Search

The current oversimplification of the amnesty issue has created a narrative that international law prohibits granting and admitting the effect of amnesties for core crimes. However, even if a domestic amnesty is found illegal under international law, it is still valid at the national level. The International Criminal Court (ICC) cannot ignore the existence of and the legal consequences of such 'illegal' amnesties in assessing the admissibility of a case. This article categorises amnesties into three types and clarifies the legal and factual effects of internationally illegal domestic amnesties for the ICC and the legal logic under which the ICC treats such amnesties at the admissibility stage based on the developing applicable laws. This study provides clear guidelines on the conditions that would make a case inadmissible before the ICC for both the chambers and the domestic policy makers and legislators who design amnesties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outcome of an ICC trial – be it a conviction or acquittal – receives significant attention. However, what happens to a defendant in the aftermath of the proceeding garners little discussion. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by analysing how the ne bis in idem and nulla poena sine lege principles, enshrined in Articles 20(2) and 23 of the Rome Statute, protect defendants from subsequent prosecutions and punishments by states and regional courts following their trials at the ICC. We argue that these provisions do not provide adequate protection. Further, we argue that given the ICC's limited power to enforce compliance with these provisions as well as the primary role that states enjoy in the enforcement of international criminal law, the most appropriate way to address this issue is through the inclusion of robust protections in domestic legislation and the constituent instruments of regional courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationalised courts are now firmly part of the international criminal landscape, having been established when post-conflict national systems were unable to try the perpetrators of mass atrocities, or when international contribution was deemed warranted. Internationalised courts have been established in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. One of the shared characteristics of these courts is that they necessarily interact with the national courts in their countries of operation; some more successfully than others. In some cases, national courts have significantly hindered the work of the internationalised court. Given that the expense of the ad hoc tribunals and the complementarity regime of the ICC mean that internationalised courts are likely to be the forum of choice in many post-conflict states, an examination of how these courts can best manage relationships with national courts is timely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]