new problem in transnational criminal law. The result of these developments is that more than one State may have legitimate jurisdiction to legislate for the same conduct and the courts of more than one State may be entitled to exercise judicial jurisdiction over those persons charged with crimes arising from that conduct. For prosecutors, the problem may present itself as one of prosecutorial efficiency—how may the case be proceeded with expeditiously, in particular, in which jurisdiction is a conviction most likely to be secured? Considerations such as the availability of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence may influence the prospects of conviction and prospective punishments may be a factor when deciding in which system prosecutors prefer the case to go ahead. Defendants have different perspectives. In many cases involving extradition to face a charge based on an exercise of extended jurisdiction, the defendant will be removed from the place where he lives and works to another State. There may be adverse consequences for him compared to facing a trial where he is usually located. Criminal proceedings abroad will be in an unfamiliar legal system; bail may be harder to obtain because of a perceived greater danger of flight; the impossibility to continue working during the period in which the trial is being prepared may impose financial hardship; defendants will be removed from their families and social networks for considerable periods.

Rain Liivoja explores why, and to what extent, armed forces personnel who commit offences abroad are prosecuted under their own country's laws. After clarifying several conceptual uncertainties in the doctrine of jurisdiction and immunities, he applies the doctrine to the extraterritorial deployment of service personnel. Comparing the law and practice of different states, the author shows the sheer breadth of criminal jurisdiction that countries claim over their service personnel. He argues that such claims disclose a discrete category of jurisdiction, with its own scope and rationale, which can be justified as a matter of international law. By distinguishing service jurisdiction as a distinct category, the analysis explains some of the peculiarities of military criminal law and also provides a basis for extending national criminal law to private military contractors serving the state. This book is essential for scholars and practitioners in international and criminal law, especially in military contexts