King's College London

Research portal

Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court. / Hamilton, Tomas Francis Barton.

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2015, p. 305-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Hamilton, TFB 2015, 'Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court', The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341295

APA

Hamilton, T. F. B. (2015). Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 14(2), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341295

Vancouver

Hamilton TFB. Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2015;14(2):305-317. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341295

Author

Hamilton, Tomas Francis Barton. / Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court. In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2015 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 305-317.

Bibtex Download

@article{82dcaaba6f2c47cf9571bc87039f764a,
title = "Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court",
abstract = "The existing jurisprudence of the icc establishes a two-step test for determining challenges to the admissibility of a case under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, now further solidified by an Appeals Chamber judgment in Simone Gbagbo. Notably, this is an area of the jurisprudence that does not suffer from excessive fragmentation. The Court has consistently required “substantially the same conduct” for a finding of parity between its own case and the case under investigation or prosecution by domestic authorities. Different outcomes in Al-Senussi and Gaddafi are attributable to factual differences, leaving intact the fundamental approach of the Court to the “inability” and “unwillingness” aspects of complementarity. Although novel fact patterns may pose future challenges to the coherence of this approach, the core principles of case admissibility are now well established, increasing legal certainty for States and individuals who seek to challenge the admissibility of cases before the Court.",
author = "Hamilton, {Tomas Francis Barton}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1163/15718034-12341295",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "305--317",
journal = "The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals",
issn = "1569-1853",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "2",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Case Admissibility at the International Criminal Court

AU - Hamilton, Tomas Francis Barton

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The existing jurisprudence of the icc establishes a two-step test for determining challenges to the admissibility of a case under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, now further solidified by an Appeals Chamber judgment in Simone Gbagbo. Notably, this is an area of the jurisprudence that does not suffer from excessive fragmentation. The Court has consistently required “substantially the same conduct” for a finding of parity between its own case and the case under investigation or prosecution by domestic authorities. Different outcomes in Al-Senussi and Gaddafi are attributable to factual differences, leaving intact the fundamental approach of the Court to the “inability” and “unwillingness” aspects of complementarity. Although novel fact patterns may pose future challenges to the coherence of this approach, the core principles of case admissibility are now well established, increasing legal certainty for States and individuals who seek to challenge the admissibility of cases before the Court.

AB - The existing jurisprudence of the icc establishes a two-step test for determining challenges to the admissibility of a case under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, now further solidified by an Appeals Chamber judgment in Simone Gbagbo. Notably, this is an area of the jurisprudence that does not suffer from excessive fragmentation. The Court has consistently required “substantially the same conduct” for a finding of parity between its own case and the case under investigation or prosecution by domestic authorities. Different outcomes in Al-Senussi and Gaddafi are attributable to factual differences, leaving intact the fundamental approach of the Court to the “inability” and “unwillingness” aspects of complementarity. Although novel fact patterns may pose future challenges to the coherence of this approach, the core principles of case admissibility are now well established, increasing legal certainty for States and individuals who seek to challenge the admissibility of cases before the Court.

U2 - 10.1163/15718034-12341295

DO - 10.1163/15718034-12341295

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 305

EP - 317

JO - The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

JF - The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

SN - 1569-1853

IS - 2

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454