Georgia-Russia Conflict

History

The current armed conflict has its roots in a dispute between Georgia and Ossetia that goes back almost a hundered years ago.

The serious clashes began when the half-demented first president of post-Soviet Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, espoused an extreme chauvinist form of nationalism which declared all citizens who were not ethnic Georgians to be "guests" on the republic's territory. Gamsakhurdia abolished the autonomy and even the very name of South Ossetia.

The major conflict started in a series of uprisings in South Ossetia. The uprisings were against the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. Newspapers of the time stated the Georgian government was conducting "national butchery of the Ossetians."Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991. Many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned. As a result of the violence, approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and moved mostly to North Ossetia, a republic within the Russian Federation.
After hundreds were killed, Georgia's Ossetians took what appeared the only option open to them: to separate. They rapidly found Russian protection in the guise of "peacekeepers".
In 1992 (ceasefire), Georgia was forced to accept a ceasefire to avoid a large scale confrontation with Russia.

In June 2004, tensions began to rise again as the Georgian authorities strengthened their efforts against smuggling, hostage takings etc, clearly breaking the terms of the 1992 ceasefire.
In 2008 tensions in the region continued and outbreaks of violence became increasingly frequent in the border area of Georgia and Russia.

Georgia maintained that it was an internal affair as the breakaway republic (Ossetia) had never been recognized internationally thus could be resolved without outside interference. However, early on August 8 Georgia launched a massive military offensive to take control of the republic.

Earlier, Russian ambassador Yuri Popov already warned that Russia would intervene if conflict erupted. Thus, after Georgian rockets were fired into South Ossetia and caused a humanitarian crisis which Russian government sources claimed amounted to genocide, Russia attacked Georgia.They claimed to have only responded in defense of South Ossetians against what they called "a genocide by Georgian forces.”

Opinion

The attack by Georgia against Ossetia is considered a qualified crime of genocide. Under the Roman Statute, genocide are acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part , a national, ethical, racial or religious group- a crime punishable before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the statute, it provides that a state party or the UN Security Council may refer to the Prosecutor a situation of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court and the ICC prosecutor may also initiate an investigation in respect to such crime.

Thus, in international law , there are certain procedures set forth in the manner of dealing and preventing crimes of concern to the international community. As members of the family of nations, a country should not take the law into its own hand.

Georgia in initiating the attack against Ossetia breached its 1992 ceasefire obligation which a manner inconsistent to the principle of the United Nation pacta sunt servanda (obligation should be performed in good faith).

Georgia’s claim that it is an internal affair in accordance with the UN principle of domestic jurisdiction should be coupled with peaceful means of settling the dispute and not resorting to armed attack. If this is Georgia’s means of settling their conflict to its de facto government Ossetia, then such if aggravates can be a breach of international peace and security which can allow the United Nation to intervene.

Russia on the other hand, acted too soon and left the whole world to speculate on what could truly be their intention. Is it really a defensive response in aid of Ossetia or any deeper motives ? – this is unclear.

Russia initially requested the UN Security Council a consultation on how to end the hostilities in Ossetia, but was unable to come up with a decision. Despite this, Russia pushed with what they claimed to be only an attack in defense of South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces.”

Art. 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the right to individual or collective self-defense until UN Security Council has taken necessary measures.But it limits the use of armed attack to justify the exercise of the rigt to self-defense. Forcible measures may be taken by a state only in the face of “a necessity of self-defense instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”

Inconsistent to the purposes of UN, Russia’s act cannot be justified as an act of self-defense. Repelling a possible threat to their territory specifically their border area adjacent to Georgia are mere apprehensions. Art. 51 of the UN Charter further provides that mere apprehension does not warrant use of force.

If Russia’s intention is to respond and extend aid to Ossetians or protect their territory or peace, then it could have resorted to regional arrangements. Under the UN Charter every member shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlements of local disputes through such regional arrangements. It shall only be the UN Security Council who shall determine the existence of any threat or breach to peace, or acts of aggression and shall make recommendations and decide what measures to be taken in maintaining international peace and security.

Moreover, Russia’s counter attack to Georgia cannot be justified under the Roman Statute. ICC through the Roman Statute provides procedures on how to exercise criminal jurisdiction on a crime of genocide against those responsible internationally. It also emphasized that the Statute shall not be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State-which Russia clearly violated.

Laslty, Russia’s intervention is not valid as intervention is only justified when it is an act of self-defense or when decreed by the Security Council as a preventive or enforcement action or when agreed upon in a treaty.

Clearly, Russia had their own thoughtless acts and so as Georgia. In the end, the greater destruction could have been avoided if these principles of the United Nation and International Laws in general are gravely followed – But sad to note, it seems they remained to be just principles which are yet to be implemented and effected.

GRP-MILF Bangsamoro Agreement

History/Overview

Bangsamoro people refers to those who are natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palwanan and the Sulu at the time of conquest or colonization and their descendants whether mixed or of full native blood.

Historically, the Bangsamoro homeland consisted of the territory under the control or influence of the Moro Sultanates. Now, under the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Peace Pact, the Bagsamoro ancestral domain would only include the present territorial territory of ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) as its core and additional barangays in Region IX, XII and Palawan.

The Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination is already a struggle of generations. Thus, in this most recent peace process, the Philippine government in its effort to cease hostilities entered into this agreement (GRP-MILF Agreement). It centered on issues of territory, resources and governance - compact rights entrenchment emanating from the regime of territory under compact and territory under peace agreement.

Through the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), Bangsamoro acquires a legal personality although unclear whether or not is part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines. Instead, it recognizes “the Central Government,” and establishes “associative relationship and associative arrangements” “sharing of resources,” with period of transition specifying the relationship. BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries without causing aggression against the GRP. The duty and obligation of the Central Government to take charge of external defense shall remain.

Additionally, over the years the MILF is only a rebellious group that our government has not even expressly recognized as a belligerent community under international law. But we are dealing with it as if it were a full-fledged state with the capacity, among other powers, to enter into treaties. Worse, it wants us to accept the Bangsamoro as a separate state with full and expressed preference “in their favor” in case of conflict with the Philippine Republic. For the purpose of this Agreement, a “treaty” is defined as any solemn agreement in writing that sets out understanding , obligations and benefits for both parties which provides for a framework that elaborates the principles declared in the agreement.

Opinion

Under the 1987 Constitution Article 1 (National Territory) it provides that –

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of the........................"

The GRP-MILF Agreement would turn out to be a violation of our own Constitution as it gives recognition to the Bangsamoros as the exclusive owners of their claimed homeland –ancestral domains. Although the BJE embraces territorial jurisdiction over properties privately owned, their homeland ancestral domain exclusive claim limits and sets another demarcation on the entire Philippine territory, in turn Article 1 of the Constitution would no longer be applicable or needs to be modified.

Another concession in the agreement is its effect on the elements that made Philippines a state which vested our country’s international personality.
According to the Montevideo Convention a state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications :

1. a permanent population – consist of a group of people, both sexes living together as a community. They must be sufficient in number to maintain and perpetuate themselves.
2. a defined territory – a known fixed portion on the earth’s surface occupied by the inhabitants.
3. government - must be organized, exercising control over and capable of maintaining law and order within the territory. It can be held internationally responsible for the acts of the inhabitants.
4. capacity to enter into relations with the other states – has an external sovereignty capable of conducting both its internal and foreign affairs.

In the said agreement, the Philippine territory is no longer defined as it vests certain territorial rights to the Bangsamoros. The Central Governement is no longer exercising full control over the territory as it has restricted and limited exercise of power over those territories claimed by the Bangsamoros. Under these conditions, Philippines' legal personality internationally might be put at risk of being later doubted as to have lost some elements of a state. Certainly, we don’t like this to happen.

Unless, if the MILF is considered a belligerent community then such agreement would not endanger the country’s status internationally. But the MILF is only a rebellious group that our government has not even expressly recognized as a belligerent community under international law. Recognition of Belligerent Community under the international law is only extended when these conditions are established :

1. There must be an organized civil government directing the rebels.
2. The rebels must occupy a substantial portion to the territory of the state.
3. The conflict between the legitimate government must be serious, making outcome uncertain.
4. The rebels must be willing and able to observe the laws of war.

Clearly, the MILF or Bangsamoros do not occupy a substantial portion of the territory of the Philippines. The conflict has not reached a level of uncertain outcome as there have been various negotiations and peace talks in the past and just recently.

Moreover, both parties acknowledge that the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro people is rooted on ancestral territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of their sultanates. But are these aspects enough to vest the MILF or Bangsamoros an almost nation-state identity?

Good to note, the Supreme Court stopped the said deal thru a temporary restraining order (TRO) that discontinued the Aug. 5 signing. This is after a petition filed by the Zamboanga City Government seeking relief following the government’s intention to include their province in the expanded ARMM.

The proposal on including other areas in Mindanao as part of ARMM is another issue that needs to be dealt with accordingly. Proper communications to the concerned areas should be done.

More so, the Government has to think twice on this agreement, is this really the solution or just an easy way out?

Sen. Pimentel vs Executive Secretary , G.R. No. 158088 , July 6, 2005

Facts : This is a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit (even without the signature of the President) the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence or ratification - in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitioners contend that that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. That under the treaty law and customary international law, Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute.

Respondents on the other hand, questioned the legal standing of herein petitioners and argued that executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.

Issues : Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the instant suit.

Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have the ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by the Philippine Member to the United Nations even without the signature of the President.

Held : Only Senator Pimentel has a legal standing to the extent of his power as member of Congress. Other petitioners have not shown that they have sustained a direct injury from the non-transmittal and that they can seek redress in our domestic courts.

Petitioners’ interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The power to ratify treaties does not belong to the Senate.

Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.

The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.

It should be emphasized that under the Constitution the power to ratify is vested in the President subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The President has the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to ratify a treaty.

The signature does not signify final consent, it is ratification that binds the state to the provisions of the treaty and renders it effective.

Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, concurrence to the ratification. It is within the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this court via writ of mandamus,

Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.

International Criminal Court

Establishment of the Court

The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so called because it was adopted in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is an international treaty, binding only on those States which formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions. These States then become “Parties” to the Statute. In accordance with its terms, the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, once 60 States had become Parties. Today, 106 States have become Parties to the Statute. The States Parties meet in the Assembly of States Parties which is the management oversight and legislative body of the Court.
Following the adoption of the Rome Statute, the United Nations convened the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. As with the Rome Conference, all States were invited to participate in the Preparatory Commission. Among its achievements, the Preparatory Commission reached consensus on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes. These two texts were subsequently adopted by the Assembly of States Parties. Together with the Rome Statute and the Regulations of the Court adopted by the judges, they comprise the Court’s basic legal texts, setting out its structure, jurisdiction and functions.

Structure of the Court

The Court is an independent institution. The Court is not part of the United Nations, but it maintains a cooperative relationship with the U.N. The Court is based in The Hague , the Netherlands , although it may also sit elsewhere.
The Court is composed of four organs. These are the Presidency, the judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.
Presidency
Judicial Divisions
Office of the Prosecutor
Registry
Other Offices

Presidency
The Presidency is responsible for the overall administration of the Court, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor, and for specific functions assigned to the Presidency in accordance with the Statute. The Presidency is composed of three judges of the Court, elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges, for a term of three years. The President of the Court is Judge Philippe Kirsch ( Canada ). Judge Akua Kuenyehia ( Ghana ) is First Vice-President, and Judge René Blattmann ( Bolivia ) is Second Vice-President.
Judicial Divisions
The Judicial Divisions consists of eighteen judges organized into the Pre-Trial Division, the Trial Division and the Appeals Division. The judges of each Division sit in Chambers which are responsible for conducting the proceedings of the Court at different stages. Assignment of judges to Divisions is made on the basis of the nature of the functions each Division performs and the qualifications and experience of the judge. This is done in a manner ensuring that each Division benefits from an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and international law. The judges of the Court are: Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Akua Kuenyehia (Ghana), Judge René Blattmann (Bolivia), Georghios M. Pikis (Cyprus), Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica), Navanethem Pillay (South Africa), Sang-Hyun Song (Republic of Korea), Hans-Peter Kaul (Germany), Mauro Politi (Italy), Maureen Harding Clark (Ireland), Erkki Kourula (Finland), Fatoumata Dembele Diarra (Mali), Anita Ušacka (Latvia), Adrian Fulford (United Kingdom), Syvia Steiner (Brazil) and Ekaterina Trendafilova (Bulgaria).
Office of the Prosecutor
The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. The Office is headed by the Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo ( Argentina ), who was elected by the States Parties for a term of nine years. The Prosecutor is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors, Serge Brammertz ( Belgium ) with responsibility for investigations and Fatou Bensouda (The Gambia) with responsibility for prosecutions.
Registry
The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court. The Registry is headed by the Registrar who is the principal administrative officer of the Court. The Registrar exercises his or her functions under the authority of the President of the Court. The current Registrar, elected by the judges for a term of five years, is Bruno Cathala ( France ).
Other Offices
The Court also the Court includes a number of semi-autonomous offices such as the Office of Public Counsel for victims and the Office of Public Counsel for Defence. These Offices fall under the Registry for administrative purposes but otherwise function as wholly independent offices. The Assembly of States Parties has also established a Trust Fund for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court and the families of these victims.

Jurisdiction and Admissibility

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime.
The Court has jurisdiction over individuals accused of these crimes. This includes those directly responsible for committing the crimes as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute.
The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:
The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.
The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.
Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

How the Court Works

States Parties or the United Nations Security Council may refer situations of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court to the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor evaluates the available information and commences an investigation unless he determines there is no reasonable basis to proceed.
The Prosecutor may also begin an investigation on his own initiative. In doing so, he receives and analyzes information submitted by a variety of reliable sources. If the Prosecutor concludes there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he asks a Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize an investigation.
The Prosecutor’s investigations cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of criminal responsibility. The Prosecutor investigates incriminating and exonerating circumstance equally and fully respects the rights of the accused.
During the duration of an investigation, each situation is assigned to a Pre-Trial Chamber. The Pre-Trial Chamber is responsible for the judicial aspects of proceedings. Among its functions, the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, may issue a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. Once a wanted person has been surrendered to or voluntarily appears before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber holds a hearing to confirm the charges that will be the basis of the trial.
Following the confirmation of charges, a case is assigned to a Trial Chamber of three judges. The Trial Chamber is responsible for conducting fair and expeditious proceedings with full respect for the rights of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has the right to conduct the defence in person or through counsel of his or her choosing. Victims may also participate in proceedings directly or through their legal representatives.
Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Trial Chamber issues its decision, acquitting or convicting the accused. If the accused is convicted, the Trial Chamber issues a sentence for a specified term of up to thirty years or, when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. The Trial Chamber may also order reparations to victims.
Throughout the Pre-Trial and Trial phases, the accused, the Prosecutor or a concerned State may appeal decisions of the Chambers as specified by the Statute. Following the decision of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor or the accused may appeal the decision or sentence as provided in the Statute. Legal representatives of victims, the convicted person or bona fide owners of adversely-affected property may appeal reparations orders. All appeals are decided by the Appeals Chamber of five judges.

International Cooperation

In all of its activities, the Court relies on international cooperation, in particular from States.
States Parties are obliged to cooperate fully with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions. States Parties may cooperate in, inter alia, arresting persons wanted by the Court, providing evidence for use in proceedings, relocating witnesses, and enforcing the sentences of convicted persons. The Court may also receive cooperation from non-States Parties, and may enter into arrangements or agreements to provide cooperation.
International organizations also provide important support to the Court. Foremost among these is the United Nations. On 4 October 2004, the President of the ICC Philippe Kirsch and the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan concluded the Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. This Agreement provides for institutional relations, cooperation and judicial assistance between the Court and the United Nations while reaffirming the independence of the Court.

RELEVANT Questions : ICC

1. Why is an International Criminal Court necessary?

This past century has seen some of the worst atrocities in the history of humanity.In too many cases, these crimes have been committed with impunity, which has only encouraged others to flout the laws of humanity.States representative of the international community met in order to negotiate and agree upon the establishment of a treaty based International Criminal Court to help end impunity and the gross violations of international humanitarian law.

2. What are the key features of the ICC?

Based in the Hague, The Nederlands, the International Criminal Court is the first ever permanent international institution, with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes of international concern : genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute.The jurisdiction and functionning of the court is governed by the provisions of the Rome Statute. The ICC also has strong protections for due process, procedural safeguards to protect it from abuse, and furthers victims' rights and gender justice under international law.

3. When did the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court enter into force?

The ICC Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, 60 days after the 60th ratification needed to create the Court was received on April 11th at a special event at the United Nations, when 10 countries simultaneously deposited their instruments of ratification.

4. Doesn’t “complementarity” mean that the International Criminal Court can never prosecute if a country holds its own trial?

The International Criminal Court will complement national courts so that they retain jurisdiction to try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.If a case is being considered by a country with jurisdiction over it, then the ICC cannot act unless the country is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.A country may be determined to be "unwilling" if it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes. A country may be "unable" when its legal system has collapsed.

5. Who can initiate proceedings?

Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. The jurisdiction of the ICC is based on "complementarity", which allows national courts the first opportunity to investigate or prosecute.

6. Can the ICC be used to try crimes committed before the Rome Treaty entered into force?

The ICC will not have retroactive jurisdiction and therefore will not apply to crimes committed before 1 July 2002, when the Statute entered into force.

7. Why is the Court not exercising its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression?

The Rome Statute included the crime of aggression within the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting up a definition of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. A review conference will be held in 2009, seven years from the date that the Rome Statute entered into force, during which the matter will be discussed.

8. Can the ICC deal with terrorist acts within its existing jurisdiction?

The ICC will have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC may be able to prosecute terrorist acts only if they fall within these categories.

9. How is the ICC different from the ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia?

The International Criminal Court is the product of a multilateral treaty, whereas the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created by the United Nations Security Council. These tribunals were created in response to specific situations and will be in existence for a limited time period. The ICC is a permanent international criminal tribunal and will avoid the delays and costs of creating ad hoc tribunals.

10. How is the ICC different from the International Court of Justice?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) does not have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals. It is a civil tribunal that deals primarily with disputes between States. The ICJ is the principle judicial organ of the United Nations, whereas the ICC is independent of the UN.

11. Where is the International Criminal Court located?

The ICC has established its headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands. The Court is currently located at ‘de arc’. Address: Maanweg 174, 2516 AB, The Hague, Netherlands. Postal Address: Po Box 19519, 2500 CM, Den Haag, Netherlands.

12. How many people work for the ICC?

As at October 2004, 116 women and 134 men work for the ICC, coming from 60 states.

Victims and witnesses

One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court.
Participation before the Court may occur at various stages of proceedings and may take different forms. Although it will be up to the judges to give directions as to the timing and manner of participation.
Participation in the Court's proceedings will in most cases take place through a legal representative and will be conducted ”in a manner which is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial”.
The victim-based provisions within the Rome Statute provide victims with the opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of reparation for their suffering. It is this balance between retributive and restorative justice that will enable the ICC, not only to bring criminals to justice but also to help the victims themselves obtain justice.

Assembly of States Parties

The Assembly of States Parties is the management oversight and legislative body of the International Criminal Court.It is composed of representatives of the States that have ratified and acceded to the Rome Statute. Each State Party is represented by a representative who is proposed to the Credential Committee by the Head Of State of government or the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Chapter IV of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties).The Assembly of States Parties has a bureau, consisting of a President, two Vice Presidents and 18 members elected by the Assembly for a three-year term, taking into consideration principles of equitable geographic distribution and adequate representation of the principal legal systems of the world.On its second session in September 2003, the Assembly of States Parties decided to establish a Permanent Secretariat (ICC-ASP/2/L.5).
The Assembly of States Parties decides on various items, such as the adoption of normative texts and of the budget, the election of the judges and of the Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutor(s) .According to article 112 (7), each State Party has one vote and every effort has to be made to reach decisions by consensus both in the Assembly and the Bureau. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are taken by vote.

The Court Today

Since the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, the Court has developed into a fully functioning institution.
Four situations have been referred to the Prosecutor. Three State Parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic) have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court, and the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, has referred a situation on the territory of a non-State Party (Darfur, Sudan).
After analysing the referrals for jurisdiction and admissibility, the Prosecutor began investigations in three situations – Uganda; Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur, Sudan. On 8 July 2005, the Court issued the first arrest warrants with regard to the situation in Uganda. Subject to sufficient cooperation in arresting persons, the Court will begin trials soon.
The Prosecutor continues to monitor situations in other countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, a non-State Party, which declared its acceptance of jurisdiction over crimes on its territory.