Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis by Edge Hill University

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis 7-8 September 2018 Bluecoat Centre for Contemporary Arts School Lane, Liverpool, UK Convenors Dr Julia Geneuss, LLM (NYU), Hamburg University Dr Triestino Mariniello, Edge Hill University Research Unit ’International Justice and Human Rights’

#LivRS20

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis 7-8 September 2018 Bluecoat Centre for Contemporary Arts School Lane, Liverpool, UK Friday, 7 September 2018

Saturday, 8 September 2018

8.30

Registration

9.00

Welcome - Professor George Talbot Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) and Dean of Arts & Sciences, Edge Hill University

9.15

Opening Remarks - Dr Triestino Mariniello Edge Hill University

9.30

Panel I – Global Justice? Theoretical Approaches to International Criminal Law Chair: Professor Caroline Fournet, University of Groningen

Panel III – Relationship Status: Complicated – States Parties, the UN Security Council and the ICC Chair: Professor Christine Chinkin, London School of Economics and Political Science Dr Phil Clark SOAS University of London The Complacency of Complementarity: Distant Justice and the ICC’s Structural Failures in Africa Professor Olympia Bekou University of Nottingham Dealing with (Non)-Cooperation with the ICC

Professor Jochen Bung Hamburg University Global Criminal Justice as a Natural Right

Professor Frédéric Mégret McGill University State Behavior in the Security Council: Does/Should ICC Membership Make a Difference?

Dr Antje du Bois-Pedain University of Cambridge A Solidarity-Based Justification of International Criminal Justice and the Jurisdiction of the ICC

Professor Phoebe Okowa Queen Mary University of London Unequal Treatment in the Administration of International Criminal Justice: What next for the AU and the ICC? 12.30 Lunch

Dr Mikkel Jarle Christensen University of Copenhagen From Symbolic Surge to Contentious Court: Towards a Sociology of ICC Developments

13.30 Panel IV – The Effectiveness of ICC Proceedings Chair: Dr Sergey Vasiliev, Leiden University

Professor Alette Smeulers University of Groningen The Role of the ICC in the Global Fight Against Impunity

Judge Cuno Tarfusser International Criminal Court, The Hague Effectiveness of the Trial Stage: A View from the Bench

12.30 Lunch

Dr Yvonne Mcdermott Rees Swansea University Proving International Crimes

14.00 Panel II – Goals and Functions of the ICC Chair: Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University London

Judge Bertram Schmitt International Criminal Court, The Hague Reflections on the Blending of Common Law and Civil Law in the ICC-Proceedings

Dr Silvia D’Ascoli Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, The Hague Balancing Competing Goals Between Ideals and Reality – How the ICC has Interpreted its Role and Functions

Professor Volker Nerlich International Criminal Court, The Hague Bringing Justice to the People – Audiences of the ICC

Professor Larissa van den Herik Leiden University The Goals and Functions of the ICC from a Diaspora Perspective

16.30 Concluding Remarks - Dr Julia Geneuss Hamburg University

Professor Florian Jeßberger Hamburg University Peace through Punishment? On the Peace-Making Function of the ICC Professor Harmen van der Wilt University of Amsterdam Reflections on the International Criminal Court’s Legitimacy Crisis

ehu.ac.uk/icc2018 3

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel I – Global Justice? Theoretical Approaches to International Criminal Law Chair: Professor Caroline Fournet, University of Groningen

A SOLIDARITY-BASED JUSTIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICC

GLOBAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS A NATURAL RIGHT Professor Jochen Bung - Hamburg University

Dr Antje du Bois-Pedain - University of Cambridge

I want to begin with defining a natural right as an entitlement to do something without being entitled to do so by a superior body or entity (particularly not by a “state”). A natural right to bring about criminal justice therefore means an entitlement to prosecute and punish without being authorized by a respective authority. As it seems, this idea comes down to the suggestion that there is a right to bring about criminal justice by you and me. What follows is a nightmare scenario: vengeance, vigilantism, Wild West. To avoid these consequences, an additional element is required. One could think of the idea that natural criminal justice serves an interest of a higher order, not just the interests of you or me (or you and me). But then, the question remains, who can claim to determine the content or the requirements of this higher order interest without referring to a respective authority? In trying to find an answer to this question I will try to develop the idea of criminal justice as a natural right which possibly can serve as a general legitimation for public punitive practices apart from governmental enforcement structures.

In my past work, I have argued that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is best justified as an instantiation of a particular sort of solidarity – political solidarity –with the victims of the international crime that is being investigated and prosecuted. Understood in this way, selectivity of prosecution is both plausible and justifiable. But this justification of (non-pragmatic) selectivity in the exercise of universal jurisdiction does not easily travel across to the prosecution of international crimes by meta-state institutions with a general mandate, such as the ICC. More specifically, it fits badly with the avowed aspiration of an institution like the ICC to enforce and defend humanity’s essential values on behalf of the whole of humankind. To be selective in “mak[ing] plain the condemnation of the international community of the behaviour in question and show that the international community [is] not ready to tolerate serious violations of international law and human rights law” (Prosecutor v. Aleksouski, ICTY Appeal Chamber, judgment of 24 March 2000, [185]), is to saw away at this particular branch of moral authority – i.e., demonstrating what the international community will, and will not, tolerate. Since the exercise of international jurisdiction is, as a matter of fact, shot through with selectivity, we may require a different justificatory basis, one which (similar to the solidarity-based justification of universal jurisdiction) can also act as a principled defence of selectivity. In my paper, I will explore the problems encountered by a solidarity-based grounding of jurisdiction by the ICC.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel I – Global Justice? Theoretical Approaches to International Criminal Law Chair: Professor Caroline Fournet, University of Groningen

FROM SYMBOLIC SURGE TO CONTENTIOUS COURT: TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF ICC DEVELOPMENTS

THE ROLE OF THE ICC IN THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST IMPUNITY

Dr Mikkel Jarle Christensen - University of Copenhagen

Professor Alette Smeulers - University of Groningen

The early history of the ICC was characterized by symbolic and political support. In contrast, the court has faced increasing contention over the past decade. While the criticism levelled towards the court could perhaps be seen as part of a stabilization of a relatively new field of law that no longer has the symbolic impetus of 1998, it opens central questions about the relative power balances between the stakeholders of international criminal justice. The paper will lay out a new sociological framework for understanding and analyzing the deep social of the field of international criminal justice. Following this framework, the paper will analyze the social structures that help format developments, including power battles, in and around the ICC.

So far, the ICC has a meagre track record: it took over 10 years to come to the first conviction (in the Lubanga case); only a handful of cases have been completed so far; some cases have failed miserably and several African countries have threatened to withdraw their ratifications because of an alleged bias of the ICC towards Africa. It seems that the ICC does not fulfill its promise. But is this indeed the case? In this paper it will be argued that the ICC should indeed do a lot better but that not all allegations are fair. Research has shown that the ICC’s selection of situations shows that given the ICC’s limited jurisdictional reach, the Prosecutor is generally focusing on the gravest situations where international crimes are supposedly committed. It is the UN Security Council who fails to refer some of the most serious situations to the ICC. Although the accomplishments of the ICC itself have been (too) limited, this paper will however furthermore argue that the establishment of the international criminal tribunals and then subsequently the ICC nevertheless lead to some positive developments.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel II – Goals and Functions of the ICC Chair: Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University London

BALANCING COMPETING GOALS BETWEEN IDEALS AND REALITY – HOW THE ICC HAS INTERPRETED ITS ROLE AND FUNCTIONS

THE GOALS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ICC FROM A DIASPORA PERSPECTIVE Professor Larissa van den Herik - Leiden University

Dr Silvia D’Ascoli - Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, The Hague At the twenty year-mark of the Rome Statute a key question to address is how the ICC has interpreted its role and functions with regard to pursuing the significant goals for which it was established.

The notion of diaspora is generally absent from international legal studies. Diasporas are not recognized as legal actors nor are they the subject of a concrete treaty protecting them, and diasporas may well be too heterogeneous and elusive for any type of legal recognition. Edward Said has referred to diasporas as people who are “at bottom, always fighting a deep despair of having been uprooted, at having to justify their presence in an alien land, at having been deprived of the security of deep roots”. This underscores that members of diasporas may, in certain instances, be particularly vulnerable. Other situations are also known in which members of diaspora fund conflict and crime in their home state, thus possibly becoming complicit. Are these matters the ICC should and could address? Such a question tests notions of gravity as well as territorial and nationality jurisdiction. This presentation examines these questions and thus addresses the purposes and goals of the ICC from a diaspora perspective.

In the words of the Preamble to the Rome Statute: “(...) the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished” (para. 4); such grave crimes “threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world” (para. 3). Fight against impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes, effective prosecution, and prevention of such crimes are the stated goals of the Court. The interplay between justice and peace also appears to have a role in the ICC’s mandate. Have these goals been taken into account by the relevant organs of the Court? And how have they influenced the practice of the Court? Undoubtedly, there are a number of statutory provisions (e.g. Art. 17, Art. 53, Art. 58) that can impact in different ways on the scope of the ICC’s goals. The interpretation that concepts like “sufficient gravity” or “interest of justice” receive by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and the Chambers in policy papers, decisions on investigations, or decisions on confirmation of charges, is thus relevant for the purpose of assessing how the Court is pursuing its statutory goals. For example, the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber in the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases paid attention to the effects of a low case gravity threshold v a high case gravity threshold on the preventive or deterrent role of the Court. The decision of the Prosecutor not to open a formal investigation into the Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros (Mavi Marmara), and the following decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber to ask the Prosecutor to reconsider her determination not to initiate an investigation pursuant to Art. 53(3), spiraled an internal debate on the interpretation of the situational gravity threshold, the Prosecutor’s discretion in applying the threshold, and the connections of these issues to the Court’s goals and mandate. This presentation critically reviews the relevant interpretations given by OTP and Chambers, and considers the practical implications, benefits and risks, linked to narrow versus broad approaches.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel II – Goals and Functions of the ICC Chair: Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University London

PEACE THROUGH PUNISHMENT? ON THE PEACE-MAKING FUNCTION OF THE ICC

REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT’S LEGITIMACY CRISIS

Professor Florian Jeßberger - Hamburg University

Professor Harmen van der Wilt - University of Amsterdam

The explicit claim that international prosecutions would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace marked the dawn of modern international criminal justice. Already in his opening speech at Nuremberg Robert Jackson explained: “This Trial is part of the great effort to make peace more secure”. And in 1993, the Security Council was “convinced” that “the establishment of [an international criminal tribunal – the ICTY] would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace”. Later on, in 2004, the Council “commended” “the important work of [the ICTY] in contributing to lasting peace and security and national reconciliation”. The ICTY itself noted that it would work as a “tool for promoting reconciliation and restoring true peace”. As a claim, as an objective, as an aspiration: its true or purported effect on peacemaking shaped the development of and debate on international criminal law.

What are the deeper reasons for the often propounded legitimacy crisis of the ICC? Two quickly come to mind. For one thing, the ICC is inherently confronted with collective criminality. Secondly, the ICC has to operate in an arena of sovereign states that might have consented in its establishment but become far less enthused whenever the Court indeed starts to move. These elements are often lumped together, but might for analytical purposes better be separated. The former aspect impairs classic doctrine of substantive criminal law that strongly adheres to the principle of individual guilt. The latter primarily impedes effective law enforcement by the ICC. Yet, they indeed merge on a somewhat higher level of abstraction. They both challenge the dominant liberal paradigm that is expressed by the ICC by vindicating the moral values of the international community. The Court is caught in a deadlock. Embroiled in politics, it is also expected to transcend that realm, by meting out justice for all, without fear or favour. While this may appear to be a utopian task, the only way out for the Court is to hold on to it. During this brief presentation, I will give very roughly some reflections on how the Court might be able to accomplish this difficult assignment.

At the same time, it seems obvious that objectives related to international peace and security are far removed from the ordinary concerns of (national) criminal justice. This creates the need for specific explanation and justification. As Robert Cryer has stressed “some of the most serious doubts that have been expressed about international criminal law relate to the claim that it promotes peace and reconciliation”. These doubts are even reinforced by the fact that the enforcement of international criminal law is not confined to prosecution and punishment in the aftermath of war and violence, the Nuremberg scenario. Rather, international criminal justice is increasingly employed to intervene in ongoing conflicts, like it was the case in Yugoslavia and it is the case in Sudan. And apparently, the claim that international prosecutions could help to stop war, creates additional challenges. The paper will present tentative reflections on whether the making of peace is an effect, an objective, an aspiration – or even a “victim”, of the enforcement of international criminal law, and how this may relate to the normative foundations and the current institutional shape of this body of law.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel III – Relationship Status: Complicated – States Parties, the UN Security Council and the ICC Chair: Professor Christine Chinkin, London School of Economics and Political Science

STATE BEHAVIOR IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL: DOES/SHOULD ICC MEMBERSHIP MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

DEALING WITH (NON-)COOPERATION WITH THE ICC Professor Olympia Bekou - University of Nottingham

Professor Frédéric Mégret - McGill University

What obligations does membership in the Rome Statute impose in terms of foreign policy, specifically for those states that are also members of the UN Security Council? Much of the discussion of the role of the Security Council in relation to the Court tends to treat it as if it were a black box, failing to disaggregate Council behavior based on whether states are also parties to the Rome Statute or not. I will argue that ICC membership has not prevented states from supporting resolutions that were unhelpful to the Court, and that non-membership has not prevented some states from supporting referrals. I will suggest that from a normative point of view membership ought to be a significant vector, even though the debate remains complicated by the fact that the contours of the obligations imposed on states by Rome Statute is disputed.

Cooperation (and lack-thereof) is a major challenge faced by the ICC in its operation to date. The paper examines the Rome Statute provisions and jurisprudence dealing with non-cooperation. It also reviews the policy instruments adopted to tackle non-cooperation. Through an examination of the statutory provisions, relevant caselaw and policy, the paper seeks to highlight the main issues that arise with regard to non-cooperation. Starting from the text of the Rome Statute, the paper outlines the process of dealing with noncooperation envisaged therein. By reviewing the relevant case-law, it identifies the inconsistencies in the Court’s approach in applying the Statute provisions in its own jurisprudence and argues that this negatively impacts on the quest for effective cooperation. The last part of the paper considers whether the gaps between the law and its application can be filled through policy instruments and evaluates the initiatives taken by the Assembly of States Parties in that respect. Overall, the paper argues that whilst (non-)cooperation continues to be at the forefront of the Court’s operation, the approach taken to date has been fragmented, leading to lack of effective cooperation as a result. A holistic examination of non-cooperation helps shed some light on how to best address this challenge.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel III – Relationship Status: Complicated – States Parties, the UN Security Council and the ICC Chair: Professor Christine Chinkin, London School of Economics and Political Science

UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE: WHAT NEXT FOR THE AU AND THE ICC?

THE COMPLACENCY OF COMPLEMENTARITY: DISTANT JUSTICE AND THE ICC’S STRUCTURAL FAILURES IN AFRICA Dr Phil Clark - SOAS University of London

Professor Phoebe Okowa - Queen Mary University of London

This presentation will give an overview of my new book, Distant Justice: The Impact of the International Criminal Court on African Politics (Cambridge University Press). The book argues that despite the ICC’s insistence on the core principle of complementarity – with its emphasis on respect for national sovereignty and subordination to domestic judicial institutions – this is more rhetoric than reality. Instead, the ICC practices “distant justice”, which sees the Court as inherently superior to domestic institutions and seeks the Court’s fundamental detachment from the local political and social terrain. Based on 650 interviews in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other African states over the last 11 years, this presentation will argue that the ICC’s version of distant justice has jeopardised national and community-level attempts to address the legacies of mass atrocity and, in doing so, has undermined the broader practice of politics in African states affected by violence.

This paper reflects on the current impasse between the African Union, the UN Security Council and the ICC in the administration of international criminal justice. Much has been written about the perceived bias of the ICC towards African States, the overtly political nature of its decisions in the selection of cases and the Security Council’s partisan enforcement of global rules. In this paper I will argue that the broad disenchantment displayed by African states is not a discrete problem; it must be assessed within the broad framework of a general backlash against the universal rules and the institutions for their enforcement that were seemingly “enthusiastically” adopted after the Cold war. I argue that the enforcement of international criminal justice will continue to be problematic as long as the keys institutions of international governance continue to be characterized by relations of inequality and subordination.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel IV – The Effectiveness of ICC Proceedings Chair: Dr Sergey Vasiliev, Leiden University

EFFECTIVENESS IN THE PRE-TRIAL STAGE

PROVING INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

Judge Cuno Tarfusser - International Criminal Court, The Hague

Dr Yvonne Mcdermott Rees - Swansea University

One of the main criticisms the ICC is facing concerns the lengthiness of its proceedings. Right or wrong? True or untrue? After giving some figures related to the proceedings since the establishment of the Court, I will, on the basis of my nine year experience as a Judge and on the basis of some concrete examples, try to answer the question and suggest some solutions for more effectiveness in the proceedings before the ICC.

The ICC faces an enormous task when it seeks to analyze the thousands of pages of evidence that are presented in the course of its trials, and to draw conclusions on the guilt or innocence of accused persons based on that evidence. Yet, whilst rules of admissibility have been subjected to a great deal of academic commentary, many key debates relating to proof in international criminal trials have remained under-theorized to date. This paper discusses the evaluation of evidence in international criminal trials. It argues that, despite over two decades of practice in contemporary international criminal tribunals, no consistent approach as to how judges should weigh the evidence and use it for fact-finding has emerged. The recent Bemba Appeals Judgment exemplified this division in approaches. The quality of evidence required to meet the standard of proof at different stages of proceedings also remains uncertain. Furthermore, it shall be argued that the structure of international criminal judgments can detract from the clarity of their findings, and this in turn has an impact on their legal and sociological legitimacy.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Programme Details – Panel Speakers and Abstracts

Panel IV – The Effectiveness of ICC Proceedings Chair: Dr Sergey Vasiliev, Leiden University

BRINGING JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE – AUDIENCES OF THE ICC

REFLECTIONS ON THE BLENDING OF COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW IN THE ICC-PROCEEDINGS

Professor Volker Nerlich - International Criminal Court, The Hague

Judge Bertram Schmitt - International Criminal Court, The Hague According to Art 36(8) of the Rome Statute States Parties shall, in the selection of judges, take into account inter alia the need for “the representation of the principal legal systems of the word”. In practical terms, this means that there should be roughly a proportional distribution of judges with a professional Common Law and Civil Law background. That makes sense since the procedure at the ICC is determined essentially by a compromise between Common Law and Civil Law precepts and concepts. This contribution reflects on the legal and practical questions that this blending, encounter or clash – however friendly or unfriendly one labels it – of fundamentally different procedural systems implicates for the daily work of a judge at the ICC. It seeks to show that the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence created a procedure of its own by combining features of both Common Law and Civil Law. This legal framework gives the judges a broad discretion which – in order to be fruitful for the effectiveness of the ICC proceedings - has to be exercised with an open mind towards the unfamiliar and the ability to doubt familiar procedural concepts.

The work of any criminal court is typically followed by at least three different audiences: the parties and participants to the proceedings of a case – accused, victims, prosecution, lawyers, witnesses, etc.; the legal community; and, usually related through media, the public at large. The ICC is not different in this respect. However, because of the specific nature of the Court as a ‘world court’, the number of different ‘audiences’ is even higher. First, given that the Court is typically dealing with mass crimes, the group of individuals who are directly concerned by a given case is likely to be higher than in a domestic case. Second, since the Court is dealing with cases that typically have a broader political dimension, it is likely that the Court’s proceedings are closely followed by diplomats, international and non-governmental organizations etc.; in addition, states are the Court’s ‘stakeholders’ and have, as such, a vested interest in its activities. Third, while domestic court cases rarely will be of the interest to the general public in other countries, the nature of the Court’s cases makes it likely that they will attract the attention beyond the borders of the country where the crimes were committed. The effectiveness of the ICC – the topic of this panel – must therefore be considered from a variety of perspectives. While the outcome of a given case may be seen as highly satisfactory – or unsatisfactory – by some of the Court’s audiences, others may have a different – if not opposite – view. Another challenge for the ICC in this regard is the distance to (some of) its audiences, including some of the most relevant ones, the victims of the crimes. In this regard, it is interesting to compare the situation of the ICC with that of other courts dealing with mass atrocities, such as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, which are closer to where the events occurred. An important consideration for the ICC is whether and, if so, how it should take into account the different audiences, for instance in its communications. The presentation will seek to address these issues and indicate mechanisms how the Court could address them.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Biographies

Biographies

Olympia Bekou is Professor of Public International Law and Head, International Criminal Justice Unit, University of Nottingham Human Rights Law Centre. A qualified lawyer, she specialises in international criminal law. Olympia has undertaken numerous capacity-building missions, including in post-conflict situations (such as Colombia, the DRC, Sierra Leone and Uganda), has provided legislation drafting assistance to Samoa (with legislation enacted in November 2007) and Jamaica, and has been involved in training the Thai judiciary. She is Deputy Director of the Case Matrix Network and a member of the Advisory Board and Editor of the Forum of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law. She is also a member of the Board of Civitas Maxima. Olympia is responsible for the National Implementing Legislation Database (NILD) of the ICC Legal Tools Project, the creator of the Cooperation and Judicial Assistance Database (CJAD), and has taught extensively worldwide. In 2014, she was awarded the University of Nottingham Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Award for Societal Impact in Social Sciences for her work and in 2015-2016 she was recognised as an Impact Leader as part of ESRC’s impact leaders programme.

Mikkel Jarle Christensen, associate professor in iCourts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen and PI of the JustSites project financed by an ERC Starting Grant: mjc@jur.ku.dk. Phil Clark is a Reader in Comparative and International Politics at SOAS University of London. His research and teaching focus on conflict and post-conflict issues in Africa, including post-atrocity governance, transitional justice and reconciliation. He co-founded Oxford Transitional Justice Research at the University of Oxford and the Research, Policy and Higher Education programme at the Aegis Trust in Kigali, which focuses on training and supporting Rwandan researchers. Dr. Clark’s latest book is Distant Justice: The Impact of the International Criminal Court on African Politics (Cambridge University Press), having previously published The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without Lawyers (CUP). He holds a DPhil in Politics from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. Silvia D’Ascoli is an Italian lawyer and international criminal attorney specialized in International Criminal Justice and Human Rights. Silvia received her Ph.D. in Law from the European University Institute in 2008. Between 2007 and 2016, she worked for the Office of the Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT), where she engaged in various cases including Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. She is currently working for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers & Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Silvia is also a member of the Justice Rapid Response’s Roster of Experts for human rights investigations in conflict zones, and a visiting lecturer in human rights and international criminal tribunals at the Catholic University of Lille, France.

Antje du Bois-Pedain (1st and 2nd State Examinations in Law, Hamburg; M.Jur., Oxford; Dr. iur., Berlin 2007) is University Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre for Penal Theory and Penal Ethics in the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Her main research interests are in criminal law, transitional justice, and penal theory. Her publications include a monograph, Transitional Amnesty in South Africa (2007; paperback edn 2011), and various co-edited volumes, most recently on Criminal Law and the Authority of the State (ed with M Ulvang and P Asp, 2017). Jochen Bung. Born in 1968. Studied law, philosophy, sociology and literature in Frankfurt am Main and Munich. From 2011-2016 holder of the chair for criminal law, criminal procedure law, criminology and legal philosophy at Universität Passau. Since 2016 holder of the chair for criminal law and legal philosophy at Universität Hamburg.

Caroline Fournet, PhD, LLM, is professor of comparative criminal law and international justice at the University of Groningen. She is Editor-in-Chief of the International Criminal Law Review (Brill) and one of the co-editors of the academic journal Human Remains and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Journal (Manchester University Press). From 2012-2016, she was co-investigator on the ERC-funded multidisciplinary research programme Corpses of Genocide and Mass Violence. In 2016, she took up a Visiting Professional position in Chambers at the ICC. As of 2017, she is also Associate Researcher in the forensic team at Aix-Marseille Université.

Christine Chinkin, FBA, CMG, is founder Director of the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics, a William W. Cook Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan and a member of the Bar of England and Wales and Matrix Chambers. She was previously Professor of International Law at the LSE. She is the author of many articles on international law and human rights law, in particular on the human rights of women. She is co-author of The Boundaries of International Law: a Feminist Analysis (2000, with Hilary Charlesworth), The Making of International Law (2007, with Alan Boyle) and of International Law and New Wars (2017 with Mary Kaldor).

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Biographies

Biographies

Julia Geneuss is Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer in Criminal Law at Universität Hamburg. She holds a Dr. iur. from HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin and a LL.M. from NYU School of Law. She wrote her doctoral dissertation Völkerrechtsverbrechen & Verfolgungsermessen (Nomos 2013), for which she has been awarded several prizes, on the prosecution of crimes under international law in Germany, in particular under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Her teaching and research interests include German, transnational and international criminal law. She is a member of the Editorial Committee of OUP’s Journal of International Criminal Justice and is a board member of “Junges Strafrecht”, the association of young criminal law scholars in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Yvonne McDermott Rees is Associate Professor of Law at Swansea University in the United Kingdom. She is the author of Fairness in International Criminal Trials (Oxford University Press, 2016), Proving International Crimes (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2020) and over 50 journal articles and book chapters on issues surrounding human rights, international criminal law, and the law of evidence. She is Principal Investigator on a new project entitled, The Future of Human Rights Investigations: Using Open Source Intelligence to Transform the Discovery and Documentation of Mass Human Rights Violations funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council. Frédéric Mégret is an associate Professor and Dawson Scholar at the Faculty of Law, McGill University.

Florian Jeßberger is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Universität Hamburg, where he holds the Chair in Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, International Criminal Law, and Modern Legal History and serves as the Vice Dean for Research & International Affairs. Before joining Universität Hamburg in 2010, he was the Lichtenberg Professor of International and Comparative Criminal Law at the Faculty of Law, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. He has been a visiting professor or scholar at a number of universities, including the University of Ferrara (Cattedra Letizia Gianformaggio, 2016), the China University of Political Science and Law (Beijing), the University of Naples (Feodor Lynen Fellow, 2005-2006), and the University of California at Berkeley, and serves on the Advisory Board of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Jeßberger’s research focuses on substantive criminal law including its international, comparative, and historical dimensions. He is a coeditor of the Journal of International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press), and a co-author of the Principles of International Criminal Law published by Oxford University Press (4th ed forthcoming).

Volker Nerlich is legal adviser to the Appeals Division of the ICC and currently acting Head of Chambers. He is also honorary professor at the Faculty of Law of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Before joining the ICC in May 2004, Volker worked for several months at the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Vienna and for several years as senior research fellow at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. From January 2015 to November 2016, Volker was seconded to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, where he worked as senior legal officer to the Supreme Court Chamber. Volker studied law in Bayreuth, Berlin and Cape Town, is qualified to practice law in Germany, and holds a doctoral degree from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and an LL.M. degree from the University of the Western Cape. He has published widely in the field of international criminal justice. Phoebe Okowa is Professor of Public International Law at Queen Mary, University of London. Educated at the University of Nairobi and Oxford, she previously taught at the University of Bristol and has held visiting appointments at the University of Lille and Stockholm. In 2011 and 2015, she was Global Visiting Professor at New York University, School of Law. In 2017, she was nominated by the Government of Kenya to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. She has written on a wide range of contemporary international law topics including the interface between international responsibility and individual accountability for international crimes, unilateral and collective responses to protection of natural resources in conflict zones and aspects of the protection of the environment. Her current research explores the systemic problems of accountability in conflict zones. It focuses on those conflicts where coherent and wellorganized insurgencies present a credible challenge to governmental power and the state centric structures of authority in public international law.

Triestino Mariniello is a Senior Lecturer in Law and Coordinator of the Research Unit in ‘International Justice and Human Rights) at Edge Hill University (UK). He is the author of several publications on (international) criminal law and human rights law. He has been consulted as an expert in international criminal justice and human rights by governmental and non-governmental organisations. He has also served as a Visiting Professional and Associate Legal Officer at the Pre-Trial Division of the International Criminal Court.

Twenty Years of the ICC’s Rome Statute: Utopia – Reality – Crisis Biographies

Biographies

William A. Schabas is professor of international law at Middlesex University London and professor of international criminal law and human rights at Leiden University and emeritus professor of human rights law at the National University of Ireland Galway. His latest book, The Trial of the Kaiser, will be published later this year by Oxford University Press. Professor Schabas was a member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Chairman of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada, a member of the Royal Irish Academy, and holds several honorary doctorates.

Cuno Tarfusser was elected Judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 11 March 2009, for a term of nine years. As an expert in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, he was elected by the Assembly of States Parties, namely by Western European and Other Group of States. On 11 March 2012, he was elected as VicePresident of the ICC. Before joining the ICC, in more than twenty years of judicial activity, Tarfusser had acted as Deputy Prosecutor and, since 2001, as Chief Prosecutor in Bolzano (Italy). He had prosecuted crimes against individuals, child abuse and sexual crimes committed against women and children. He had also prosecuted crimes connected with drug trafficking, illegal possession of weapons, explosives and small arms, and terrorist activities. In his tenure as Prosecutor in Bolzano, he had also focused on the management of judicial structures and all organizational aspects of jurisdictional activities.

Bertram Schmitt has more than 23 years of domestic experience as a judge in criminal cases. In the course of his career, he presided over a multitude of criminal trials at a Regional Court (Landgericht) in Darmstadt (Germany), dealing as a fact-finding instance with crimes such as homicide, sexual violence against women and children and all forms of organized crime. Since 2005 Judge Schmitt has served on the bench of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Germany’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters on appeal. He remained at the Bundesgerichtshof until 2015. In 2009 Judge Schmitt was appointed ad-hoc judge at the European Court of Human Rights and representative of Germany in Eurojust’s Joint Supervisory Body in The Hague. He held both posts until 2015. Since 2000 he is an adjunct professor for criminal law, criminal procedure and criminology at the Julius-MaximiliansUniversity of Würzburg. In December 2014 Judge Schmitt was elected by the Assembly of States Parties as a judge of the ICC. He serves at the ICC a term of nine years as of 11 March 2015. Judge Schmitt is Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber VII in the Bemba et al. case and a member of Trial Chamber VIII in the Al Mahdi case. Currently he is presiding the Ongwen case at trial (Trial Chamber IX).

Larissa van den Herik is Vice Dean of Leiden Law School and professor of public international law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies. She is vice chair of the Committee of Public International Law Issues advising the Dutch government, inter alia on the ILC draft articles on crimes against humanity and the use of the term genocide by politicians (advices available in English here: www.cavv-advies.nl). Harmen van der Wilt is Professor of international criminal law at the Amsterdam School of Law, University of Amsterdam. His research interests include concepts of criminal responsibility in International Criminal Law; domestic prosecutions of international crimes, legal reaction to terrorism, International Criminal Law and legal philosophy, history in the courtroom, European Arrest warrant and transnational crimes. He has published widely on (international) criminal law in several journals, including Chinese Journal of International Law, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Leiden Journal of International Law and International Criminal Law Review.

Alette Smeulers is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology of International Crimes at the University of Groningen. She is a political scientist by training but specialized in the psychology of perpetrators and did her PhD in international criminal law. Her research focuses on international crimes, causes of these types of crimes, and perpetrators of these crimes as well as the international criminal justice system. In her research she takes an inter- and multidisciplinary approach. She has published extensively on these subjects and has presented numerous papers at international conferences and at a wide range of universities in Europe and the United States. See for more info: www.alettesmeulers.org.

Van der Wilt is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of International Criminal Justice and the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. He has been a member of the Research council of the EU(F7)-project on the European Arrest Warrant and was a member of the Steering Committee of F7 project DOMAC (Impact of International Courts on Domestic Procedures in Mass Atrocity cases). Van der Wilt has been an ad litem Judge in the Criminal Court of Roermond and is currently an ad litem judge in the Extradition Chamber of the District Court in Amsterdam. He is acting president of the Nino Cassese Foundation. Sergey Vasiliev is an assistant professor of public international law at Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University, where he teaches international criminal law, among other subjects. He is the author of several publications on international criminal law and procedure and a member of the editorial board of Leiden Journal of International Law.

Edge Hill University St Helens Road Ormskirk Lancashire L39 4QP United Kingdom

edgehill.ac.uk Edge Hill University @edgehill edgehilluniversity ehusnap