The full text of the article is available only in Russian.
After years of preliminary examination of the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the International Criminal Court on April 12, 2019 finally issued a decision, which, brought however more disappointment than contentment. For the first time in the Court’s history, the Pre-Trial Chamber rejected the Prosecutor’s request to open a full-scale investigation of the situation, even though the acts committed were found to be sufficiently serious and the admissibility requirements were also met. The Court’s arguments turned out to be more political than legal: the lack of cooperation from the state, the long while since the crimes were committed, and the ICC’s limited resources. At the same time, since the Prosecutor requested to start an investigation, the US government has bluntly opposed it, threatening the Court and its employees with various types of sanctions. As a result, the decision was harshly criticized by legal scholars, lawyers and victims, and the ICC was accused of choosing “not to rile” a powerful state instead of firmly defending the interests of victims of international crimes. The Prosecutor appealed to the Court, and on March 5, 2020, the ICC Appeals chamber issued a decision completely opposite to the previous one. The Prosecutor was able to start an investigation of the situation, besides not being limited to specific episodes listed in his own request. This article aims to analyze the Court’s position in both cases, to assess political elements of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s argumentation and the prospects for further investigation. Possibly these two decisions should not be perceived as the black and the white, as completely unfounded and exceptionally commendable? The author refers to the Court’s previous practice of authorizing Prosecutor’s investigations initiated proprio motu and tries to understand how such an unpopular decision of 12 April 2019 could have been issued as such, and whether the problems of the ICC as an institution can be solved by simply ruling a “good” decision by the Appeals chamber?
About the author:
Kristina Russkikh – LL.M., Lomonosov Moscow State University, LL.M., Aix-Marseille University; Moscow, Russia
Citation: Russkikh K. (2020) “A osadochek ostalsya”: kommentariy k resheniyam Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda ot 12 aprelya 2019 goda i ot 5 marta 2020 goda [“A bitter aftertaste”: a commentary to the ICC decisions on the situation in Afghanistan of April 12, 2019 and March 5, 2020]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.10, no.2, pp.47–65. (In Russian).
Bassiouni M.C. (2000) Searching for Justice in the World of Realpolitik. Pace International Law Review, vol.12, no.2, pp.213–231.
Bassiouni M.C. (2006) The Perennial Conflict Between International Criminal Justice and Realpolitik. Georgia State University Law Review, vol.22, no.3, pp.541–560.
Birdsall A., Sanders R. (2020) Trumping International Law? International Studies Perspectives, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338945982_Trumping_International_Law (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Bitti G. (2019) The Interests of Justice – Where Does That Come From? Part I. EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 13 August. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-interests-of-justice-where-does-that-come-from-part-i/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Bogush G.I. (2019) Gaagskiy shantazh [The Hague blackmail]. Kommersant, 15 April. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3945530 (accessed: 22.05.2020). (In Russian).
Bosco D. (2019) The ICC’s Conflict with the Trump Administration Shows Why the Court Must Change. The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/12/iccs-conflict-with-trump-administration-shows-why-court-must-change/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Cormier M. (2018) Can the ICC Exercise Jurisdiction over US Nationals for Crimes Committed in the Afghanistan Situation? Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.16, no.5, pp.1043–1062.
DeFalco R. (2020) Int’l Criminal Court’s Afghanistan Decision Expands Prosecutor’s Power: What to Expect Next. Just Security. Available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/69059/icc-appeals-chambers-afghanistan-decision-limits-judicial-review-of-prosecutorial-discretion/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Grey R., Wharton S. (2018) Lifting the Curtain: Opening a Preliminary Examination at the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.16, no.3, pp.593–621.
Heller K.J. (2020) The Appeals Chamber Got One Aspect of the Afghanistan Decision Very Wrong. OpinioJuris, 10 March. Available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2020/03/09/the-appeals-chamber-got-one-aspect-of-the-afghanistan-decision-very-wrong/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Kersten M. (2019) The ICC Was Wrong to Deny Prosecution Request for Afghan Probe. Aljazeera, 12 April. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/icc-wrong-deny-prosecution-request-afghan-probe-190412101757533.html (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Luban D. (2020) The “Interests of Justice” at the ICC: A Continuing Mystery. Just Security. Available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/69188/the-interests-of-justice-at-the-icc-a-continuing-mystery/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
McAuliffe P., Schwöbel-Patel C. (2018) Disciplinary Matchmaking: Critics of International Criminal Law Meet Critics of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.16, no.5, pp.985–1009.
Newton M.A. (2016) How the International Criminal Court Threatens Treaty Norms. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol.49, no.2, pp.371–431.
Prorok A.K. (2017) The (In)compatibility of Peace and Justice? The International Criminal Court and Civil Conflict Termination. International Organization, vol.71, no.2, pp.213–243.
Rossetti L.P. (2019) The Pre-Trial Chamber’s Afghanistan Decision: A Step Too Far in the Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion? Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.17, no.3, pp.585–608.
Scheffer D.J. (2020) The ICC’s Probe Into Atrocities in Afghanistan: What to Know. Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/article/iccs-probe-atrocities-afghanistan-what-know (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Sweeney C. (2019) Accountability for Syria: Is the International Criminal Court Now a Realistic Option? Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.17, no.5, pp.1083–1115.
Talmon S. (2019) The United States under President Trump: Gravedigger of International Law. Chinese Journal of International Law, vol.18, no.3, pp.645–668.
Trahan J. (2020) The Significance of the ICC Appeals Chamber’s Ruling in the Afghanistan Situation. OpinioJuris. Available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2020/03/10/the-significance-of-the-icc-appeals-chambers-ruling-in-the-afghanistan-situation/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Webb P. (2005) The ICC Prosecutor’s Discretion Not to Proceed in the “Interests of Justice”. Criminal Law Quarterly, vol.50, no.3, pp.305–348.
Whiting A. The ICC’s Afghanistan Decision: Bending to U.S. or Focusing Court on Successful Investigations? Just Security. Available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/63613/the-iccs-afghanistan-decision-bending-to-u-s-or-focusing-court-on-successful-investigations/ (accessed: 22.05.2020).
Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8
+7 (495) 608-69-59
+7 (495) 608-66-35