Three Theories of Complementarity: Charge, Sentence or Process?

Schabas, McDermott & Hayes, eds, Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law (2012)

Harvard International Law Journal Online, Vol. 53, 2012

14 Pages Posted: 5 Jul 2014

See all articles by Darryl Robinson

Darryl Robinson

Queen's University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: June 1, 2014

Abstract

This paper is an invited response to an article by the excellent Kevin Jon Heller, 'A Sentence-Based Theory of Complementarity'. He critiques 'charge-based' approaches to complementarity and proposes a new ‘sentence-based’ approach. I agree with his critiques, but argue that a sentence-based approach would also raise significant problems. I therefore advance a third model, a 'process-based' approach, which I believe is the most elegant approach and the best fit with the Statute.

In addition, while I partly agree with Kevin’s criticisms of the 'same conduct' test, I show that the Statute elsewhere addresses some of the concerns. Thus, the problem is narrower than is commonly supposed, and accordingly I suggest a narrower solution.

Keywords: complementarity, admissibility, same conduct,

Suggested Citation

Robinson, Darryl, Three Theories of Complementarity: Charge, Sentence or Process? (June 1, 2014). Schabas, McDermott & Hayes, eds, Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law (2012), Harvard International Law Journal Online, Vol. 53, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2455932

Darryl Robinson (Contact Author)

Queen's University - Faculty of Law ( email )

Macdonald Hall
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 K7L3N6
Canada

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
309
Abstract Views
1,978
Rank
179,220
PlumX Metrics