tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post4353120051439616008..comments2024-03-06T10:16:40.696+00:00Comments on PhD studies in human rights: The Prosecutor and Palestine: Deference to the Security CouncilWilliam A. Schabashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552332133145290879noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-13663010129101570152012-05-02T17:46:52.675+01:002012-05-02T17:46:52.675+01:00Totally and an highly interesting post to read on ...Totally and an highly interesting post to read on this nice website. Almost never write any feedback but now i just did not resist.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><a href="http://www.acaonline.com/bruce-bent-ii/" rel="nofollow">Bruce Bent II</a>Jake Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00645501554387797578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-26181580608436247252012-04-17T07:04:00.417+01:002012-04-17T07:04:00.417+01:00"Without any dispute, Uganda and Côte d’Ivoir..."Without any dispute, Uganda and Côte d’Ivoire have made such declarations (Uganda became a State party, but several months after 1 July 2002), and the Prosecutor has proceeded with investigations concerning both of these States. Judges of the Pre-Trial Chambers have not questioned the validity of the declarations."<br /><br />Just had a heated (still friendly) conversation with a fellow student about the scope of art 12(3) and the use of it by Cote d'Ivoire. My friend was arguing that the (now 2)declarations made by Cote d'Ivoire are akin to becoming a de facto state member of the Rome Statute. Yet, under Ivorian law (According to Article 84 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies treaties and international agreements. Under Article 85 of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament is necessary to authorize ratification of a peace treaty, a treaty regarding international organization or a treaty that modifies internal law), the art 12(3) declarations are international agreements ergo they should have been vetted by the Parliament ergo no Ivorian can be prosecuted by the ICC. This is really far-fetched to me to say the least since a declaration made pursuant art 12(3) is similar to any public statement issued by the executive power of a country, just like the ones discussed by the ICJ in its decision about the Nuclear Tests (Australia v France). How could art 12(3) confer something else than an ad hoc jurisdiction to the ICC over a specific matter? I do think that concluding otherwise would render the requirement of being a state member absolutely useless. I'd be curious to have your point of view on the question, Pr. Schabas, since my friend actually relied on your above quoted declaration to make his arguments. Thank you in advance for any time you'd allow to answer me.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14624411899334689017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-72212057814020485682012-04-13T18:01:51.479+01:002012-04-13T18:01:51.479+01:00nice big words have been used...but lets just take...nice big words have been used...but lets just take this argument into the level that we all can uderstand...If the UN or anyone else with the greatest of Intentions,cannot fix the PalestinianlIsraeli conflict...What can the ICC do,for that conflict but make it more convoluted...leave the ICC out of this mess..tommy bluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01960997257547487614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-8832154223562107112012-04-12T03:22:06.533+01:002012-04-12T03:22:06.533+01:00There are few international agreements that admit ...There are few international agreements that admit of universal jurisdiction for their violation by any State in the world. However, is by its very nature prosecutable under universal jurisdiction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bellfolsom.com/practice-areas/kansas-personal-injury-lawyers/" rel="nofollow">personal injury attorney in Olathe KS</a>maloidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019546547288720149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-37900381711778194152012-04-08T10:33:39.939+01:002012-04-08T10:33:39.939+01:00I posted a comment at Opinio Juris just before thi...I posted a comment at Opinio Juris just before this article appeared. <br /><br />I think the key to untangling this mess is to stop looking at the Practice of the Secretary General with regard to the “all states” formula and the unwritten rules regarding observers at the UN as the gold standard.<br /> <br />The Rome Statute itself falls within the scope of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 5 of the latter explains:<br />“The present Convention applies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization.”<br /><br />Article 6 provides that “Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.” and articles 81 and 83 stipulate that members of UN specialized agencies are perfect examples of States that have an open invitation to become State Parties to this UN convention.<br /> <br />More importantly, Articles 35 through 37 spell-out the customary/conventional rules that apply when a treaty provides a right for a third state or creates obligations that have been accepted in writing by the third state. Article 37 “Revocation or modification of obligations or rights of third States” requires 1) the consent of the parties to the treaty to modify or revoke an obligation; and 2) The third state’s consent to revoke a right afforded by the treaty.<br /><br />The Rome Statute gives third states the right to accept the Court’s jurisdiction by making an Article 12(3) declaration. The Registrar’s letter to Palestinian Justice Minister, Ali Khashan, dated 23 January 2009, advised that Palestine’s Article 12(3) declaration had the legal effect of accepting the Court’s jurisdiction and the application of the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute and any obligations thereunder, concerning State Parties, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules for Procedure and Evidence. It’s doubtful that the Prosecutor can unilaterally revoke those Palestinian rights and obligations to the other parties to the treaty.<br /> <br />The General Assembly unambiguously recognized all “States Members of the United Nations, States members of the specialized agencies, States Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice<br />and States that the General Assembly decides specially to invite”, when it adopted UN GA resolution 2166 (XXI). It invited them all to participate in the international conference of plenipotentiaries that codified the recognized customary international treaty law contained in the Vienna Convention and asked them all to become signatories.<br />The treaty was opened for signature by those classes of states (article 81) and it remains open for accession by any State belonging to any of those categories (article 83). It’s hard to see how Palestine’s declaration can be rejected on the basis of its observer status, when the customary rules that govern the Rome Statute recognize it as a State.<br /> <br />The General Assembly always invites the State members of the UN specialized agencies to participate in international conferences of plenipotentiaries, like the Rome Conference of the ICC, because they have been recognized as States according to both customary and conventional international law.Hostagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17734214941510644323noreply@blogger.com