Giovanni Chiarini

This Article will propose and analyze potentially prosecutable cases of alleged global ecocide and propose targeted amendments to Articles 36(3) and (5) of the ICC Rome Statute. These proposed amendments may serve as a blueprint to procedurally ensure environmental expertise at the international judicial level. Ecocide is unfortunately not currently recognized under the Rome Statute. However, certain scholars have suggested defining it as a fifth international crime. This analysis identifies environmental crises, international criminal law expectations and examines the environmental pollution caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Japanese government’s decision to dispose of radioactive treated water from the wrecked Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear site as examples. These templates vindicate the Article’s recommendation of a need for a Special Prosecutor for Ecocide, recognizing the ICC as the proper court for ecocide prosecution.

Our submission to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor is now accessible! I'm extremely proud to be a part of the National Institute of Military Justice (NIMJ) in Washington DC. Alongside the institute's Director, Philip Cave, President Franklin Rosenblatt, and my esteemed colleagues International Fellows Dr. Anne Dienelt and Shruti Bedi, we've submitted our reflections on the ICC environmental crimes policy.

NIMJ aims to underscore three key points for the ICC OTP’s policy initiative on environmental crimes without necessitating further amendments to the Rome Statute:

1. The environment as a civilian object

2. Direct and indirect protection of the environment in armed conflict

3. Integrating psychological research on 'ecological grief,' 'environmental melancholia,'
and 'solastalgia,' into sentencing for environmental crimes according to Art. 78(1) of the Rome Statute.

In December 2023, Igor Salikov arrived in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, claiming to be a former member of the Russian armed forces and the Wagner Group. He arrived with the express intent of giving information to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Prosecutor. Some of what he said in a “sworn interview” and in a “bombshell interview” with Russian human rights activist, Vladimir Osechkin, has been reported in the media.
We address, hypothetically, three significant issues that the ICC must consider: (1) Should the Prosecutor open a new preliminary examination solely dedicated to the alleged war crimes of the Wagner Group, (2) the possibility of plea bargaining and its compatibility with the ICC practice and procedures, , and (3) the admissibility in the Trial Chamber of what may be purloined documentary and digital evidence.

In this Article, we will explore and propose our view on the main procedural challenges of the ICC investigation into the situation of Ukraine, namely (1) the procedural issues related to the preliminary examination, which are only apparent since the preliminary examination framework itself is based on extra juridical rules; (2) the insurmountable issues related to a de facto lack of declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction and the lack of Rome Statute membership; and (3) the inherent procedural weaknesses that characterize the ICC statutory law as a whole, specifically its composition, which could negatively impact the efficiency of the entire proceeding.

This article reviews some of the most significant developments in 2021 made by international courts and tribunals, domestic courts, and legislative developments involving issues of international criminal law, international human rights law, and international public law. This article also includes a section on protecting the attorney-client and work product privileges in internal investigations, which offers practical application for lawyers engaged in cross-border civil litigation and investigations.

Giovanni Chiarini: The Philippines Situation.
On October 13, 2016, the former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted that the extrajudicial killings reported during the Philippines War on Drugs campaign (WoD) “may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.”77 A preliminary examination was opened on February 8, 2018, when the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) received several communications pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15.78 Subsequently, on May 24, 2021, Bensouda requested authorisation for an investigation pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15(3), stating there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity were committed as part of the WoD between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019.79 On September 15, 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I authorized the commencement of the investigation and instructed the Registrar to provide notice of the present decision to the victims who made representations.
This short essay considers the procedural issues, with special attention to jurisdiction ratione temporis, which remains, in the author’s opinion, an unresolved issue.

Authors: MANISH N. BHATT, GIOVANNI CHIARINI, KATHERINE MADDOX DAVIS, BETH FARMER, TIMOTHY FRANKLIN, CYREKA C. JACOBS, STE ́PHANEDENAVACELLE,SARAL.OCHS,ALEXANDERS. VESSELINOVITCH, MELISSA GINSBERG, MARC WEITZ, AND
JULIE ZORRILLA

In the early morning hours of 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Leaders from around the world have condemned this as an illegal act of aggression. The following day, Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued a statement that he has been “closely following recent developments in and around Ukraine with increasing concern.” As many know, in 2017, the ICC activated its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. So perhaps it is worth asking, in light of this apparent act of aggression and the ICC Prosecutor’s warning, whether aggression charges could be brought against Russian president Vladimir Putin and his leadership coterie, in reference to the invasion of Ukraine.

As we will explain, notwithstanding an existing Ukrainian self-referral of jurisdiction to the ICC in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity in reference to an earlier Russian incursion, as well as the opening of an investigation, the recent invasion will not allow the ICC to expand its case to include potential charges of aggression. Nevertheless, might an aggression case against Putin and his associates be brought via universal jurisdiction in a domestic court or via the jurisdiction of a specially created ad hoc international criminal tribunal? Those questions are grappled with below as well.

Gregory S. Gordon is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, where he formerly served as Associate Dean and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programs. Before joining the legal academy, Professor Gordon worked as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. From May-June 2010, he represented the International League for Human Rights (the oldest human rights NGO in the US) at the ICC Kampala Review conference and offered expert advice in negotiations that resulted in amendments related to the crime of aggression and war crimes. He was at UN Headquarters representing the ILHR in December 2017 when the ICC Assembly of States Parties activated the Court’s aggression jurisdiction, and he serves on the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression’s Council of Advisers. Professor Gordon has published scholarly works on the  aggression offense and is currently writing the biography of one of the key figures in the movement to criminalize  aggression, former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz.

Giovanni Chiarini is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, UCC University College (Cork, Ireland) and at the Centre for Critical Legal Studies at the University of Warwick (Coventry, England), as well as an International Fellow of the National Institute of Military Justice (Washington DC). Giovanni is an Attorney (Bar Council of Piacenza, Italy) admitted as Assistant to Counsel (Conseils Adjoints) to the International Criminal Court list, and a PhD candidate at Insubria University (Como, Italy). Former Visiting Fellow at the Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) and at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Universität zu Köln (Cologne,Germany), he has received invitations as a Visiting Scholar to the Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and to the Center for Military Law of the TTU Texas Tech University (USA).

The crime of ‘ecocide’ has been discussed for almost 50 years and is of increasing relevance. Starting as scientific and biological debates during the Vietnam War, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Rome Statute (RS), recommending amendments regarding substantive law and the structure of the crime of ecocide. This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, following an examination of the history of the crime of ecocide, it puts forward an integrative proposal focused on procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments involving jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, standards of proof, issues of admissibility, the prosecutorial discretion and the UN Security Council powers, as well as a new definition of aggravated ecocide in case of Substantial Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions or Climate Change.

This publication has been awarded the gold medal and a cash award for the best overall article, Arthur Cox Prize, University College Cork.

On 20th March 2003 a US-led coalition, which included the UK, invaded Iraq initiating an international armed conflict. By 7th April 2003, UK forces had occupied the city of Basra and surrounding areas. Nearly two decades later the role of the UK armed forces in Iraq is still under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court. Incidents arising out of the UK occupation of southern Iraq were submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP or Office) by those who believed members of the UK forces committed war crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. On 9th December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor published the Final Report on the “Situation in Iraq/UK”, concerning crimes potentially committed by the UK armed forces, classified as war crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Due to the principle of complementarity, the OTP closed the preliminary examination without seeking authorisation to initiate an investigation. This case could be considered as a milestone in the evolution of the concept of complementarity in international criminal law. The deep analysis of the national proceedings, in terms of the willingness of the competent UK authorities to carry out the relevant investigations or prosecutions under article 17(2), is a trailblazer of the so-called complementarity assessment. The principles, as well as the methodology adopted in the Iraq/UK Final Report, represents a fundamental step forward, that will influence the ICC Prosecutor on future cases involving questions of pre-existing national legal proceedings and the whole process of complementarity evaluations.

On 31 March 2021, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) delivered its judgment in the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber I of 15 January 2019 (with reasons issued on 16 July 2019), wherein the Trial Chamber acquitted Mr Laurent Gbagbo and Mr Charles Blé Goudé of all charges. The Appeals Chamber found no error that could have materially affected the decision of the Trial Chamber in relation to both of the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Prosecutor’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Trial Chamber.
In this conversation, Giovanni Chiarini interviews Cuno Jakob Tarfusser – former Judge and Second Vice-President of the ICC – on two of the many fragile points that emerge from this appeal judgment, such as the method of judicial interpretation regarding the procedural rules. Specifically, they focus on: 1) the interpretation of “no case to answer”; and 2) the interpretation of the burden of proof.
At the end of this short conversation, we could definitely agree that the manner of judicial interpretation of the procedural rules should strictly conform to the legal framework of the Court. Otherwise, an increasingly intricate and unforeseeable procedure emerges, based on an almost arbitrary discretion of the judges.

http://cilj.co.uk/2021/03/03/extra-judicial-killings-in-the-philippines-and-the-so-called-war-on-drugs-where-does-it-stand-before-the-icc/

On 14 December 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP” or “Office”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) published the Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (“Report”). In this short reflection, I will discuss the situation in The Philippines which is very complex, since, on one hand, the prosecution and the repression of crimes concerning drugs are based on “lawful” motives, and, on the other hand, the modality of this “war” seems to have exceeded the limit of tolerability of international community. This article will consider two procedural points: the issues of jurisdiction and the criteria of admissibility required by the Rome Statute. On 30 June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte, in his official inauguration speech as 16th President of the Republic of The Philippines, reaffirmed his will to #ght criminality and drug trafficking, stating that “The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained”...

The ‘situation’ between Iraq and the UK had long been under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As early as 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) received communications from individuals and NGO’s – as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch –, regarding the launching of military operations and the resulting human loss in Iraq, and therefore a preliminary examination into Iraq/UK situation was opened. On 09 February 2006, the former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno- Ocampo, after having analysed over 240 communications, information and divergent sources documentation, in accordance with the proprio motu powers under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, announced the closure of the preliminary examination into the Iraq/UK situation. As Moreno-Ocampo explained in his letter to these groups, the reasoning for the closure was that the required “gravity” threshold of Article 17 of the Rome Statute was not met, since isolated war crimes with a small-scale number of victims are not sufficiently grave to be admissible under the ICC statutory law. On 10 January 2014, the OTP received a new communication from ECCHR and PIL, entitled “Responsibility of Officials of the United Kingdom for War Crimes Involving Systematic Detainee Abuse in Iraq from 2003-2008.” In response, on 13 May 2014, Moreno-Ocampo’s successor, Fatou Bensouda, re-opened the preliminary examination. Since then, the OTP has received a total of 236 communications or additional submissions pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute (par. 14 Final Report, hereinafter also “report”). The hopes of the advocacy groups that this would lead to a different outcome did not, however, materialize. On 09 December 2020 Bensouda decided to close the preliminary examination for the second time the reasons for which are comprehensively explained in her report.
This post will consider three procedural aspects of ICC practice highlighted by the Iraq/UK inquiry and how this inquiry highlights the critical importance of the principle of complementarity. Speci#cally, it will include: 1) the alleged war crimes and the issues of jurisdictions; 2) issues of admissibility; 3) the complementarity in the light of the UK’s military and national investigations.

The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute (hereinafter “RS”), recommending amendments regarding substantive law and the structure of the crime of ecocide.

This paper does not argue against this proposal. On the contrary, it puts forward an integrative proposal, focused on the procedural issues, suggesting seven macro-amendments, namely:

1) Jurisdiction ratione temporis and the withdrawal process, amending articles 127 and 121 RS;
2) The ‘deferral of investigation or prosecution’ power of the renewal by the UN Security Council should
not be authorised more than once, amending Article 16 bis RS;
3) The introduction of Aggravated Ecocide, and its Aggravating Circumstances, namely those actions or omissions which have a ‘substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change’, amending Article 8 ter RS draft and rule 145 of Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter, “RPE”);
4) The exercise of jurisdiction, in case of aggravated ecocide, on the basis of UN environmental authorities’ reports, such as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the context of Climate Change, or the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, amending articles 13 and 15 RS;
5) Changing the standard of proof in cases of aggravated ecocide from “reasonable basis” to proceed (and to believe) to a “sufficient basis,” amending articles 15, 18 and 53 RS and Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulation of the Prosecutor;
6) Regarding issues of admissibility, introducing a rebuttable presumption of both “gravity” and “interests of justice” in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 17 and 19 RS and Regulations 29 and 31 bis of the Regulation of the Prosecutor; and
7) The exclusion to the so-called proceedings on an admission of guilt in cases of aggravated ecocide, amending articles 64 and 65 RS and Rule 139 of RPE.

Key words: ecocide, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence

格雷戈里·戈登（Gregory S. Gordon）是香港中文大学法学院的教授，曾担任该院副院长和研究型硕士项目主任。在加入法律学术界前，戈登教授曾在美国司法部和卢旺达国际刑事法庭担任检察官。2010年5月至6月，他代表国际人权联盟（美国历史最悠久的人权非政府组织）参加了国际刑事法院坎帕拉审查会议，并在谈判中提供了专家意见，以促成与侵略罪和战争罪有关的修正案。2017年12月，当国际刑事法院缔约国大会启动该法院的侵略罪管辖权时，他在联合国总部代表国际人权联盟（ILHR），并在全球防止侵略研究所的顾问委员会任职。戈登教授发表了关于侵略罪的学术著作，且目前正在为侵略定罪运动中的关键人物之一、前纽伦堡检察官本杰明·费伦茨（Benjamin Ferencz）撰写传记。

乔瓦尼·基亚里尼目前是科克大学（爱尔兰科克）刑事司法与人权中心的研究员，也是华威大学（英国考文垂）批判法律研究中心的访问研究员，也是国家军事司法研究所（美国华盛顿）的国际研究员。乔万尼是一名律师（意大利皮亚琴察律师协会），获准担任国际刑事法院名单上的律师助理（Conseils Adjoints），也是英苏布里亚大学（意大利科莫）的博士生。他曾任蔚蓝海岸大学（法国尼斯）和科隆大学（德国科隆）国际和平与安全法研究所的访问学者，并应邀担任爱丁堡大学（苏格兰）国际和全球法律中心以及德克萨斯理工大学（美国）军事法律中心的访问学者。

2022年2月24日凌晨，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。世界各地的领导人都谴责[i]这是一种非法的侵略行为。第二天，国际刑事法院检察官卡里姆·汗发表声明称，他一直 “密切关注乌克兰境内及周边地区最近的事态发展，并日益关注。”正如许多人所知，2017年，国际刑事法院启动了对侵略罪的管辖权。[ii]因此，也许值得一问的是，鉴于这一明显的侵略行为和国际刑事法院检察官的警告，在提到入侵乌克兰时，是否可以对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京及其领导圈（leadership coterie）提出侵略指控。

正如我们将解释的那样，尽管乌克兰已经将有关俄罗斯早期入侵的战争罪和危害人类罪的管辖权移交给国际刑事法院，并开始进行调查，但最近的入侵将不允许国际刑事法院将其案件扩大到包括潜在的侵略指控。然而，针对普京及其同伙的侵略案是否可以通过国内法院的普遍管辖权或通过专门设立的特设国际刑事法庭的管辖权提出？这些问题也将在下文中进行探讨。

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eg90OUvxOelFJTYDJYgqlw

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Navigating Aggression’s Fragmented Justice Landscape (Cambridge International Law Journal blog)

库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔(Cuno Jakob Tarfusser)，2009年至2020年在国际刑事法院担任法官。他在任职期间还担任了法院的副院长及预审分庭的庭长。作为在两个预审分庭中任职的预审法官，他曾经负责法院处理的所有情势和案件。
乔瓦尼·基亚里尼(Giovanni Chiarini)，执业律师(意大利皮亚琴察律师协会)；国际刑事法院认可律师助理。他曾在联合国援助红色高棉审判(UNAKRT)的柬埔寨特别法庭(ECCC)最高法院分庭(Supreme Court Chamber)实习。现任英苏布里亚大学(科莫-瓦雷泽，意大利)博士候选人，研究方向为国际及比较刑事诉讼法。
2021年3月31日，国际刑事法院(ICC)上诉分庭根据检察官的上诉，对2019年1月15日第一审判分庭的决定(理由于2019年7月16日发布)作出判决，其中审判分庭宣布洛朗·巴博先生(Laurent Gbagbo)和查尔斯·布莱·古德先生(Charles Blé Goudé)无罪。关于检察官的两个上诉理由，上诉分庭没有发现任何可能在实质上影响审判分庭的决定的错误。因此，上诉分庭驳回了检察官的上诉，并确认了审判分庭的决定。

在这次谈话中，乔瓦尼·基亚里尼就上诉判决中出现的多个弱点中的两个，例如有关程序规则的司法解释方法，采访了国际刑事法院前法官兼第二副院长***库诺·雅各布·塔弗瑟尔。具体来说，谈话的重点是：1)对“无需答辩”(no case to answer)的解释；和 2)对举证责任的解释。

在这次简短的谈话结束后，我们绝对可以认同程序规则的司法解释应严格遵循法院的法律框架。否则，基于法官近乎任意的自由裁量权，将会出现一个日益复杂和不可预见的程序。

Da ormai quasi 50 anni si discute del reato di “ecocidio”, che è tuttora oggetto di dibattito. Iniziato come problematica scientifica, principalmente attinente alla biologia, l’ecocidio è diventato anzitutto una questione politica prima ancora che giuridica. Recentemente, nel 2021, la Fondazione “Stop Ecocide” ha proposto di introdurre l’ecocidio come nuovo reato nello Statuto di Roma della Corte Penale Internazionale, con modifiche riguardanti il solo diritto sostanziale. Questo articolo si concentra sulle questioni processuali – a confine tra scienze ambientali e diritto – con particolare attenzione agli standard probatori ed alle condizioni di procedibilità, come la “gravità” e gli “interessi della giustizia”.

The crime of “ecocide” has been discussed for almost 50 years, and it is still an issue to be considered. Starting as scientific and biological debates, ecocide arguments became foremost political and then juridical. Recently, in 2021, the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ proposed to add ecocide as a new crime to the ICC Rome Statute, recommending amendments regarding substantive law. This paper focuses on the procedural issues, in-between environmental science and law, with special attention to the standard of proof as well as admissibility issues, in terms of “gravity” and “interests of justice”.

di Giovanni Chiarini

Abstract: L’istituto del patteggiamento per crimini internazionali è tra i più significativi per quanto riguarda l’evoluzione della procedura penale internazionale, da Norimberga all’Aia. Muovendo da una sostanziale negazione del patteggiamento avanti i Tribunali Militari Internazionali di Norimberga e Tokyo, la giustizia negoziata viene poi ad essere utilizzata su larga scala nei Tribunali ad hoc delle Nazioni Unite per l’ex Jugoslavia e per il Ruanda, dai quali discendono importanti elaborazioni giurisprudenziali. Successivamente, la disciplina del patteggiamento si evolve ulteriormente nello Statuto di Roma della Corte Penale Internazionale. Quest’ultima non rappresenta un mero intermezzo tra le esperienze dei Tribunali Militari Internazionali e quelli ad hoc delle Nazioni Unite o un semplice “compromesso storico” a metà strada tra le esperienze giuridiche anglosassoni e quelle continentali, ma ambisce a superare la tradizionale dicotomia ed a proporre una propria “identità normativa”, in grado di bilanciare le esigenze del giusto processo, di celerità ed efficienza del procedimento, nonché di tutela dei diritti delle vittime e dell’imputato. Il presente contributo, nel ripercorrere la storia del patteggiamento per crimini internazionali da Norimberga all’Aia, ricostruisce l’evoluzione dell’istituto e la sua potenziale (in)compatibilità con la disciplina italiana dell’applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti.
Abstract: Negotiated justice is one of the most significant paradigms that shows the evolution of international criminal procedure, from Nuremberg to The Hague. Whilst plea-bargaining was essentially denied before both Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, negotiated justice was broader introduced at the so-called Ad Hoc Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, wherein related plea-bargaining case-law were developed, then resulting into an autonomous special procedure in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Indeed, in the ICC the discipline on negotiated justice, named as “proceedings on an admission of guilt”, cannot be considered as a mere compromise in-between the Anglo-Saxon and European legal traditions. On the contrary, negotiated justice in the International Criminal Court statutory law acquires a unique normative identity, where several principles of criminal procedure, such as victims’ rights, fair trial, lengthiness of the proceedings and defendants’ rights as well are protected by this ICC special procedure. After having analyzed the origin and history of negotiated justice from Nuremberg and Tokyo to the Hague, this article focuses on a normative-jurisprudential approach on the evolution of plea-bargaining in the international criminal tribunals, and the main issues regarding that might arises from its applicability in the Italian criminal jurisdiction.

L'Autore, dopo aver ripercorso il caso della cosiddetta “guerra alla droga” nelle Filippine, attualmente pendente presso la Procura della Corte Penale Internazionale, si sofferma su tre principali problematiche: quella sostanziale, riguardante le fattispecie di reato previste dallo Statuto di Roma; quelle processuali, attinenti alle questioni di giurisdizione ed alle le condizioni di procedibilità, con un approfondimento della preliminary examination e del principio di complementarità.

The Author, after examining the situation of the so-called “war on drugs” in the Philippines, currently under the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, dwells on three main issues: one concerning the crimes established in the Rome Statute; the other two regarding the procedural issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, with a thorough analysis of both the preliminary examination and the complementarity principle.

Sommario 1. Introduzione: il contesto filippino durante la presidenza di Rodrigo Duterte e l’avvio della “War on Drugs”; 2. Le denunce alla Corte Penale Internazionale e l’avvio della preliminary examination: le “extra-judicial killings” possono costituire crimini contro l’umanità? 3. I profili processuali: cenni sulla preliminary examination. 3.1 Una sintesi dei requisiti procedimentali per poter avviare una investigation e lo “statutory-based approach” a quattro fasi della Procura della CPI; 3.2 Le questioni di giurisdizione: la problematica del difetto di competenza della CPI alla luce del recesso del Filippine dallo Statuto di Roma. Il precedente, seppur “parziale”, del Burundi; 3.3 Le condizioni di procedibilità: la valutazione del principio di complementarità a seguito delle indagini nazionali delle autorità filippine; 4. Riflessioni conclusive alla luce del del caso Iraq/UK e del Report 2020 sulle preliminary examination.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), with the case of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (“Al Mahdi case”), faced negotiated justice for the !rst time in its history. In this article I will be proposing amendments to the Rome Statute (“Statute”), to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) and to the Regulations of the Court (“Regulations”). This proposal is based on the issues arising out of the Al Mahdi Judgment.

In data 9 dicembre 2020, il Procuratore della Corte Penale Internazionale ha pubblicato il rapporto finale concernente la Situation in Iraq/UK, relativo alla presunta commissione, da parte di alcuni componenti delle forze armate britanniche, di una serie di fattispecie di crimini di guerra codificati nello Statuto di Roma. Anche se inizialmente è stata accertata una “base ragionevole” per ritenere che alcuni dei reati fossero stati commessi, non si è riuscito a dimostrare una inattività o una compromissione delle autorità giudiziarie nazionali britanniche. Per tali motivi, in virtù del rispetto del principio processuale di complementarità, il Procuratore ha deciso di “archiviare” la preliminary examination, senza così richiedere l’autorizzazione all’avvio di un’indagine.

“ICC is not a human rights body”: the report of the ICC Prosecutor on the closure of preliminary examination in Iraq/UK.
On 9th December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor published the Final Report on the Situation in Iraq/UK, concerning crimes presumably committed by the UK armed forces, classified as war crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Even if there was a reasonable basis to believe that these crimes were committed, the Prosecutor did not conclude that the UK authorities had been genuinely unwilling to carry out relevant investigative inquiries or prosecutions or that decisions not to prosecute in specific cases resulted from a genuine unwillingness to prosecute. Thereby, due to the principle of complementarity, the OTP closed the preliminary examination without seeking authorisation to initiate an investigation.

https://www.difesa.it/Giustizia_Militare/rassegna/Bimestrale/2021/Documents/01_2021/RGM_1_2021.pdf

The Author, after analyzing the Al Mahdi case with a strictly procedural approach, goes in-depth into the problematic issue of the juridical nature of “proceedings on an admission of guilt” in the ICC. In a recent view of emanci- pation of International Criminal Procedure, a “third avenue” emerges, as highlighted in the judgment of the ICC, not attributable to either the Common Law or Civil Law, with these four characteristics: 1) the possibility to present the Court with a bargain containing a range of years defined for sentence; 2) the hearing after the agreement; 3) the possibility for the judge to enforce aggravating or mitigating circumstances not contained in the bargain; 4) the renouncement to the right of appeal, depending on the years defined in the bargain.

L’Autore, dopo essersi soffermato sull’analisi strettamente processuale del caso Al Mahdi, approfondisce la problematica questione della natura giuridica delle «procedure in caso di ammissione di colpevolezza» nella CPI. In un’ottica di recente emancipazione dell’International Criminal Procedure emerge una “terza via” non riconducibile né alla common law né alla civil law, caratterizzata da quattro particolarità: 1) la possibilità delle parti di proporre alla Corte un accordo contenente una forbice edittale di pena; 2) la celebrazione del dibattimento dopo l’accordo sulla pena; 3) il potere del giudice di riconoscere circostanze aggravanti o attenuanti non contenute nell’accordo; 4) la rinuncia all’appello condizionata al margine di pena proposto.

1. La pronuncia “Mellone” n. 19864/19: il fatto. — 1.1. Il richiamo alla cornice costituzionale. — 1.2. Il recepimento dei principi della Corte Edu in tema di letture e contraddittorio. — 2. I casi Al Khawaja e Thaery c. Regno Unito del 2011: può essere data lettura delle precedenti dichiarazioni in caso di morte sopravvenuta, ma non sempre in caso di vulnerabilità del teste anonimo. — 3. (Segue) il caso Schatschaschwili c. Germany del 2015 e la violazione dell’art. 6 CEDU in caso di omesso esame del teste vulnerabile nella fase delle indagini. — 4. L’applicazione, da parte della sent. n. 19864/19, dei principi enunciati dalla Corte Edu, e l’elencazione dei “criteri” necessari per un accertamento dell’irreperibilità che sia compatibile con la CEDU.

1 - Introducción: la universidad de los estudios de Romagnosi; 2 - Las cuestiones procesales y sustantivas de la génesis del derecho penal; 3 - Notas sobre los principios del derecho administrativo; 4 - Los aspectos constitucionales fundamentales.

Pietro Nuvolone scrisse importanti opere sulla giustizia penale internazionale, in particolare sui crimini di guerra, da lui definiti come delitti di lesa umanità, ed osservò che proprio la guerra porterebbe ad una diversa valutazione giuridica degli atti compiuti dai belligeranti, che non si sarebbero più potuti considerare come atti ordinari di violenza. Ovviamente tale impostazione avrebbe creato dei problemi: delle nuove esigenze giuridiche, appunto.

Nota a Cass. Pen., Sez. III, ord. 28 novembre 2019 (dep. 13 dicembre 2019), n. 50429, Pres. Izzo, Rel. Semeraro, Ric. Speranza. Secondo la Corte – sulla base di una lettura combinata degli artt. 156, 157 e 161 c.p.p. –, "lo stato di detenzione nel processo non costituisce un volontario mutamento di domicilio o di residenza rispetto a quello dichiarato o eletto da cui può derivare l'effetto latu sensu sanzionatorio ex art. 161 c.p.p. collegato all'omessa comunicazione del mutamento". Anche nel caso in esame, "lo stato di detenzione è l'effetto legale dell'esecuzione del provvedimento dell'autorità giudiziaria e determina di conseguenza l'applicazione dell'art. 156 c.p.p. in relazione al luogo certo in cui si trova l'indagato o l'imputato, al fine di procedere alla notifica a mani proprie. Non può essere pertanto considerato un elemento fattuale, ma l'effetto legale dell'esecuzione dell'ordinanza emessa dall'autorità giudiziaria, né lo stato di detenzione nel processo può essere assimilato al comportamento di chi viola l'obbligo di collaborazione con l'autorità giudiziaria assunto con la dichiarazione o elezione di domicilio ex art. 161 c.p.p."

1) Il vizio di mente nel codice penale italiano del 1930: breve premessa normativa sull'imputabilità; 2) Cenni sulla capacità di intendere e di volere; 3) Il vizio parziale di mente, la cosiddetta "semi-infermità": cenni sulle opinioni della dottrina giuridica italiana; 4) Il vizio parziale di mente nella giurisprudenza di merito e di legittimità: casi pratici; 4.1) questioni sostanziali; 4.2) questioni processuali.

W historii polskiego prawodawstwa, Stanisław Smolka pisał: „nie istnieje równie doskonały akt jak Konstytucja Majowa. Jej czas trwania był niczym podmuch: ledwie rok. Została zduszona w zarodku. Pomimo tego, zostanie o niej bardzo drogie, nieus uwalne wspomnienie, które jest cały czas żywe i obecne w narodzie, a także w sercach i świadomości Polaków.” Są to ważne słowa, a jednak znajomość polskich doświadczeń konstytucjonalnych, ze strony europejskich doktryn prawnych, jest raczej ograniczona. To było, i dalej jest, wielkim błędem; w rzeczywistości, w Polsce nastąpiło wiele istotnych etapów w dziejach prawa i histori.

1) Premessa: sulla dichiarazione di delinquenza abituale in generale; 2) brevi cenni sugli effetti della dichiarazione di delinquenza abituale; 3) L'accertamento processuale della dichiarazione di delinquenza abituale "in concreto" alla luce della recente giurisprudenza di legittimità; 4) Un interessante caso della giurisprudenza di merito: la nullità della dichiarazione di delinquenza abituale per "lacuna della contestazione" alla luce della recente sentenza della Corte di Appello di Bologna n. 3177/2019.
Link: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2019/12/26/dichiarazione-di-delinquenza-abituale-nullita-per-lacuna-della-contestazione

Co-author Alessandro Continiello. Con questo breve scritto si vuole approfondire tale nuova fattispecie di reato, che è stata oggetto di varie polemiche, sia da parte della dottrina che da parte dell’opinione pubblica e politica. La sua introduzione nel nostro ordinamento ha luogo con la legge 14 luglio del 2017 numero 110, che ha recepito, con enorme ritardo, le indicazioni contenute nell'ormai risalente, ma attualissima, Convenzione di New York del 1984 . Nella predetta Convenzione si faceva infatti riferimento ai principi generali proclamati nella Carta delle Nazioni Unite, per quanto concerne il “riconoscimento dei diritti uguali e inalienabili della famiglia umana” quale fondamento della libertà e della giustizia.Nello specifico, in virtù dell’articolo 55 della Carta, gli Stati sono tenuti “a promuovere il rispetto universale ed effettivo dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali”, alla luce dell’articolo 5 della Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti dell’Uomo nonché dell’articolo 7 del Patto Internazionale sui Diritti Civili e Politici. Tale fattispecie viene introdotta nel codice penale per colmare un vuoto, in quanto, prima della sua entrata in vigore, l'unico reato previsto in punizione della tortura, nell'ordinamento italiano, era quello di cui all'art. 185 bis del codice penale militare di guerra.

1) Premessa: sulle nullità in generale; 2) La dichiarazione di nullità assoluta e gli effetti estensivi; 3) Il caso della nullità del decreto penale di condanna per la violazione dell'iniziativa del P.M. nell'esercizio dell'azione penale, alla luce della recente pronuncia della Cass. Pen. Sez. III n. 19689/2018; 4) La nullità per la contestazione di un'aggravante non prevista nella richiesta di emissione ma prima dell'opposizione: la recente Ordinanza del Tribunale di Piacenza. Link: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2019/11/28/decreto-penale-di-condanna-nullita-assoluta-ed-effetti-estensivi

In questo breve scritto sia permesso di “approfondire” brevemente il pensiero di Nuvolone sulla libertà di stampa, da lui ben delineata  nell’omonimo volume, oltre che in altri scritti e interviste. Proprio in relazione alle interviste, in una storica apparizione sull’Istituto Luce  il Nuvolone espresse un pensiero particolarmente profondo, seppur sintetico: il diritto del giornalista di pubblicare le notizie, per il Maestro, ha come corrispondente il diritto del pubblico ad essere informato. Ma di􏰎􏰅􏰦􏰄􏰅􏰃􏰊􏰈 􏰈􏰄“un diritto a non essere ingannati”, sostiene Nuvolone. La “informazione apparente"􏱅 􏰍􏰌􏰆􏰋􏰂􏰑􏰑􏰂 􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰄􏰅􏰋􏰎􏰅(secondo un termine moderno, “fake news”), che “in realtà è una disinformazione, non è tutelata dalla Costituzione".

1) Sull'intensità del dolo: cenni storici e dottrinali; 2) Il dolo d'impeto e lo stato d'ira: un "intreccio" soggettivo apparente; 3) il dolo d'impeto nella recente giurisprudenza di legittimità: cenni sulle "interferenze" con gli altri istituti. Link: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2019/09/02/dolo-di-impeto

Co-author Alessandro Continiello. 1) Premessa: l'importanza del corpo defunto nella religione cristiana-cattolica; 2) I "delitti contro la pietà dei defunti" ed il bene giuridico protetto: la situazione legislativa in Italia; 3) L'art. 410 c.p. e brevi cenni sulle questioni interpretative ad esso sottintese; 4) Conclusioni.

1) Introduzione; 2) I fondamenti costituzionali del dovere fiscale: l'evasione fiscale come "rottura del vincolo di lealtà minimale che lega fra loro i cittadini"; 3) I presupposti ideologici della nozione di tributo nella cultura giuridica: cenni sugli ascendenti storici e filosofici; 4) L'esperienza italiana e la teoria dei diritti pubblici soggettivi; 5) La tutela penale tributaria: riflessioni sulla nozione di "interesse fiscale" quale bene giuridico protetto.

The Author, after analyzing the Al Mahdi case with a strictly procedural approach, goes in depth into the problematic issue of the juridical nature of "proceedings on an admission of guilt" in the ICC. In a recent view of emancipation of International Criminal Procedure, a "third avenue" emerges, as highlighted in the judgment of the ICC, not attributable to either the Common Law or Civil Law, with these four characteristics: 1) the possibility to present the Court with a bargain containing a range of years defined for sentence; 2) the hearing after the agreement; 3) the possibility for the judge to enforce aggravating or mitigating circumstances not contained in the bargain; 4) the renouncement to the right of appeal, depending on the years defined in the bargain.

L'Autore, dopo essersi soffermato sull'analisi strettamente processuale del caso Al Mahdi, approfondisce la problematica questione della natura giuridica delle "procedure in caso di ammissione di colpevolezza" nella CPI. In un'ottica di recente emancipazione dell'International Criminal Procedure emerge una "terza via” non riconducibile né alla common Law né alla civil law, caratterizzata da quattro particolarità: 1) la possibilità delle parti di proporre alla Corte un accordo contenente una forbice edittale di pena; 2) la celebrazione del dibattimento dopo l'accordo sulla pena; 3) il potere del giudice di riconoscere circostanze aggravanti o attenuanti non contenute nell'accordo; 4) la rinuncia all'appello condizionata al margine di pena proposto.

Since its initial publication in 2017, Chinese University of Hong Kong Law Professor Gregory Gordon’s paradigm-shifting work, “Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition” (Oxford University Press) has helped change the very vocabulary we use to describe the rules and jurisprudence governing the relationship between hate speech and core international crimes, which is now commonly referred to by the book’s title. Thanks to this seminal tome, we no longer have to think of delicts such as “incitement”, “persecution”, “instigation”, and “ordering” as disparate speech offences whose elements should not be considered with regard to one another; rather, under Gordon’s brilliant umbrella term and his suggested corrections for each offence, we can regard them in a unified, systematic way that will lead to more coordinated and coherent charging decisions, greater protection for legitimate free speech, and clearer jurisprudence (as will be explained below). After the book’s publication, the author was approached by the Yale University Genocide Studies Program (Yale GSP) with a proposal to convert it into a website that would make it even more accessible to experts and the lay public and update it to deal with recent hate speech issues. In light of this important new project, it makes sense to revisit the powerful achievement of Gordon’s magnum opus. As observed in the Foreword by the ICL titan Benjamin Ferencz, this book “is an important contribution that will serve as a foundation stone for the future prevention of crimes against humanity”. Like its subtitle, the book is divided in three parts: (1) Foundation; (2) Fragmentation; (3) Fruition. Each of those reflects a stage in the life of this body of law. https://globaljustice.queenslaw.ca/news/revisiting-gregory-gordons-groundbreaking-work-atrocity-speech-law-as-it-is-transformed-from-book-into-website

Il libro della Prof.ssa Paola Torretta è focalizzato principalmente sull'analisi della sentenza della Corte Costituzionale n. 238/2014. Essa è approfondita alla luce dell'evoluzione legislativa e giurisprudenziale relativa alle richieste di risarcimento delle vittime delle violenze commesse dalle forze di occupazione tedesche nella seconda Guerra Mondiale. Già nell'introduzione si riesce a cogliere lo spirito multidisciplinare che riveste quest'opera. Il testo, infatti, non è limitato al solo approfondimento "costituzionale" della predetta sentenza, ma, al contrario, è caratterizzato da uno sguardo complessivo della vicenda che ha interessato il Giudice delle leggi, anche da un punto di vista penale e internazionale.

Excited to be speaking today at the International Roundtable of Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU), "Confronting Global Conflicts and the Rule of Law: A Focus on Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas."
Honored to join esteemed colleagues like Professor David M. Crane, Former Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the former International Criminal Court Vice President Cuno Jakob Tarfusser, Professor Milena Sterio and Professor Schabas William, the former Chief of Prosecution at the UN Ad Hoc Tribunal for Rwanda Silvana Arbia, Professor Jennifer Trahan, and many other specialists.

Edinburgh Postgraduate Law Conference 2024 - From Words to Action: Rethinking Justice in a Globalised World (Giovanni Chiarini: From Environmental War Crimes to Ecocide: Rethinking the International Criminal Court in Light of Emerging Mass Environmental Destructions)

Glaciers and ice sheets are contracting at an alarming rate. Low-lying coastal and island states face catastrophic flooding. The world’s great rivers and lakes are drying up, while climate migrants are pouring across borders. In this timely conference, two dozen of the foremost experts on international law and climate change will address: How should the international community enforce the newly recognized human right to a healthy environment? Is “ecocide” a viable international crime? Are environmental migrants entitled to refugee status? Can corporations be sued for climate change? And other salient law and policy issues at the heart of today’s climate crisis. 

Event Location
In-person event only.

Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023
Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland History Center
10825 East Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44106

Friday, Sept. 29, 2023
Cleveland Botanical Garden
11030 East Blvd, Cleveland, OH 44106

The Evolution of International Criminal Procedure. From Genocide to Ecocide. A conversation with Giovanni Chiarini. American University Washington College of Law. Sponsored by the American University Washington College of Law International and Comparative Legal Studies; Tech, Law & Security Program; War Crimes Research Office; International Law Students Association.

On 26th September, from 3.30 to 5 pm, Professor Giovanni Chiarini will discuss ecocide and crimes against the environment in the war in Ukraine. Specifically, the presentation focuses on 1) what is ecocide and why it should be inserted into the ICC Rome Statute as a fifth international crime; 2) how many cases of mass environmental destruction have been committed during the war in Ukraine, and why the current legal framework of crimes against the environment need to be amended; 3) what are the issues related to introducing ecocide at the International Criminal Law level, with special attention to some procedural weaknesses that characterize the ICC itself.

Fourth International Conference of the Transatlantic Marine Environment Research Network (TRAMEREN) on Enhancing Climate Action Beyond the State, University of Copenhagen & New York University. 1 – 2 June 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark. Giovanni Chiarini, "Courts" panel: "Climate Change and Criminal Procedure: Ecocide Proposals and International Criminal Courts Jurisdictional Obstacles".

L'EVOLUZIONE DELLA GIUSTIZIA PENALE INTERNAZIONALE, DAL GENOCIDIO ALL'ECOCIDIO, Conferenza di approfondimento sul diritto penale internazionale, Università degli Studi di Padova, Giurisprudenza 2.0 Treviso, Giovanni Chiarini, Texas Tech University

Giovanni Chiarini - Law on the Bosphorus, Istanbul University International Criminal Justice and Human Rights Law Summer School 2022  - The International Crime of Ecocide: past, present and future in light of ICC procedural issues - İstanbul Üniversitesi

Nell’ambito dei programmati eventi formativi periodici accreditati la Camera Penale di Piacenza presenta:

“LA GIUSTIZIA PENALE INTERNAZIONALE: ORIGINI, EVOLUZIONE ED ASPETTI PROCESSUALI DEI TRIBUNALI INTERNAZIONALI DELL’AJA”
giovedì 28 aprile 2022 dalle ore 14 alle ore 15 (orario italiano – CET)
(accreditato da UCPI - 1 credito formativo)

Il Responsabile della Scuola della Camera Penale, Avv. Roberto Rovero, e la Presidente della Camera Penale di Piacenza, Avv. Elena del Forno, con il Direttivo, sono lieti di ospitare:
Professor Gregory S. Gordon: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Già Procuratore presso il Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti e al Tribunale Penale Internazionale delle Nazioni Unite per il Genocidio in Ruanda, già Direttore del Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies, University of North Dakota e consulente dell’Accademia di Norimberga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Gordon_(lawyer)
&
Avv. Giovanni Chiarini: Foro di Piacenza. Visiting Researcher presso il Centre for International and Global Law dell’Università di Edimburgo e al Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights dell’Università di Cork

I Crimini Internazionali nella guerra in Ucraina tra giudici interni e internazionali. Università di Foggia. Cattedra di Diritto processuale penale. Giovanni Chiarini: preliminary esaminato e investigation della corte penale internazionale. Mariangela La Manna: La competenza dei giudici di stati terzi. Saluti istituzionali Donatella Curtotti, modera Prof. Angela Procaccino.

The American University of Central Asia International and Business Law Program will hold an online workshop on “Climate Change Law and Litigation” from 5 PM to 7:30 PM Bishkek time on March 29 and 30, 2022. The workshop will be held as part of the WORLDWIDE TEACH-IN project led by the Graduate Programs in Sustainability at Bard College in New York, USA, in conjunction with global partners and the Open Society University Network.

We will have prominent speakers from Indiana University (USA), Monmouth University (USA), Central European University (Austria), Kazakh-German University (Kazakhstan), Ala-Too International University (Kyrgyzstan), M. Narikbayev KAZGUU University (Kazakhstan), University College Cork (Ireland), and the American University of Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan). The workshop will be held in English.

Below is the workshop Zoom link (for both days):

https://zoom.us/j/99421120394?pwd=c205YStSdHErdnhZZEZYRDNFK1RNZz09

Meeting ID: 994 2112 0394

Passcode: 976497

If you are interested in participating, please register via the link below:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1IZmZ8JZN-3-r2BWngqGMKAJ_mnnsLm1t9Dq1pHft4GI/edit

Ucraina e Federazione Russa. Tavola rotonda sull'analisi della guerra in atto alla luce del Diritto Internazionale e del Diritto Europeo.

Intervengono:
Avv. Giovanni Chiarini - Centre for International and Global Law at The University of Edinburgh, PhD candidate Insubria
Prof.ssa Silvia Marino - Professore Associato in Diritto dell'Unione europea
Prof. Fabrizio Vismara - Professore Ordinario di Diritto Internazionale
Moderano:
Prof.ssa Francesca Ruggieri - Direttrice del Dipartimento di Diritto, Economia e Culture (DiDEC)
Marica Stoppani - Rappresentante degli Studenti del Dipartimento di Diritto. Economia e Culture (DiDEC)

Congreso Internacional: Derechos Humanos y La Lucha a la Impunidad - Diritti Umani e la Lotta all'Impunità - Giovanni Chiarini

Si svolgerà giovedì 24 ottobre, nella Sala Pirelli del Palazzo delle Stelline a Milano (Corso Magenta 61), il Congresso Internazionale Diritti umani e lotta all’impunità. All’evento parteciperanno professionisti esperti in Diritti Umani, Diritto Internazionale, Diritti dei Minori, quali il dott. Fabio Roia, Magistrato, Presidente della Sezione Misure di Prevenzione, Settore Penale del Tribunale di Milano, l’on. Stefania Ascari, Commissione Parlamentare Antimafia, l’Avv. Elisabetta Aldrovandi, Garante Regionale per la Tutela delle Vittime e personalità come la Dott. ssa. Lorena Tapia, Console Generale dell’Ecuador a Milano, Sua Eccellenza Jean Louis Bingna – Principe Bantù del Camerun.

Link con collegamenti ipertestuali (non rinvenibili nel testo pdf allegato): https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/le-impossibilita-della-corte-penale-internazionale-nella-guerra-ucraina-33901

Nel preambolo dello Statuto di Roma del 1998, istitutivo della Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aia, è scritto che gli Stati membri sono “consapevoli che tutti i popoli sono uniti da stretti vincoli e che le loro culture formano un patrimonio da tutti condiviso, un delicato mosaico che rischia in ogni momento di essere distrutto”. Il recente conflitto tra Russia e Ucraina sembra chiaramente minare questo “delicato mosaico”, esponendo l’Europa al rischio della Guerra e turbando la coscienza dell’umanità.

Non a caso, il 25 febbraio 2022 – ossia il giorno dopo l’invasione dei territori ucraini decisa da Mosca – il Procuratore della Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aia, il britannico Kharim Khan, ha rilasciato una dichiarazione ufficiale in cui ha espresso la propria crescente preoccupazione, evidenziando la competenza della Corte relativamente al delitto di genocidio, ai crimini di guerra, ai crimini contro l’umanità (rispettivamente previsti e puniti dagli articoli 6, 7 ed 8 dello Statuto di Roma), ma altresì sottolineando il difetto di giurisdizione con riferimento al delitto di aggressione (di cui all’art. 8 bis).

Nonostante la sopra menzionata invasione su larga scala configuri una chiara violazione dell’obbligo di soluzione pacifica delle controversie tra Stati membri derivante dal divieto di uso della forza – così come stabilito dall’art. 2(4) della Carta delle Nazioni Unite –, in quanto atto commesso al di fuori delle ipotesi di legittima difesa individuale o collettiva previste dall’art. 51, ciò non significa che la CPI abbia automaticamente giurisdizione. E difatti, con riferimento alla fattispecie di aggressione sanzionata dall’art. 8 bis dello Statuto di Roma la questione dal punto di vista procedurale appare invalicabile. Quest’ultimo, infatti, punisce la progettazione, preparazione, iniziazione o esecuzione, da parte di una persona in grado di esercitare effettivamente il controllo o di dirigere l'azione politica o militare di uno Stato, di un atto di aggressione che, per carattere, gravità e portata, costituisce una palese violazione della Carta delle Nazioni Unite, ovvero l'uso della forza armata da parte di uno Stato contro la sovranità, l'integrità territoriale o l'indipendenza politica di un altro Stato (e a prescindere da una eventuale dichiarazione di guerra). Ma presenta alcuni limiti strutturali.

In breve, né la Russia né l’Ucraina – quest’ultima, nel 2000, ha firmato ma mai ratificato lo Statuto di Roma – sono Stati parte della Corte Penale Internazionale (attualmente sono 123, a seguito del recesso del Burundi e delle Filippine), e perciò si pongono al di fuori della sua competenza. Tuttavia, l’Ucraina nel 2014 ha attivato la giurisdizione della CPI tramite la procedura speciale prevista dall’art. 12(3) dello Statuto e dall’art. 44 delle cosiddette Rules of Procedure and Evidence. La norma statutaria de qua stabilisce che uno Stato non membro può, tramite una formale dichiarazione depositata presso la Cancelleria della Corte, accettare la competenza della CPI relativamente ai reati previsti dall’art. 5 (ossia i quattro crimini internazionale elencati in precedenza) e cooperare con essa senza ritardo e senza eccezioni.

Nel caso di specie, la dichiarazione venne depositata il 9 aprile 2014, con riferimento ai delitti presumibilmente commessi nel territorio ucraino dal 21 novembre 2013 al 22 febbraio 2014, e portò all’apertura, da parte della precedente Procuratrice Fatou Bensouda in data 25 aprile 2014, di una cosiddetta “preliminary examination”: si tratta di una fase procedimentale particolarmente complessa che consta di quattro sotto-fasi (del tutto diversa dal nostro concetto di “indagini preliminari”), che caratterizza l’impianto processuale della CPI e conferisce alla Procura grande discrezionalità in termini selettivi e decisionali. Tale fase precede quella della “investigation” (ossia dell’indagine vera e propria).

La preliminary examination in questione riguardava i fatti di possibile rilevanza penale internazionale avvenuti in tre differenti zone: durante le cosiddette proteste di Maidan; in Crimea; nel Donbass. Successivamente, in data 8 settembre 2015, il governo ucraino ha inviato alla CPI una seconda dichiarazione, contenente l’accettazione della giurisdizione a partire dal 20 febbraio 2014 e senza un termine temporale finale.  Pertanto, la preliminary examination può considerarsi ancora pendente.

Difatti, nonostante in data 11 dicembre 2020 questa sia stata dichiarata conclusa dalla stessa Procuratrice Fatou Bensouda, per la quale esistevano ragionevoli motivi di ritenere che fossero stati commessi crimini di guerra (quali la tortura; gli attacchi contro la popolazione civile; il privare volontariamente un prigioniero di guerra o altra persona protetta del diritto a un equo e regolare processo o il costringerlo a prestare servizio nelle forze del nemico; stupri e altre forme di violenza sessuale, e altri) e crimini contro l’umanità (come il trasferimento forzato di popolazione in relazione al trasferimento di detenuti in attesa di giudizio o la sparizione forzata di persone, e altri), nulla impedisce al Procuratore di mantenere aperta la stessa preliminary examination con riferimento ai fatti occorsi dal 24 febbraio in poi: per esempio, nel precedente caso Iraq/UK, l’examination venne prima chiusa nel 2006 e poi riaperta e conclusa nel 2020. Ma ci sono anche altre due possibilità: il Procuratore può infatti decidere di aprire una nuova e differente preliminary examination, ad hoc per il recente conflitto, o di procedere con l’iter per l’avvio di una investigation.

Il Procuratore Kharim Khan, in data 28 febbraio 2022, ha scelto quest’ultima strada, esprimendo la propria volontà di procedere rapidamente con l’iter ex art. 15(3) per la richiesta di un’indagine riguardante anche i nuovi reati, eventualmente commessi da qualsiasi parte in conflitto ed in qualsiasi parte del territorio dell'Ucraina, volontà che ha riaffermato formalmente con comunicazione inviata alla Presidenza della CPI il 01 marzo 2022. L’indagine, seguendo questo iter proprio motu, avrebbe dovuto essere autorizzata dalla Pre-Trial Chamber II della Corte previa analisi di vari requisiti procedimentali che qui non occorre approfondire. Alla Corte, infatti, era stato assegnato il procedimento in data 02 marzo 2022 tramite provvedimento della Presidenza, in base all’art. 46 delle Regulations of the Court. Tuttavia, il recentissimo invio dei referral ex art. 14 RS inviati da 39 Stati membri – tra cui l’Italia, e prima tra tutti la Lituania – aggira il passaggio autorizzatorio della Pre-Trial Chamber e permette alla Procura di muoversi più rapidamente. 

In ogni caso, il vero limite è da rinvenirsi nel difetto di giurisdizione in relazione al crimine di aggressione di cui all’art. 8 bis dello Statuto di Roma. Al contrario degli altri tre reati di competenza della CPI, la cui giurisdizione è fondata sulla dichiarazione di accettazione del governo ucraino ex art. 12(3) – per quanto concerne i crimini commessi da cittadini di tale Stato o sul territorio dello stesso –, la disciplina per il delitto di aggressione (inserito nello Statuto successivamente, a seguito degli emendamenti di Kampala del 2010 e in vigore dal 2018) è radicalmente differente e trova il suo perno processuale nell’art. 15 bis. La norma, che si configura come lex specialis, prevede al comma 4 che la Corte può – ai sensi dell'articolo 12 (come nel caso di specie) – esercitare la giurisdizione su un crimine di aggressione derivante da un atto di aggressione commesso da uno Stato Parte (ma la Russia non lo è), a meno che tale Stato Parte non abbia precedentemente dichiarato di non accettare tale giurisdizione depositando una dichiarazione presso il cancelliere. Ciò significa che – in base all’art. 15(bis)5 – per quanto riguarda il reato di aggressione, quando commesso da cittadini di tale Stato o sul suo territorio, la Corte non esercita la propria giurisdizione nei confronti di uno Stato che non è parte, come la Russia. In tal senso, l’art. 15 bis, che mira a tutelare gli Stati terzi non parte dello Statuto, richiederebbe, per l'avvio del procedimento relativamente al crimine di aggressione, il consenso dello Stato aggressore stesso. Circostanza, questa, piuttosto improbabile.

In conclusione, se la giurisdizione relativa ai crimini di guerra e contro l’umanità (nonché in caso di genocidio) viene conservata dalla Corte Penale Internazionale con riferimento al caso ucraino, lo stesso non può dirsi con riferimento al crimine di aggressione: per quest’ultimo vi è difetto di giurisdizione, difficilmente valicabile con una riforma dell’art. 15 bis o dell’impianto normativo ad hoc per il crimine di aggressione, in virtù del principio di irretroattività. Ma la recente decisione di procedere con un’indagine è certamente un chiaro messaggio di ammonimento per il rispetto delle norme del diritto internazionale umanitario, i cui sviluppi saranno da considerare sia nel breve sia nel lungo termine. Inoltre, si tratta di un forte segnale da parte della Corte Penale Internazionale, che vuole e deve fare la sua parte per portare giustizia e garantire il rispetto del diritto internazionale, nonostante i propri limiti statutari.

Since its initial publication in 2017, Chinese University of Hong Kong Law Professor Gregory Gordon’s paradigm-shifting work, “Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition” (Oxford University Press) has helped change the very vocabulary we use to describe the rules and jurisprudence governing the relationship between hate speech and core international crimes, which is now commonly referred to by the book’s title. Thanks to this seminal tome, we no longer have to think of delicts such as “incitement”, “persecution”, “instigation”, and “ordering” as disparate speech offences whose elements should not be considered with regard to one another; rather, under Gordon’s brilliant umbrella term and his suggested corrections for each offence, we can regard them in a unified, systematic way that will lead to more coordinated and coherent charging decisions, greater protection for legitimate free speech, and clearer jurisprudence (as will be explained below). After the book’s publication, the author was approached by the Yale University Genocide Studies Program (Yale GSP) with a proposal to convert it into a website that would make it even more accessible to experts and the lay public and update it to deal with recent hate speech issues. In light of this important new project, it makes sense to revisit the powerful achievement of Gordon’s magnum opus. As observed in the Foreword by the ICL titan Benjamin Ferencz, this book “is an important contribution that will serve as a foundation stone for the future prevention of crimes against humanity”. Like its subtitle, the book is divided in three parts: (1) Foundation; (2) Fragmentation; (3) Fruition. Each of those reflects a stage in the life of this body of law. https://globaljustice.queenslaw.ca/news/revisiting-gregory-gordons-groundbreaking-work-atrocity-speech-law-as-it-is-transformed-from-book-into-website

http://cilj.co.uk/2021/03/03/extra-judicial-killings-in-the-philippines-and-the-so-called-war-on-drugs-where-does-it-stand-before-the-icc/ On 14 December 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP” or “Office”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) published the Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (“Report”). In this short reflection, I will discuss the situation in The Philippines which is very complex, since, on one hand, the prosecution and the repression of crimes concerning drugs are based on “lawful” motives, and, on the other hand, the modality of this “war” seems to have exceeded the limit of tolerability of international community. This article will consider two procedural points: the issues of jurisdiction and the criteria of admissibility required by the Rome Statute. On 30 June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte, in his official inauguration speech as 16th President of the Republic of The Philippines, reaffirmed his will to #ght criminality and drug trafficking, stating that “The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained”...

On 20th March 2003 a US-led coalition, which included the UK, invaded Iraq initiating an international armed conflict. By 7th April 2003, UK forces had occupied the city of Basra and surrounding areas. Nearly two decades later the role of the UK armed forces in Iraq is still under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court. Incidents arising out of the UK occupation of southern Iraq were submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP or Office) by those who believed members of the UK forces committed war crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. On 9th December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor published the Final Report on the “Situation in Iraq/UK”, concerning crimes potentially committed by the UK armed forces, classified as war crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Due to the principle of complementarity, the OTP closed the preliminary examination without seeking authorisation to initiate an investigation. This case could be considered as a milestone in the evolution of the concept of complementarity in international criminal law. The deep analysis of the national proceedings, in terms of the willingness of the competent UK authorities to carry out the relevant investigations or prosecutions under article 17(2), is a trailblazer of the so-called complementarity assessment. The principles, as well as the methodology adopted in the Iraq/UK Final Report, represents a fundamental step forward, that will influence the ICC Prosecutor on future cases involving questions of pre-existing national legal proceedings and the whole process of complementarity evaluations.

In the early morning hours of 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Leaders from around the world have condemned this as an illegal act of aggression. The following day, Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued a statement that he has been “closely following recent developments in and around Ukraine with increasing concern.” As many know, in 2017, the ICC activated its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. So perhaps it is worth asking, in light of this apparent act of aggression and the ICC Prosecutor’s warning, whether aggression charges could be brought against Russian president Vladimir Putin and his leadership coterie, in reference to the invasion of Ukraine. As we will explain, notwithstanding an existing Ukrainian self-referral of jurisdiction to the ICC in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity in reference to an earlier Russian incursion, as well as the opening of an investigation, the recent invasion will not allow the ICC to expand its case to include potential charges of aggression. Nevertheless, might an aggression case against Putin and his associates be brought via universal jurisdiction in a domestic court or via the jurisdiction of a specially created ad hoc international criminal tribunal? Those questions are grappled with below as well. Gregory S. Gordon is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, where he formerly served as Associate Dean and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programs. Before joining the legal academy, Professor Gordon worked as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. From May-June 2010, he represented the International League for Human Rights (the oldest human rights NGO in the US) at the ICC Kampala Review conference and offered expert advice in negotiations that resulted in amendments related to the crime of aggression and war crimes. He was at UN Headquarters representing the ILHR in December 2017 when the ICC Assembly of States Parties activated the Court’s aggression jurisdiction, and he serves on the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression’s Council of Advisers. Professor Gordon has published scholarly works on the aggression offense and is currently writing the biography of one of the key figures in the movement to criminalize aggression, former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz. Giovanni Chiarini is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, UCC University College (Cork, Ireland) and at the Centre for Critical Legal Studies at the University of Warwick (Coventry, England), as well as an International Fellow of the National Institute of Military Justice (Washington DC). Giovanni is an Attorney (Bar Council of Piacenza, Italy) admitted as Assistant to Counsel (Conseils Adjoints) to the International Criminal Court list, and a PhD candidate at Insubria University (Como, Italy). Former Visiting Fellow at the Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) and at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Universität zu Köln (Cologne,Germany), he has received invitations as a Visiting Scholar to the Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and to the Center for Military Law of the TTU Texas Tech University (USA).

The International Criminal Court (ICC), with the case of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (“Al Mahdi case”), faced negotiated justice for the first time in its history. In this article I will be proposing amendments to the Rome Statute (“Statute”), to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) and to the Regulations of the Court (“Regulations”). This proposal is based on the issues arising out of the Al Mahdi Judgment.

The ‘situation’ between Iraq and the UK had long been under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As early as 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) received communications from individuals and NGO’s – as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch –, regarding the launching of military operations and the resulting human loss in Iraq, and therefore a preliminary examination into Iraq/UK situation was opened. On 09 February 2006, the former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno- Ocampo, after having analysed over 240 communications, information and divergent sources documentation, in accordance with the proprio motu powers under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, announced the closure of the preliminary examination into the Iraq/UK situation. As Moreno-Ocampo explained in his letter to these groups, the reasoning for the closure was that the required “gravity” threshold of Article 17 of the Rome Statute was not met, since isolated war crimes with a small-scale number of victims are not sufficiently grave to be admissible under the ICC statutory law. On 10 January 2014, the OTP received a new communication from ECCHR and PIL, entitled “Responsibility of Officials of the United Kingdom for War Crimes Involving Systematic Detainee Abuse in Iraq from 2003-2008.” In response, on 13 May 2014, Moreno-Ocampo’s successor, Fatou Bensouda, re-opened the preliminary examination. Since then, the OTP has received a total of 236 communications or additional submissions pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute (par. 14 Final Report, hereinafter also “report”). The hopes of the advocacy groups that this would lead to a different outcome did not, however, materialize. On 09 December 2020 Bensouda decided to close the preliminary examination for the second time the reasons for which are comprehensively explained in her report. This post will consider three procedural aspects of ICC practice highlighted by the Iraq/UK inquiry and how this inquiry highlights the critical importance of the principle of complementarity. Speci#cally, it will include: 1) the alleged war crimes and the issues of jurisdictions; 2) issues of admissibility; 3) the complementarity in the light of the UK’s military and national investigations.

1. La pronuncia “Mellone” n. 19864/19: il fatto. — 1.1. Il richiamo alla cornice costituzionale. — 1.2. Il recepimento dei principi della Corte Edu in tema di letture e contraddittorio. — 2. I casi Al Khawaja e Thaery c. Regno Unito del 2011: può essere data lettura delle precedenti dichiarazioni in caso di morte sopravvenuta, ma non sempre in caso di vulnerabilità del teste anonimo. — 3. (Segue) il caso Schatschaschwili c. Germany del 2015 e la violazione dell’art. 6 CEDU in caso di omesso esame del teste vulnerabile nella fase delle indagini. — 4. L’applicazione, da parte della sent. n. 19864/19, dei principi enunciati dalla Corte Edu, e l’elencazione dei “criteri” necessari per un accertamento dell’irreperibilità che sia compatibile con la CEDU.