The period of an international tribunal's temporal jurisdiction is the span of time during which an act must have occurred before the tribunal may consider if the act breached an obligation. There are many questions concerning this particular aspect of an international tribunal's jurisdiction: Does a tribunal have power over acts that occurred after the entry into force of the obligation allegedly breached, but before the tribunal's jurisdiction was accepted? What about acts that began before the tribunal's jurisdiction was accepted but continued after? To what extent can acts before the period of the tribunal's jurisdiction affect its decision on whether or not there is a breach through acts afterwards? The Temporal Jurisdiction of International Tribunals examines these questions in depth. Despite its importance, the temporal jurisdiction of international tribunals is not well understood. Tribunals often confuse different aspects of their jurisdiction and refuse to hear cases they should have heard, or agree to hear cases they should not. This book reduces this confusion by clarifying the different limits on the temporal jurisdiction of international tribunals and the important distinctions between those limits. The book examines the temporal limits resulting from (i) the entry into force of the obligation supposedly breached, (ii) the acceptance of the tribunal's jurisdiction, and (iii) from the period of limitation, as well as the effect of acts that occurred before these limits. Throughout the book, the author comprehensively compares decisions from a wide variety of sources, including the International Court of Justice, Human Rights Courts, World Trade Organization panels, and investment treaty tribunals. It comments on decisions that arose from some of the most notorious events of the twentieth century, including the "Katyn Massacre" of the Second World War, the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and the "forced disappearance" of American political opponents. It reviews these decisions and identifies common principles that help define the temporal jurisdiction of tribunals to decide breaches of international law. This book is essential for anyone practicing in international law, and anyone building a case that could be affected by temporal jurisdiction.

This book is a guide to the law that applies in the three international criminal tribunals, for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, set up by the UN during the period 1993 to 2002 to deal with atrocities and human rights abuses committed during conflict in those countries. Building on the work of an earlier generation of war crimes courts, these tribunals have developed a sophisticated body of law concerning the elements of the three international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes), and forms of participation in such crimes, as well as other general principles of international criminal law, procedural matters and sentencing. The legacy of the tribunals will be indispensable as international law moves into a more advanced stage, with the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Their judicial decisions are examined here, as well as the drafting history of their statutes and other contemporary sources.

This book offers a unique critical analysis of the legal nature, effects and limits of UN Security Council referrals to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Alexandre Skander Galand provides, for the first time, a full picture of two competing understandings of the nature of the Security Council referrals to the ICC, and their respective normative interplay with legal barriers to the exercise of universal prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction. The book shows that the application of the Rome Statute through a Security Council referral is inherently limited by the UN Charter as well as the Rome Statute, and can conflict with other branches of international law, including international human rights law, the law on immunities and the law of treaties. Hence, it spells out a conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to these limits and, in turn, informs the reader on the nature of the ICC itself.

The Rome Statute, unlike the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, creates a permanent court whose dormant jurisdiction covers the territory and includes the nationals of States Parties and is universal in cases where the Security Council makes a referral. Besides, unlike the "ad hoc" tribunals, which have jurisdiction over specific crisis situations whose personal, territorial and temporal parameters have been defined in their respective statutes by the UN Security Council, in the case of the ICC it is not possible to determine a priori in which situations the ICC will be involved. As a result, the most relevant activity of the Court is the determination of those situations regarding which the dormant jurisdiction of the Court will be triggered. The book "The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court" constitutes the first comprehensive analysis of the proceedings that, prior to any criminal investigation, aim to make such a fundamental determination.

This book theorizes the ways in which states that are presumed to be weaker in the international system use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to advance their security and political interests. Ultimately, it contends that African states have managed to instrumentally and strategically use the international justice system to their advantage, a theoretical framework that challenges the “justice cascade” argument. The empirical work of this study focuses on four major themes around the intersection of power, states' interests, and the global governance of atrocity crimes: firstly, the strategic use of self-referrals to the ICC; secondly, complementarity between national and the international justice system; thirdly, the limits of state cooperation with international courts; and finally the use of international courts in domestic political conflicts. This book is valuable to students, scholars, and researchers who are interested in international relations, international criminal justice, peace and conflict studies, human rights, and African politics.

83/2/Add. 1, Criminal Court,1998)

An International Court of Civil Justice would give victims of multinationals a day in court while offering corporate defendants a cheaper, fairer litigation alternative.