Paula Escarameia
Paula Ventura de Carvalho Escarameia’s legacy extends beyond classical legal achievements. With a diversified career over decades that got cut short way too soon at the age of fifty, she’s earned global acclaim for her expertise in public international law, especially concerning the situation in East Timor. She believed that public international law was no rigid construct but could and should be changed especially in the areas of self-determination and the protection of human rights – ultimately contributing to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
Continue reading >>
A “Democratic Exception” to ICC Jurisdiction
On 21 November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister and the former Minister of Defence, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in the ongoing Israel-Gaza War. Equally contentious was the response of leading Western states – including Germany and France – who have questioned or openly rejected treaty obligations to enforce the warrants. This is a conspicuously fraught position for countries who previously welcomed 2023 ICC arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin in legally identical circumstances.
Continue reading >>Tackling Israel’s Interference with the International Criminal Court
On 8 October 2024, The Guardian reported that a criminal complaint had been filed in the Netherlands in connection with the shocking (yet unsurprising) revelations published by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call on 28 May concerning hostile state activities targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The criminal complaint is both timely and viable and should lead to the expeditious opening of an investigation by the Dutch prosecution service. The political response by the Dutch and other governments of ICC States so far is insufficient to address the problem of interference with the ICC investigation in the Situation in the State of Palestine.
Continue reading >>
Cooperation à la Carte?
In a recent contribution to this platform, Kai Ambos, Stefanie Bock, and a number of other distinguished German scholars have presented a compelling and highly topical plea for a consistent and effective application of the Rome Statute "without fear or favour" by Germany, one of its 124 States Parties. A similar risk of selectivity concerning the question of cooperation with the ICC can be observed in the present public and political discourse in Austria. I argue that an 'à la carte' approach to cooperation with the Court in matters of arrest and surrender, as partially indicated in the current debate, is untenable when adopting the ICC's recent jurisprudence on the horizontal inapplicability of head of State immunity, irrespective of the prevailing political circumstances.
Continue reading >>
Staatsräson vor Völker(straf)recht?
Am 20.5.2024 hat Karim A.A. Khan, der Ankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, Haftbefehle gegen den israelischen Premierminister Netanyahu und Verteidigungsminister Gallant sowie drei Hamas-Führungsfiguren in der Palästina-Situation beantragt. Die Bundesregierung argumentiert in ihrer am 9.8.2024 veröffentlichten Stellungnahme, dass Israel die echte Möglichkeit und mehr Zeit gegeben werden müsse, um selbst strafverfolgerisch tätig werden zu können. In der Stellungnahme zeigt sich eine starke, fast bedingungslose Unterstützung Israels, die einem Primat der Politik über das Recht nahekommt
Continue reading >>
Without Fear or Favour
Germany, like any other State Party to the Rome Statute, would be obliged under international law, and would be capable under German law, to arrest any person against whom the ICC has issued an arrest warrant, be it President Putin or, in future, perhaps one of the Hamas leaders, Defence Minister Gallant or Prime Minister Netanyahu. The opposing view not only misrepresents the current state of international law, but it also contradicts the Nuremberg legacy, which must be upheld particularly by Germany.
Continue reading >>
Anträge mit Sprengkraft
Am 20.5.2024 hat der Chefankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs bekannt gegeben, dass er in der „Situation Palästina“ mehrere Haftbefehle gegen ranghohe politische und militärische Führungspersonen beantragt hat. Dass der Ankläger zeitgleich gegen Mitglieder der Hamas und der israelischen Regierung vorgeht, bedeutet nicht, dass er eine Terrorgruppe mit einer demokratisch legitimierten Regierung gleichsetzt. Er bringt vielmehr zum Ausdruck, dass das Völkerstrafrecht für alle Konfliktparteien gilt und bemüht sich um einen ausgewogenen und (soweit in diesem Konflikt überhaupt möglich) neutralen, zumindest entpolitisierten Ansatz. Damit wird der Grundstein für eine gleichmäßige Anwendung des Völkerstrafrechts gelegt.
Continue reading >>