Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Criminal Law Review

The complementarity regime serves as a system to encourage and facilitate the compliance of states with their responsibility to investigate and prosecute international core crimes. It can contribute to the creation of an effective indirect enforcement mechanism among state parties to the Rome Statute; however, the current practice of the ICC falls short of materializing that. In the Ugandan case, the Ugandan referral displays a number of negative aspects regarding the ICC prosecutorial policy in practice. Firstly, Uganda does not seem to fulfil the "inability" criterion as stipulated in Article 17. Secondly, the policy of encouraging and seeking state referrals might lead to certain negative outcomes vis-à-vis fulfilling the purposes of the Rome Statute to end impunity. The presumption that state referrals could guarantee state cooperation is over simplistic. The ICC's position in the DRC situation raises other concerns, particularly with regard to the ICC's approach to cases of "inaction". Lubanga and Germain Katanga were already in the Congolese custody waiting trial for more serious crimes when the ICC requested their surrender considering that the DRC was not investigating the crimes the ICC has been investigating. The Congolese judicial system, at least in certain areas of the DRC (including Kinshasa) was "able and willing". Based on the above, the article concludes that the ICC Prosecutor's policy on the admissibility of "inactions" could encourage in theory national systems to prosecute core crimes; however, in reality it could lead to the opposite.

Affiliations: 1: Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, Middle East Office Lecturer, International Law and Organizations, American University of Beirut, Lebanon


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    International Criminal Law Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation