The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutorial Strategy 2009–12 reaffirmed the commitment of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to positive complementarity. The Prosecutor recognised the inability of the ICC to deal with all cases of mass atrocities and the importance of relying on national systems if international criminal justice is to be effective. The article first proposes a two-pronged approach to complementarity that distinguishes between its legal and policy dimensions. On the basis of the analysis of the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Colombia, it will be argued that the OTP has taken controversial decisions from the viewpoint of complementarity stricto sensu and positive complementarity that may undermine filling the impunity gap as well as the legitimacy of the ICC. Attention is then drawn to the common substratum of the ad hoc tribunals' completion strategy and positive complementarity. It is explained how the experience of the completion strategy offers a valuable cluster of lessons to be applied within the spectrum of positive complementarity. In concluding, the article suggests measures for the execution of positive complementarity and the Law Enforcement Network, with the intention of optimising efforts and resources within the ICC system.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) were created to deliver accountability for the atrocities committed during Rwanda's genocide of 1994 and Sierra Leone's civil war of the 1990s. The capacity of these courts, however, like other international criminal tribunals, is limited in terms of the number of persons they can prosecute. If most perpetrators evade justice, the ability of international tribunals to deliver accountability may be seriously undermined. To mitigate this risk, national justice systems should deal with the perpetrators who are not addressed by international tribunals. When national systems do not do so (or fail to do so effectively), international tribunals are well placed to encourage (or improve) national atrocity-related judicial proceedings, thereby increasing their chances of delivering accountability.

This article assesses empirically the impact of the ICTR and SCSL on national atrocity-related judicial proceedings in their target countries, thus contributing to an overall assessment of these tribunals. The article also compares the national impact of the ‘pure international’ ICTR to that of the ‘hybrid’ SCSL and tries to identify features that affect the national impact of an international tribunal. Understanding the interactions between international and national justice systems, and the features that affect the national impact of international tribunals, is particularly important given the shift to ‘positive complementarity’ at the International Criminal Court.

The undeniable impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the legal systems – and the wider society – of Member States of the Council of Europe would not have been possible without its unique monitoring system, centred around the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The present article assesses the extent to which the European Court's judgments that have found violations of the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to investigate unlawful killings, disappearances, acts of torture or other ill-treatment have, in fact, led to an improvement in the capability of the domestic legal systems of states parties to ensure accountability for such abuses. On the basis of four case studies, it is concluded that the European Court's judgments, coupled with the supervisory powers of the Committee of Ministers, have the potential to make a very great impact on the capability of domestic legal systems to deal with gross violations of fundamental human rights, and have led to clear and positive changes within the domestic legal systems of respondent states. Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case, and it is suggested that, in order for the Convention system to achieve its full potential in the most politically charged cases, the European Court should adopt a more proactive approach to its remedial powers by ordering specific remedial measures, to include in particular the opening or reopening of investigations.

Throughout its history, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled in a significant number of cases on the state's obligations to investigate and prosecute grave human rights violations and international crimes. Regardless of the existence of this body of international jurisprudence, an important question remains unanswered: Can the Inter-American Court's decisions have any significant normative impact on national jurisdictions when it comes to the prosecution of international crimes? This article argues that such an impact is possible provided that the national courts have a specific judicial identity, better associated with the idea of neo-constitutionalism. In this context, international law and regional human rights jurisprudence becomes a relevant argumentative resource, which can be incorporated into judicial decisions in order to ensure the effective prosecution of gross human rights violations and international crimes.

International actors and observers have afforded greater attention in recent years to the role of national courts in bringing to justice perpetrators of international crimes. Not only are national courts typically less expensive to operate than international courts, they also enjoy at times more legitimacy in the eyes of local constituencies than their international counterparts. They can also reach deeper into society and cast a wider net than international criminal courts. Indeed, there is an increased tendency to view international criminal courts as mechanisms primarily designed to support and complement the work of national criminal procedures, and to pay closer attention to the interaction between the two sets of judicial institutions. It is against this background that the Project on Studying the Impact of International Courts in Domestic Criminal Procedures in Mass Atrocity Cases (the DOMAC project) has sought to draw lessons from the experience accumulated by the interactions that took place between national and international courts in the two decades that have passed since the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This was done in the hope that such lessons may guide such interactions in the future. Indeed, DOMAC reports have looked into interactions relating to specific legal aspects (applicable laws, prosecution rates, sentencing policies and capacity development) and/or at specific geographical regions (for example, the Balkans, Africa, Latin America, East Timor) and provide many interesting stories of success and failure, from which valuable lessons can be learned. The purpose of this article is to offer, on the basis of the said DOMAC reports, some general observations on the impact of international courts on domestic criminal processes (in the aftermath of mass atrocity situations), and to discuss the structural deficiencies that may have led until now to sub-optimal levels of cooperation and division of labour between international and national criminal procedures. On the basis of these critical observations, a number of general recommendations for future policy planners will be considered. The article first describes some of the main impacts of international courts on domestic courts handling mass atrocity cases. It then discusses four overarching problems, which may have hampered such interactions: the lack of a comprehensive legal response to mass atrocities, inadequate allocation of resources, the absence of ultimate responsibility over the international response, and legitimacy deficits. The concluding section sketches a number of proposals based on the discussion in the two immediately preceding sections.

In 2012 the Knesset approved a new sentencing law. Israel thus became the latest jurisdiction to introduce statutory directions for courts to follow in sentencing. The approach of the United States to structuring judicial discretion often entails the use of a sentencing grid with presumptive sentencing ranges. In contrast, the Sentencing Act of Israel reflects a less prescriptive method: it provides guidance by words rather than numbers. Retributivism is clearly identified as the penal philosophy underpinning the new law, which takes a novel approach to promoting more proportionate sentencing. Courts are directed to construct an individualised proportionate sentencing range appropriate to the case in hand. Once this is established, the court then follows additional directions regarding factors and principles related to sentencing. Although other jurisdictions have placed the purposes and principles of sentencing on a statutory footing, this is the first such legislative declaration in Israel. The statute also contains a methodology to implement a proportional approach to sentencing as well as detailed guidance on sentencing factors. This article describes and explores the new Sentencing Act, making limited comparisons to sentencing reforms in other jurisdictions – principally England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States. In concluding, we speculate on the likely consequences of the law: will it achieve the goals of promoting more consistent and principled sentencing?