Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:46:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving the “Dispute” Under Article 119(1) of the Rome Statute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2020

Aman KUMAR
Aman KUMAR*
Affiliation:
South Asian University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The decision of the Office of the Prosecutor to seek a ruling in the “Bangladesh/Myanmar Situation” on jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Rome Statute was lauded for its drafting. The ICC granted the request in a very controversial judgment. This paper focuses on self-invocation and misinterpretation of Article 119(1) of the Statute (paragraph one disputes). The Court thus created and lost a unique chance to explain one of the untouched provisions of the Statute. The two paragraphs of the Article envisage different types of disputes. The Chamber was divided on the meaning of the very term “dispute”. However, what is noteworthy is that nowhere in her request had the Prosecutor accepted that there exists a dispute in this situation. In fact, the term “dispute” was not mentioned even once in her request. Why then did the Court delve into it?

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 38 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

LLM Candidate (International Law), South Asian University, New Delhi, India. I thank the reviewers for their kind suggestions and comments. I am also thankful to Dr Srinivas Burra and Dr Ravindra Pratap for their comments on this paper. I am indebted to all the taxpayers from member countries of the SAARC.

References

1. VAGIAS, Michail, “The Prosecutor's Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions” (2018) 31 Leiden Journal of International Law 981 at 981CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Ibid., at 982.

3. Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute, [2018] ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-1 [Prosecution's Request].

4. Vagias, supra note 1 at 1001.

5. Ibid., at 981.

6. Prosecution's Request, supra note 3 at 3.

7. Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute”, [2018] ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37 [Decision on the Prosecution's Request].

8. Ibid.

9. Decision on the “Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute”, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, [2018] ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37-Anx [Brichambaut Dissent].

10. While the request was made pursuant to art. 19(3), after briefly considering it the Court rejected it and invoked art. 21(1)(b) on its own. Similar was the case with the principle of la competence de la competence. The OTP's request was not hinged on this principle (in fact, the OTP just made a passing reference to the principle once at p. 29), but still the Court invoked it and elaborated on it in four paragraphs (paras. 30–3)!

11. El ZEIDY, Mohamed M., “Ad Hoc Declarations of Acceptance of Jurisdiction” in STAHN, Carsten, ed., The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), at 196Google Scholar.

12. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 7, para. 14.

13. KLAMBERG, Mark, Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2017) at 739Google Scholar, online: Legal-Tools <https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/aa0e2b/pdf/>.

14. TRIFFTERER, Otto and AMBOS, Kai, eds., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. SCHABAS, William A., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

16. CASSESE, Antonio, GAETA, Paola, and JONES, John R.W.D., eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Schabas, supra note 15 at 1162.

18. Cassese et al. supra note 16 at 1844.

19. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14.

20. Ibid., at 2274, ftn. 1.

21. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol II, Part Two, A/CN.4/SER.A/1994/Add.l (Part 2) (1994), at 69.

22. Ibid., at 70.

23. Ibid.

24. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2273.

25. Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court and Draft Final Act, A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, at 162 [Draft Statute for the ICC]. See also ROSENNE, Shabtai, “The International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice: Some Points of Contact” in DORIA, José, GASSER, Hans-Peter, and BASSIOUNI, M. Cherif, eds., The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 1006Google Scholar; PELLET, Alain, “The Applicable Law” in CASSESE, Antonio, GAETA, Paola, and JONES, John R.W.D., eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 1842Google Scholar.

26. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2274; see also Draft Statute for the ICC, supra note 25 at 70.

27. Klamberg, supra note 13 at 739.

28. Option 3 read: “Any dispute concerning the judicial functions of the Court shall be settled by the decision of the Court.”

29. Schabas, supra note 15 at 1162.

30. O'NEILL, Timothy, “Dispute Settlement Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of International Court of Justice” (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law 67 at 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2275.

32. Rosenne, supra note 25.

33. Klamberg, supra note 13 at 739.

34. Schabas, supra note 15 at 1161.

35. Rosenne, supra note 25.

36. Klamberg, supra note 13.

37. South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 319 at 328.

38. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2275.

39. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), [1924] P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3.

40. Ibid., at 11.

41. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2275. See also Nii Lante WALLACE-BRUCE, The Settlement of International Disputes: The Contribution of Australia and New Zealand (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998) at 3.

42. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment [1995] I.C.J. Rep. at 90 [East Timor Judgment]. See also Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 18 at 2275.

43. East Timor Judgment, supra note 42 at 99.

44. The other minor change was removal of the word “of” used before the phrase “interest between two parties” in the Mavrommatis Judgment.

45. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2275.

46. The Organs of the UN or Specialized Agencies can also approach the ICJ according to art. 96 of its statute, but only for an advisory opinion. They are not considered “disputants”.

47. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, U.S.T.S. 993 (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 34.

48. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2274.

49. Prosecution's Request, supra note 3.

50. Decision on the Prosecution's Request, supra note 7 at 11–12, para. 28.

51. Ibid., at 12.

52. Ibid., at 11, para. 28.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid., at ftn. 36.

55. See Roger S. CLARK, “Article 119” in Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14, 2273 at 2275.

56. Decision on the Prosecution's Request, supra note 7 at ftn. 36.

57. East Timor Judgment, supra note 42.

58. See above under “Defining Dispute”.

59. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 8, para. 16.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid., at 11, para. 20.

62. Decision on the Prosecution's Request, supra note 7 at 11, para. 28.

63. Ibid., ftn. 37.

64. Resolution on the “Activation of the Jurisdiction of the Court over the Crimes of Aggression”; Assembly of State Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 (2017) [Resolution].

65. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 7, para. 14.

66. El Zeidy, supra note 11 at 197.

67. Triffterer and Ambos, supra note 14 at 2276.

68. The Dissent is written by Judge Marc Perrin De Brichambaut, who had led the French delegation to the Rome Conference and signed the Rome Statute on behalf of his country.

69. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 12, para. 21.

70. As observed in the Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 11–12, para. 21.

71. Resolution, supra note 64 at para. 3.

72. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 2, para. 1.

73. Ibid., at 3, para. 4.

74. Ibid., at 18, para. 34.

75. Ibid., at 2, para. 3.

76. Ibid., at 7, para. 14.

77. Ibid., at 7 para. 15.

78. See Part II above.

79. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 10, para. 17.

80. See Part VI below.

81. East Timor Judgment, supra note 42 at 100.

82. Decision on the Prosecution's Request, supra note 7 at ftn. 36.

83. Prosecution's Request, supra note 3 at 3, para. 2.

84. Notice of the Public Statement Issued by the Government of Myanmar, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-36 (2018), at para. 1.

85. Ministry of the Office of the State Counsellor, Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, “Press Release of the Ministry of the Office of the State Counsellor, Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar” (2018), online: Ministry of the Office of the State Counsellor <http://www.statecounsellor.gov.mm/en/node/2084>.

86. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 8, para. 16.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. East Timor Judgment, supra 46 at 99.

90. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 8, para. 16.

91. Prosecution's Request, supra note 3 at 3, para. 1.

92. Brichambaut Dissent, supra note 9 at 9, para. 17.

93. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65 at 74.