- Dec 22, 2009
- 67,115
- 41,718
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
I don't think the UNSC members can veto a recognition of the ICC's jurisdiction. Syria could request / recognise ICC jurisdiction.
I'm not sure how past crimes that pre-date the date of referral to the ICC prosecutor are treated or investigated, or if they're basically outside the ICC's remit.
Syria can accept an ICC mandate for jurisdiction without being an ICC member. This is what Ukraine has done as of 2015 and this is why the ICC has been able to issue an arrest warrant against Putin for the war crime of forcible transfer of Ukranian children on a large scale to Russian territory along with Russia's child commissioner.
An ICC mandate cannot however be backdated.
War crimes can be investigated and charged in states that are not ICC members or do not have an ICC mandate for jurisdiction.
This however requires a UNSC resolution for such an investigation to proceed. From ICC webstie:
Jurisdiction
The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:
- the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or (this does not apply to Assad)
- the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.
In the case of Assad there is a 100% certainty that Russia will veto any UNSC resolution for the ICC to investigate Assad.
Another example is there was a UNSC resolution tabled for an ICC investigation into the MH17 shootdown as a war crime. At the time Ukraine did not have an ICC mandate and was not an ICC member. So, a resolution was tabled in the UNSC for ICC jurisdiction on the case. Russia vetod this immediately for obvious reasons.
Last edited: