• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Journals
    • Yale Journal of International Law
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Journals
    • Yale Journal of International Law
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Primacy or Complementarity: Reconciling the Jurisdiction of National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    13_23YaleJIntlL383_1998_.pdf
    Size:
    3.801Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Brown, Bartram
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6385
    Abstract
    When the Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), several of its key members expressed reservations concerning the scope of the Tribunal's "'primacy," or priority over the jurisdiction of national courts. One aspect of that primacy is the obligation of states to cooperate with international investigations, arrests, and prosecutions, but so far the Security Council has done little to enforce this obligation against recalcitrant states. The lack of consensus on primacy limits the effectiveness of the ICTY as a whole. Current proposals for treaty language creating a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) anticipate a more limited "complementary" jurisdiction for that institution, meaning that, in general, it will have jurisdiction over a case only when no national legal system can fairly and effectively deal with it. Some states nonetheless fear the jurisdiction of an independent ICC, and favor further limits, including complex state consent requirements and a formal role for the Security Council in initiating or blocking investigations and prosecutions. This Article argues, based upon the experience of the ICTY, that additional limits upon the ICC are unnecessary and ill-advised. Complementary international jurisdiction will be credible and effective only if there is an impartial, reliable, and non-political process for identifying important cases of international concern, evaluating the action of any national justice systems involved, and triggering the jurisdiction of the ICC when truly necessary. Since even the ICTY, with its primacy, depends upon the support of the Security Council, states have little reason to fear abuse of the ICC's lesser complementary jurisdiction. Complementarity will require the ICC to defer to national jurisdiction in most cases, and its defacto dependence upon the Security Council for enforcement and support will operate as an additional safeguard of legitimate state interests.
    Collections
    Yale Journal of International Law

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.