Under customary law as well as the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in the Review Conference in Kampala in 2010, an act of aggression by a State is a part... Show moreUnder customary law as well as the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in the Review Conference in Kampala in 2010, an act of aggression by a State is a part of the definition of the crime of aggression. This definition clearly encompasses two separate wrongful conducts by different actors. It is less clear how international responsibility arises for both the aggressor state and the individual, and why responsibility for the latter can be predicated only upon the former. This dissertation analyses the way in which aggression is attributed to the aggressor State and the individual, and how State and individual responsibility is delineated from each other, with a particular focus on the legal interest of the aggressed State. First, the argument considers the way in which international law prohibits and criminalizes aggression, elaborating international obligations of States and individuals in that regard (Part I). It then analyses the interconnection between obligations of States to refrain from an act of aggression and obligations of individuals to refrain from conduct relating to the crime of aggression (Part II). Finally, the enforcement against the crime of aggression in the ICC and domestic courts is explored (Part III). Show less
Drawing on several years of field-based research, this dissertation examines what effects framing the International Criminal Court as a “catalyst” for domestic investigations and prosecutions has... Show moreDrawing on several years of field-based research, this dissertation examines what effects framing the International Criminal Court as a “catalyst” for domestic investigations and prosecutions has had in three distinct situation-country contexts: Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It examines how both state and non-state actors have relied upon the principle of complementarity as the logic through which the Court’s catalytic potential can be best realized, as well as a transnational site and adaptive strategy for entrenching the norm of international criminal accountability domestically. In so doing, it asks three principal research questions. First, how has the understanding of complementarity evolved since the ICC’s inception and what role have non-state actors, in particular, played in this evolution? Second, how have ICC judges understood and interpreted complementarity’s requirements in the courtroom, and how has the Office of the Prosecutor sought to implement it as a matter of policy? And third, to what extent and how have the ICC’s interventions in Uganda, Kenya and the DRC affected these countries’ institutional and normative frameworks for carrying out domestic criminal proceedings? Show less
