I N TERN ATI ON AL CRI M I N AL JUSTI CE AN D TH E EROSI ON OF SOV EREI GN TY
M igue l de Se r pa Soa r e s
Direct or General at Departm ent of Legal Affairs, Minist ry of Foreign Affairs. He represented Port ugal at t he Kam pala Conference and at the Assem bly of States- Part y, I nt ernat ional Crim inal Court. This paper conveys t he aut hor's personal opinions only and does not correspond t o t he official posit ion of t he I nst itut ion he w orks in. On 8 August 2013, he w as appoint ed Under Secret ary General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel
t o t he United Nat ions by t he UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- m oon.
Ab str a ct
The aut hor stat es t hat any form of int ernat ional j ust ice always represent s a m eans of lim it ing nat ional sovereignt y. I n t he case of I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law, t his lim it ing is even m ore evident by com prom ising elem ents essent ial t o t he classical paradigm of I nternat ional Law , as for exam ple the punishing m onopoly of Stat es or the concept of a quasi- absolut e St ate sovereignt y. I nternat ional crim inal t ools, crim es, sent ences, j urisdict ions, are all able t o be, at least part ially, a legal alternat ive t o t he issues of peace- keeping and nat ional securit y, exclusively polit ical and diplom at ic. This alt ernat ive inevit able leads t o tensions w it h a power st ruct ure that has not been alt ered since 1945. However, for t his legal crim inal alt ernat ive t o be put in place, a long period of m aturat ion w ill be required based on irrefut able technical and legal credibilit y.
Ke y w or ds:
Sovereignt y; I nternat ional Crim es; I nt ernat ional Crim inal Court ; Securit y/ Aggression Council
H ow t o cit e t h is ar t icle
Soares, Miguel de Serpa ( 2013) . "I nt ernat ional crim inal j ust ice and the erosion of sovereignt y". JANUS.NET e- j ournal of I nternat ional Relat ions, Vol. 4, N.º 2, Novem ber
2013- April 2014. Consult ed [ online] on date of last view ,
observare.ual.pt / j anus.net / en_vol4_n2_art 1
9
I N TERN ATI ON AL CRI M I N AL JUSTI CE AN D TH E EROSI ON OF SOV EREI GN TY
M igue l de Se r pa Soa r e s
I n t r odu ct ion
I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law and t he I nt ernat ional Crim inal Court ar e inst it ut ions st ill in t heir ear ly y ears in t erm s of world legal or der . Ten y ear s aft er it s im plem ent at ion, t he I nt ernat ional Crim inal Court is an inst it ut ion t hat st ill has t o pr ov e it s cr edibilit y in int ernat ional cr im inal narr at iv e in t he pr ev ent ion of int ernat ional cr im es t hat " affect t he
int ernat ional com m unit y as a whole" and t hat "ar e a t hr eat t o peace, t o securit y and t o t he well- being of Hum anit y " , in t he wor ds of t he Rom e St at ut e. All int ernat ional legal
bodies ar e r est r aint s t o t he legal and ev en const it ut ional sov er eignt y of St at es. Howev er , t he r elat ions bet ween t hese inst it ut ions of legal supr a- nat ionalism and St at es do not necessar ily hav e t o be ant agonist ic or com pet it ors. Affir m at ion of any legal, supr anat ional, r egional or univ er sal, legal or der will alway s go t hr ough per iods of conflict and riv alr y t hat r epresent t he t im e needed for nat ional sover eignt ies t o adapt t o new scenarios. I n t he case of t he I nt er nat ional Crim inal Cour t , t his t ension is height ened because, inev it ably , inst it ut ional balances and an arr angem ent of powers in place since 1945 are affect ed.
The t im es t o com e will be a period for obser ving r at her t han for ex plaining. We will obser v e t he way in which t he Court will cr eat e a j udicial language against im punit y and how com plem ent ar y r elat ions wit h nat ional j urisdict ions will be defined.
1 . St a t e sov e re ign t y : a fle x ible con ce pt
Befor e analy zing som e specific inst ances t hat will allow us t o r eflect on t he em er gence of I nt er nat ional Crim inal Law and t he er osion of sov er eignt y , it is im por t ant t o st at e som e basic fact s.
The fir st is t hat t her e ar e t wo separ at e but over lapping realit ies in int ernat ional legal or der and t hese cor respond t o t wo differ ent par adigm s of t hought . The " Gr ocian” ( or “ Hobbsian” ) par adigm , based on a st at e perspect iv e of int ernat ional relat ions and t he ” Kant ian” par adigm , cosm opolit an and univ er sal1
1 Ant onio Cassese ( 2005 ) . I nt ernat ional Law , Ox ford: Univ er sit y Press, p.20 and in part icular t ex t s by M.
Wight e H. Bull m ent ioned in foot not e 11.
10
also bearing in m ind t he int er est s of an int ernat ional com m unit y separ at e fr om t he St at es t hem selv es.
I n 2013, t he St at e is st ill t he pr im ar y subj ect of I nt ernat ional Law and int ernat ional societ y is basically t he r esult of t he int er act ion am ong t er r it or ially - based polit ical com m unit ies, independent , pr ot ect ed by form al legal equalit y and hav ing cer t ain essent ial feat ur es. Sim ult aneously , t he r ecent dy nam ics in int er nat ional relat ions and t he huge dev elopm ent of I nt ernat ional Law, in par t icular aft er 1945, lead us t o ack nowledge t he exist ence of r eal condit ions, per haps r est r aint s, t o t he sov ereign power s of St at es. I n t he lat t er case, t he ex plosion of m ult ilat er alism , t he appear ance of int ernat ional subj ect s such as int ernat ional or ganizat ions, som e including supr anat ional elem ent s, t he r est r aint s t o j us ad bellum , t he r elat iv izat ion of t he principle of St at e im m unit y2
I t is not im por t ant t o under st and t he concept of sov er eignt y as m er e em anat ion of r ealist ic t hought in which power polit ics is at t he cor e but r at her ident ify in int ernat ional legal narr at iv e, in casu, in I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law, t he r eal im plicat ions of t hese possible r est r aint s.
, t he consolidat ing of a Hum anit arian I nt ernat ional Law and a Hum an Right s I nt ernat ional Law, as well as t he concept of int er nat ional crim es and t he cr eat ion of a per m anent I nt er nat ional Crim inal Court , all cont r ibut e t o t he idea of a r elat iv e, flex ible Sov er eignt y , in any case a sov ereignt y t hat needs t o adapt t o ex t er nal fact or s affect ing it s power s, whet her t hese ar e legal r ules or com pet ing cent er s of polit ical and judicial power .
Not ewor t hy is t o est ablish t he basic idea t hat sov er eignt y is m ade m anifest in power and independence. I dent ified as a feat ur e of t err it orial St at e, sov er eignt y is essent ially t he possibilit y t o enfor ce all power s of aut horit y on a specific t er r it or y and on all t he individuals living t herein. These powers ar e put int o pr act ice t hr ough t he adopt ing and enfor cing r ules ( adm inist r at iv ely or j udicially ) and in t he abilit y t o r est or e t he Law, eit her t hough coerciv e enfor cem ent of sent ences or t hr ough jus punendi. As a consequence, t he sov er eign St at e has t he r ight t o ex clude enforcing t he powers of aut hor it y by any ot her St at e wit hin it s t er rit or y and t he ot her St at e has t he dut y of non- int erfer ence. Choosing t his basic concept , which cor r esponds t o an absolut e and r ealist ic sov er eign par adigm , is for analy t ical pur poses only , so as t o deconst r uct t he concept .
I n 1928, t he r efer ee Max Huber st at ed t hat :
“ La souv er aineit é dans les relat ions ent r e Ét at s signifie l’independance”3.
I ndependence affirm ed against ot her subj ect s of int er nat ional Law and a fundam ent al consequence of int ernat ional legal per sonalit y ex clusively ack nowledged by I nt ernat ional Law, in accor dance wit h t he form ula of legal im m ediacy r eferr ed by Allain Pellet ( Pellet , 2002: 424) . I n 1758, Vat el wr ot e t hat :
2 Under Port uguese j urisdict ion on t he j urisdict ional im m unit y of St at es, see Margarida Salem a D'Oliv eir a
Mart ins ( 2 011) . " Com ent ário ao Acórdão do Tribunal d a Relação de Lisboa relat iv o ao Processo 135/ 06.2 TVLB. L1- 7 " in Anuário Port uguês de Direit o I nt ernacional 2011 , M.N.E. p.119.
11
“ Un nain est aussi bien un hom m e qu’un géant : une pet it e r epublique n’est pas m oins un Ét at souv er ain que le plus puissant r oy aum e” ( Vat el, 1863: 100)
I n t he for m al and legal t r anslat ion of t his principle, not hing fundam ent al has changed since t he 18t h cent ur y : art icle 2, nº 1 of t he Unit ed Nat ions Char t er lays down t his pr inciple of for m al equalit y am ong St at es and, t hus, adopt s sev er al principles which ensur e t hat equalit y and independence.
Based on t hese elem ent s, pot est as or int ernal aut hor it y and independence, sov ereignt y should be seen as t he abilit y St at es enj oy of enfor cing t heir pr er ogat ives, bot h int ernally and ext ernally , as well as t he abilit y t o influence t he dev elopm ent of int ernat ional law.
The curr ent analy sis of t he condit ions under which St at es ex ercise t heir sov er eignt y cannot ignor e t he hist orical pr ocess by which m oder n St at es wer e for m ed, which is int ert wined wit h t he pr ocess of how t he Jus Gent ium hav e dev eloped.
Claim by St at es t hat t hey ar e super ior es non recognescent es beings st em s essent ially fr om t he rebellion by t he princes against t he double aut horit y of t he Em per or or t he Pope and t heir r efusal t o ack nowledge t he secular univ ersal aut hor it y of bot h ( pot est as
dir ect a) . The fact t hat each com m unit y aspir es t o ex ercise sov ereign power s wit hin it s
t er rit ory and t o r elat e wit h ot her polit ical com m unit ies wit hout t he int erfer ence of ot her secular aut hor it ies em bodies t his first " aggr essiv e" concept of sov er eignt y , which m ust be affir m ed against ot her ex ist ing powers. I nt erest ingly , t he Port uguese ar e also at t he base of ext r em e r eact ions against secular aut hor it y by t he pope and in speeding t he cr eat ion of t he Moder n St at e. The Tr eat y of Tordesillas in 1494, based on t he assigning of new t er rit ories and seas ex clusiv ely t o Port ugal and Spain by papal edict added t o t he anger of ot her Eur opean nat ions against t he power of t he Pope and t he old or der
civit as chr ist ianna. Sov ereignt y was ar gued as a claim for a space of fr eedom , fr eedom
t o gain t er rit or y , fr eedom t o nav igat e and do com m er ce against a secular aut horit y wit h a t r anscendent foundat ion4
The dest r uct ion of m ediev al or der , sy m bolized by t he Peace of West phalia in 1648, m ar k s t he foundat ion of t he m odern St at e and of I nt ernat ional Law. Howev er , in t he beginning, St at e sov er eignt y is st ill included in t he sov ereignt y of t he prince; only wit h t he onset of liber al const it ut ionalism at t he end of t he 18t h cent ury , subj ect s ar e consider ed cit izens and " t he sov er eignt y of t he pr ince" becom es t he sov er eignt y of t he St at e. The affir m at ion of sover eignt y - power, seen as exclusiv e jurisdict ion and supr em acy of public powers ov er cit izens and t er rit ory , and of sov ereignt y -independence, t he capacit y for dir ect and aut onom ous r elat ion wit h ot her powers r eached a clim ax dur ing 19t h cent ury legal posit iv ism which only ended in 1945.
.
I n t his int ernat ional legal or der , basically consist ing of a Eur opean public legal or der , in t he concert of " civ ilized nat ions" , t he pr inciple of quasi- absolut e St at e sov ereignt y has
4 On t he hist oric dev elopm ent of t he concept , see H. St einber ger ( 2000) . " Sov ereignt y " in Ency clopedia of
12
becom e t he basis for all int er nat ional relat ions and Law5
The fir st int er v ent ions by I nt ernat ional Law on defining t he r est r aint s t o St at e sov er eignt y ar e in t he Right t o War . The fr eedom t o init iat e war as an essent ial feat ur e of t he sov er eign St at e is lim it ed fir st ly t hr ough t he fir st at t em pt s t o r egulat e j us ad
bellum , a pr ocess which st art ed wit h t he foundat ion of t he I nt ernat ional Red Cr oss and
t he Hague rule of law. Jus ad bellum r em ains unchanged unt il t he Br iand- Kellog Pact in 1928.
. The slow hist orical pr ocess leading t o t he collapse of t his concept of absolut e sov er eignt y st art s aft er t he 1950s.
Fr om 1945 onwar ds, t he int ernat ional legal acquis and t he m ult ilat er al inst it ut ional fr am ewor k st ar t s t o be for m ed and dev elop in which sov er eignt y will be ex ercised. The Unit ed Nat ions Char t er and t he principle t o forbid t he t hr eat t o use for ce as m eans of conflict r esolut ion, Hum anit arian I nt ernat ional Law including, nam ely t he Genev a Conv ent ions, t he legal pr ot ect ion of t he individual, ev en if in it s ear ly st ages, t hr ough t he adopt ion of differ ent univ er sal and r egional t reat ies on hum an r ight s, t he sophist icat ed for m ulas of j oint ex ercise of sov er eignt y , as in t he case of t he Eur opean Union, and finally , t he em er gence of I nt er nat ional Crim inal Law, all cr eat e a m ulch-lay er ed r ealit y in which t he idea of absolut e sov er eignt y cannot be reconciled wit h t he idea of absolut e sov ereignt y6
So as t o r eflect on t he cur r ent nat ure of sov ereignt y we m ust also est ablish t he concept of sov er eignt y t hat is at st ak e. I s it a m ilit ar y , m onet ar y , econom ic or j udicial sov er eignt y ? A sover eignt y as ex clusiv e power s of aut hor it y ov er cit izens and t er rit ory ? A legal sov er eignt y as an im per viousness of int ernat ional legal or der t o I nt ernat ional Law or as an abilit y t o influence t he pr oduct ion of int ernat ional laws? Sover eignt y as an ex clusiv e set of right s and pr er ogat iv es or sover eignt y t hat also includes t he dut ies of St at es?
. All t hese changes im ply specific rest r ict ions in ex er cising st at e sover eignt y , lar gely based on legal rules t hat discipline t he fr eedom of St at es.
For t he aut hor of t his t ext , a Por t uguese cit izen, in Mar ch 2013, t he following st at em ent m ust be m ade: Por t ugal is a m em ber of t he Eur opean Union, t o which t he count r y t r ansferr ed sev er al of it s sov ereign power s, nam ely m onet ar y sov er eignt y , and is cur rent ly under t he int er v ent ion of a t r oik a of for eign inst it ut ions under a financial assist ance pr ogr am . This int er vent ion im plies a r est r aint t o it s sov er eign powers so as t o m ak e fundam ent al polit ical choices. Por t ugal signed, am ong m any ot her t r eat ies, t he Eur opean Union Tr eat y which includes sev eral pr ov isions on Eur opean cit izenship. Por t ugal accept s t he com pulsory j ur isdict ion of t he I nt er nat ional Court of Just ice, it is under t he j urisdict ion of t he Lux em bour g and t he St r asbour g Court s and has signed t he Rom e St at ut e. Por t ugal does not have it s own cur r ency , has no r elev ant m ilit ar y power
5
And, according t o Mart t i Kosk enniem i ( 200 8) , especially a j u st ificat ion for I nt ernat ional Law result ing from European hist ory and cult u r e as a m eans t o j ust ify t he colonial ex pansion in Africa by m eans of a dist inct ion bet w een civ ilized and unciv ilized peoples, t he lat t er hav ing no Sov ereignt y w hich w as an ex clusiv e feat ure of civ ilized nat ions in The Gent le Civ ilizer of Nat ions – The Rise and Fall of I n t ernat ional Law 1870- 1960. Cam bridge: Univ ersit y Press. p. 127.
6
For t he sole purposes of t his analy sis, w e use art ificially sim plified v ersions of concept s. The concept of absolut e sov ereignt y cann ot in it self be ack now ledged in t heoret ical t erm s ex cept as a denial of I nt ernat ional Law , a concept accept ed since long by t he int ernat ional legal Doct rine.
13
and has it s Const it ut ion which is m ainly in agr eem ent wit h I nt ernat ional Law7
The underst anding of what m ay be t he er osion of nat ional sov er eignt y cannot be separ at ed fr om t he nat ional per spect iv e of each obser v er nor fr om t he st r at egies of adapt ion by each sm all or m edium - sized St at e.
and which ev en aut om at ically accept s laws fr om gener al I nt ernat ional Law. Por t ugal is not a per m anent m em ber of t he Securit y Council, does not have significant nat ur al resources beside a wide EEZ, it s diplom acy has lim it ed m at erial r esour ces and it s populat ion is r at her sm all in wor ld t er m s.
A per m anent m em ber of t he Securit y Council will lik ely assess t he er osion pot ent ial of it s sov er eignt y different ly fr om t he aut hor . Ex ercising sov er eignt y in Por t ugal is lar gely based on a link wit h t he m ult ilat er al sy st em , in t he j oint ex er cising of sov ereign power s, nam ely wit hin t he fr am ewor k of t he Eur opean Union and in an openness t o t hose out side it s legal or der . An Am er ican or a Chinese cit izen will pr obably view t he sam e phenom enon under t he per spect ive of r eal r est r aint s t hat full part icipat ion in a m ult ilat er al sy st em m ay bring t o it s power s. This is especially t rue in Law and in I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law in part icular . Thr ough observ ing t he relat ion bet ween t he per m anent m em ber s of t he Secur it y Council and t he I nt ernat ional Cr im inal Cour t we aim t o ev idence t his idea.
2 . Th e En d of t h e pu nish in g m onopoly of St a t e s: cr im e a n d pu nish m e n t in I n t e rn a t iona l La w
I n 1919, ar t icle 227, n.º 1 of t he Tr eat y of Ver sailles laid down t hat :
“ Ar t . 227 - Les puissances alliées et associées m et t ent en accusat ion publique Guillaum e I I de Hohenzollern, ex - em per eur d’Allem agne, pour offense supr êm e cont r e la m or ale int er nat ionale et l’aut orit é sacrée des t r ait és. Un t r ibunal spécial ser a const it ué pour j uger l’accusé en lui assur ant les gar ant ies essent ielles du dr oit de défense. I l ser a com posé de cinq juges, nom m és par chacune des cinq puissances suiv ant es, à sav oir : les Ét at s- Unis d’Am érique, la Gr ande Br et agne, la Fr ance, L’I t alie et le Japon.
Le t ribunal j uger a sur m ot ifs inspir és des pr incipes les plus élev és de la polit ique ent r e les nat ions av ec le souci d’assurer le respect des obligat ions solennelles et des engagem ent s int er nat ionaux ainsi que la m or ale int er nat ionale.
Les puissances alliées et associées adr esser ont au Gouv ernem ent des Pay s- Bas une r equêt e le pr iant de livr er l’ancien em pereur ent r e leur s m ains pour qu’il soit j ugé»8.
7 See Miranda, Jorge ( 2010) . “ O Art igo 8º da Const it uição e o Direit o I n t ernacional” in August o de
At hay de/ João Caupers/ Maria da Glór ia F.P. D. Garcia ( eds.) Est udos em hom enagem ao Pr ofessor Dout or Freit as do Am aral. Coim bra: Alm edina. 415.
14
The ending of t his st or y is well- known: Kaiser William I I t ook r efuge in t he Net her lands, whose Gov ernm ent r efused his ex t r adit ion invok ing t he nonexist ence of a com pet ent int ernat ional cour t as well as a pr elim inar y incr im inat ing rule. Nev ert heless, it is int er est ing t o analy ze t he language used at Ver sailles ( “ int er nat ional m or als” , “ high polit ical principles am ong nat ions” ) , as well as a t rue nov elt y which was t he a Sov er eign was described as a defendant , accused of " offense supr êm e" ( supr em e offense, yet not qualified as crim e) , t o “ int ernat ional m or als”9
I n 1814, t he Declar at ion of Vienna against Slav e- t r ading r efer s t o civilized nat ions" , essent ially Eur opean nat ions, slowly shift ing t he m or al speech, in par t icular t hat of Eur opean power s, in a speech on I nt ernat ional Law, gr adually t r anslat ed in legal r ules. The Hague Peace Confer ences in 1899 and in 1907 m ark t he fir st coding pr ocess of t he laws of war and t he so- called " Mar t ens Clause"
. Equally not ewor t hy is t he subt le and cont inuous change in int ernat ional legal language which em er ges aft er t he appear ance of I nt ernat ional Cr im inal Law and pr ogr esses wit h t he successiv e at t em pt s at rules and lim it ing t he " warr ing” sover eignt y of St at es.
10
, included in t he pr eam bles of t he Conv ent ions I I of 1899 and 1907 st at ed t hat :
" unt il a m or e com plet e code of t he laws of war is adopt ed, t he part ies consider adequat e t o declar e t hat , in t he cases not included in t he pr ov isions adopt ed, t he populat ions and t he war r ing part ies are under t he pr ot ect ion and observ at ion of t he Right s of People, considering t hey der ive fr om cust om s am ong civilized nat ions, t he laws of hum anit y and
t he dem ands of public conscience"11.
Not ewor t hy is also t hat som e of t his language sur viv ed t he new world or der aft er 1945: ar t icle 38, nº 2c) of t he St at ut e of t he I nt ernat ional Court of Just ice st ill r efer s t o t he gener al pr inciples of Law r ecognized by t he " civ ilized nat ions" as a sour ce of I nt ernat ional Law.
The peace of Ver sailles originat ed t he fir st inst ances of inst it ut ionalizat ion of m ult ilat er alism , such as t he failed Societ y of Nat ions as well as t he t r ansfer ence of a cr im inal nar r at ive t o int ernat ional scenario. The Legal Adv isor y Com m it t ee, appoint ed by t he Societ y of Nat ions r ecom m ended in 1920 t hat an I nt ernat ional Supr em e Cour t should be founded wit h com pet ence t o t r y cr im es com m it t ed against int er nat ional public or der and t he univ er sal law of nat ions. This cour t would also be assigned com pet ence t o define t he list of crim es and applicable punishm ent s, t he m eans t o enfor ce t hem as well as it s r ules of pr ocedure. I n 1920, Elihu Root ask ed t he following quest ion on t his pr oj ect :
9
I n 1932 , Hans Kelsen in his cour se in t he Hague Academ y , used t he ex am ples of t he Versailles rules on t he responsibilit y of t he Kaiser t o ev idence t he idea t hat only St at es could be subj ect ed t o I n t ernat ional Law w ould be a false one in Robert Kolb ( 20 03) . Les Cou rs Généraux de Droit I nt ernat ional Public de l’Academ ie de la Hay e. Brussels: Bruy lant . 82.
10 I n 1883, t he sam e Fy odor Mart ens, Professor at t he univ ersit y of St Pet ersburg, defined I nt ernat ional Law
as follow s: “ Les Ét at s indépendant s j ouissant de la civ ilisat ion européenne con st it uent le dom aine régi par le droit int ernat ional et j ouent un r ôle act if das la com m u naut é int ernat ionale ( …) C’est de cet t e act ion des Ét at s civ ilisés que prov ient le droit int ernat ion al » ( Mart ens, 1883: 307) .
11
15
“ Ar e t he Gov ernm ent s of t he wor ld prepar ed t o giv e up t heir individual sov er eign r ight s t o t he necessar y ext ent ?” ( Fer encz 2000: 40)12.
The quest ion, obviously rhet oric in 1920, was not answer ed in a posit ive way befor e t he adopt ion of t he Rom e St at ut e in 1998 and ev en t hen it was only part ially posit ive.
The Nur em ber g and Tok y o Trials led t o t he collapse of t he Sov er eign's punishing m onopoly and ar e a t urning point in t he er osion pr ocess, t he adapt at ion rect ius of st at e sov er eignt y . Sev er al per spect ives ar e possible on t hese hist oric t r ials: fr om consider ing it was all m er e winner j ust ice t o a j udicial cat har sis of guilt and r edem pt ion; hist or ians, polit ical scient ist s and lawy er s will har dly under st and t hese event s in t he sam e way13 I n t he aft er m at h of t he v ict or y by t he allies in 1945, t wo possibilit ies opened t o t he winner s: m er e ex ecut ion or im pr isonm ent of t he loser s and t heir punishm ent following a t r ial. Benj am im Fer encz, t he y oungest m em ber of t he Am er ican pr osecut ion t eam in 1945, say s, in a r at her hum or ous and acid t one about t he Br it ish t hat
.
“ I n fact , t he For eign Office st ill did not fav or war crim es t rials. To av oid long legal pr oceedings, t hat m ight becom e a propaganda forum for Nazi leader s, t he Unit ed Kingdom pr efer r ed a «polit ical disposit ion». Alway s not ed for t heir «fair play », t he Brit ish ar gued t hat «execut ion wit hout t r ial is t he prefer able course». Ex act ly who was t o shoot whom and when t o st op shoot ing was not m ade clear ” ( Ferencz 2000: 42) .
The London Agreem ent on 8 August 1945, which led t o t he creat ion of t he Nur em ber g cour t , r esult ed m ainly fr om t he Am erican per spect iv e which, wit h t he Sov iet support , m anaged t o be im posed on t he r em aining allies. I n a v aguely gr and speech about t he t r ial, Judge Rober t Jackson, Chief Pr osecut or of t he Am erican t eam at Nur em ber g, said:
” That four gr eat nat ions, flushed wit h v ict ory and st ung wit h inj ury , st ay t he hand of v engeance and v olunt ar ily subm it t heir capt ive enem ies t o t he j udgm ent of t he law is one of t he m ost significant t r ibut es t hat Power as ever paid t o Reason” ( Ferencz 2000: 37) .
The Chart er of t he I nt er nat ional Milit ar y Cour t est ablished as crim es under it s com pet ence for which individuals m ay be held account able t he crim es against peace, cr im es of war and crim es against hum anit y , t hus creat ing, for t he first t im e a crim inal list of int er nat ional cr im e - t he or igins of t he I nt er nat ional Cr im inal Code. Art icle 6
12 Elihu Root w as t he Am erican Secret ary of War ( 18 99- 190 4) and Secret ary of St at e ( 1905- 1 909) w it h
President Theodore Roosev elt . Nobel Peace Prize in 1912, Root presided t o t he Carnegie Endow m ent for I nt ernat ional Peace. Elihu Root ' s polit ical t hought w as m ade public in his book ( 1927) Polit ique Ex t erieure des Ét at s- Unis et Droit I nt ernat ional: Discours et Ex t rait s. Paris: A. Pedone.
13
16
t y pifies ( “ t he following act s or som e of t hem ” ) as “ crim es com ing wit hin t he j urisdict ion
of t he Tribunal for which t her e shall be individual r esponsibilit y ” : crim es against peace
( t he precedessor of t he " cr im e of aggr ession" adopt ed in t he Kam pala Confer ence in 2010) ; cr im es of war ( " nam ely t he violat ions of t he laws or cust om s of war ” ) ; crim es against hum anit y ( "nam ely m ur der , ex t er m inat ion, enslavem ent , depor t at ion and ot her inhum ane act s” ) . A nat ional crim inalist t oday cannot but wonder in face of t he open t y pificat ion of t hese cr im es.
There is am ple lit er at ur e on t he Nur em ber g and Tok y o t rials as well as har d crit icism , in par t icular Am er ican crit icism , on t he ex cept ional nat ure of an ex post fact o just ice.
The discom for t of som e j udges at t he t im e, nam ely in t erm s of t he cr im es against peace, st em m ed fr om t he k nowledge t hat t he Nur em ber g and Tok y o I nt er nat ional Milit ary Cour t s oper at ed out side t he fr am ework of Cr im inal Law pr inciples, nam ely t he pr inciples of nullen crim en sine lege and nulla poena sine lege. Judge William Douglas ex pr essed his cr it icism on crim inalizing " cr im es against peace" as follows:
“ ( I ) t hought and st ill t hink t hat t he Nurem ber g t r ials wer e unprincipled. Law was cr eat ed ex post fact o t o suit t he passion and clam or of t he t im e” ( Glennon 2010: 75) .
I n 1946, Feder al Judge Char les E. Wy zansk y st at ed t he following on cr im inalizing war of aggr ession:
" The body of gr owing cust om t o which r eference is m ade is cust om dir ect ed at sover eign st at es and not individuals. Ther e is no Conv ent ion or Tr eat y which places obligat ions ex plicit ly upon an indiv idual not t o aid in wagging an aggr essive war " ( Glennon 2010: 76)
and t o t he quest ion whet her t he bases for Nur em ber g m ay lie in t he gener al principles of Cr im inal Law com m on t o all " civ ilized nat ions", he said t hat :
17
This debat e was equally pr esent at t he Toky o t rial, t wo j udges hav ing v ot ed against t he final decision t o sent ence. The dissent ing opinion of t he I ndian j udge Radhabinod Pal, absolving all defendant s at Tok y o is an ex t r em ely r elev ant t ex t in t he r ecent hist or y of I nt ernat ional Law, r epr esent ing, under t he appear ance of a confr ont at ion bet ween nat ur alism and posit iv ism , t he first ser ious challenge t o int er nat ional legal or der by west ern em pir es and is wor t h being rer ead t oday14
Howev er , Nurem ber g and Tok y o ar e a t ur ning point in I nt ernat ional Law. Despit e t heir flaws, t hese t rials m ar k t he beginning of a cr im inal nar r at iv e in I nt ernat ional Law. Offenses t o m or alit y or t o t he laws and cust om s of t he " civilized nat ions" ar e clearly defined as crim inal conduct , t hough ex post fact o, and consider ed of indiv idual cr im inal liabilit y . The hanging of som e Nazi convict ed at Nur em ber g and t he convict ion of Hideki Toj o, Japanese Prim e Minist er at t he t im e of t he at t ack t o Pearl Har bor are highly sy m bolical m om ent s of t his t urning point . St at e sov er eignt y is no longer t he last and ult im at e pr ot ect ion of it s cit izens, of it s policy- m ak ers and m ilit ar y high r anks m ax im e. I nt ernat ional legal or der , ev en considering t hat t he or der in 1945 included m ainly t he winner s of WWI I , is m or e im por t ant t han st at e sov er eignt y and holds t he individual dir ect ly account able in cr im inal t erm s. Dr awing a par allel wit h Anglo- Sax on doct rine on t he disr egar d of legal per sonalit y , in Nur em berg and Tok y o, t here was a lift ing of t he sov er eignt y v eil, disr egar ding st at e per sonalit y as subj ect wit h int ernat ional liabilit y and focus on t he polit ical or m ilit ary leader as subj ect of crim inal liabilit y , t r adit ionally pr ot ect ed by st at e sov er eignt y . The hanging of t hose convict ed in Nur em ber g and Tok y o ends t he St at e punishing m onopoly : crim e and it s punishm ent ar e no longer ex clusiv ely defined and enforced by t he Sov er eign. Ev en wit h t he phy sical disappear ance of t he individual.
.
Som et hing changed since t he exile of Kaiser William I I : t he lawy er t ook hold of t he ar ea belonging t o t he hist or ian and t he diplom at at t he t im e when t he nar r at iv e on War is no longer t he sole r esponsibilit y of hist or y and t he peace- t r eat y m ak ers. Thr ough t he hands of t he j udges, t he nar r at iv e of War becom es a legal and j udicial nar r at iv e, as is m ade ev ident in t he t housands of pages wit h m inut es fr om t he Nur em ber g and Tok y o t r ials. The best ev idence of how t he Law has t ak en possession of ar eas r eser ved t o sov er eign St at es is t he new cr im inal speech in int er nat ional law and t he definit ion of cr im es and t heir sent encing. Despit e it s flaws ( cr it icized since t hat t im e) , t he fact t hat cr im inal speech is now pr esent at int ernat ional lev el and t he gaps in St at es punishing m onopoly ar e ir rev ersible.
I n t he period aft er 1945, t he concept of individual cr im inal liabilit y before I nt er nat ional Law, wit hdr awn fr om St at es ex clusiv e power t o punish it s nat ionals, began it s slow consolidat ion pr ocess. First t hr ough adopt ing t he Conv ent ion on t he Pr event ion and Punishm ent of t he Crim e of Genocide, adopt ed by t he Gener al Assem bly in 194815. Not ewor t hy is t hat t he t erm " genocide" did not ex ist befor e 194616
14 Docu m ent at ion on t he Tok y o processes is av ailable at ht t p: / / av alon.law .y ale.edu/ im t / im t const .asp On t he
Pal doct rine see Kirst en Sellars ( 2 011) " I m perfect Just ice at Nurem berg and Tok y o" . European Journal of I nt ernat ional Law . 21: 109 5.
, t he ext erm inat ion
15 Conv ent ion on t he Prev ent ion and Pun ishm ent of t he Crim e of Genocide ( approv ed t hrough Resolut ion by
Assem bleia da República nº 37/ 98, of 14 July in DR, 1ª Série- A, nº 160. 16
18
of t he Jews was t ried and punished at Nur em ber g as a cr im e of war or a crim e against hum anit y . The narr at iv e of t he Law it self has under gone a change in t he new or der est ablished in 1945: genocide, univ er sal j urisdict ion and univ er sal punishm ent ar e t er m s t hat did not ex ist or were alm ost nonex ist ent in t he per iod of alm ight y sov er eignt ies17
On 11 Decem ber 1946 .
18
The founding of int ernat ional cr im inal court s ad hoc for Yugoslavia and Rwanda are a r elev ant st ep in t his pr ocess. The collapse of t he Soviet Em pir e, sym bolized by t he fall of t he Ber lin War , pr ov ided a new polit ical scenar io and a cy cle of significant econom ic gr owt h. Accor ding t o Henr y Kissinger , in 1990: “ The wor ld was ent er ing a post -sov er eign er a” char act er ized “ by t he r ule of law aspect s of int ernat ional law ov er t r adit ional St at e sov er eignt y ” . I t is in t his " m ood of t r ium phalism " ( Kissinger , 2011: 454, when speak ing on t he m ain polit ical spir it in Washingt on) or in t he " naiv e and r at her obt use spir it " ( Cut ileir o, 2003: 12) , in t he wor ds of Am bassador José Cut ileir o, Coor dinat or for t he Eur opean Com m unit y Peace Confer ence in Yugoslavia in 1992, pr esided by Lor d Car r ingt on, t hat t he Nur em berg pr inciples ar e r ecov er ed. The concept of global j ust ice, em bodied in t he idea of Nur em ber g as having com pet ence on int ernat ional crim es, appear ed in t his per iod of “ global opt im ism ” ( Koh, 2003: 1503) which was in full force fr om 1989 and 2001. This gener alized opt im ism of a global j ust ice was m ade m anifest not only in t he cr eat ion of ad hoc Court s in Yugoslavia and Rwanda but also in t he cr eat ion of m ixed court s for Sierr a Leone and Cam bodia, t he Lock er bie t r ial, t he indict m ent s in Spain and Chile against Pinochet . I t reached it s peak wit h t he signing by Pr esident Clint on of t he Rom e St at ut e in 2001, before t he USA began it s period of open host ilit y against t he I nt er nat ional Cr im inal Court .
, t he first session of t he Unit ed Nat ions Gener al Assem bly adopt ed a set of Resolut ions wit h significant im pact for t he lat er dev elopm ent of I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law. I n part icular Resolut ion 95 r est at ed t he pr inciples of I nt ernat ional Law recognized in t he Nur em ber g Char t er and appoint ed a Com m ission t o pr epar e an I nt ernat ional Crim inal Code.
William Schabas19
Aft er m id- 1992, t he USA were t he biggest prom ot er s for adopt ing Securit y Council Resolut ion 827 ( 1993) of 25 May 1993. This Resolut ion, adopt ed by consensus, is special because it was based on ar t icle VI I of t he Char t er , in part icular in ar t icles 39 and 41, a new int er pr et at ion of t he Unit ed Nat ions Char t er . As Paula Escar am eia point s out , t he Char t er
declar es t hat t he idea of an int ernat ional crim inal j ust ice was v aguely appr oached by Geor ge Bush and Mar gar et That cher in t he 1990s when discussing t he inv asion of Kuwait by I r aq, accor ding t o pr elim inary st udies by t he Am erican arm y . The idea would have been v iewed posit iv ely by som e Eur opean leader s but r esult ed in not hing.
17 Ex cept for t he crim e of sea piracy .
18
Resolut ion s AG 94( I ) , 95( I ) and 96( I ) on ( i) t he appoint m ent of a Com m it t ee for t he St udy of Coding I nt ernat ional Law , ( ii) affirm ing t he principles of int ernat ional Law laid dow n in t he London Chart er and t he m andat e aw arded t o a new Com m it t ee t o w rit e an I nt ernat ional Cr im inal Code and ( iii) condem ning genocide and assigning a m andat e t o organize a conv ent ion on t he subj ect .
19 W. Schabas ( 20 04) " Unit ed St at es Host ilit y t o t he I n t ernat ional Crim inal Court : I t ’s All about t he Secur it y
19
" was pr obably not t hought based on t he pr inciple t hat im punit y of int ernat ional cr im inals was a t hr eat t o or a br each of wor ld peace and secur it y and t hat t he Council m ay , t her efor e, cr eat e cour t s wit h com pet ence t o t ry t hem . Thus, t hough t hat int er pr et at ion m ay be possible, it was only viable at a m om ent when wor ld polarizat ion had disappeared ( ..) " ( Escar am eia 2003: 34) .
This r at her unpr ecedent ed consensus am ong t he fiv e per m anent m em ber s allowing for t he appr ov al of Resolut ion 827 was som ehow a consensus on t he r ole of int ernat ional law in t he rest r aint s t o St at es sov er eign pr er ogat ives. Howev er , it ev idenced select iv e j ust ice as it was a consensus of "som e" t o be applied t o " ot her s" .
A specific and r at her obvious ex am ple of t he t ension bet ween int ernat ional cr im inal j ust ice and sov er eignt y occur r ed when t he Secur it y Council was discussing Resolut ion 955 ( 1994) of 8 Nov em ber 1994 on t he cr eat ion of t he I nt er nat ional Crim inal Court for Rwanda; Rwanda it self, a non- per m anent m em ber of t he Council, v ot ed against it .
Analy zing t he r ole of t he t wo ad hoc Cr im inal Cour t s abov e m ent ioned is not in t he scope of t his paper . Howev er , t wo elem ent s should be em phasized: ( i) fr om a pur ely legal per spect iv e, t hese cour t s cont r ibut ed t o t he dev elopm ent of an int er nat ional cr im inal cor pus j uris and ( ii) t hey prepar ed t he way for a non- select iv e and perm anent ( and independent ) cr im inal j ust ice by adopt ing t he Rom e St at ut e20.
3 . Th e Rom e St a t u t e : a pe r m a n e n t a n d inde pe n de n t j u r isdict ion
Aft er 1946 sev er al at t em pt s wer e m ade t o codify I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law21
Am ong it s m ost st r ik ing feat ur es was it s full subor dinat ion t o t he Securit y Council, t he only body wit h t rigger m echanism and t he fact t hat t her e was no Pr osecut or wit h power t o independent ly inv est igat e and subm it cases t o court pr oprio m ot o.
. I n July 1994, t he Com m it t ee subm it s it s dr aft st at ut e of t he Court and in 1996 it present ed a dr aft for t he Crim inal Code. The appr oach of 1994 pr oj ect by t he Com m it t ee for I nt ernat ional Law was ext r em ely conser v at iv e and basically defined a m odel of cr im inal j ust ice fully int egr at ed in t he Unit ed Nat ions sy st em and, in part icular , dependent on t he Securit y Council. This pr oj ect pr oposed a m ode inspir ed in t he ad hoc v er sions for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in a r at her par adox ical way - an ad hoc t y pe of cour t but per m anent .
The hist ory of t he negot iat ion on t he Court St at ut e during t he I nt er gov ernm ent al Confer ence in t he sum m er of 1998 in Rom e is in it self a v ery significant elem ent for our analy sis.
20 So as t o analy ze t he cont ribut ion s of t hese court s see Faust o Pocar ( 2 010) . The I nt ernat ional Crim inal
Tribunal for t he Form er Yugoslav ia in Robert o Bellelli ( ed) I nt ernat ional Crim inal Just ice. UK: Ashgat e, p. 67 and E. Mose ( 2005) Main Achiev em ent s of t he I CTR. Jour nal of I nt ernat ional Crim inal Just ice. 3: 920. 21
20
I t is im port ant t o under st and t he dynam ics of negot iat ion pr ocesses in a enlar ged m ult ilat er al envir onm ent . I n June 2010, t he aut hor part icipat ed in t he Port uguese delegat ion t o t he I nt er gov ernm ent al Confer ence in Kam pala, Uganda, conv ened t o adopt , in par t icular , t he am endm ent s t o t he Rom e St at ut e on t he crim e of aggr ession. This t y pe of negot iat ions is a for m idable diplom at ic m echanism inv olving hundr eds of people assigned wit h t he negot iat ion of legal t ext s t o be adopt ed by t he lar gest num ber of St at es possible. Dur ing t he t wo long week s of negot iat ion in Kam pala, final com pr om ise on t he t ext s of t he am endm ent s was r eached on t he 25t h hour on t he last day of t he Confer ence, aft er it s official dat e of conclusion. These negot iat ions are a ser ies of lower or higher dr am at ic int ensit y , wher e alliances ar e for m ed and br oken at an im pr essiv e speed, wit h a series of infor m al bilat er al m eet ings, by geogr aphical gr oups, spont aneous gr oupings of St at es wit h ephem er al or per m anent com m on int er est s, wit h alt ernat ive t ext s, pr oposals and count er - pr oposals.
This elem ent should not be neglect ed: t he pr ocess of negot iat ing t his t y pe of t ex t s is also ex er cising differ ent iat ed sov er eignt y . The abilit y t o m anage negot iat ions, aggr egat e int er est s and form alliances and influence t he final cont ent of t he law is ev idence of t he power and of specific int erest s of St at es in specific solut ions. I n Kam pala, as in Rom e, t his dynam ic was m ade obv ious: y ou can im agine t he differ ence bet ween t he US delegat ion, which included dozens of delegat es and pr om ot ed m any bilat er al m eet ings, a unit ing elem ent in t he I nfor m al Gr oup of t he fiv e perm anent m em ber s, aut hor of writ t en pr oposals adopt ed in t he Final m inut e of t he confer ence and t he Por t uguese delegat ions which included t wo r epr esent at iv es during t he t wo week s. And we m ust not for get t hat t he USA ar e not ev en a St at e Part y of t he St at ut e.
Nev er t heless, not ev en a St at e lik e t he USA have enough capacit y t o influence t he final m eaning of a law pr oduced in a m ult ilat er al env ir onm ent . The hist or y of t he negot iat ions in Rom e is a part icular ly significant ex am ple of t his.
Philip Kirsch22 r ecalls t hat in t he beginning of t he negot iat ions, on 15 June 1998, t he dr aft writ t en by Pr epCom was pr esent ed wit h about 1400 it em s about which t her e was disagr eem ent , which were incom plet e and hundr eds of alt ernat iv e pr oposals. Alt hough t he St at ut e was not appr ov ed in a consensus, it s adopt ion was alm ost a m ir acle ev en if we consider t hat
“ The St at ut e is nor a perfect inst r um ent ; no int er nat ionally negot iat ed inst rum ent can be. I t includes uneasy t echnical solut ions, awk war d for m ulat ions and fully sat isfied no one” ( Kir sch 1999: 2) .
Negot iat ion agenda of t he five perm anent m em ber at Rom e was ext r em ely heavy . Based on t he dir ect t est im ony by David Scheffer23
22
Legal consu lt ant from t he Canadian Foreign Min ist ry , presid ed t o t he " Joint Com m it t ee" during t he Rom e Conference.
, t he USA's m ain goals were t hose of a cour t sim ilar t o t he ad hoc court s and wit h an im port ant r ole in t he Secur it y Council, having no independent power t o inv est igat e or subm it cases, com plem ent ary and whose cr im inal list would be v er y lim it ed. To sum up, a St at ut e t hat would t ake int o consider at ion t he fact t hat
21
“ Unit ed St at es has special r esponsibilit ies and special exposure t o cont r ov er sy ov er our act ions. This fact or cannot be t ak en light ly when issues of int ernat ional peace and secur it y ar e at st ak e. We are called upon t o act , som et im es at gr eat r isk , far m or e t han any ot her nat ion. This is a r ealit y in t he int ernat ional sy st em ” ( Scheffer 1999: 12) .
St ill accor ding t o Sheffer
“ Thr oughout t he Rom e Confer ence our negot iat or s st r uggled t o preserv e appr opr iat e sover eign decision m aking in connect ion wit h obligat ions t o cooper at e wit h t he court ” ( Scheffer 1999: 15) .
The end r esult did not liv e t o Am erican ex pect at ions, t he delegat ion com plained of pr ocess's lack of t r ansparency24
Fr ance, t he only St at e t hat subm it t ed it s own St at ut e t o t he I CC ( in August 1995) , had a v er y r est rict ive perspect iv e of a per m anent Cour t wit hout any t y pe of independence and under t he exclusiv e r esponsibilit y of t he Secur it y Council.
and ask ed for for m al v ot ing of t he final pr oj ect and v ot ed against it , t hus br eaking t he desir ed consensus.
Alain Juppé's gover nm ent pr oposed a sy st em which r equired t hr ee levels of aut hor izat ion for a case t o be subm it t ed t o t he Cour t ( t hat of t he St at e wher e t he cr im e had occur r ed and t hose of t he nat ional St at es of bot h t he vict im and t he aggr essor ) aft er a ver y difficult int ernal pr ocess of agr eem ent am ong t he differ ent Fr ench Minist r ies. The com pensat ion for Fr ance v ot ing for t he Resolut ion was t he int r oduct ion of ar t icle 124, t he possibilit y of opt ing- out for a sev en- y ear period in t erm s of cr im es of war com m it t ed by Fr ench nat ionals ( Fr ance and Colom bia wer e t he only St at es t hat used t he possibilit y allowed by art icle 124)25
24
According t o Scheffer “ The process launched in t he final fort y - eight hours of t he Rom e Conferen ce m inim ized t he chan ces t hat t hese proposals and am end m ent s t o t he t ex t t hat t he U.S. delegat ion has subm it t ed in good fait h could be seriou sly con sidered by delegat ions. The t reat y t ex t w as sub j ect t o a m y st eriou s, closed- door and ex clusionary process of rev ision by a sm all num ber of delegat es, m ost ly from t he lik e- m inded group, w ho cut deals t o at t ract cert ain w av ering gov ernm ent s int o support ing a t ex t t hat w as produced at 2: 00 A.M. on t he final day of t he Conference, July 17. Ev en port ion s of t he st at ut e t hat had been adopt ed by t he Com m it t ee of t he Whole w ere r ew rit t en. This ‘t ak e it or leav e it ’ t ex t for a perm anent inst it u t ion of law w as not sub j ect t o t he rigor ous rev iew of t he Draft ing Com m it t ee or t he Com m it t ee of t he Whole and w as ru shed t o adopt ion hours lat er on t he ev ening of July 17 w it hou t debat e” ( Scheffer 1999: 20) . On anot her occasion, before a room of Am erican arm y law y ers, Scheffer, w hen referring t o t he final out com e at Rom e, declared t he follow ing on t he lim it at ions t o Am erican diplom at ic pow er: “ A negot iat ing room is not a conv ent ion al bat t lefield, but it is a t heat er of diplom at ic conflict and cooperat ion.
.
Wit hin t he negot iat ing arena, as in t he court r oom , ov er w helm ing force is defined by logic ( …) Our superpow er st at us and t he m agnit ude of our m ilit ary for ces m ean v ery lit t le in t hese set t ings. That is t he hard realit y t oday . We need t o adj ust and t urn t hat realit y t o our ow n adv ant age w it h w inning st rat egies and not self- right eous t act ics t hat im press no one but ourselv es” ( Scheffer 2001: 9) .
25
22
The Unit ed Kingdom changed it s posit ion and, aft er t he elect ion of Tony Blair , abandoned t he P5 alliance and j oined t he lik e- m inded count ries gr oup, which pr ov ided t he m ain suppor t t o t he I CC pr oj ect .
Four ar eas laid down in t he Rom e St at ut e include t he k ey elem ent s in t he t ension bet ween sover eignt y and judicial supr a- nat ionalism , t hus ex em plify ing t he m ain ideas in t he 1998 discussion of t his issue26
Fir st ly , t he pr elim inar y condit ions t o ex ercising t he Court j urisdict ion, laid down in ar t icle 12 of t he St at ut e. Based of t he cr it eria est ablished for t his pr ecept , t he court m ay ex er cise j urisdict ion in cases t he St at es ( t hat ar e part ies in t he St at ut e or hav e declar ed t hey accept s it s j ur isdict ion, pur suant t o ar t icle 12, n.º 3) ( i) wher e t he crim e t ak es place ( pur suant t o ar t icle 5) or ( ii) of nat ionalit y of t he defendant . This pr ecept m ak es it possible for t he Court t o ex er cise it s jur isdict ion on individuals who are nat ionals fr om St at es not part y t o t he Rom e St at ut e. Consider ing t hat one of t he cr it eria for assigning j urisdict ion is t he place t he crim e was com m it t ed, r esor t ing t o ar t icle 12, n.º 1a) of t he st at ut e allows, in fact , t hat t he court ex ercises it s j ur isdict ion on nat ionals fr om St at es out side t he St at ut e. Fr om a conser v at iv e appr oach, t his pr ecept is an unaccept able shift in relat ion t o t he basic pr inciple t hat int ernat ional obligat ions der iv e fr om t he consent of St at es pur suant t o t he gener al pr inciples of t he Law on Tr eat ies ( quest ions have been r aised t hat t he pr ecept is com pat ible wit h ar t icle 36 of t he Vienna Conv ent ion on t he 1969 Law on Tr eat ies) ; it s elem ent of " univ er sal j ur isdict ion" is also unaccept able as it allows t hat nat ionals fr om St at es t hat hav e not accept ed t o adopt t he Tr eat y can be punished. Fr om a pr ogr essiv e appr oach, t he pr ecept was not up t o ex pect at ions because it requir es consent ( by t he St at e wher e t he cr im e was com m it t ed or of t he aggr essor 's nat ionalit y ) , because of it s nat ur e as a t r eat y am ong st at es and t he idea of com plem ent ar it y ( see below) .
.
The second elem ent concerns t he power s of t he Judge in art icle 15. Under n.º 1 of t his pr ecept , t he Pr osecut or " m ay , on his own init iat ive, open an inquir y based on infor m at ion on cr im es com m it t ed t hat are under t he j ur isdict ion of t he Court " . Wit hin t he scope of his power s t o inv est igat e and in case he believ es t her e is evidence support ing st art ing an inquir y , t he Judge will ask perm ission t o do so t o t he I nvest igat ing Judge. The Secur it y Council can only int er vene pur suant t o art icle 16.
Ar t icles 15 and 16 ar e t he m ain innov at ions: for t he fir st t im e at int ernat ional lev el t her e a t r uly independent legal power ( ev en if we consider all it s r est r aint s) , independent fr om polit ical int erfer ence and, in par t icular , fr om t he int er fer ence of t he Secur it y Council. The cont r ol ov er t he Pr osecut or 's power of inv est igat ion and inquir y is car r ied out by a judicial body , t he inv est igat ing j udge, a change in com par ison wit h t he pr ev ious m odel.
The t hir d elem ent is r elat ed wit h t he power of t he Pr osecut or and concerns t he r ole of t he Securit y Council and it s r elat ion wit h t he Cour t . Though t he Securit y Council holds a pr ivileged pr ocedur al posit ion ( under art icle 13, t he subm ission by t he Securit y Council t o t he Pr osecut or of a sit uat ion does not require t he consent of t he im plicat ed St at es) , it is in huge cont r ast wit h t he solut ion found for pr ev ious ad hoc cour t s and wit h t he
Défense soient globalem ent sur la m êm e ligne) . L’art icle 12 4 a ét é l’une des ex igences du Min ist ère de la Défense et de l’Ely sée» ( Bourdon, 2000: 297) .
26
23
1994 pr oj ect of t he Com m it t ee for I nt ernat ional Law. I n t he 1994 pr oj ect , t he Pr osecut or could only st art a case aft er t he Securit y Council had aut hor ized; in t he cur rent art icle 16, t he Secur it y Council has only t he power t o suspend an already ongoing inv est igat ion. I n t he dr aft by t he int ernat ional law com m it t ee, as in pr evious ad hoc court s, ex ercising int er nat ional cr im inal j ur isdict ion was com plet ely condit ioned t o t he powers of t he Council and, as a r esult , t o being v et oed by any of t he fiv e per m anent m em ber s. This shift in balance is crucial: a perm anent Mem ber St at e t hat wishes t o suspend an inquir y , eit her t hat it begins or t hat it dev elops, has t o sim ult aneously ensure 9 of t he 15 v ot es in t he Council as well as t he posit ive v ot e of t he r em aining per m anent m em bers.
Last ly , t he fourt h elem ent concerns t he com m it m ent t o com plem ent arit y / cooper at ion in t he int ernat ional cr im inal sy st em as a whole. The idea of com plem ent arit y , laid down in t he pr eam ble and in ar t icle 1 of t he St at ut e, is t he form ula t hat allows t o r econcile j udicial sov er eignt y and supr anat ional or nat ional j ust ice. I n t he Eur opean Union t her e was heat ed debat e on t he affir m at ion of t he pr inciple of prim acy and t he affir m at ion of a j udicial feder al sy st em , a debat e wher e t her e was som et im es a conflict wit h const it ut ional court s fr om som e Mem ber - St at es. Sim ilar ly , in t he int ernat ional crim inal sy st em pr oposed by t he Rom e St at ut e, nat ional cr im inal jurisdict ions have pr im acy ov er t he I nt er nat ional Crim inal Cour t j urisdict ion. The lat t er cannot int erv ene unless as an alt er nat iv e, in cases descr ibed in t he St at ut e, which cont r adict s t he idea of univ ersal j ur isdict ion. Art icles 17 t o 19 include v ery det ailed r ules on t his dy nam ic bet ween nat ional j ur isdict ions and t he int er nat ional jur isdict ion. Art icles 86 and following est ablish differ ent specific cooper at ion obligat ions, t hus t em pering t his pr im acy of nat ional cr im inal j urisdict ion. Accor ding t o Mart en Zwanenbur g:
“ The principle of com plem ent arit y const it ut es a defer ence t o nat ional sov er eignt y , which is cont r ary t o a dev elopm ent in int ernat ional law away fr om br oader not ions of sov er eignt y ” ( Zwanenbur g 1999: 130) .
The discussing t ak ing place t oday in t er m s of applying t he pr inciple of com plem ent arit y in t he cases of Keny a and Liby a ar e of ex t r em e im por t ance fr om t he point of view of applying com plem ent arit y .
Consider ing t he init ial com pr om ise adopt ed in Rom e, William Schabas st at es t hat :
" The adopt ion of t he Rom e st at ut e on t he int er nat ional Cr im inal Cour t r epr esent s a singular defeat for Am erican diplom acy . The wor ld’s only super power found it self out m anoeuv r ed by a const ellat ion of sm all and m edium powers, including som e of it s closest friends and allies ( …) Faced wit h an acceler at ed pace of r at ificat ion and ent ry int o force, t he Unit ed St at es t ook sev er al aggr essiv e m easures dir ect ed against t he Cour t ” ( Schabas 2004: 720) .
24
of v iew t hat an int ernat ional crim inal j ust ice t hat is perm anent and independent is a t hreat t o st r at egic int er est s, a serious at t ack t o nat ional sov er eignt y . Pr esident Clint on signed t he t r eat y on t he last day possible, in a possible st r at egy t o change t he t ex t as Mem ber part y , and t his signat ure was im m ediat ely wit hdr awn by t he new adm inist r at ion, in t he fam ous episode of unsigning27
This escalat ing of host ilit y r eaches it s peak in 2002 wit h t he adopt ion of t he Am erican Ser vice- m em ber s’ Pr ot ect ion Act ( ASPA) . Regar dless of t he gap bet ween r epublicans and dem ocr at s, Am erican legal and legal- polit ical lit er at ure is divided on t his m at t er
.
28
I n Por t ugal, as in sev er al ot her St at es, t he debat e on t he accession t o t he Rom e St at ut e focused on t he const it ut ionalizat ion of t he t r ansfer ence of sov ereignt y . The st art ing point for a const it ut ionalist is t he sov er eignist per spect iv e: t he nat ional Const it ut ion pr eser v es t he com m anding capacit y of a polit ical com m unit y ov er it s t er rit ory and a gr eat er or lesser openness t o t he out side by t he const it ut ional or der is in it self a const it ut ional issue. Accession t o t he Rom e St at ut e ( as t o ot her Tr eat ies of Eur opean int egr at ion) is v iewed as a sur r ender of sov er eignt y
.
29
, which m ust first be included in t he int er nat ional Const it ut ion, wit h it s am endm ent if necessar y . Vit al Mor eir a30 r efers t o t he issue of accession t o t he St at ut e as an issue of judicial sov er eignt y : t he capacit y t o inv est igat e and t r y cr im es com m it t ed in it s t er rit ory is an essent ial feat ur e of St at e sov er eignt y ( in t he Por t uguese case, const it ut ional laws describe t he court s as bodies of sover eignt y ) . Ther efore, specific laws in t he Rom e St at ut e r epr esent der ogat ion of t he " Cr im inal or j udicial Const it ut ion" . For a St at e like Por t ugal, j udicial sov er eignt y , as any ot her t y pe of sov ereignt y , has an adapt at ion st r at egy which includes flex ibilit y in r elat ion t o it s const it ut ional or der . Art icle 7 of t he Por t uguese Const it ut ion, am ended in 1997, solv es t he conflict wit h a solut ion of openness, of a sov er eignt y able t o accept lim it ed schem es of supr a- nat ionalism or of r eal legal feder alism .
4 . Fr om I lle ga l W a r t o t h e Cr im e of Aggr e ssion
On 12 June 2010, in Kam pala, Uganda, t he first am endm ent s t o t he Rom e St at ut e wer e adopt ed concerning cr im inalizat ion of cert ain t ype of ar m s and t he crim e of aggr ession, in par t icular in t erm s of t he condit ions t he I nt ernat ional Crim inal Cour t can ex er cise it s j ur isdict ion.
This pr ogr ess opens v er y int er est ing discussion for t he t hem e st udies here and will cont ribut e t o fut ur e discussions on I nt ernat ional Cr im inal Law.
27 See t he int erest ing paper by Edw ard Sw aine ( 2003) . Unsigning. St anford Law Rev iew . Vol 55: 2061, in
w hich t he aut hor discusses t he m eaning of t his pract ice in t he Law on Treat ies, it s legalit y in v iew of t he 1969 Vienna Conv ent ion and possible effect s in negot iat ion and signing of int ernat ional t reat ies.
28
See for ex am ple Rut h Wedgw ood ( 1999) . " The I nt ernat ional Crim inal Court : an Am erican View " . European Journal of I nt ernat ional Law . 10: 93, Casey , ( 200 2) The Case against t he I n t ernat ional Cr im inal Cou rt . Fordham I nt ern at ional Law Journal. 25: 840, Monroe, Leigh ( 2001) . The Unit ed St at es and t he St at ut e of Rom e. Am erican Journal of I nt ernat ion al Law . 95 : 124.
29 The affirm at ion process of t he principle of prim acy by t he Lux em bourg Court w as a lat ent conflict w hich
last ed decades and included t he const it ut ional court s and gov ernm ent s of Mem ber - St at es. See Karen Alt er ( 2001) . Est ablishing t he Suprem acy of European Law – The m aking of an I nt ernat ional Rule of Law in Europe. Ox ford: Univ ersit y Press.
30
25
Ar t icle 6 of t he London Chart er on t he I nt ernat ional Crim inal Cour t , which pr eceded t he Nur em ber g Tr ials, est ablished, am ong t he crim es subm it t ed t o t he Court jur isdict ion,
“ Cr im es against peace: nam ely , planning, pr epar at ion, init iat ion or wagging of a war of aggr ession, or a war in v iolat ion of int ernat ional t r eat ies, agr eem ent s and assur ances, or part icipat ion in a com m on plan or conspir acy for t he accom plishm ent of any of t he for egoing” .
The I nt ernat ional Court Chart er for t he Far East , of 19 Januar y 1946, included a v ery sim ilar pr ovision.
I ndict m ent and conv ict ion for t he crim e of aggr ession “ t he supr em e int ernat ional cr im e” was one of t he m ost r ev olut ionar y and cont rov er sial issues in t he Nur em ber g and Tok y o pr ocesses, t her e being a huge opposit ion bet ween norm at ivist s and j us nat ur alist s which rem ain unt il t oday .
The collect ive securit y syst em laid down in t he Unit ed Nat ions Char t er solem nly pr oclaim ed t he pr ohibit ion of t he t hr eat t o use for ce, pursuant t o art icle 39 of t he Char t er , assigned com pet ence t o t he Securit y Council t o det erm ine, am ong ot her s, t he ex ist ence of an act of aggr ession, as well as t he appr opr iat e m easur es t o r est or e collect iv e peace and securit y .
Dur ing t he per iod befor e t he Rom e St at ut e, t her e had been at t em pt s at codifying I nt ernat ional Crim inal Law and t hey included t he issue of t he cr im e of aggr ession.
The fact t hat t he Gener al Assem bly adopt ed Resolut ion 3314 on 14 Decem ber 1974 is one of t he m ost im port ant m ilest one in t his pr ocess, in par t icular t he inclusion in ar t icle 5 of t he declar at ion t hat “ a war of aggression is a cr im e against int er nat ional peace” . The I nt ernat ional Cour t of Just ice analyzed issues r elat ed t o t he illegalit y of aggr ession in Nicar agua31
The r easons leading t o t he cr im e of aggr ession not being definit ely included in t he Rom e St at ut e ar e well- k nown and aim ed only at m aking t he com pr om ise possible, a com pr om ise t hat was difficult t o achiev e. Ther efor e, t his discussion was post poned t o a lat er dat e. Art icle 5, n.º 1 included t he cr im e of aggr ession as subm it t ed t o t he court j ur isdict ion but , under n.º 2 of t he sam e precept , t hat j urisdict ion could only be ex er cised wit h t he adopt ion of am endm ent s wit h t he definit ion of t he crim e and t he condit ions for t he exer cise of j urisdict ion by t he Cour t .
and r efer r ed som e of t he pr ovisions in Resolut ion 3314. Ther e was gr owing affir m at ion of t he illegalit y of aggr ession, based on t he syst em of t he Unit ed Nat ions Chart er , but st ill act s of aggr ession had not been clear ly t ypified as an int ernat ional cr im e. Though t he pr osecut ions in Nur em ber g and Tok y o wer e based on t he assum pt ion of an int er nat ional cr im e of aggr ession hav ing been com m it t ed ( or a cr im e against peace as it was called at t he t im e) , t he issue was not resolved unt il 1998.
Bet ween 2002 and 2009, a Special Work ing Gr oup for t he Crim e of Aggr ession, cr eat ed by t he fir st Assem bly of St at es Part y t o t he I nt er nat ional Cr im inal Court and assigned t o wr it e a pr oj ect of am endm ent s, held sev er al form al and infor m al m eet ings
26
t o at t ain t he obj ect iv e m ent ioned in ar t icle 5, n.º 232
The t ext adopt ed in Kam pala suffer s fr om t he flaws com m only found in legal t ext s pr epar ed, discussed and br ok en down in a m ult ilat er al scenario, as was m ent ioned when discussing t he Rom e St at ut e.
. The wor k carr ied out by t his Gr oup was t he basis for t he 2010 Diplom at ic Conference.
As a consequence of t he clash of absolut ely differ ent int er est s and legal cult ur es, t he t ext s result ing fr om t he com pr om ise ar e t echnically opaque and som ewhat am biguous, fr equent ly allowing for differ ent int er pr et at ions on what was agr eed on.
The Kam pala t ext s include am endm ent s t o art icle 8 ( cr im inalizing t he use of t hree new t y pes of ar m s) , a new art icle was added, ar t icle 8bis, which defines crim e of aggr ession, and new art icles 15 bis and 15 wer e added on ex er cising jur isdict ion.
The 2010 am endm ent s ar e based on a st ill r at her com plex sy st em t hat separ at es ( i) ent er ing in full for ce of ( ii) ex er cise of j ur isdict ion by t he Court and t he st ill ( iii) possible differ ent iat ed act iv at ion of t he j urisdict ion when cases ar e r esubm it t ed by t he Secur it y Council or subm it t ed by St at es and following an inv est igat ion init iat ed by t he Pr osecut or .33
The am endm ent s will ent er int o for ce under art icle 121, n.º 5 of t he St at ut e, i.e., t hey will ent er in for ce indiv idually for each St at e t hat r at ifies t hem one y ear aft er being r at ified. Howev er , t he fact t hat t he am endm ent s ent er int o for ce will hav e no effect on t he Cour t ’s j urisdict ion; t wo gener al and special addit ional st eps m ust be t ak en. For t he Cour t ’s j urisdict ion t o be act iv at ed, a m inim um num ber of 30 r at ificat ions m ust t ak e place ( prefer ably unt il t he end of 2015) and a final decision m ust be t ak en by t he Assem bly of St at es Par t y ( aft er 1 Januar y 2017) allowing t he Cour t t o st art exer cising it s j urisdict ion ( v ot ed posit iv ely by 7/ 8 of t he Assem bly m em ber s) . Besides t hese condit ions, anot her set of special condit ions have t o be m et , depending on t he pr ocedure inv olved. I n case of r esubm issions by t he Secur it y Council, t he cour t m ay ex er cise it s j urisdict ion wit hout condit ions in case of any of t he four cr im es in t he Rom e list and no consent by t he St at es inv olv ed is r equired. I n case of subm issions by St at es or inv est igat ions pr opr io m ot u by t he Pr osecut or, t he following condit ions m ust be m et : all sit uat ions of aggr ession inv olving St at es not par t y ar e ex cluded fr om t he cour t 's j ur isdict ion. For sit uat ions in which t he aggr ession inv olv es St at es par t ies t o t he Rom e St at ut e at least in one of t he St at es ( eit her t he aggr essor or t he vict im ) t he
Ther e is lim it ed possibilit y for opt ing out in som e j urisdict ion sit uat ions, subj ect ed t o final decision at t he Assem bly of St at es par t y aft er 1 Januar y 2017.
32 These result s w ere influenced by t he inform alit y of sev eral m eet ings held in academ ic env ironm ent and
t he process is k now n as t he Prin cet on Process. Docu m ent at ion on t hese m eet ings m ay be found in St efan Barriga/ Wolfgang Danspeck gruber/ Christ ian Wenaw eser ( eds.) ( 2009) The Prin cet on Process on t he Crim e of Aggression . Prin cet on: The Liech t enst ein I n st it ut e on Self- Det erm inat ion at Pr incet on Univ ersit y . On t he t echnical negot iat ion s in t he Special Group, see St efan Barriga ( 2010) Against t he odds: Th e result s of t he Special Work ing Group on t he Crim e of Aggression” in Robert o Bellelli ( ed.) I nt ernat ional Crim inal Ju st ice. UK: Ashgat e, p. 621 and Roger Clark ( 2009 ) Negot iat ing Prov isions Defining t he Crim e of Aggression, it s Elem ent s and t he Condit ion s for I CC Ex ercise on Jurisdict ion ov er it . European Journal of I nt ernat ional Law .20: 1103.
33 A clear ex planat ion of w hat w as agreed on in Kam pala and t he different issues in t erm s of int erpret at ion
27
am endm ent s m ust be in force and cannot have been opt ed out in t erm s of accept ing j ur isdict ion on t hese cases ( in t he m om ent s pr ior t o t he aggr ession) . Besides t hese, t her e ar e specific obligat ions in t he relat ionship bet ween t he Pr osecut or and t he Secur it y Council and t he power s of t he lat t er as a j ur isdict ion filt er as well as it s being able t o st op ongoing inv est igat ions under art icle 16 of t he St at ut e.
Consider ing t he descr ipt ion abov e is r at her sim plified and does not account for specific issues in int er pr et at ion r egar ding t he applicat ion of r egim e 121, n.º 5 of t he St at ut e and of t he opt ing out syst em for som e sit uat ions, t his pr ovides us wit h a v ery clear idea of t he m aze of int er pret at ions t his t y pe of t ex t s ar ouses. The r oad t owar ds t he full funct ioning of t he Court as far as t he crim e of aggr ession is concer ned will not be st r aight for war d. I n March 2013 only fiv e St at e hav e r at ified t he Kam pala am endm ent s, which m ak es it seem difficult t hat t he Court j ur isdict ion will be ensur ed aft er 2017 on t he crim e of aggr ession.
Besides t he r efer r ed pr ocedur al aspect s, som e significant am endm ent s int r oduced in 2010 ar e of m aj or im port ance for t he t hem e we ar e discussing.
The m ost im port ant aspect of t he Kam pala com pr om ise concerns t he relat ions bet ween t he Secur it y Council and t he Court in t er m s of t he lat t er 's ex er cise of j urisdict ion. I n fact , t his was a k ey issue in t he negot iat ion pr ocess and in t he gap bet ween t wo opposing posit ions. This gap is easy t o under st and: on t he one hand, t he fiv e per m anent m em bers of t he Council adv ocat ing t he prer ogat iv es t he Unit ed Nat ions Char t er gr ant s t hem in sit uat ions of aggression and, on t he ot her hand, a set of differ ent alliances am ong count ries t hat only share t he fact t hat t hey adv ocat e independence of t he Court befor e t he Securit y Council, as well as a cer t ain j udicial aut onom y in est ablishing t he exist ence of a crim e of aggr ession.
Accor ding t o what is laid down in num ber s 6 t o 8 of t he new art icle 15 bis34:
" 6 - I f concluded t her e ar e sufficient gr ounds t o open an inquiry r egar ding a crim e of aggr ession, t he pr osecut or should ensur e first t hat t he Secur it y Council has v er ified t he exist ence of t he act of aggr ession by t hat St at e.
The pr osecut or should not ify t he Unit ed Nat ions Secr et ar y - Gener al of t he case t o be present ed in court , as well as any ot her r elev ant infor m at ion or docum ent at ion.
7 - Upon v erificat ion by t he Secur it y Council of t he exist ence of an act of aggr ession, t he pr osecut or m ay open an inquiry in r elat ion t o t he crim e of aggr ession.
8 - Whenev er t he act of aggr ession is not confir m ed wit hin six m ont hs fr om t he not ificat ion dat e, t he pr osecut or m ay open an inquir y in r elat ion t o an act of aggression as long as t he inquir y office has aut hor ized t he opening of an inquir y in r elat ion t o an act of aggr ession pur suant t o pr ocedur e laid down in ar t icle 15, and ex cept if t he Securit y Council decides ot her wise, pur suant t o art icle 16" .
34 Translat ion from English originals int o Port uguese by t he Depart m ent of Legal Affairs from t he Minist ry in
