International Criminal Justice Between National Constitutions and the Rome Staute (Obstacles and Challenges)

Abstract

The Basic Statute of the International Criminal Court represented an important change from traditional international agreements, both in terms of its subject matter and the legal discussion surrounding it. However, its prominence diminished after the Rome diplomatic conference. However, it is plausible that a multitude of concerns may have been a significant deterrent for other states to refuse to endorse this legislation. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is excluded for many reasons, including constitutional amendments resulting from ratification, issues related to national law, and violations of international agreements.

According to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court's special jurisdiction depends on the commission of an international crime. This foundational document confers upon the court the power to decide such crimes and take legal action against those responsible for their perpetration. The determination of this jurisdiction was made in accordance with Article 5 of the Basic Statute. The scope of its application is limited to the most egregious violations that align with the collective welfare of the global community. The court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate cases pertaining to war crimes, crimes of aggression, genocide, and crimes against humanity, therefore exercising its competence in these matters. The jurisdiction of the court to decide matters pertaining to aggression is dependent on the assembly of states parties' adoption of the definition of the crime of aggression, as well as the fulfilment of the necessary conditions for the court to exercise its jurisdiction in such situations.