A Critique of the Concerns on the Proprio Motu Powers of the ICC Prosecutor

Abstract

During the Rome Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was drafted, the ICC Prosecutor’s powers were a matter of dispute. It was particularly the Prosecutor’s authority to investigate complaints without any referral from a State Party or the Security Council which led to serious debates among participating States. Though there was wide support for the empowerment of the Prosecutor to activate the trigger mechanism of the ICC proprio motu (on his/her own initiative), there was also strong opposition. Some States described the prosecutorial powers granted to the Prosecutor as ‘unacceptable’ due to fears such as facing politically motivated prosecutions. Though the previous two prosecutorial terms showed that fears of politicized prosecutions were far-fetched, the process of selecting the third Prosecutor of the ICC for a nine-year term commencing 16 June 2021 once again put a spotlight on the prosecutorial powers as well as on the challenges the new Prosecutor would face. The present study will first draw attention to the judicial scrutiny of the chambers of the ICC and the filtering mechanism of the Rome Statute in an attempt to allay fears that the Prosecutor’s powers may lead to politicized prosecutions. The study will then explain, in light of recent developments, why the ICC Prosecutor’s power to act proprio motu is crucial for the effective operation of the Court. In so doing, the study will mainly benefit from primary sources such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Official Records of the Rome Conference, Reports of the Office of the Prosecutor on Preliminary Examination Activities, Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chambers, as well as the comments made by scholars thereon.

Keywords

• International Criminal Court
• Rome Statute
• ICC
• ICC Prosecutor
• Powers of the ICC Prosecutor
• Fatou Bensouda
• Karim Khan

Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısının Re’sen Kullandığı Yetkilere Dair İtirazların Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Uluslararası Ceza Divanını kuran Roma Statüsünün görüşülüp oylandığı Roma Diplomatik Konferansında, Divan Savcısının yetkileri, en önemli ihtilaf konularından birini teşkil etmişti. Özellikle de savcının re’sen (bir taraf devlet başvurusu ya da Güvenlik Konseyi kararı olmaksızın) soruşturma başlatabilme yetkisi konferansa katılan devletler arasında ciddi fikir ayrılıklarının doğmasına neden olmuştu. Bazı devletler, Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısına tanınan yetkilerin politik motivasyonlu yargılamalara yol açabileceği gibi korkular dolayısıyla, bu yetkileri ‘kabul edilemez’ olarak nitelendirmişlerdi. Her ne kadar Uluslararası Ceza Divanının kuruluşundan bu yana geçen iki savcılık dönemi politik motivasyonlu yargılama gibi korkuların yersiz olduğunu göstermiş olsa da, 16 Haziran 2021’den başlayarak dokuz yıllık bir dönem için Divanın yeni (üçüncü) savcısının seçilmesi süreci, Divan Savcısının yetkileri konusunu tekrar gündeme getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Divan Savcısının yetkilerini sınırlandıran ve kararlarını denetlenebilir kılan Roma Statüsü tedbirlerine dikkat çekerek, devletlerin siyasi motivasyonlu suçlamalarla karşı karşıya kalmak gibi endişelerinin giderilmesine katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma aynı zamanda, Divan Savcısının re’sen soruşturma başlatabilme yetkisinin Divanın etkin ve verimli işleyişi için neden elzem olduğunu güncel gelişmeler ışığında açıklamayı hedeflemektedir. Çalışmada, ağırlıklı olarak Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesini Kuran Roma Statüsü, Roma Diplomatik Konferansı Resmi Kayıtları, Savcılık Bürosu tarafından yayımlanan Ön İnceleme Faaliyet Raporları, Ön İnceleme Daireleri Kararları gibi birincil kaynaklardan faydalanılmış olmakla beraber, başka yazarların görüş ve değerlendirmelerine de yer verilmiştir.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Ceza Divanı
• Roma Statüsü
• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi
• UCD
• UCM
• Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısı
• Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısının Yetkileri
• Fatou Bensouda
• Karim Khan

References

1. BBC NEWS, ‘Karim Khan: UK lawyer elected chief prosecutor at ICC’, accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
2. Burke-White WW, ‘Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of International Justice’ (2008) 49 (1) Harvard International Law Journal53-108. google scholar
3. Chehtman A, ‘The Impact of the ICC in Colombia: Positive Complementarity on Trial’ (2011) Domac Project under the Seventh Framework Programme for EU Research (FP7), DOMAC/17. google scholar
4. DW, ‘Syria Ceasefire Starts Near Damascus as UN Calls for ICC Referral Over Aid’, www.dw.com/en/syria-ceasefire-starts-near-damascus-as-un-calls-for-icc-referral-over-aid/a-42328500>accessed 1 Dec. 2019. google scholar
5. Human Rights Watch, ‘US Sanctions on the International Criminal Court’ (14 December 2020), accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
6. International Criminal Court, ‘Afghanistan: ICC Appeals Chamber authorises the opening of an investigation’, (5 March 2020), available at accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
7. International Criminal Court, ‘Election of Prosecutor (2020)’, (12 February 2020), available at accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
8. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation’ (15 Sept 2016). google scholar

9. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Report on Preliminary ExaminationActivities 2020’ (14 December 2020), available at accessed 10 March 2021 google scholar
10. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Report on Preliminary ExaminationActivities 2019’ (5 December 2019), available at accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
11. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Report on Preliminary ExaminationActivities 2018’ (5 December 2018), available at accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
12. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014’ (2 December 2014). google scholar
13. International Criminal Court - Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2013’ (November 2013). google scholar
14. International Criminal Court, ‘Paper on Some Policy Issues Before the Office of the Prosecutor’ (September 2003). google scholar
15. International Criminal Court, ‘Press Release - ICC Judges Agree on Measures to Improve Efficiency of Criminal Process’, (22 June 2015), available at accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
16. International Criminal Court, ‘Press Release - Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on the withdrawal of charges against Mr. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta’, (12 December 2014), avaliable at accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
17. International Criminal Court - The Appeals Chamber, ‘Judgment on the appeal against the decision on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ (5 March 2020) available at accessed 10 March 2020. google scholar
18. International Criminal Court -The Pre-Trial Chamber I, ‘Application for Review pursuant to Article 53(3)(a) of the Prosecutor’s Decision of 6 November 2014 not to initiate an investigation in the Situation’ (29 Jan 2015). google scholar
19. International Criminal Court -The Pre-Trial Chamber II, ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ (12 April 2019) 3, para 1, available at accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
20. International Criminal Court -The Pre-Trial Chamber III, ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar’ (14 November 2019) available at www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2019_06955.PDF> accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
21. International Criminal Court, ‘Situations under investigation’, accessed 10 March 2021. google scholar
22. Kırdım ŞE, ‘A Neo-Realist Case Study of U.N.-Authorized Humanitarian Interventions in The Post-Cold War World’ (2017) 19 (2) Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 615-632. google scholar
23. Kielsgard MD., ‘Reluctant Engagement: U.S. Policy and the International Criminal Court’ (Koninklijke Brill NV 2010). google scholar
24. Kurtuluş Ş, ‘Reassessment of Turkey’s Objections to the Exclusion of Terrorism from the Rome Statute’ (2019) 16 (64) International Relations 145-161. google scholar
25. Official Records of the U.N. Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an Int’l Criminal Court, 7th plen. mtg, U.N. Doc. A/CONE 183/SR.7 google scholar
26. Operational Portal Refugee Situations, ‘Total Persons of Concern’, accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
27. Pearson Z, ‘Non-Governmental Organizations and the International Criminal Court: Changing Landscapes of International Law’ (2006) 39 (2) Cornell International Law Journal 243-284. google scholar
28. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (17 July 1998). google scholar
29. Reuters, ‘Russia casts 13th veto of U.N. Security Council action during Syrian war’, accessed 1 Dec. 2019. google scholar
30. Sterio M, ‘The International Criminal Court: Current Challenges and Prospect of Future Success’ (2020) 52 (1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 467-478. google scholar
31. The Guardian, ‘Syrian refugees launch legal bid to try Assad for crimes against humanity’,www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/07/syrian-refugees-launch-legal-bid-to-try-assad-for-crimes-against-humanity> accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
32. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), ‘The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC - 9 Years On Analysis of the Prosecutorial Strategy and Policies of the Office of the Prosecutor (2003-2011) Recommendations to the Next ICC Prosecutor’ (December 2011), available at accessed 1 March 2021. google scholar
33. UN Refugee Agency, ‘Internally Displace People’, accessed 1 December 2019. google scholar
34. UN Security Council, ‘Referral of Syria to International Criminal Court Fails as Negative Votes Prevent Security Council from Adopting Draft Resolution’, UN doc. SC/11407 (22 May 2014). google scholar
35. Whiting A, ‘A Program for the Next ICC Prosecutor’ (2020) 52(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 479-489. google scholar
36. Wierda MI, ‘The Local Impact of A Global Court: Assessing the Impact of the International Criminal Court in Situation Countries’ (2019) (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leiden). google scholar