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

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
204
Abstract Views
1,407
rank
157,036
PlumX Metrics