Citation

Bekou O, Cryer R. Int. Compar. Law Q. 2007; 56(01): 49-68.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Publisher Cambridge University Press)

DOI

10.1093/iclq/lei149

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The fact that the International Criminal Court has not been granted universal jurisdiction exercisable proprio motu has often been criticized on the basis that it will leave some offences beyond its power to prosecute. This article investigates whether the drafters of the Rome Statute were necessarily wrong in deciding not to grant the court such jurisdiction. It concludes that to have given the Court universal jurisdiction would have been lawful under current international law, and would have provided a welcome reaffirmation of the concept. Still, the nature of the cooperation regime and of the Prosecutor's investigatory remit, would mean that such jurisdiction would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to use. As the Court has to operate in a world of sovereign States, not all of whom are sympathetic to it, the drafters' choice was a prudent one.