The International Criminal Court

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the international Criminal Court and expounds on it, whilst focusing on the fact that it is a court of last resort, which was created, in order to investigate and also prosecute individuals who have been accused of various serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity. Thereafter, this paper focuses on the principle of complementarity, and stressed that it is a principle, upon which the ICC is based on, and denotes that the ICC is only in a position of investigating and prosecuting various core international crimes such as genocide, crimes, which are against humanity, war crimes, as well as crimes against aggression, when national jurisdictions are only unable or even unwilling to do so in a genuine way. The advantages and disadvantage of the ICC’s dependence on states have been provided and the conclusion of this paper makes it clear that the ICC ought to be more autonomous than it is currently. As such, it should not be heavily influenced by politics, and states, yet this is difficult, owing to the fact that it depends entirely on states to function.

Introduction

The Rome Statute preamble of the International Criminal Court (ICC) refers to the ICC as an international institute, which is complementary on to national criminal jurisdictions. In this regard, the complementary relationship that exists between the national criminal jurisdictions and the ICC implies that the ICC has no primary jurisdiction over various national authorities. However, it plays a subsidiary role, and also purposes to supplement various domestic investigations, as well as prosecutions of various serious crimes, which are of international concerns. It is worth noting that the ICC is only in a position of acting, in instances where domestic authorities are not able to take various necessary steps towards the investigation, as well as prosecution of crimes, which have been enumerated in accordance with Article 5 of the Rome Statute. This paper purposes to expound on the principle of complementarity on which the ICC is based on. In this regard, it will start by expounding on overview of the ICC, thereafter, it will provide the principle of complementarity. However, the paper presents the idea that the ICC ought to be more autonomous than it is currently and as such, it should not be heavily influenced by politics, and states, yet this is difficult, owing to the fact that it depends entirely on states to function

Overview of the International Criminal Court

The ICC is considered to be a court of last resort, which was created, in order to investigate and also prosecute individuals who have been accused of various serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity. Notably, the Rome Statute of the ICC established this court in the year 1998 and it commenced its sittings in the year 2002, when 60 countries purposed to ratify the Rome Statute. Presently a total of 120 countries have already ratified it. Notably, the ICC entails a jurisdiction over offences, which were committed after 2002 in countries that have significantly ratified the Rome Stature or by a person in either of the ratifying countries, even in an instance where the individual is of a country that has not ratified it. Essentially, the ICC sits at The Hague in Netherlands. Upon the establishment of the ICC, it was highly applauded as heinous crimes would no longer

---

1. Kaul, H. P. (2007). The International Criminal Court: current challenges and perspectives. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 6, 575.

go unpunished. However, it is evident that the ICC enthusiasm has since then waned, particularly on the African countries as there are claims that the ICC is disproportionately purposing to target African and thus, engaging in Western Imperialism and neo-colonialism. Countries, which are desire to withdraw from the ICC are free to do so. However, the declaration of a country to withdraw implies that the withdrawal has automatically occurred.

It is notable that the ICC is relatively a young institution. In this regard, the institution, just like any other tribunal court has to take into account its small successes, both political, as well as legal successes, particularly when it needs to deal with the doctrine and the law, which all courts achieved, in order for it is evolve its uses and also purpose to expand its various powers through reducing state opposition and also increasing its efficiency. Worth noting, in order for the ICC to realize its potential fully, it should be obligated to show to the world that it can be a permanent institution, which is successful in handling international law, in line with clear standards, goals, and even successful permanent indictments, convictions, as well as prosecutions of various heinous war criminals in various parts of the globe. The initial success that ICC has witnesses came abruptly and over time, they have been able to compound, thus laying a foundation for issues that could be considered to be extremely efficient and also successful in the judicial entity. Owing to the fact that Rome Statute was passes with a victory despite the objections that it received from all sides regarding the document semantics, it is evident that its passage was a big victory in itself.

Secondly, it is notable that the rapidness, as well as the treaty ratification that existed just for the four years upon the monumental signing implied that there was need of establishing a world major criminal court. After the court’s inception, it should be noted that 57 additional nations have since then joined the ICC, and it is evident that more nations are coming with time. The significant support of the ICC is noted to be definitely growing, particularly among smaller nations across the globe, owing to the fact that they perceive the ICC to be a significant supportive system, which aids their domestic judicial institutions. Thirdly, upon the establishment of the outline of the ICC, it was quickly evident that for the court to not only purpose to appease various

---

2. Delmas-Marty, M. (2006). Interactions between national and international criminal law in the preliminary phase of trial at the ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4(1), 2-11.
3. Bensouda, F. (2012). Reflections from the International Criminal Court Prosecutor. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 45, 505.

reluctant states and as such, maximize its self-usefulness in the international stage, the ICC had the obligation of being complimentary. In this regard, the role of all complimentary institutions is to maintain the domestic jurisdiction of various individual state, and as such, punish their criminals, in an instance where they find significant evidence worth prosecuting, and also possesses a significant functional judicial body, in order to be in a position to properly convene a fair and also a just trial. This then makes it clear that by significantly limiting the ICC’s role in terms of complimentary, it is evident that the Rome Statute, as well as the states, which are party to the said treaty have established a last resort institution, which can only be used in an instance where a given country is unable or even unwilling to prosecute their various war criminals. Notably, this entails various factors, which ought to be explained prior to indictment or conducting of an investigation, which the ICC launches. At first it should be significant to determine whether the judicial system of a domestic country is intact. For example, there are many war crimes, which have been committed when a country is faced with a civil war, like in the recent case that involves Libya, where the civil war has led to regime change. In an instance where a new court has not been stablished, and as such, the state in not capable of launching an investigation or holding court proceedings, then such times are when the ICC steps in and is considered to be a support unit and thus, takes over the case. Moreover, when a circumstance arises, which involves any sense of biasness for or even against a given criminal who is in the process of being prosecuted, like the case that involved President Al-Bashir of the Sudan State for the crimes, which had been committed in Darfur, wherefore, his country would never opt to indict him, the ICC is in a position of stepping in and taking over the case, just as they have done.

Fourthly, through limiting the court powers, it is evident that the Rome Statute has purposed to correctly hindered the court from growing to be an unrestricted power. In this regard, another success that ICC holds is that is has roles, which are clearly defined at different organs, which operate within the Rome Statute, and these goals

---

4. Du Plessis, M., Maluwa, T., & O’Reilly, A. (2013). Africa and the International Criminal Court. Criminal Justice, 11(3), 563-70.
5. Satzger, H. (2012). International and European criminal law (pp. 158-159). Munich: CH Beck.
6. KAYITANA, E. (2019). Three Avenues For Prosecuting International Crimes: Exploring The Advantages, Disadvantages And Limitations Of Each. African Journal Of Criminal Law And Jurisprudence, 4.

have significantly been utilized towards the advantage that the court derives at the international stage. In inclusion, this includes the unique roles that judges use, as well as the appeal processes. Notably, the decision of the court in the decision-making process is regarded as a common law, thus implying that judges and not the jury purposes to decide the fate of an individual who is accused regarding legal precedence, as well as knowledge of the law. Of importance to note, although this is considered to be contrary to the US legal systems, it significantly has its benefits. Clearly, the common law practice purposes to ensure that individual rights and the court palpability are handled only by professionals. Evidently, this is vital within an international forum, owing to the vast differences that exist between most of the judicial systems. Notably, a civil law court that operates within an international level is not practical. In this regard, by granting the indictees’ fate to the judges, it is clear that there is a checks and balance system in the Rome Statute, which the court is obligated to utilize. The ICC appeals system creates a significant atmosphere that entails fairness, as well as justice, in order to protect all individuals and this includes defendants to the victims of their crimes, which have been alleged.

Finally, it is worth noting that in the ICC, any given appeal can be granted for a guilty verdict and also acquittal. Significantly, this additional appeal provides the prosecutor with a second chance of submitting additional evidence, which could change the judgement determination. Moreover, in the creation of a system whereby the court is able to interpret international criminal law, it is evident that it has been able to correctly identify the issue, which ought to be addressed, for the court to blossom and also reach its full potential. It will also need to establish a system whereby precedence can be created and thus, enabling the common law to be carried out in a correct manner.

Generally, the primary role of the ICC is to aid in putting an end to cases of impunity for perpetrators of serious crimes that concern the international community wholly, and thus, aid in the contribution towards the prevention of such kind of crimes. In this regard, the aims of the ICC are as provided as follows. The first aim is to ensure that

---

7. ibid
8. ibid
9. Jessberger, F., & Geneuss, J. (2012). The many faces of the International Criminal Court. Journal of international criminal justice, 10(5), 1081-1094.

worst perpetrators in various countries are held accountable for the crimes they have committed. The second aim to serve as a law court of last resort, which is capable of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing perpetrators of genocide, crimes, which are against humanity, as well as war crimes. The third is to aid national judiciaries to investigate and prosecute perpetrators, and the final aim is to allow states to have the first hand in investigating, prosecuting and helping in the promotion of peace, as well as security, thus deterring most potential perpetrators. Notably, the ICC achieves its aims via negotiating with states, NGOs, as well as regional bodies, in order to meet their main objective, which is to persecute perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, as well as crimes, which are against humanity. For instance, this can be witnessed in the negotiations between the Congolese Government, for the conviction, as well as arrest of Thomas Lubanga. Although this could be regarded as trivial for ICC, the tension within the state makes it very hard for outside authority to exercise its major power other than the ICC. Moreover, this is also seen in some other major cases such as the case of Libya Civil war. Overall, it should be noted that the aims of the ICC are right. However, they could be made better if they could be redefined in a manner that makes the ICC more autonomous than it is currently and not to be influenced by politics, or rated.

The principle of complementarity

The complementarity principle, upon which the ICC is based on stresses that the ICC is only in a position of investigating and prosecuting various core international crimes such as genocide, crimes, which are against humanity, war crimes, as well as crimes against aggression, when national jurisdictions are only unable or even unwilling to do so in a genuine way. Of importance to note is that this principle purposes to reflect on the realization that it is preferable that such kin of crimes can only be investigated and also prosecuted in given countries where they have occurred. This principle was established, and considered as an admissibility principle that governs that ICC. On the other hand, it is evident that the universal jurisdiction is considered as a jurisdictional basis of a last resort, which many national systems

---

10. ibid
11. Akhavan, P. (2010). Self-Referrals Before the International Criminal Court: Are States the Villains or the Victims of Atrocities?. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 103). Springer Science & Business Media.
12. Krzan, B. (2016). International Criminal Court Facing the peace vs. justice dilemma. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 2(2), 81-88.

of criminal justice provide for. This is especially in instances where core international crimes are not in a capacity of being prosecuted whilst putting into consideration, the principle of territoriality (the state where a given crime has been committed), active nationality (the state of an alleged perpetrator) or even passive nationality (the victim’s state). Significant to note, is that in its most purest form, universal jurisdiction purposes to enable the prosecution of various core international crimes, which have been committed in a given foreign state by wither a foreign citizen, against a foreign victim or when the neither of the individuals has a personal link, which connects them to the forum state.

The complementarity is regarded as a fundamental principle. However, it has been subject to various academic scrutiny in terms of its constituting elements, as well as the potential ramifications towards its use. Of importance noting is that it governs the relationship, which exists between national legal orders, and the ICC. In accordance with the Rome Statute, Article 17, which indicates that the ICC ought to step in, only when national jurisdictions, are unwilling or unable to either investigate or prosecute, the most important concepts in the determination of a case’s admissibility before the ICC is “unwillingness” as well as “inability.” In most instances, a state may be regarded to be “unable” in an instance where its legal system is collapsing or has already collapsed. In this regard, the statutes offers some kind of guidance, whilst determining these kind of elements. However, the precise threshold is often subject to academic debate and judicial determination in any case that emerges in the ICC. Moreover, some issues, which relate to fairness, pardons, or even amnesties and their attached roles towards the determination of a case admissibility before the ICC have been regarded to be controversial, and also requires further exploration, owing to the fact that the statute often remains silent on how it fits with complementarity. Notably, the incentive associated with avoiding the jurisdiction of ICC, which is also described as the “catalytic effect” of the complementarity may always never encourage states to be able to prosecute and also investigate. This is in instances where the benefits connected to overseeing national prosecutions have been

---

13. ibid
14. Carter, L. E. (2010). The principle of complementarity and the International Criminal Court: the role of ne bis in idem. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 8, 165.
15. Yang, L. (2005). On the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Chinese journal of international law, 4(1), 121-132

outweighed, or even negated by various difficulties that are gotten through engaging in the criminal justice processes for atrocities, as well as relative incapacity of various national institutions. Significantly, in an instance where either inability of unwillingness towards investigating or prosecuting has been encountered, it could be necessary shifting the balance of the pros and cons for and also against prosecution, thus aiding in facilitating states to be able to fulfill their significant rile under the complementarity regime of the ICC. Notably, over the years, there have been more positive approaches towards complementarity, which have been put forward and also, the meaning of complementarity as had been foreseen originally is gradually changing. Putting into consideration, the Kampala Review Conference, it is evident that positive complementarity has increased in significance and as such, capacity building has significantly firmly entered the international criminal lawyers’ vocabulary. Notably, the ability of various states to be able to fulfill this role has posed much significance for sovereign equality in the states community and also for the ICC’s effectiveness towards fighting impunity, as well as delivering justice, which is noted to be meaningful for victims of serious atrocities.

Admissibility v. Jurisdiction

Notably, there are substantive rules, which constitute the complementarity principle. In this context, the Rome Statute purposes to define the question regarding complementarity as to be pertaining to a case admissibility instead of court jurisdiction. Owing to the opinion that this is the case with some other international judicial institutions like the human rights courts, it is evident that the issue associated with both jurisdiction and admissibility in terms of competence in pending cases have the mandate to be distinguished, even whilst considering that both concepts are related in a close manner. The court is not able the exercise the jurisdiction, which it has, in an instance where a case poses as inadmissible. In this regard, the complementarity principle is notable that it does not influence the existence of a court jurisdiction. However, it regulates when the court exercises jurisdiction. In this regard, it is evident that Article 17 is considered to be a barrier towards the exercise

---

16. ibid
17. Robinson, D. (2010, February). The mysterious mysteriousness of complementarity. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 21, No. 1).
18. Stahn, C. (2012). Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity: A Test for ‘Shared Responsibility’. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10(2), 325-349.

of a jurisdiction. Overall, it is worth noting that the rules associated with procedure, as well as ICC procedures seconds this and recognizes that the court shall rule any form of challenge to its jurisdiction first, prior to handling matter associated with admissibility.

The advantages and disadvantages of the ICC’s dependence on states Advantages

Significantly, the statute that establishes the ICC poses as an international and also a multilateral treaty. In accordance with the Vienna Convention (The Law of Treaties) Article 31, it is evident that provisions of a given treaty ought to be interpreted, with regards to its purpose, as well as its objective. In a bid to understanding the complementarity principle, and also facilitating and structuring the interpretations of different provisions, which define the concept procedurally and also substantively, it thus seems pertinent to be able to enquire about the rationale behind the complementarity principle. Some of the advantages of having the ICC to be dependent entirely on states is that first, is that the regime of the ICC is primarily designed to be able to protect and also serve, which is considered as the sovereignty, both of third parties, and also of state parties. In this regard, when the ICC is dependent on states, their consent for the ICC to intervene implies that the primary mission of the ICC can easily be achieved. Secondly, it is worth noting that despite the human rights, as well as ethical agenda of the ICC, in line with its ambition towards punishing criminals and preventing crimes; international organizations, states, and even people do not always subscribe to it. However, as of 2013, most of the states across the globe ratified the statute, which then established the institution. In this regard, it is evident that the ICC has significant jurisdiction with respect to various ranges of crimes such as genocide, war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity. When it is dependent on the approval of states, it is then able to investigate and prosecute such kind of crimes. The ICC does this, primarily with the intention of ensuring peace, security, as well as the well-being of states. In this regard, it should be noted that the ICC is a court, which has an ethical aim, which in

---

19. ibid
20. Carter, L. E. (2013). The future of the international criminal court: complementarity as a strength or a weakness. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 12, 451.

prosecuting criminals and thus, gaining its legitimacy. Moreover, through this means, it is able to attract other states, which would wish to portray that they have support towards the defense of the rights of humans.

It is also notable that when the ICC depends on states, its contributions, in terms of international justice, as well as peace rely entirely on agency, and even structural factors. These are factors, which second its legitimacy among various states across the globe, the support, which ICC derives from the international community whilst promoting peace and implementing justice, its independence, and also its capacity of rendering justice and allowing or encouraging the prevalence of national justice. In this regard, it is arguable that the ICC is then in a position of contributing significant justice, as well as peace to nations, which have ratified its statutes. Based on this, the ICC is recognized globally to be a legitimate institution. In support of this, is when Tunisia joined the ratification in 2011, after it has fought for democracy, thereby highlighting various international values, which the ICC brings forth. It is then worth noting that the more, various states purpose to join the ICC, the more powers the ICC has, owing to the fact that the prosecutor is then granted the opportunity of investigating crimes on a personal level in these states, and as such, the ICC can be in a position of acting independently from various states. Additionally, when the ICC depends on states, it often ensures that it focuses on fairness and in order for the nationals to maintain their ratification; it ensures that it gradually improves its legitimacy. Although the ICC experiences political constraints, especially when crimes have been committed in a state, which has not yet ratified the statute, the ICC has gradually be trying to adopt a fair and also an impartial approach towards delivering justice through investigating various crimes across the globe, by all sides of a conflict.

Moreover, when the ICC depends on states, it would be open to significant discussions, and be respectful to various local justice systems, various state institutions, and people living I various conflict areas. In all this, the most import aspect is that people should have to be confidence in their legal, as well as political

---

21. Stahn, C., & El Zeidy, M. M. (Eds.). (2011). The International Criminal Court and complementarity: from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
22. ibid
23. Stahn, C. (2005). Complementarity, amnesties and alternative forms of justice: some interpretative guidelines for the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(3), 695-720.

systems. Considering the 2010 Conference Review that was held in Kampala, it is evident that ICC officials advocated for ‘positive complementarity,’ which is concerned with states aiding each other and getting mush support from the court, as well as the civil society and meeting significant obligations of the Rome Statutes. Finally, it is worth noting that when the ICC depends on states, there can be a deterrent impact, which can hinder future atrocities. It is seconded by the opinion that through indicting various heads of government, the ICC purposes to make an end on the issue of impunity, especially for leaders who fail to protect their citizens, or those who continually do them harm. In this regard, the ICC is noted to assist in the implementation of the aspect of ‘responsibility to protect’ as the UN General Assembly agreed upon it in the year 2005



Disadvantages

Contrary to the aforementioned advantages, it is evident that the ICC’s dependence on states also has shortcomings, which are provided as follows. First, the contribution of the ICC on furthering the aspect of promoting peace and justice is significantly limited, owing to the fact that some states have refused to accept its legitimacy, as they seek to control and also use the court as an instrument of reinforcing their own power, and also by its ability of pursuing investigations successfully. In this regard, other states have recognized the ICC as an institution, which is illegitimate. Moreover, the dependence of the ICC on states has also been compromised by various external attempts towards exercising control over most of its operations. In this regard, whilst acting legally, states have purposed to use the ICC for their political motives and in most cases, this often works contrary to the principles of the ICC. Significantly, this corresponds to the argument that law cannot be easily understood independently, based on the political foundation that it rests on, and also for the political interest that it purposes to serve.

Moreover, it is evident that power politics often have a direct effect on the functionality of the ICC when the ICC depends on states. The role played by the permanent 5 UN security council members is vital when crimes have been committed in states, which have not ratified the statute. In such cases, the decision of the UNSC is vital in triggering the jurisdiction of the ICC, as chances are that the 5

---

24. Bishop, A. (2013). Failure of complementarity: The future of the International Criminal Court following the Libyan admissibility challenge. Minn. J. Int'l L., 22, 388.

big powers are only states, which are politically able to conduct an ICC arrest warrant. As such, the UNSC can at any moment, decide to delay the investigation or the prosecution of the ICC, and this is subject to article 16 of the Rome Statute. Consequently, even other states that are within the UNSC that are not party to the statute such as China and Russia can play a major role in the investigation of the ICC. This is owing to the fact that they are able to motivate the ICC to act or even prevent it from cooperating with the ICC. A good example is when the UNSC used the ICC in dealing with the Sudan crisis, as it considered it a diplomatic instrument. Moreover, whilst putting into consideration the Darfur case, it is evident that the ICC serves the international community interest and this did not reach a significant common position on various significant sanctions, needed to be raised against Sudan.

It should be noted that the ICC is able of becoming or be considered biased by various state actors, or even people, regardless of whether it depends on the state. In this regard, state leaders requiring the ICC to act against various rebels, with the aim of reinforcing their personal regime, as well as authority are effectively purposing to turn the ICC to act as their political instrument. Moreover, they are as well contributing towards the establishment of an unjust and unrealistic international legal system, owing to the fact that they require the court to be acting or focusing on just one side of the conflict. Finally, when ICC depends on states, the states can hinder the ICC’s work when they decide they no longer want to cooperate with it, especially when an arrest warrant has been issued. In this regard, when states are hosting an individual that the ICC wants, they may purpose to prevent the individual from being indicated, thus divulging information regarding the crimes that are committed by their government, or they can decide to use the ICC to be a threat to negotiations with their rival states.

Conclusion

---

25. Clark, J. N. (2011). Peace, justice and the International Criminal Court: Limitations and possibilities. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 9(3), 521-545.
26. King, E. B. L. (2013). Does Justice always Require Prosecution: The International Criminal Court and Transnational Justice Measures. Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 45, 85.
27. Jurdi, N. N. (2010). The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?. International criminal Law review, 10(1), 73-96.

This paper brings forth the idea that ICC ought to be more autonomous than it is currently and as such, it should not be heavily influenced by politics, and states, yet this is difficult, owing to the fact that it depends entirely on states to function. This paper generally argues that the contribution of the ICC towards peace and justice significantly depends on the institution’s autonomy to be able to indict potential criminals on to the support that is receives from ICC state parties. It is notable that the ICC’s autonomy is conditioned by the goodwill of various state parties, as well as non-party states to the Rome statute. This kind of autonomy would significantly increase in an instance where a majority of states in the world would be party to the Rome statute and as such, respect its obligations without having to be influenced by politics or the states, or rather, be dependent on the states. Clearly, the ICC credibility is connected to its capacity of providing universal justice without having to be bias. In this regard, this credibility would significantly increase if the ICC acts independently from the states, investigates various criminals from all continents whether they are state officials or not, when the ICC has a significant way of delivering justice in a fair manner and within a short time period and finally, where possible, be able to defer prosecutions at a local level. Finally, the ICC should be considered to be a legitimate actor by all states that have reasons for fearing indictment, by the indicted individuals and their personal supporters and by the population in areas where various serious crimes have been committed. Overall, when there is need of improving the effects of the ICC, its members should be obligated to play a vital role of supporting the Court towards providing international justice. In this regard, they have to create a safe environment for various crime victims who have the will to testify at the Hague, and thus, protect them from further violence. Moreover, states should be obligated to assist the ICC in implementing its warrants of arrest, and contribute towards the reparation systems of the ICC for crime victims.

Bibliography

Akhavan, P. (2010). Self-Referrals Before the International Criminal Court: Are States the Villains or the Victims of Atrocities?. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 103). Springer Science & Business Media.

Bensouda, F. (2012). Reflections from the International Criminal Court Prosecutor. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 45, 505.

Bishop, A. (2013). Failure of complementarity: The future of the International Criminal Court following the Libyan admissibility challenge. Minn. J. Int'l L., 22, 388.

Carter, L. E. (2010). The principle of complementarity and the International Criminal Court: the role of ne bis in idem. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 8, 165.

Carter, L. E. (2013). The future of the international criminal court: complementarity as a strength or a weakness. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 12, 451.

Clark, J. N. (2011). Peace, justice and the International Criminal Court: Limitations and possibilities. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 9(3), 521-545.

Delmas-Marty, M. (2006). Interactions between national and international criminal law in the preliminary phase of trial at the ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4(1), 2-11.

Du Plessis, M., Maluwa, T., & O’Reilly, A. (2013). Africa and the International Criminal Court. Criminal Justice, 11(3), 563-70.

Jessberger, F., & Geneuss, J. (2012). The many faces of the International Criminal Court. Journal of international criminal justice, 10(5), 1081-1094.

Jurdi, N. N. (2010). The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?. International criminal Law review, 10(1), 73-96.

Kaul, H. P. (2007). The International Criminal Court: current challenges and perspectives. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 6, 575.

KAYITANA, E. (2019). THREE AVENUES FOR PROSECUTING INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: EXPLORING THE ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF EACH. African Journal Of Criminal Law And Jurisprudence, 4.

King, E. B. L. (2013). Does Justice always Require Prosecution: The International Criminal Court and Transnational Justice Measures. Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 45, 85.

Krzan, B. (2016). International Criminal Court Facing the peace vs. justice dilemma. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 2(2), 81-88.

Robinson, D. (2010, February). The mysterious mysteriousness of complementarity. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 21, No. 1).

Satzger, H. (2012). International and European criminal law (pp. 158-159). Munich: CH Beck.

Stahn, C. (2005). Complementarity, amnesties and alternative forms of justice: some interpretative guidelines for the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(3), 695-720.

Stahn, C. (2012). Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity: A Test for ‘Shared Responsibility’. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10(2), 325-349.

Stahn, C., & El Zeidy, M. M. (Eds.). (2011). The International Criminal Court and complementarity: from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

Yang, L. (2005). On the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Chinese journal of international law, 4(1), 121-132.

Continue your exploration of The Dynamics of Multilateralism in Economic Law with our related content.