Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:39:01.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Construction Site for More Justice: The International Criminal Court After Two Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Hans-Peter Kaul
Hans-Peter Kaul*
Affiliation:
International Criminal Court and Pre–Trial Division
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was officially opened in The Hague on March 11, 2003, in a special ceremony attended by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan. Less than four years after the historic breakthrough by the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Rome on July 17, 1998, the Statute of the ICC had entered into force on July 1, 2002. The required number of sixty ratifications, which is laid down in Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute, was reached much faster than for other comparable multilateral treaties and faster than had been expected by the global public. Secretary-General Annan attracted widespread attention when he observed that July 1, 2002, was a decisive landmark in breaking with the cynical worldview of people like Joseph Stalin, who is alleged to have remarked that while “a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

Type
Developments at the International Criminal Court
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 370 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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.)

References

1 Hans–Peter, Kaul, Breakthrough in Rome: The Statute of the International Criminal Court, 59/60 Law & St. 114 (1999)Google Scholar; Hans–Peter, Kaul, Towards a Permanent Criminal Court: Some Observations of a Negotiator, 18 Hum. Rts. L.J. 169 (1997)Google Scholar.

2 Articles cited without further details on the source are those in the Rome Statute. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 3, corrected through/an. 16, 2002, at <http://www.icc–cpi.int>. For the Court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, infra note 19, and the Regulations of the Court, infra note 14, as well as the other ICC documents cited below, unless another source is listed, see the Court’s Web site, <http://www.icc–cpi.int>.

3 See, e.g., Orme, William, Global Court Near Despite U.S. Rebuff, L.A. Times, Apr. 11, 2002, at A1 Google Scholar; Bone, James, War Crimes Court Pits United States Against the World, Times (London), Apr. 11, 2002 Google Scholar, available in Lexis, News Library, Major World Newspapers File.

4 UN Info. Serv. Press Release L/3003, Secretary–General Addresses Preparatory Commission for International Criminal Court as It Concludes Its Ninth Session (Apr. 22, 2002), at <http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/index.html>.

5 These are, in order of seniority: Karl T. Hudson–Phillips (Trinidad and Tobago); Claude Jorda (France); Georghios M. Pikis (Cyprus); Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica); Tuiloma Neroni Slade (Samoa); Navanethem Pillay (South Africa); Sang–Hyun Song (Republic of Korea); Hans–Peter Kaul (Germany); Mauro Politi (Italy); Maureen Harding Clark (Ireland); Akua Kuenyehia (Ghana); Philippe Kirsch (Canada); René Blattmann (Bolivia); Erkki Kourula (Finland); Fatoumata Dembele Diarra (Mali); Anita Ušacka (Latvia); Adrian Fulford (United Kingdom); and Sylvia Steiner (Brazil). Immediately after the swearing–in ceremony, Judge Kirsch was elected president, and Judges Kuenyehia and Odio Benito were elected vice presidents of the Court in accordance with Article 38, paragraph 1.

6 ICC Press Release, Election of the Prosecutor—Statement by the President of the Assembly of States Parties Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al Hussein (Mar. 25, 2003)Google Scholar.

7 ICC Press Release, Bruno Cathala from France Appointed Registrar of the ICC (June 24, 2003)Google Scholar.

8 ICC Press Release, Election of the Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (Sept. 10, 2003), at <http://www.un.org/law/icc/asp/aspfra.htm>>Google Scholar.

9 ICC Press Release, Solemn Undertaking of Deputy Prosecutor (Prosecutions) (Nov. 1, 2004)Google Scholar.

10 Programme Budget for 2004, Doc. ICC–ASP/2/10, at 202 (2003); see also Draft Programme Budget for 2005 Prepared by the Registrar, Doc. ICC–ASP/3/25, pt. II (A–7), at 17 (2004).

11 See ICC Press Release, President of Uganda Refers Situation Concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC (Jan. 29, 2004)Google Scholar.

12 ICC Press Release, Prosecutor Receives Referral of the Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Apr. 19, 2004)Google Scholar; ICC Press Release, The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Opens Its First Investigation (June 23, 2004)Google Scholar.

13 ICC Press Release, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Opens an Investigation into Northern Uganda (July 29, 2004)Google Scholar.

14 Regulations of the Court, Doc. ICC–BD/01–01–04 (May 26, 2004)Google Scholar [hereinafter Regulations].

15 On February 17, 2005, Pre–Trial Chamber I convened the first status conference with the prosecutor. Decision to Convene a Status Conference, Doc. ICC–01/04 (Feb. 17, 2005).

16 Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 26, subregulations 3, 4.

17 Id. The electronic version will be authoritative.

18 Id., subregulation 4.

19 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Doc. ICC–ASP/1/3 (pt. 11–A), Rule 67 (Sept. 9, 2002) [hereinafter Rules].

20 Art. 69, para. 2; Rules, supra note 19, Rule 68.

21 Art. 43, para. 2.

22 Established by the Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 77.

23 Established by id., Regulation 81.

24 Although these two offices fall within the purview of the Registry for administrative purposes, they will act in complete independence in the interests of the defendants or victims, respectively. Id., Regulations 77, subregulation 2, & 81, subregulation 2.

25 See, for example, Article 56, paragraph 2(d) and Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 77, subregulation 4, which expressly foresee this possibility.

26 In principle, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims is there to assist the legal representatives of victims, but Regulation 81, subregulation 4(b) also foresees the possibility that members of the office might appear before a chamber on specific issues.

27 See supra notes 6, 8–9.

28 Art. 54. Note that the prosecutor is obliged to “establish the truth” and must look for both incriminating and exonerating evidence. See also Draft Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor, especially Regulation 10 (June 3, 2003).

29 Art. 54.

30 Id., para. 3(c), (d); Rules, supra note 19, Rule 176, para. 2.

31 It seems noteworthy that one of the senior trial attorneys is former New York federal prosecutor Christine Chung, a U.S. national. Bravin, Jess, International Criminal Court Picks US Lawyer to Lead First Case, Wall St. J., Jan. 30, 2004 Google Scholar.

32 See Draft Programme Budget for 2005, supra note 10, at 84, para. 246, & 89, para. 266.

33 See The Legal Advisory Section (LAS), ICC Newsletter No. 3, Feb. 2005, at 6.

34 Interestingly, the Case Matrix has already been translated into Indonesian for the investigations and prosecutions that are taking place there.

35 ICC, Office of the Prosecutor, Paper on Some Policy Issues Before the Office of the Prosecutor (Sept. 2003)Google Scholar [hereinafter Policy Paper].

36 Id., pt. I, at 2. This point was underlined by Chief Prosecutor Moreno–Ocampo in his statements to the Third Assembly of States Parties. Address by Prosecutor Luis Moreno–Ocampo (Sept. 6, 2004) [hereinafter Moreno–Ocampo].

37 See Policy Paper, supra note 35, pt. II(1), at 4–5.

38 See id., pt. II(2.1), at 7.

39 See Annex to the “Paper on Some Policy Issues Before the Office of the Prosecutor”: Referrals and Communications 5 (Apr. 23, 2004) [hereinafter Annex],

40 Id.; see also Report of the Prosecutor of the ICC, Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Second Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Sept. 8, 2003).

41 See Moreno-Ocampo, supra note 36.

42 See Policy Paper, supra note 35, pt. I, at 2.

43 The resolutions establishing the ICTY and ICTR state that

all States shall cooperate fully with the International Tribunal and its organs in accordance with the present resolution and the Statute of the International Tribunal and that consequently all States shall take any measures necessary under their domestic law to implement the provisions of the present resolution and the Statute, including the obligation of States to comply with requests for assistance or orders issued by a Trial Chamber . . . ;

. . . [and urge] States and intergovernmental and non–governmental organizations to contribute funds, equipment and services to the International Tribunal, including the offer of expert personnel.

SC Res. 827, op. paras. 4–5 (May 25, 1993); SC Res. 955, op. paras. 2, 4 (Nov. 8, 1994).

44 See supra notes 12, 13.

45 ICC Press Release, Prosecutor Receives Referral Concerning Central African Republic (Jan. 7, 2005)Google Scholar.

46 See supra notes 11, 12.

47 Examples of factors that might be considered are the protection of victims, the potential impact of investigations on the conflict in question, and the question of the existence of national criminal prosecution initiatives.

48 See Annex, supra note 39, at 1.

49 Art. 53, para. 3(b); Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 48.

50 See Report of the Prosecutor of the ICC, supra note 40. Article 63 makes it very clear that “[t]he accused shall be present during the trial” and that there can thus be no trials in absentia.

51 Art. 52, para. 1.

52 This propensity has shifted considerably in the course of the life of the Tribunals, both through amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and through the practice of the chambers. Mundis, Daryl A., From ‘Common Law’ Towards ‘Civil Law’: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 14 Leiden J. Int’l L. 367 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 An example that shows the judges’ awareness of their role in managing the cases can be found in the Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 54, which gives an exemplary list of orders the Trial Chamber may make to organize the trial:

  • (a)

    (a) The length and content of legal arguments and the opening and closing statements;

  • (b)

    (b) A summary of the evidence the participants intend to rely on;

  • (c)

    (c) The length of the evidence to be relied on;

  • (d)

    (d) The length of questioning of the witnesses;

  • (e)

    (e) The number and identity (including any pseudonym) of the witnesses to be called;

  • (f)

    (f) The production and disclosure of the statements of the witnesses on which the participants propose to rely;

  • (g)

    (g) The number of documents as referred to in article 69, paragraph 2, or exhibits to be introduced together with their length and size;

  • (h)

    (h) The issues the participants propose to raise during the trial;

  • (i)

    (i) The extent to which a participant can rely on recorded evidence, including the transcripts and the audio– and video–record of evidence previously given;

  • (j)

    (j) The presentation of evidence in summary form;

  • (k)

    (k) The extent to which evidence is to be given by an audio– or video–link;

  • (l)

    (l) The disclosure of evidence;

  • (m)

    (m) The joint or separate instruction by the participants of expert witnesses;

  • (n)

    (n) Evidence to be introduced under rule 69 as regards agreed facts;

  • (o)

    (o) The conditions under which victims shall participate in the proceedings;

  • (p)

    (p) The defences, if any, to be advanced by the accused.

54 See Kress, Claus, The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline: Anatomy of a Unique Compromise, 1 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 603 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 For some reflections on this point, see Report of the Expert Group to Conduct a Review of the Effective Operation and Functioning of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. A/54/634 (1999); Stéphane, Bourgon, Procedural Problems Hindering Expeditious and Fair justice, 2 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 526 (2004)Google Scholar; Robinson, P. L., Ensuring Fair and Expeditious Trims at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 11 Eur. J. Int’l L. 569 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wald, Patricia M., ICTY Judicial Proceedings: An Appraisal from Within, 2 J. Int’l Crim.Just. 466 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also ICC, Office of the Prosecutor, Informal Expert Paper: Measures Available to the International Criminal Court to Reduce the Length of the Proceedings (2003)Google Scholar.

56 Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 76, subregulation 1. The ICTY Appeals Chamber recently confirmed that the imposition of defense counsel can be appropriate if the conduct or medical condition of the accused would otherwise seriously disrupt the proceedings. Milošević v. Prosecutor, Decision on Appeal on Assignment of Counsel, No. IT–02–54–AR73.7 (Nov. 1, 2004).

57 See Stahn, Carsten, Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System: A Portrayal of Regulation 55, 16 Crim.L.F. 1 (2005)Google Scholar.

58 Art. 61, para. 7.

59 See especially Articles 56 and 57.

60 The Office of the Prosecutor seems to have a restrictive view of this judicial involvement. See Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Prosecutor’s Position on Pre–Trial Chamber I’s 17 February 2005 Decision to Convene a Status Conference, No. ICC–01/04 (Mar. 8, 2005); see also id., Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal (Mar. 11, 2005). This request was rejected by Pre–Trial Chamber I in Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal, No. ICC–01/04 (Mar. 14, 2005).

61 The Code of Judicial Ethics, Doc. ICC–BD/02–01–05 (Mar. 9, 2005), was published in the ICC Official Journal in accordance with Regulation 7, subregulation 1(h) and is posted on the Web site, supra note 2.

62 On June 23, 2004, the Presidency issued its decision (ICC–Pres–01/04) to constitute three Pre–Trial Chambers, composed of the following judges: I, Judges Jorda, Kuenyehia, and Steiner; II, Judges Slade, Politi, and Diarra; and III, Judges Slade, Kaul, and Steiner. ICC Press Release, Constitution of ICC Pre–Trial Chambers (June 25, 2004).

63 The Appeals Chamber is composed of the following judges: President Kirsch and Judges Pikis, Pillay, Song, and Kourula.

64 Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Decision Assigning the Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo to Pre–Trial Chamber I, No. ICC–01/04–1 (July 5, 2004).

65 Situation in Uganda, Decision Assigning the Situation in Uganda to Pre–Trial Chamber II, No. ICC–02/04–1 (July 5, 2004).

66 Situation in the Central African Republic, Decision Assigning the Situation in the Central African Republic to Pre–Trial Chamber III, No. ICC–01/05–1 (Jan. 19, 2005).

67 Under the strict system of the Rome Statute, the prosecutor cannot start a formal investigation independently. When the prosecutor wants to initiate an investigation on his own motion (propria motu), he must first obtain authorization from the Pre–Trial Chamber (Art. 15, para. 3). However, even though the current investigations started without the direct involvement of the Pre–Trial Chamber, at any time during an investigation it may be seized of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court by a state or arrested person, which, if successful, would end the prosecutor’s investigation (Art. 19).

68 Such a request must be made within one month after the prosecutor has notified “all States Parties and those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned” (Art. 18, para. 1). The one–month period is designed to permit a state that is already investigating the alleged crimes to inform the ICC and ask the prosecutor to defer to its jurisdiction under the complementarity principle.

69 ICC Press Release, Registrar Confirms that the Republic of Cote d’ Ivoire Has Accepted the Jurisdiction of the Court (Feb. 15, 2005). The text of the declaration is confidential at the moment.

70 Art. 53, para. 3(a).

71 Id., para. 3(b).

72 Id.

73 To that end, the Pre–Trial Chamber may be asked to take the necessary measures by the defense or the prosecutor, or may even act propria motu (see mainly Articles 56 and 57).

74 See, in particular, Article 56 on unique investigative opportunities.

75 Art. 58.

76 Art. 61.

77 Regulation 52 requires the prosecutor to provide a precise characterization of the facts, specifying the type of crimes alleged, as well as the precise form of participation. Regulations, supra note 14, Regulation 52. If later it becomes apparent that a different crime or a different form of participation may be at stake, the chamber is permitted to modify the legal characterization of the facts in the document containing the charges. Id., Regulation 55; see supra text at note 57.

78 Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (VStGB) v. 30.6.2002 (BGB1.I S.2254) (German Code of Crimes Against International Law); Zusammenarbeitsgesetz v. 28.6.2002 (BGB1. IS.2144–65) (German Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court). The full text of the code is available in English at the Web site of the Max Planck Institute for International Criminal Law in Freiburg, Germany, at <http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/forsch/legaltext/VStGBengl.pdf>. The full text of the law is available in English at the Web site of die Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at <http://www.auswaertiges–amt.de/www/en/infoservice/download/pdf/vn/istgh/istgh.pdf>.

79 This unfriendly policy is evidenced, inter alia, by the adoption of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, see Murphy, Sean D., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 975 (2002)Google Scholar, and the continuing efforts to secure immunity from the ICC’s jurisdiction by a systematic campaign to persuade states parties to sign so–called Article 98 agreements, see id., 97 AJIL 200 & 710 (2003).

80 See, e.g., Bloomfield, Lincoln P. Jr., U.S. assistant secretary of state for political–military affairs, The U.S. Government and the International Criminal Court, Remarks to the Parliamentarians for Global Action, Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the International Criminal Court and the Rule of Law, New York (Sept. 12, 2003), available at <http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/24137.htm>Google Scholar; Bolton, John R., U.S. under secretary of state for arras control and international security, American Justice and the International Criminal Court, Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute (Nov. 3, 2003), available at <http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/25818.htm>Google Scholar.

81 This allegation was made by the U.S. president himself, as reported, for example, in Tayler, Letta, U.S. at Odds over World Tribunal; Bush Administration Suspends Aid to Nations That Refuse to Shield Americans from War–Crimes Court, Newsday, Oct. 17, 2004, at A6 Google Scholar, available in Lexis, News Library, Allnews File; see also Murphy, Sean D., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 482 (2002)Google ScholarPubMed.

82 On this point, see Leigh, Monroe, The United States and the Statute of Rome, 95 AJIL 124 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Defense, Background Briefing on the International Criminal Court (July 2, 2002), at <http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t07022002_t0702icc.html>.

84 The commission was established and the report requested by Security Council Resolution 1564 of September 18, 2004.

85 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary–General (Jan. 25, 2005), available at <http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf>.

86 Id., para. 569.

87 The former ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues and head of the U.S. delegation in Rome, David Scheffer, even describes Article 13(b) as one of the “major [U.S.] objectives . . . achieved” in the Statute. Scheffer, David J., Staying the Course with the International Criminal Court, 35 Cornell Int’l L.J. 47, 73 (Nov. 2001–Feb. 2002)Google Scholar.

88 SC Res. 1593, op. para. 1 (Mar. 31, 2005).

89 Id., op. para. 2. It should be noted that this formulation seems somewhat weaker than the obligations on UN members to cooperate with the ICTY and the ICTR. See supra note 43.

90 See the summary of the explanation of vote made by Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg. UN Press Release SC/8351, Security Council Refers Situation in Darfur, Sudan, to Prosecutor of International Criminal Court, at 6 (Mar. 31, 2005), available at <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8351.doc.htm>.

91 See the summary of the statement made by Ambassador Elfatih Mohamed Ahmed Erwa. Id. at 6–7.

92 ICC Press Release, Security Council Refers Situation in Darfur to ICC Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 2005).

93 Where the previous U.S. administration still proclaimed to aspire to being a “good neighbor” to the ICC, see Leigh, supra note 82, at 126, the more negative positions taken by the current administration do not testify to such intentions.

94 This possibility was held out by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright, for example, during a speech she delivered to a seminar of the Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum on May 5, 2000, when she said that “even as a non–party for the foreseeable future, the United States would be able to assist the Court in ways similar to our support for the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals.” Albright May 5 Remarks to Freedom Forum Seminar (May 5, 2000), available at <http://usinfo.org/wf–archive/2000/000505/epf504.htm>.

95 This possibility was proposed in the so–called Compact Between the United States and Europe, a document signed on February 17, 2005, by fifty foreign policy experts proposing to bridge the differences between the United States and Europe on some fundamental policy questions. The compact is available online at <http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/USEUCompact.pdf>.

96 ICC Press Release, Agreement Between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations (Oct. 4, 2004); Relationship Agreement Between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, Oct. 4, 2004, UN Doc. A/58/874, annex (2004) (entered into force Oct. 4, 2004). A link to the text of the Relationship Agreement is available at the Court’s Web site, supra note 2.

97 For a discussion of a previous draft of the Relationship Agreement, see Mundis, Daryl A., The Assembly of States Parties and the Institutional Framework of the International Criminal Court, 97 AJIL 132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note that the ICC cannot be regarded as a specialized agency or as otherwise belonging to the “UN Family.” The preamble to the Agreement states expressly that “the International Criminal Court is established as an independent permanent institution in relationship with the United Nations.” Furthermore, there is no structural link to either the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council.

98 Relationship Agreement, supra note 96, Art. 3.

99 Id., Art. 7.

100 Id., Art. 4.

101 Id., Art. 15.

102 Id., Art. 16.

103 For a criticism of this provision, see Mundis, supra note 97, who believes that some UN personnel may be put in a difficult position, for example during sensitive peace negotiations, when their interlocutors could be potential suspects of the ICC. The fear is that UN officials would no longer be trusted as independent and impartial since they could be called as potential witnesses before the ICC.

104 Relationship Agreement, supra note 96, Art. 9.

105 Id., Art. 10. This may include, for example, translation services for the Assembly of States Parties.

106 See Kirsch, Philippe & Holmes, John T., The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process, 93 AJIL 2, 4 (1999)Google Scholar.

107 Jörg, Meissner, Die Zusammenarbeit Mit Dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof Nach Dem Römischen Statut (2003)Google Scholar; KreB, Claus, Rbmisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17.Juli 1998, in Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (Heinrich, Grützner & Paul–Günter, Pötz eds., looseleaf Dec. 2002)Google Scholar.

108 For a discussion of the cooperation regime in the Rome Statute, see Broomhall, Bruce, The International Criminal Court: Overview, and Cooperation with States, in ICC Ratification and National Implementing Legislation 45 (Nouvelles, Études Pénales, 1999)Google Scholar; Ciampi, Annalisa, Other Forms of Cooperation, in 2 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary 1705 (Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paola, & John R. W. D., Jones eds., 2002)Google Scholar; Harhoff, Frederik & Mochochoko, Phakiso, International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance, in The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence 637 (Lee, Roy S. ed., 2001)Google Scholar; Hans–Peter, Kaul & Claus, Kreß, Jurisdiction and Cooperation in the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Principles and Compromises, 1999 Y.B. Int’l Humanitarian L. 143 Google Scholar; Claus, Kreß et al., International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance: Preliminary Remarks, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1045 (Triffterer, Otto ed., 1999)Google Scholar; Mochochoko, Phakiso, International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance, in The International Criminal. Court: The Making of the Rome Statute—Issues, Negotiations, Results 305 (Lee, Roy S. ed., 1999)Google Scholar; Oosterveld, Valerie, Perry, Mike, & McManus, John, The Cooperation of Stales with the International Criminal Court, 25 Fordham Int’l L.J. 767 (2002)Google Scholar; Swart, Bert & Göran, Sluiter, The International Criminal Court and International Criminal Co–operation, in Reflections on the International Criminal Court 91 (Herman, von Hebel et al. eds., 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Art. 120.

110 Moynier, Gustave, Note sur la création d’une institution judiciaire international propre à prévenir et à réprimer les infractions à la Convention de Genève, Bulletin International Des Sociétés De Secours Aux Militaires Blessés, No. 11, Apr. 1872, at 122 Google Scholar, translated in Christopher, Keith Hall, The First Proposal for a Permanent International Criminal Court, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 322, Mar. 1998, at 57, 72 Google Scholar.

111 For an overview of the current situation regarding implementation in various countries as of April 15, 2005, see Council of Europe, Country Information, at <http://www.legal.coe.int/criminal/icc/Default.asp>.

112 Today there is a bewildering wealth of literature on the ICC. One abundant list of sources is Kost, I. L., International Criminal Justice (2002)Google Scholar.

113 Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries of Germany, for example, have reaffirmed their support for the ICC: “Accession to the International Criminal Court [by the United States would be] an important step and a positive signal,” said Fischer in an interview. Tagesspiegel, May 13, 2004. The minister of justice expressed emphatic views on the subject at a conference of experts. Zypries, Brigitte, Strafverfolgung von Völkerrechtsverbrechen: Eine Herausforderung für die deutsche Justiz, in Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof: Fünf Jahre Nach Rom 11 (Theissen, Gunnar & Nagler, Martin eds., 2004)Google Scholar.