Treatise on International Criminal Law
Volume III: International Criminal Procedure
Kai Ambos
Bibliography
CHAPTER 1 Acquaviva, G., ‘Human Rights Violations before International Tribunals – Reflections on Respon- sibility of International Organizations’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 613–636; Acquaviva, G., ‘Was a Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals Really Neces- sary?’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 789–796; Acquaviva, G., ‘Single and Bifurcated Trials’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 534–543; Acquaviva, G. and Heikkilä, M., ‘Protective and Special Measures for Witnesses’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 818–859; Akhavan, P., ‘Justice in The Hague, peace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal’, HRQ, 20 (1998), 737–816; Alamuddin, A., ‘Collection of Evidence’, in Khan, K. A. A., Buisman, C. and Gosnell, C., eds. Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 231–305; Ambach, P., ‘Laufen hybride ad hoc-Gerichte dem IStGH den Rang ab?’, HuV-I, 18 (2005), 106–118; Ambos, K., The Right of Non-Self-Incrimination of Witnesses before the ICC, LJIL, 15 (2002), 155–177; Ambos, K., ‘Europarechtliche Vorgaben für das (deutsche) Strafverfahren – Teil II – Zur Re- chtsprechung des EGMR von 2000–2002’, NStZ, 23 (2003), 14–17; Ambos, K., ‘International Criminal Procedure –“Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed’, ICLR,3 (2003), 1–37; Ambos, K.,‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen völkerrechtlichen Rechtsguterschutzes̈ ’, in Neubacher, F. and Klein, A., eds, Vom Recht der Macht zur Macht des Rechts? (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006), 111–116; Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure –“Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503; Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsrLR, 42 (2009), 362–397; Ambos, K., Beweisverwertungsverbote – Grundlagen und Kasuistik – Internationale Bezüge – Ausgewählte Probleme (Berlin: Dunkler & Humblot, 2010); Ambos, K., ‘Book Review – International Courts and Their Judges – Ruth Mackenzie, Kate Malleson, Penny Martin and Philippe Sands, Selecting International Judges: Principle, Process, and Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2010)’, CLF, 23 (2012), 223–228; Ambos, K., ‘Prosecution of Former Nazi Camp Guards: About Restoring Society’s Trust in Law and Participation in a Criminal Enterprise’, EJIL: Talk!, 20 May 2013, available at http://www.ejiltalk. 2 Bibliography
org/prosecution-of-former-nazi-camp-guards-about-restoring-societys-trust-in-law-and-participation- in-a-criminal-enterprise/, last visited 1 October 2015; Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law – Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, CrLPhil, 9 (2015), 301–329; Ambos, K., ‘Guest Post: Colombia–How Much Justice Can the Peace Take?’, Opinio Juris (8 October 2015), available at
Beigbeder, Y., International Justice against Impunity –Progress and New Challenges (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005); Bentham, J., ‘Punishment and Deterrence’, in von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J., eds, Principled Sentencing – Readings on Theory and Policy (Oxford, Portland, Oregon: Hart Pub- lishing, 3rd edn, 2009), 53–56; Beresford, S., ‘Redressing the Wrongs of the International Criminal Justice System’, in Dolgopol, U. and Gardam, J., eds, The Challenges of Conflict – International Law Responds (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), 367–392; Bernard, B., ‘Ne bis in idem – Protector of Defendants’ Rights or Jurisdictional Pointsman?’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 863–880; Bermejo, M. J. and Wirtz, G., ‘Strafverteidigerhonorar und Geldwäsche aus europäischer Perspek- tive – Gleiches Problem, gleiche Lösung?’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 398–406; Bernhardt, R., ‘Die Entscheidungen des EGMR im deutschen Rechtsraum’, in Geiger, R., eds, Völkerrechtlicher Vertrag und staatliches Recht vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender Verdichtung der internationalen Beziehungen – Symposion vom 28. bis 30. Januar 1999 in Leipzig (Baden- Baden: Nomos, 2000), 147–161; Beulke, W., ‘Konfrontation und Strafprozessreform – Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK und ein “partizi- patorisches” Vorverfahren anstelle einer Hauptverhandlung in ihrer bisherigen kontradiktor- ischen Struktur’, in Hanack, E.-W. et al., eds, Festschrift für Peter Riess zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 2002 (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2002), 3–30; Beulke, W. and Barisch, K.-T., ‘Beweiswürdigung, rechtmäßige Inanspruchnahme der Eilkompe- tenz der StA’, StV, 26 (2006), 569–571; Biddle, F., ‘The Nürnberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 200–212; Biddle, F., In Brief Authority (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1962, reprinted 1976); Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2015); Binding, K., Die Normen und ihre Übertretung,i:Normen und Strafgesetze (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1872); Birnbaum, J. M. F., ‘Über das Erfordernis einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens’, Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge, 15 (1834), 149–194; Blumenson, E., ‘The Challenge of a Global Standard of Justice – Peace, Pluralism, and Punishment at the International Criminal Court’, ColJTransnat’lL, 44 (2005–2006), 801–872; Boas, G., ‘A Code of Evidence and Procedure for International Criminal Law? – The Rules of the ICTY’, in Boas, G. and Schabas, W., eds, International Criminal Law (2003), 1–34; Boas, G., Jackson, J., Roche, B. and Taylor, D. III, ‘Appeals, Reviews, and Reconsideration’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 939–1114; Bock, S., ‘Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZStW, 119 (2007), 664–680; Bohlander, M., ‘Radbruch Redux – The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Common and Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 24 (2011), 393–410; Bohlander, M., ‘Language, Culture, Legal Traditions, and International Criminal Justice’, JICJ,12 (2014), 491–513; Bohlander, M., ‘Article 36 – Qualification, nomination and election of judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1216–1225; Bohlander, M. and Winter, R., ‘Internationalisierte Strafgerichte auf nationaler Ebene – Kosovo, Kambodscha, Sierra Leone und Timor-Leste’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 261–280; Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359; Boss, B. and Angarella, N. L., ‘Negotiating Federal Plea Agreements Post-Booker’, CrimJust,21 (2006), 22–26; Brady, H., ‘Disclosure of Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 403–427; Braitsch, T., Gerichtssprache für Sprachunkundige im Lichte des ‘fair trial’ – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum geltenden Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Schweiz unter dem 4 Bibliography
Blickwinkel der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und verfahrensstrukturellen Grundprin- zipien (Frankfurt am Main et al: Lang, 1991); Brands, C., ‘Complicated Legacies of Justice – The Netherlands and WorldWar II’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 763–781; Brodzisz, Z., ‘Der Grundsatz der Waffengleichheit und seine Bedeutung für das Ermittlungsverfahren in Polen À Staatsanwaltschaft und kontradiktorisches Vorverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 109–119; Brunhöber, B., ‘Für ein Grundrecht auf ein faires Verfahren in der strafprozessualen Praxis’, ZIS,5 (2010), 761–771; Bucherer, J., Die Vereinbarkeit von Militärgerichten mit dem Recht auf ein faires Verfahren gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK, Art. 8 Abs. 1 AMRK und Art. 14 Abs. 1 des UN-Paktes über bürgerliche und politische Rechte (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2005); Burns, R., A Theory of the Trial (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1999); Bushnell, D., ‘Re-thinking International Criminal Law – Re-connecting Theory with Practice in the Search for Justice and Peace’, AustYBIL, 28 (2009), 57–89; Cape, E., Namoradze, Z., Smith, R. and Spronken, T., Effective Criminal Defence in Europe - Executive Summary and Recommendations (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia, 2010); Casal, J. M., ‘Artículo 7 – Derecho a la Libertad Personal’, in Steiner, C. and Uribe, P., eds, Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos – Comentario (Berlin, Bogotá: Konrad Ade- nauer Stiftung, 2014), 180–206; Cassese, A., ‘Reflections on International Criminal Justice’, MLR, 61 (1998), 1–10; Chand, ‘Independent Witness’, NLJ, 150 (2000), 1666; Chiam, M., ‘Different Models of Tribunals’, in Blumenthal, D. A. and McCormack, T. L. H., eds, The Legacy of Nuremberg – Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), 205–228; Cimiotta, E., ‘The Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’sOffice in Kosovo’, JICJ,14 (2016), 53–72; Citroni, G., ‘The Specialist Chambers of Kosovo’, JICJ, 14 (2016), 123–143; Choongh, S., ‘Policing the Dross – A Social Disciplinary Model of Policing’, BJCrim, 38 (1998), 623–634; Combs, N., ‘Fact-Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 689–733; Cornacchia, L., Funzione della pena nello statuto della Corte Penale Internazionale (Milan: Giuffrè Editore, 2009); Cornelius, K., ‘Konfrontationsrecht und Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz’, NStZ, 28 (2008), 244–248; Cowles, W. B., ‘Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals’, ABAJ, 30 (1944), 330–362; Cross, M. E., ‘Equipping the Specialist Chambers of Kosovo to Try Transnational Crimes’, JICJ,14 (2016), 73–100; Cryer, R., ‘The Aims, Objectives and Justification of International Criminal Law’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 28–46; Dainow, J., ‘The Civil Law and the Common Law – Some Points of Comparison’, AJCompL,15 (1966–1967), 419–435; Damaška, M., ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure – A Comparative Study’, UPaLR, 121 (1972–1973), 506–589; Damaška, M., The Faces of Justice and State Authority (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986); Damaška, M., Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997); Damaška, M., ‘Adversary System’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (New York: MacMillan, 2nd edn, 2002), 25–31; Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Law’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365; Damaška, ‘The Competing Visions of Fairness – The Basic Choice for International Criminal Tribunals’, NCJIL&ComReg, 36 (2010–2011), 365–387; Danet, B., ‘Language in the Legal Process’, Law&Soc’yR, 14 (1979–1980), 445–564; Danner, A. M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 97 (2003), 510–552; Danner, A. M. and Martinez, J. S., ‘Guilty Associations – Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’, CalLR, 93 (2005), 75–167; Bibliography 5
Däubler-Gmelin, H., ‘Überlegungen zur Reform des Strafprozesses’, StV, 21 (2001), 359–363; Davies, M., Croall, H. and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice - An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales (Harlow: Longman, 3rd edn, 2005); Davis, A. J., Arbitrary Justice – The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); De Haan, W., ‘Knowing What We Know Now – International Crimes in Historical Perspective’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 783–799; De Meester, K., Pitcher, K., Rastan, R. and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, and Surrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379; De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2015); Dehne-Niemann, J., ‘“Nie sollst du mich befragen”–Zur Behandlung des Rechts zur Konfronta- tion mitbeschuldigter Belastungszeugen (Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK) durch den BGH’, HRRS,11 (2010), 189–207; Demko, D., ‘Das Fragerecht des Angeklagten nach Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK aus Sicht des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, der schweizerischen sowie der deutschen Re- chtsprechung’, ZStrR, 122 (2004), 416–435; Demko, D., ‘Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in Strafverfahren und dessen Verhältnis zum Recht auf wirksame Beschwerde gemäß Art. 13 EMRK in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR, Teil 1’, HRRS 6 (2005), 283–296; Demko, D., ‘Die gerichtliche Fürsorgepflicht zur Wahrung einer “tatsächlichen und wirksamen” Verteidigung im Rahmen des Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK’, HRRS, 7 (2006), 250–259; Demko, D., ‘Das Recht des Angeklagten auf unentgeltlichen Beistand eines staatlich bestellten Verteidigers und das Erfordernis der “interests of justice”’, in Gaede, K., Meyer, F. and Schlegel, S., eds, HRRS-Festgabe für Gerhard Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag am 29. Oktober 2008 (Hamburg: HRRS, 2008), 1–20; Demko, D., ‘Menschenrecht auf Verteidigung’ und Fairness des Strafverfahrens auf nationaler, euro- päischer und internationaler Ebene - Dargestellt anhand eines Strafrechtsvergleichs zum Konfronta- tionsrecht des Angeklagten gegenüber Belastungszeugen und unter Zugrundelegung von Erkenntnissen aus Philosophie und Psychologie (Bern, Berlin: Stämpfli, Duncker & Humblot, 2014); Denis, C., ‘Critical Overview of the “Residual Functions” of the Mechanism and its Date of Commencement (including Transitional Arrangements)’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 819–837; de Serpa Soares, M., ‘Special Editorial. An Age of Accountability‘, JICJ, 13 (2015), 669–676; De Smet, S. ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Fact-Finding Process of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 401–440; Diehm, D., Die Menschenrechte der EMRK und ihr Einfluss auf das deutsche Strafgesetzbuch (Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2006); Dodd, T., ‘The Nürnberg Trials’,inMettraux,G.,ed,Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 190–199; Donlon, F., ‘Hybrid Tribunals’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 85–105; Donlon, F., ‘The Transition of Responsibilities from the Special Court to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 857–874; Doran, S., Jackson, J. and Seigel, M., ‘Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials’, AJCL, 23 (1995–1996), 1–69; Dripps, D. A., ‘Miscarriages of Justice and the Constitution’, BuffCLR, 2 (1999), 637–680; Drumbl, M., Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds, The Trial on Trial, ii: Judgment and Calling to Account (Oxford: Hart, 2006); Duff, R. A., ‘Punishment, Retribution and Communication’, in von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J., eds, Principled Sentencing – Readings on Theory and Policy (Oxford, Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 3rd edn, 2009), 126–134; ECtHR, Overview 1959–2012 ECHR (Strasbourg: ECtHR, 2013), www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ Overview_19592012_ENG.pdf, accessed 1 October 2015; 6 Bibliography
Ehrenfreund, N., The Nuremberg Legacy (New York: Palgrave, 2007); Eisenberg, U. and Conen, S., ‘§ 152 StPO – Legalitätsprinzip im gerichtsfreien Raum?’, NJW,51 (1998), 2241–2249; Elberling B., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of innocence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 539–542, accessed 26 December 2015; Elberling, B. and Pérez-León Acevedo, J. P., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 545–555; Engländer, A., ‘Anmerkung’, JZ, 64 (2009), 1179–1180; Engelhart, M., ‘Der Weg zum Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Eine kurze Geschichte des Völkerstra- frechts’, Jura, 26 (2004), 734–743; Enikö, F., ‘The Rising Importance on the Protection of Witnesses in the European Union’, RIDP,77 (2006), 313–322; Eser, A., ‘The Principle of “Harm” in the Concept of Crime – A Comparative Analysis of the Criminally Protected Legal Interests’, DuqULR, 4 (rd-66), 345–417; Esser, R., ‘Verurteilung wegen Beteiligung an der Entführung der Lufthansa-Maschine Landshut auf Grund anonymer Zeugen – Anmerkung’, NStZ, 27 (2007),103–109; Esser, R., ‘EGMR in Sachen Gäfgen v. Deutschland (22978/05), Urt. v. 30. 6. 2008’, NStZ, 28 (2008), 657–662; Esser, R., Gaede, K. and Tsambikakis, M., ‘Übersicht zur Rechtsprechung des EGMR in den Jahren 2008 bis Mitte 2010 – Teil II’, NStZ, 31 (2011), 140–148; European Criminal Policy Initiative, ‘A Manifesto on European Criminal Procedure Law’, ZIS,8 (2013), 430–446; Ewick, P. and Silbey, S. S., ‘Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales – Toward a Sociology of Narrative’, Law&Soc’yR, 29 (1995), 197–226; Fabian, K., ‘Proof and Consequences – An Analysis of the Tadic and Akayesu Trials’, DePaulLR,49 (2000), 981–1039; Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘The Process of Negotiations’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 217–227; Findley, K., ‘Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice – How the Innocence Movement Merges Crime Control and Due Process’, TexTechLR, 41 (2008–2009), 133–174; Findlay, M., ‘Synthesis in Trial Procedures? The Experience of International Criminal Tribunals’, ICLQ, 50 (2001), 26–53; Fisher, K. J., Moral Accountability and International Criminal Law (London, New York: Routledge, 2012); Flinterman, C. ‘The Right to a Review by a Higher Tribunal’, in van Dijk, et al., European Convention on Human Rights (2006), 971–978; Francis, L. P. and Francis, J. G., ‘International Criminal Courts, the Rule of Law, and the Prevention of Harm – Building Justice in Times of Injustice’, in May and Hoskins, ICL (2010), 58–71; Friman, H., ‘Participation of Victims before the ICC – A Critical Assessment of the Early Developments’, in Sluiter and Vasiliev, International Criminal Procedure (2009), 205–238; Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 421–481; Friman, H., Brady, H., Costi, M., Guariglia, F. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Charges’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 381–488; Frister, H., ‘Der Anspruch des Beschuldigten auf Mitteilung der Beschuldigung aus Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. a EMRK’, StV, 18 (1998), 159–164; Fuchs, H., ‘Strafprozessrecht – Verdeckte Ermittler – anonyme Zeugen’, ÖJZ, 56 (2001), 495–503; Futamura, M., War Crimes Tribunals and Transitional Justice (London, New York: Routledge, 2008); Gaede, K., ‘Schranken des fairen Verfahrens gemäß Art. 6 EMRK bei der Sperrung verteidigungs- relevanter Informationen und Zeugen’, StV, 26 (2006), 599–607; Gaede, K., Fairness als Teilhabe – Das Recht auf konkrete und wirksame Teilhabe durch Verteidi- gung gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007); Gaede, K., ‘Ungehobene Schätze in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR für die Verteidigung? – Argumentationspotentiale und Verteidigungschancen des Art. 6 EMRK’, in Gaede, K., Meyer, Bibliography 7
F. and Schlegel, S., eds, HRRS-Festgabe für Gerhard Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag am 29. Oktober 2008 (Hamburg: HRRS, 2008), 21–51; Gaede, K., ‘Beweisverbote zur Wahrung des fairen Strafverfahrens in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR insbesondere bei verdeckten Ermittlungen’, JR, 81 (2009), 493–502; Gaede, K., ‘Rückwirkende Sicherungsverwahrung – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Satz 2 EMRK als andere geset- zliche Bestimmung i. S. d. § 2 Abs. 6 StGB’, HRRS, 11 (2010), 329–339; Gaeta, P., ‘To Be (Present) or not to Be (Present) –Trials in Absentia Before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1165–1174; Galbraith, J., ‘The Pace of International Criminal Justice’, MichJIL, 31 (2009–2010), 79–155; Gärditz, K. F., ‘EGMR vom 21.11.2001 – Al Adsani – Staatsimmunität, ius cogens und das Recht auf Zugang zu einem Gericht’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann, J., eds., Völkerrechtspre- chung – Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 434–439; Gärditz, K. F., ‘EGMR vom 8.6.1976 – Engel – Zum Anwendungsbereich strafrechtlicher Garantien des Art. 6 EMRK’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann, J., eds., Völkerrechtsprechung – Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 530–532; Gaynor, F., ‘Admissibility of Documentary Evidence’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1044–1083; Gaynor, F., ‘Judicial Notice and Agreed Facts’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1107–1128; Gil Gil, A., ‘Die Tatbestände der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und des Völkermordes im Römischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, ZStW, 112 (2000), 381–397; Gillmeister, F., ‘Rechtliches Gehör im Ermittlungsverfahren’, StraFo, (1996), 114–118; Gleß, S., Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006); Glueck, S., ‘By What Tribunal Shall War Offenders Be Tried?’, NebraskaLR, 24 (1945), 143–167; Golash, D., ‘The Justification of Punishment in the International Context’, in May and Hoskins, ICL (2010), 201–223; Goldstone, R. J., Prosecuting War Criminals (London: David Davies Memorial Institute of Inter- national Studies 1996); Goldstone, R. J., ‘Justice as a Tool for Peace Making’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 28 (1996), 485–503; Goodhart, A., ‘The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 626–237; Goodpaster, G., ‘On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, JCL&Crim,78 (1987–1988), 118–154; Gozani, D., ‘Beginning to Learn How to End: Lessons on Completion Strategies, Residual Mech- anisms, and Legacy Considerations from Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals to the International Criminal Court’, Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 36 (2015), 331–381; Grabenwarter, C., ‘Die Revisionsbegründungsfrist nach § 345 I StPO und das Recht auf angemes- sene Vorbereitung der Verteidigung’, NJW, 55 (2002), 109–111; Grabenwarter, C., European Convention on Human Rights - Commentary (Munich et al.: C. H. Beck et. al., 2014); Grabenwarter, C. and Pabel, K., ‘Kapitel 14 – Der Grundsatz des fairen Verfahrens’, in Dörr et al., EMRK/GG, i (2013), 642–719; Gradoni, L., ‘International Criminal Courts and Tribunals – Bound by Human Rights Norms…or Tied Down?’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 847–873; Gradoni, L., ‘The Human Rights Dimension of International Criminal Procedure’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 74–95; Greco, G., ‘Victims’ Rights Overview under the ICC Legal Framework – Jurisprudential Analysis’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 531–547; Greenawalt, A. K. A, ‘Justice without Politics? – Prosecutorial Discretion and the International Criminal Court’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 39 (2007) 583–673; 8 Bibliography
Griffiths, J., ‘Ideology in Criminal Procedure or a Third “Model” of the Criminal Process’, YaleLJ, 79 (1969–1970), 359–417; Guariglia, F., Concepto, fin y alcance de las prohibiciones de valoración en el procedimiento penal – una propuesta de fundamentación (Buenos Aires: Del Puerto, 2005); Gundel, J., ‘§ 146 – Verfahrensrechte’, in Merten, D. and Papier, H.-J., eds, Handbuch der Grundrechte – In Deutschland und Europa, vi/1: Europäische Grundrechte (Heidelberg et al.: C. F. Müller, 2010), 349–462; Günther, K., ‘Criminal Law, Crime and Punishment as Communication’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U., eds, Liberal Criminal Theory – Essays for Andreas von Hirsch (Oxford, Portland/Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014), 123–139; Gut, T., Kirsch, S., Mundis, D. and Taylor, M., ‘Defence Issues’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1203–1297; Haensel, C., ‘The Nurnberg Trials Revisited’, DePaulLR, 13 (1963–1964), 248–260; Haensel, C. and Kempner, R. W. M., eds, Das Urteil im Wilhelmstraßenprozeß (Schwäbisch- Gmünd: Bürger Verlag, 1950); Hall, C. K., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investigation’, in Triffterer, ICC Commentary (2008), 1089–1105; Hall, C. K. and Jakobs, D. L., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons during an Investigation’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1394–1410; Hassan-Morlai, P., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Trials – Lessons and Contributions from the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, AfrJLS, 3 (2009), 96–118; Hauck, P., ‘Lauschangriff in der U-Haft – Anmerkungen zu BGH, Urt. v. 29. 4. 2009 (1 StR 701/08) und Versuch einer dogmatischen Klärung’, NStZ, 30 (2010), 17–22; Hauck, P., Heimliche Strafverfolgung und Schutz der Privatheit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Havemann, R., ‘Supranational Expectations of a Punitive Approach’, in Havemann, R. and Olusa- nya, O., eds, Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2006), 145–160; Heikkilä, M., International Criminal Tribunals and Victims of Crimes (Turku: Institute of Human Rights, Abo Akademi University 2004); Heller, K. J., ‘Poisoned Chalice – The Substantive and Procedural Defects of the Iraqi High Tribunal, A Symposium Articles and Transcripts’, CWRJIL, 39 (2006–2007), 261–304; Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Henham, R., ‘International Sentencing in the Context of Collective Violence’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 449–468; Henzelin, M., Heiskanen, V. and Mettraux, G., ‘Reparations to Victims Before the International Criminal Court – Lessons From International Mass Claims Processes’, CLF, 17 (2006), 317–344; Herrmann, J., ‘Various Models of Criminal Proceedings’, SAfrJCL&Crim, 2 (1978), 3–19; Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und Civil Law (Bern: Stämpfli Verlag, 2005); Hörnle, T., ‘Unterschiede zwischen Strafverfahrensordnungen und ihre kulturellen Hintergründe’, ZStW, 117 (2005), 801–838; HRW, Judging Dujail – The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal (19 November 2006),
Ibañez Rivas, J. M., ‘Artículo 8 – Garantías Judiciales’, in Steiner, C. and Uribe, P., eds, Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos – Comentario (Berlin, Bogotá: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2014), 207–254; ICTJ, Creation and First Trials of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (October 2005); International Crisis Group, Trial by Fire – The Politics of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (2 December 2010), available at
Kadelbach, S., ‘Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention – Bedeutung und Wege zu Durchset- zung im Strafverfahren’, in Strafverteidigervereinigungen, eds, Reform oder Roll-Back? – Wei- chenstellung für das Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – 21. Strafverteidigertag vom 11. bis 13. April 1997 in Kassel (Cologne: Der andere Buchladen, 1997), 247–263; Kagan, R. A., Adversarial Legalism, The American Way of Law (Harvard, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003); Kamardi, C., Die Ausformung einer Prozessordnung sui generis durch das ICTY unter Berücksichti- gung des Fair-Trial-Prinzips (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2009); Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolosius, 1798); Kant, I., ‘The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)’, in Gregor, M. J., ed, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant – Practical Philosophy (Cambridge et al.: CUP, 1996), 353–604; Karstedt, S., ‘The Nuremberg Tribunal and German Society – International Justice and Local Judgment in Post-Conflict Reconstruction’, in Blumenthal, D. A. and McCormack, T. L. H., eds, The Legacy of Nuremberg – Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), 13–36; Karstedt, S., ‘Managing Criminal Reputations – West German Elites after the Nuremberg Trials, 1946–1960’, JICJ 13 (2015), 723–743; Kashyap, S., ‘The Framework of the Prosecution in Cambodia’, in Ambos, K. and Othman, M., eds, New Approaches in International Criminal Justice – Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone and Cambodia (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 2003), 189–205; Kastner, K., Von den Siegern zur Rechenschaft gezogen (Nürnberg: Hofmann Verlag, 2001); Katzenstein, S., ‘Note, Hybrid Tribunals – Searching for Justice in East Timor’, HarvHRJ, 16 (2003), 245–278; Kauffmann, K., ‘Translation the Nuremberg Trial in Retrospect’, WhittierLR, 9 (1987–1988), 537- 552; Kaul, H.-P., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof nach fünf Jahren – Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus richterlicher Sicht’, Kaul, ZIS, 2 (2007), 494–499; Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814; Keitner, S., ‘Crafting the International Criminal Court – Trials and Tribulations in Article 98(2)’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 6 (2001/2002), 215–264; Kempner, R. M., Ankläger einer Epoche (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1986); Kersten, M., ‘A New War Crimes Court is Born, but Who is Responsible in Kosovo?’, Justice in Conflict (10 August 2015), available at
Koller, D. S., ‘The Faith of the International Criminal Lawyer’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 40 (2007–2008), 1019–1069; Kraus, K., Der Bewährungswiderruf gemäß § 56 f Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 StGB und die Unschuldsver- mutung – Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im Fall Böhmer und seine Auswirkungen (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2007); Krauß, K., V-Leute im Strafprozeß und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (Freiburg im Breisgau: Ed. Iuscrim, 1999); Kreicker, H., ‘§51– Strafrechtliche Garantien der EMRK’, in Sieber, U., Satzger, H. and Heintschel- Heinegg, B., eds, Europäisches Strafrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd edn, 2014), 903–936; Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad Hoc Tribunalen zum IStGH’,in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–260; Kroker, P., ‘Auf gutem Weg – Die Verfahren vor dem Rote-Khmer-Tribunal in Kambodscha’, ZStW, 122 (2010), 685–705; Kronstein, H., ‘Book Review – Warum wurde Krupp verurteilt?, by Tilo Frhr. von Wilmowsky’, ColLRev, 53 (1953), 139–145; Krumm, C., ‘Bewährungswiderruf trotz Unschuldsvermutung?’, NJW, 58 (2005), 1832–1835; Ku, J. and Nzelibe, J., ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?’, WashULR, 84 (2006), 777–833; Kuty, F., ‘Le sort à réserver aux actes d’un juge d’instruction légitimement suspecté de partialité’, RevDPC, 87 (2007), 365–377; Kühl, K., ‘Der Einfluss der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten der Europäischen Menschen- rechtskonvention auf das deutsche und europäische Strafrecht’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 433–444; Kühl, K., ‘§56f– Widerruf der Strafaussetzung’, in Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., eds, Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar (Munich: C. H. Beck, 27th edn, 2011); Kühne, H.-H., ‘Anmerkung’, StV, 14 (1994), 66–67; Kwon, O., ‘The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007) 360–376; La Rosa, A.-M., ‘A Tremendous Challenge for the International Criminal Tribunals: Reconciling the Requirements of International Humanitarian Law with Those of Fair Trial’, IRRC, 37 (1997), 635–650; Lagodny, O., ‘Legitimation und Bedeutung des IStGH’, ZStW, 113 (2001), 800–826; Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations – The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, HarvILJ, 45 (2004), 1–64; Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005), 835–909; Laternser, H., ‘Looking Back at the Nuremberg Trials with Special Consideration of the Processes Against Military Leaders’, WhittierLR, 8 (1986–1987), 557–580; Laternser, H., ‘Looking Back at the Nuremberg Trials with Special Consideration of the Processes against Military Leaders’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 473–491; Lauer, L., ‘The International War Criminal Trials and the Common Law of War’, St.John’sLR,20 (1945), 18–24; Lawrence, G., ‘The Nuremberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 290–298; Lederer, F., The Road to the Military Courthouse (Chicago: Section of General Practice, Military Lawyers Committee, American Bar Association, 1976); Leithead, A., ‘Rwanda genocide: International Criminal Tribunal closes’, BBC (14 December 2015), available at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35070220, accessed 01 April 2016; Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: The Interplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International Criminal Law’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314; 12 Bibliography
Letsas, G., ‘The Truth in Autonomous Concepts – How to Interpret the ECHR’, EJIL, 15 (2004), 279–305; Linton, S., ‘Rising from the Ashes of a Viable Criminal Justice System in East Timor’, MelbULR,25 (2001), 122–188; Linton, S., ‘Putting Cambodia’s Extraordinary Chambers into Context’, SYBIL, 11 (2007), 195–259; Linton, S., ‘Completing the Circle: Accountability for the Crimes of the 1971 Bangladesh War of Liberation’, CLF, 21 (2010), 191–311; Linton, S., ‘Testimony of Expert Witnesses, Journalists, ICRC, and UN Staff ’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 878–938; Lorenzmeier, S., ‘Kartellrechtliche Geldbußen als strafrechtliche Anklage im Sinne der Euro- päischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 20–30; Lozzi, G., Lezioni de procedura penale (Torino: Giappichelli, 4th edn, 2001); Lubig, S. and Sprenger, J., ‘Beweisverwertungsverbote aus dem Fairnessgebot des Art. 6 EMRK in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 433–440; Mackenzie, R., Malleson, K., Martin, P. and Sands, P., Selecting International Judges – Principle, Process and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Maculan, E., ‘The Colombian ‘Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non Repetition”: A Holistic and Innovative Proposal’, International Law Blog (14 December 2015), available at
Meron, T., ‘Procedural Evolution in the ICTY’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 521–525; Merrills, J. G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights (Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2nd edn, 1993); Mettraux, G., ‘The 2005 Revision of the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 287–293; Mphepo, T. ‘The Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone – Rationale and Challenges’, ICLR,14 (2014), 177–199; Milanovic, M., ‘An Odd Couple – Domestic Crimes on International Responsibility in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1139–1152; Minear, R. H., Victors’ Justice – The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971); Minelli, L. A., ‘Faires Verfahren im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 der EMRK’, in Europäische Anwalts- vereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6 EMRK (Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt KG, 2005), 29–49; Minow, M., Between Vengeance and Forgiveness – Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998); Momsen, C. and Rackow, P., ‘Die Straftheorien’, JA, 36 (2004), 336–340; Morris, V. and Scharf, M. P., An Insider’s Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, i (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1995); Morsch, A., ‘Die Verfahrensgarantien des Art. 6 der Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und das deutsche Steuerrecht’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 601–620; Moscarini, P., ‘Il silenzio dell’imputato sul fatto prorio secondo Ia Corte di Strasburgo e nell’esper- ienza italiana’, RIDPP, 49 (2006), 611–647; Mundis, D. A., ‘From “Common Law” Towards “Civil Law”–The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, LJIL, 14 (2001), 367–382; Mundis, D. A., ‘The Election of Ad Litem Judges and Other Recent Developments at the Inter- national Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 14 (2001), 851–866; Murati, R., ‘Protection of Human Rights under Kosovo’s Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code’, ChicKentLR, 80 (2005), 99–116; Murphy, C., ‘Political Reconciliation and International Criminal Trials’, in May and Hoskins, ICL (2010), 224–244; Nack, A., ‘Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht und Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention’, in Boet- ticher, A. et al., eds, Sonderheft für Gerhard Schäfer zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 2002 (Munich, Frankfurt am Main: C. H. Beck, 2002), 46–52; Neubacher, F., ‘Der Bewährungswiderruf wegen einer neuen Straftat und die Unschuldsvermutung – Zugleich Besprechung von EGMR, Urteil vom 3.10.2002’, GA, 151 (2004), 402–417; Nmehielle, V. and Jalloh, C. C., ‘The Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, FletcherFWAJ,30 (2) (2006), 107–124; Nobis, F., ‘Reform des Strafprozessrechts – Neue Ufer oder ausgetretene Pfade?’ StV 35 (2015) 56–61; Noor Muhammad, H. N. A., ‘Due Process of Law for Persons Accused of Crime‘, in Henkin, L., ed, The International Bill of Rights – The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 139–165; Nowak, M., U.N. Convenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Commentary (Kehl am Rhein: N. P. Engel, 2nd edn., 2005); Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, CLF, 5 (1994), 507–555; Ohlin, J. D., ‘A Meta-Theory of International Criminal Procedure, Vindicating the Rule of Law’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 77–120; Pache, E., ‘Das europäische Grundrecht auf einen fairen Prozess’, NVwZ, 20 (2001), 1342–1347; Packer, H. L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford/California, Oxford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, Oxford University Press, 1969); 14 Bibliography
Pannenbecker, O., ‘The Nuremberg War-Crimes Trial’, DePaulLR, 14 (1964–1965), 348–358; Pastor, D. R., El plazo razonable en el proceso del Estado de derecho (Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2002); Paul, A., Kritische Analyse und Reformvorschlag zu Art. II Genozidkonvention (Berlin: Springer, 2008); Pauly, J., ‘Verteidigungsrechte des Angeklagten bei alleiniger Belastung durch Verletzten einer Sexualstraftat – Anmerkung’, StV, 22 (2002), 289–292; Pauly, J., ‘Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung bei Bewährungswiderruf – Anmerkung’, StV,23 (2003), 82–86; Pawlik, M., ‘Kritik der präventionstheoretischen Strafbegründungen’, in Rogall et al., eds, Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Rudolphi zum 70. Geburtstag (Neuwied: Wolters Kluwer, Luchterhand, 2004), 213–230; Peglau, J., ‘Unschuldsvermutung und Widerruf der Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung – Die neue Rechtsprechung des EGMR’, ZRP, 36 (2003), 242–244; Peglau, J., ‘Bewährungswiderruf und Unschuldsvermutung’, NStZ, 24 (2004), 248–252; Pena, M., ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court: Achievements Made and Challenges Lying Ahead’, ILSAJICL, 16 (2009–2010), 497–516; Perriello, T. and Wierda, M., Lessons from the Deployment of International Judges and Prosecutors in Kosovo (New York: International Center for Transitional Justice, 2006); Peters, A. and Altwicker, T., Menschenrechtskonvention – Mit rechtsvergleichenden Bezügen zum deutschen Grundgesetz (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2nd edn, 2012); Peters, C. J., ‘Adjudication as Representation’, ColLR, 97 (1997), 312–436; Petit, R. and Ahmed, A., ‘A Review of the Jurisprudence of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal’, NWJIHR,8 (2010), 165–182; Petrig, A., ‘Negotiated Justice and the Goals of International Criminal Tribunals – With a Focus on the Plea-Bargaining Practice of the ICTY and the Legal Framework of the ICC’, ChiKentJI&- CompL, 8 (2008), 1–31; Peukert, W., ‘Die Bedeutung der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) für den Strafprozeß’, in Strafverteidigervereinigungen, eds, Reform oder Roll-Back? – Weichenstellung für das Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – 21. Strafverteidigertag vom 11. bis 13. April 1997 in Kassel (Cologne: Der andere Buchladen, 1997), 231–246; Peukert, W., ‘Artikel 6’, in Frowein and Peukert, EMRK-Kommentar (2009), 140–268; Plowden, P. and Kerrigan, K., ‘Cards on the Table – Part 1’, NLJ, 151 (2001), 735–736; Posner, E., ‘Political Trials in Domestic and International Law’, DukeLJ, 55 (2005–2006), 75–152; Posner, E. A. and Vermeule, A., ‘Transitional Justice as Ordinary Justice’, HarvLR, 117 (2004), 761–825; Prichard, J. and Zaide, M., The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (New York: Garland Publishing, 1981); Rabkin, J., ‘Global Criminal Justice – An Idea Whose Time Has Passed’, CornILJ, 38 (2005) 753–777; Ransiek, A. and Winsel, A., ‘Die Selbstbelastung im Sinne des “nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare”- Grundsatzes’, GA, 162 (2015), 620–638; Rassat, M.-L., Traité de procédure pénale (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 3rd edn, 2001); Rau, P., ‘Rechtliches Gehör auf Grund von Akteneinsicht in strafprozessualen Beschwerdeverfah- ren’, StraFo, (2008), 9–15; Rech, E., ‘Auswirkungen von EGMR-Urteilen zu Art. 6 EMRK auf das österreichische Strafpro- zessrecht’, in Europäische Anwaltsvereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6 EMRK (Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt KG, 2005), 77–92; Redress, ‘Implementing Victim’s Rights (March 2006)’, available at http://www.redress.org/down loads/publications/Reparation%20Principles.pdf, accessed 01 April 2016; Renzikowski, J., ‘Fair trial und anonymer Zeuge’, JZ, 54 (1999), 605–613; Reuss, V., Zivilcourage als Strafzweck des Völkerstrafrechts (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2012); Ristic, M., ‘Kosovo’s New War Court: How Will it Work?’, BalkanInsight (6 August 2015), available at
Roach, K., ‘Four Models of the Criminal Process’, JCL&Crim, 89 (1999), 671–716; Roberts, P., ‘Comparative Criminal Justice Goes Global’, OJLS, 28 (2008), 369–391; Robertson, G., ‘Mistakes the Mladic Trial Needs to Avoid’, The Independent, 28 May 2011, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/geoffrey-robertson-mistakes-the-mladic-trial- needs-to-avoid-2290229.html, last visited 14 September 2014; Roche, D., ‘Truth Commission Amnesties and the International Criminal Court’, BJCrim,45 (2005), 565–581; Rothe, D. L., Meernik, J. and Ingadóttir, P., The Realities of International Criminal Justice (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013); Roxin, C., ‘Prevention, Censure and Responsibility – The Recent Debate on the Purposes of Punishment’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U., eds, Liberal Criminal Theory – Essays for Andreas von Hirsch (Oxford, Portland/Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014), 23–41; Roxin, C., Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil, i (Munchen:̈ C. H. Beck, 4th edn, 2006); Rönnau, T., Die Absprache im Strafprozeß – Eine rechtssystematische Untersuchung der Zulässigkeit von Absprachen nach dem geltenden Strafprozeßrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1990); Rutledge, K. D., ‘Spoiling Everything – But for Whom? – Rules of Evidence and International Criminal Proceedings’, RegentULR, 16 (2003–2004), 151–189; Rzepka, D., Zur Fairness im deutschen Strafverfahren (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2000); Safferling, C. J. M., ‘Verdeckte Ermittler im Strafverfahren – Deutsche und europäische Rechtspre- chung im Konflikt?’, NStZ, 26 (2006), 75–82; Safferling, C. J. M. and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen – Entwick- lungen in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794; Safferling, C. J. M., ‘Die Rolle des Opfers im Strafverfahren – Paradigmenwechsel im nationalen und internationalen Recht?’, ZStW, 122 (2010), 87–116; Safferling, C. J. M. and Graebke, P., ‘Strafverteidigung im Nürnberger Hauptkriegsverbrecherpro- zess – Strategien und Wirkung’, ZStW, 123 (2011), 47–81; Sanders, J., ‘Law and Legal Systems’, in Borgatta, E. F. and Montgomery, R. J. V., eds, Encyclopedia of Sociology, iii (New York: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 2000), 1544–1552; Satzger, H., ‘Der Einfluss der EMRK auf das deutsche Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – Grundlagen und wichtige Einzelprobleme’, Jura, 31 (2009), 759–768; Schabas, W. A., ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Is a “Tribunal of an International Character” Equivalent to an “International Criminal Court”?’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 513–528; Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649; Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1650–1680; Schaerz, P. A., ‘Der Begriff des “fairen Verfahrens” gemäss Art. 6 EMRK in der schweizerischen Rechtspraxis’, in Europäische Anwaltsvereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6 EMRK (Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt KG, 2005), 51–75; Scharf, M. P., ‘The Iraqi High Tribunal’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 258–263; Scharf, M. P., ‘A Critique of the Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal’, DenvJIL&Pol’y, 25 (1997), 305–312; Schäfers, B., Freispruch in Nürnberg – Der Weg zum freisprechenden Urteil des Internationalen Militärtribunals von Nürnberg im Fall Hans Fritzsche (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2012); Schleiminger, D., Konfrontation im Strafprozess – Art. 6 Ziff. 3 lit. d EMRK mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses zum Opferschutz im Bereich von Sexualdelikten gegen Mind- erjährige (Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, 2001); Schlothauer, R., ‘Die Flucht aus der Justizförmigkeit durch die europäische Hintertür – Zum Urteil des BGH v. 25.07.2000–1 StR 169/00 = StV 2000, 593’, StV, 21 (2001), 127–131; Schmid, N., Strafprozessrecht – Eine Einführung auf der Grundlage des Strafprozessrechtes des Kantons Zürich und des Bundes (Zurich: Schulthess, 4th edn, 2004); 16 Bibliography
Schomburg W. and Nemitz, J. C., ‘The Protection of Human Rights of the Accused before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, in Decaux, E., Dieng A. and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama, (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 89–108; Schöpsdau, K., ‘Platon – Nomoi – Buch VIII-XII’, in Heitsch, E., Muller,̈ C. W. and Sier, K., eds, Platon Werke – Übersetzung und Kommentar, ix/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011); Schrag, M., ‘Lessons Learned from ICTY Experience’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 427–434; Schünemann, B., ‘Der deutsche Strafprozeß im Spannungsfeld von Zeugenschutz und materieller Wahrheit – Kritische Anmerkungen zum Thema des 62. Deutschen Juristentages 1998’, StV,18 (1998), 391–401 Schünemann, B., ‘Der Richter im Strafverfahren als manipulierter Dritter? – Zur empirischen Bestätigung von Perseveranz- und Schulterschlußeffekt’, StV, 20 (2000), 159–165; Schünemann, B., ‘Zur Reform des strafprozessualen Ermittlungsverfahrens in Europa – Kontra- diktorische Ausbalancierung statt Partizipation’, in Triffterer, O., ed, Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2004), 81–92; Seher, G., ‘Bewährungswiderruf wegen Begehung einer neuen Straftat – Konsequenzen der Re- chtsprechung des EGMR zur Unschuldsvermutung’, ZStW, 118 (2006), 101–158; Seifert, J., ‘§ 56 f I Nr 1 StGB – Der Bewährungswiderruf infolge einer neuerlichen Straftat in der Praxis’, Jura, 30 (2008), 684–690; Seneca, L. A., Moral Essays, i, translation by Basore, J. W. (London: Heinemann, 1928, repr., 1958); Shahabuddeen, M., ‘Teething Phase of the ECCC’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 469–502; Shany, Y., Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, rd); Simon, O., Die Beschuldigtenrechte nach Art. 6 Abs. 3 EMRK – Ein Vergleich zur StPO im Hinblick auf die Auswirkungen der Konventionsrechte auf die deutsche Strafrechtsprechung (Tübingen: Köhler-Druck, 1998); Simperingham, E. and Gard, C., The Prosecution Witness and Documentary Evidence Phases of the Anfal Trial (ICTJ, 2007), available at https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Iraq-Anfal- Tribunal-2007-English_0.pdf, last visited 13 July 2015 Sina, P., Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs ‘Rechtsgut’ (Basel: Helbing & Lichten- hahn, 1962); Sissons, M. and Bassin, A. S., ‘Was the Dujail Trial Fair?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 272–286; Skilbeck, R., ‘Building the Fourth Pillar – Defence Rights at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, EssexHRR, 1 (2004), 66–86; Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein’s Monster - Creating a New International Procedure’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 451–462; Sloane, R. D., ‘The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment – The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of ICL’, StanfordJIL, 43 (2007), 39–94; Sommer, U., ‘Strafprozessordnung und Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention’, in Brüssow, R., Gatzweiler, N., Krekeler, W. and Mehle, V., eds, Strafverteidigung in der Praxis (Bonn: Deutscher Anwaltverlag, 4th edn, 2007), 811–856; Sommer, U., ‘Anmerkung zu EGMR, Entsch. v. 11.9.206 (Nr. 22007/03; Sapunarescu v. Deutsch- land – Agent Provocater)’, Strafo, (2007), 109–111; Soufi, J. and Maurice, S., ‘Structure, Functions and Initial Achievements of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT)’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 544–564; Spaniol, M., Das Recht auf Verteidigerbeistand im Grundgesetz und in der Europäischen Menschen- rechtskonvention (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990); Spaniol, M., ‘Das Recht des Angeklagten auf Eigenverteidigung bei Verständigung im Strafverfah- ren’, in Burkhardt, B. et al., eds, Scripta Amicitiae – Freundschaftsgabe für Albin Eser zum 80. Geburtstag am 26. Januar 2015 (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2015), 431–448; Spernbauer, M., EU Peacebuilding in Kosovo and Afghanistan (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014); Spurlock, P. E., ‘The Yokohama War Crimes Trials – The Truth about a Misunderstood Subject’, ABAJ, 36 (May 1950), 387–389; Bibliography 17
Stahn, C., ‘Between “Faith” and “Facts”–By what Standards Should We Assess International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 25 (2012), 251–282; Stahn, C., Olásolo, H. and Gibson, K., ‘Participation of Victims in Pre-Trail Proceedings of the ICC’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 219–238; Stanziola Vieira, R., Paridade de Armas no Processo Penal (Brasília: Gazeta Jurídica, 2014); Steiner, D., Fairnessprinzip im Strafprozeß (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995); Stree, W. and Kinzig, J., ‘§56f– Widerruf der Strafaussetzung’, in Schönke and Schröder, StGB Kommentar (2010), 908–918; Streim, A., ‘Zum Beispiel’, in Rückerl, A., ed, NS-Prozesse – Nach 25 Jahren Strafverfolgung – Möglichkeiten, Grenzen, Ergebnisse (Karlsruhe: Müller Verlag, 1971); Swart, B., ‘Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114; Swoboda, S., ‘A Normative Theory of Criminal Procedure, Book Review’, CLF, 18 (2007), 151–170; Taylor, T., The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials – A Personal Memoir (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 1992); Tiwisina, C., Rechtsfragen überlanger Verfahrensdauer nach nationalem Recht und der EMRK (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010); Tochilovsky, V., ‘Trial in International Criminal Jurisdictions – Battle or Scrutiny?’, EJCCLCJ,6 (1998), 55–59; Tochilovsky, V., ‘Defence Access to the Prosecution Material’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1083–1098; Toney, R. J., ‘Disclosure of Evidence and Legal Assistance at Custodial Interrogation – What Does the European Convention on Human Rights Require?’, IJEP, 5 (2001), 39–60; Trahan, J., ‘A Critical Guide to the Iraqi High Tribunal’s Anfal Judgment – Genocide against the Kurds’, MichJIL, 30 (2009), 305–412; Trechsel, S., Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, ihr Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit und die schweizerischen Strafprozessrechte (Bern: Stämpfli, 1974); Trechsel, S., ‘Die Verteidigungsrechte in der Praxis zur europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, ZStrR, 96 (1979), 337–392; Trechsel, S., ‘Akteneinsicht – Information als Grundlage des fairen Verfahrens’, in Schweizer, R. J., Burkert, H. and Gasser, U., eds, Festschrift für Jean Nicolas Druey zum 65. Geburtstag (Zürich: Schulthess, 2002), 993–1008; Triffterer, O., ‘Der lange Weg zu einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit’, ZStW, 114 (2002), 321–371; Triffterer, O./Bergsmo, M./Ambos, K., ‘Preamble’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1–13; Trüg, G., Lösungskonvergenzen trotz Systemdivergenzen im deutschen and US-amerikanischen Strafverfahren – Ein strukturanalytischer Vergleich am Beispiel der Wahrheitserforschung (Tü- bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85; Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2009); Tulkens, F., ‘Criminal Procedure – Main Comparable Features of the National Systems’, in Delmas- Marty, M., ed, The Criminal Process and Human Rights – Towards a European Consciousness (Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995), 5–12; Tulkens, F. and Donnay, L., ‘L’usage de la marge d’appréciation par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme – Paravent juridique superflu ou mécanisme indispensable par nature?’, RSC, (2006), 3–23; Turner, J. I., ‘Legal Ethics in International Criminal Defense’, ChicJIL, 10 (2009–2010), 685–746; Úbeda de Torres, A., ‘The Right to Due Process’, in Burgorgue-Larsen, L. and Úbeda de Torres, A., eds, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Case Law and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 641–672; United States Institute of Peace, Truth Commission – Sierra Leone, available at http://www.usip.org/ publications/truth-commission-sierra-leone, accessed 4 October 2015; 18 Bibliography
United States Institute of Peace, Truth Commission – South Africa, available at http://www.usip.org/ publications/truth-commission-south-africa, accessed 4 October 2015; van Esveld, B., The Anfal Trial and the Iraqi High Tribunal (ICTJ, 2009), available at https://www. ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Iraq-Tribunal-Anfal-2009-English.pdf, accessed 13 July 2015; Vasiliev, S., ‘Introductory Remarks’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 489–490; Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trials’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 543–682; Velten, P., ‘Der Auslandszeuge als Einbruchstelle für den Abbau von Verteidigungsrechten und Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz im Namen der Prozeßökonomie’, StV, 27 (2007), 97–105; Viering, M., ‘Right to a Fair and Public Hearing’, in van Dijk et al., European Convention on Human Rights (2006), 578–650; Vogel, J. and Matt, H., ‘Gemeinsame Standards für Strafverfahren in der Europäischen Union’, StV, 27 (2007), 206–214; von Braun, L., Internationalisierte Strafgerichte – Eine Analyse der Strafverfolgung schwerer Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Osttimor, Sierra Leone und Bosnien-Herzegowina (Berlin: Ber- liner Wissenschaftlichs-Verlag, 2008); von Liszt, F., ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, ZStW, 3 (1883), 1–47; Wald, P., ‘Running the Trial of the Century: The Nuremberg Legacy’, CardozoLR, 27 (2005–2006), 1559–1597; Walischewski, B., Probleme des Akteneinsichtsrechts der Verteidigung im Ermittlungsverfahren im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte – Ein Plädoyer für die Offenheit und Transparenz des Ermittlungsverfahrens (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999); Wallach, E.J., ‘The Procedural and Evidentiary Rules of the Post-World War II War Crimes Trials: Did They Provide an Outline for International Legal Procedure?’, ColJTransnat’lL,37 (1998–1999), 851–885; Walter, T., ‘Fair trial statt Nemo tenetur? – Der Durchgriff auf Artikel 6 Absatz 1 EMRK bei listigen Ermittlungen (zugleich Besprechung von BGH 1 StR 701/08)’, in Roth, H., ed, Europäisierung des Rechts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 291–308; Walther, S., ‘Zur Frage eines Rechts des Beschuldigten auf “Konfrontation von Belastungszeugen”’, GA, 150 (2003), 204–225; Walther, S., ‘Strafprozessuales Konfrontationsrecht-ade?’, JZ, 59 (2004), 1107–1115; Wasek-Wiaderek, M., Principle of ‘Equality of Arms’ in Criminal Procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Its Functions in Criminal Justice of Selected European Countries – A Comparative View (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001); Weigend, T., ‘Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als deutsches Recht – Kollisionen und ihre Lösung’, StV, 20 (2000), 384–390; Weigend, T., ‘Unverzichtbares im Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 113 (2001), 371–304; Weigend, T., ‘Prosecution – Comparative Aspects’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (New York: MacMillan, 2nd edn, 2002), 1232–1242; Weissbrodt, D. and Zinsmaster, K. K., ‘Protecting the Fair Trial Rights of the Accused in Inter- national Criminal Law – Comparison of the International Criminal Court and the Military Commissions in Guantánamo’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 261–283; Werle, G., ‘Die Zukunft des Völkerstrafrechts’, in Grundmann, S., et al., eds, Festschrift 200 Jahre Juristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin – Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft (Ber- lin: De Gruyter, 2009), 1219–1239; Wessing, J., ‘Zeugnisverweigerungsrechte auslandischer̈ Strafverteidiger’, wistra, 26 (2007), 171–174; Whiting, A., ‘In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered’, HarvILJ, 50 (2009), 323–364; Wiessner, S. and Willard, A. R., ‘Policy-Oriented Jurisprudence and Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflict – Toward a World Public Order of Human Dignity’, AJIL, 93 (1999), 291–334; Bibliography 19
Williams, P. R. and Scharf, M. P., Peace with Justice? (Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002); Williams, S., ‘The Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegalese Courts’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 1139–1160; Williams, S., ‘The Specialist Chambers of Kosovo’, JICJ, 14 (2016), 25–51; Wilson, R., ‘Judging History – The Historical Record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, HRQ, 27 (2005), 908–942; Wilson, S., ‘The Sentence is Only Half the Story From Stern Justice to Clemency for Japanese War Criminals, 1945–1958’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 745–761; Wippman, D., ‘Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice’, FordhamILJ,23 (1999–2000), 473–488; Wohlers, W., ‘Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d) EMRK als Grenze der Einführung des Wissens anonym bleibender Zeugen’, in Donatsch, A., Forster, M. and Schwarzenegger, C., eds, Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Menschenrechte – Festschrift für Stefan Trechsel zum 65. Geburtstag (Zurich: Schulthess, 2002), 813–831; Wohlers, W., ‘Das partizipatorische Ermittlungsverfahren – Kriminalpolitische Forderung oder “unverfügbarer Bestandteil” eines fairen Strafverfahrens?’, GA, 152 (2005), 11–35; Wohlers, W., ‘Abhandlungen – Etudes - Aktuelle Fragen des Zeugenschutzes – Zur Vereinbarkeit der im Strafprozessrecht des Kantons Zuricḧ anwendbaren Zeugenschutznormen mit Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK’, ZStrR, 123 (2005), 144–173; Wohlers, W. and Schlegel, S., ‘Zum Umfang des Rechts der Verteidigung auf Akteneinsicht gemäß § 147 I StPO – Zugleich Besprechung von BGH – Urteil vom 18. 6. 2009 – 3 StR 89/09 – (LG Hannover)’, NStZ, 30 (2010), 486–492; Wolfe, J. S. and Proszek, L. B., ‘Interaction Dynamics in Federal Administrative Decision Making – The Role of the Inquisitorial Judge and the Adversarial Lawyer’, TulsaLR, 33 (1997), 293–347; Woods, A. K., ‘Moral Judgments and International Crimes – The Disutility of Desert’, VirgJIL,52 (2011–2012), 633–681; Wright, Q., ‘The Law of Nuremberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), 320–354; Yanev, L., ‘Co-Perpetration Responsibility in the Kosovo Specialist Chambers’, JICJ, 14 (2016), 101–21; Yun, J., ‘Special Tribunal for Lebanon – A Tribunal of an International Character Devoid of International Law’, SantaClaraJIL, 7 (2010), 181–195; Zacchè, F., ‘Lettura di atti assunti senza contraddittorio e giusto processo’, Indice penale, 9 (2006), 427–440; Zander, M., ‘Forms and Functions of the Sources of the Law from a Common Law Perspective’,in Eser, A. and Rabenstein, C., ed, Neighbours in Law – Are Common Law and Civil Law Moving Closer Together? – Papers in Honour of Barbara Huber on her 65th Birthday (Freiburg im Breisgau: Edition Iuscrim, 2001), 9–43; Zappalà, S., ‘The Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Materials and the Recent Amendment to Rule 68 ICTY RPE’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 620–630; Zappalà, S., ‘I diritti dell’ accusato nel processo penale internazionale’, in Cassese, Chiavario and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 399–430; Zappalà, S., ‘Comparative Models and the Enduring Relevance of the Accusatorial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 44–54; Zerbes, I., ‘Anonyme Zeugen – Faires Verfahren in Österreich und der Schweiz?’, in Cottier, M., Sahlfeld, K.W. and Rüetschi, D., eds, Information und Recht (Basel, Geneva, Munich: Helbing Lichtenhahn, 2002), 379–403; Zegveld, L., ‘Remedies’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 611–624; Zöller, M., ‘Entscheidungsanmerkung – Zum Verstoß gegen Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK bei fehlender Möglichkeit zur konfrontativen Befragung’, ZJS, 3 (2010), 441–446; Zwaak, L., ‘The Supervisory Task of the Committee of Ministers’, in van Dijk et al., European Convention on Human Rights (2006), 291–321. 20 Bibliography
CHAPTER 2 Abline, G., ‘Article 46 – Perte de fonctions’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 1089–1098; Abline, G., ‘Article 47 – Sanctions disciplinaires’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,i (2012), 1099–1102; Abo Youssef, O. a.–F., Die Stellung des Opfers im Völkerstrafrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ICC–Statuts und der Rechte der Opfer von Völkerstrafrechtsverbrechen in der Schweiz (Zürich, Basel, Genf: Schulthess, 2008); Abtahi, H., ‘Article 39 – Les Chambres’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 999–1005; Abtahi, H., and Young, R., ‘Article 39 – Chambers’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1247–1252; Abtahi, H., and Young, R., ‘Article 41 – Excusing and Disqualification of Judges’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1258–1266; Alexy, R., Theorie der Grundrechte (Frankfurt a.Main: Suhrkamp, 1986); Alexy, R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2002); Almqvist, J., ‘A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 91–112; Alvarez, J. E., ‘The Proposed Independent Oversight Mechanism for the International Criminal Court’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015; Ambach, P., ‘Selbstvertretung im internationalen Strafprozess – Grundlagen, Kritik und ein Lösungsansatz für die prozessuale Handhabe in der Zukunft’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 286–305; Ambach, P., ‘The ICC Reparations Scheme – Promise for Victims or Recipe for Failure? – A Critical Discussion of Joakim Dungel’s Unpublished Article “Reparations and the ICC – Is the Court Ready for the Job?”’, in Ambach P. et al., eds, The Protection of Non–Combatants During Armed Conflict and Safeguarding the Rights of Victims in Post–Conflict Society – Essays in Honour of the Life and Work of Joakim Dungel (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2015), 455–520; Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘A Model of International Judicial Administration? The Evolution of Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161; Ambos, K., ‘Zur Stellung von Verteidiger und Beschuldigtem vor dem UN–Jugoslawiengerichtshof ’, NStZ, 18 (1998), 123–127; Ambos, K., ‘Judicial Accountability of Perpetrators of Human Rights and the Role of Victims’, International Peacekeeping, 6 (2000), 67–77; Ambos, K., ‘The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court – A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports’, EJCCLCJ, 8 (2000), 89–118; Ambos, K., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor – Rapporteur’s Report’, in Livingstone, S., ed, Towards a Procedural Regime for the International Criminal Court (Nottingham: Nottingham University Press, 2002), 11–63; Ambos, K., ‘“Witness Proofing” before the International Criminal Court – A Reply to Karemaker, Taylor, and Pittman’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 911–916; Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC’, in Ambos, Large and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103; Ambos, K., The Colombian Peace Process and the Principle of Complementarity of the International Criminal Court – An Inductive, Situation–based Approach (Heidelberg et al.: Springer, 2010); Ambos, K., ‘The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v. Lubanga) – A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues, ICLR, 12 (2012), 115–153; Ambos, K., ‘Wiedergutmachung’, in Stan, L., and Nedelsky, N., eds, Encyclopedia of Transitional Justice, i (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 291–292; Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Procedural Regimes’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 488–541; Bibliography 21
Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, S., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court – Is there a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change, 58 (2012), 391–413; Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court – Making the Right Choices, Part II – Organizing the Court and Guaranteeing a Fair Trial, AI Index: IOR 40/11/97 (July 1997) (
Bergsmo, M., ‘The Theme of Selection and Prioritization Criteria and Why It Is Relevant’,in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 7–14; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Complementarity After Kampala – Capacity Building and the ICC’s Legal Tools’, GoJIL, 2 (2010), 791–811; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes – The ICC Legal Tools’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 25–42; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Preserving the Overview of Law and Facts – The Case Matrix’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 43–66; Bergsmo, M., Cissé, C. and Staker, C., ‘The Prosecutors of the International Tribunals – The Cases of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the ICTY and ICTR Compared’, in Arbour et al., Prosecutor (2000), 121–154; Bergsmo, M., Harhoff, F. and Zhu, D. ‘Article 42 – The Office of the Prosecutor’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1267–1277; Bitti, G., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1588–1620; Bitti, G., and Friman, H., ‘Participation of Victims in the Proceedings’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 456–474; Boas, G., ‘The Right to Self–Representation in International and Domestic Criminal Law – Limitations and Qualifications on that Right’, in Abtahi, H. and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 39–94; Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und im inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2015); Bitti, G., ‘Self–Representation before the ICTY – A Case for Reform’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 53–83; Bock, S., ‘Commentary’, in Klip, A., and Freeland, S., eds, Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals – The International Criminal Court, xl (Cambridge, Antwerp, Poland: Intersentia, 2013), 283–294; Bock, S., ‘Wiedergutmachung im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach Lubanga’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 297–321; Boed, R., and Niang, M. M., ‘ICTR’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R. and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense in International Criminal Proceedings – Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Ardsley/New York: Transnational Publishers, 2006), 137–435; Bohlander, M., ‘“A Fool for a Client”–Remarks on the Freedom of Choice and Assignment of Counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, CLF, 16 (2005), 159–173; Bohlander, M., ‘The International Criminal Judiciary – Problems of Judicial Selection, Independ- ence and Ethics’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 325–390; Bohlander, M., ‘Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility? A Pragmatic Proposal for the Recruitment of Judges at the ICC and Other International Criminal Courts’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 529–542; Bohlander, M., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, Nomination and Election of Judges’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1216–1225; Bohlander, M. and Latour, C., The German Judiciary in the Nineties – A Study of the Recruitment, Promotion and Remuneration of German Judges (Aachen: Shaker, 1998); Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359; Bonomy, I., ‘Making War Crimes Trials Work – Balancing Fairness and Expedition’, in Boas, G., Schabas, W. A., and Scharf, M., P., eds, International Criminal Justice – Legitimacy and Coherence (Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012), 44–67; Bourgon, S., Ogetto, K., and Bendler, W., ‘Associations of Defense Counsel – Development and Role’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R., and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense in International Criminal Bibliography 23
Proceedings – Cases, Materials and Commentary (Ardsley/New York: Transnational Publshers, 2006), 483–617; Broomhall, B., ‘Article 51 – Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen- tary (2016), 1332–1351; Buisman, C., ‘The Prosecutor’s Obligation to Investigate Incriminating and Exonerating Circum- stances Equally – Illusion or Reality?’, LJIL, 27 (2014), 205–226; Buisman, C., Gumpert, B. and Hallers, M., ‘Trial and Error – How Effective is Legal Representation in International Criminal Proceedings?’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 1–82; Burnham, M., ‘Fragmentation in International Criminal Law and the Rights of Victims’, in van den Herik, L., and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 657–679; Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Article 68 – Protection of the Victims and Witnesses and their Participation in the Proceedings’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 556–573, accessed 16 December 2015; Cassese, A., ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court – Some Preliminary Reflections’, EJIL, 10 (1999), 144–171; Catani, L., ‘Victims at the International Criminal Court – Some Lessons Learned from the Lubanga Case’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 905–912; Chakravarti, S., ‘More than “Cheap Sentimentality”–Victim Testimony at Nuremberg, the Eichmann Trial and Truth Commissions’, Constellations, 15 (2008), 223–235; Chiavario, M., ‘Some Considerations on Faces of Justice by a “Non–Specialist”’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 69–86; Chifflet, P., ‘The Role and Status of the Victim’, in Boas, G., and Schabas, W. A., eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003), 75–111; Chung, C. H., ‘Victims’ Participation at the International Criminal Court – Are Concessions of the Court Clouding the Promise?’, NWJIHR, 6 (2008), 459–545; Cissé, A., ‘Article 51 – Règlement de procédure et de preuve’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 1138–1148; Combs, N., ‘Fact–Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 689–733; Correa, C., ‘Reparations for Victims of Massive Crimes – Making Concrete a Message of Inclusion’, in Letschert, R. et al., eds, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes – Africa (Cam- bridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011), 185–233; Côté, L., ‘Independence and Impartiality’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 319–415; Cotte, B., and Saracco, M., ‘Article 64 – Fonctions et pouvoirs de la Chambre de première instance’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1443–1471; Cowdery, N. R., ‘When Dealing with Alleged Misconduct by Staff in the Prosecutor’sOffice, the Prosecutor and not the Independent Oversight Mechanism Should Retain and Must Exercise Authority to Investigate and Decide’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015; Damaška, M., ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure – A Comparative Study’, UPaLR, 121 (1972–1973), 506–589; Damaška, M., ‘Assignment of Counsel and Perceptions of Fairness’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 3–8; Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365; Damaška, M., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 19–35; Damaška, M., ‘Reflections on Fairness in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 611–620; Danieli, Y., ‘Reappraising the Nuremberg Trials and Their Legacy – The Role of Victims in International Law’, CardozoLR, 27 (2006), 1633–1649; Dannenbaum, T., ‘The International Criminal Court, Article 79, and Transitional Justice – The Case for an Independent Trust Fund for Victims’, WILJ, 28 (2010), 234–298; 24 Bibliography
Danner, M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 97 (2003), 510–552; de Brouwer, A.–M., ‘Reparations to Victims of Sexual Violence – Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and at the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 207–237; de Brouwer, A.–M., and Heikkilä, M., ‘Victim Issues – Participation, Protection, Reparation, and Assistance’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1299–1374; de Greiff, P., ‘Justice and Reparations’, in de Greiff, P., ed, The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2006), 451–477; de Greiff, P., and Wierda, M., ‘The Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court: Between Possibilities and Constraints’, in de Feyter, K., et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005), 225–243; deGuzman, M. M., ‘Giving Priority to Sex Crime Prosecutions – The Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 515–528; de Hemptinne, J., ‘The Creation of Investigation Chambers at the International Criminal Court – An Option Worth Pursuing?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 402–418; de Hemptinne, J., ‘“Challenges Raised by Victims” Participation in the Proceedings of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 8 (2010), rp; de Hemptinne, J., and Rindi, F., ‘ICC Pre–Trial Chamber Allows Victims to Participate in the Investigation Phase of Proceedings’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 342–350; de Meester, K. Pitcher, K., Rastan R., and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, and Surrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379; deGuzman, M. M., ‘An Expressive Rationale for the Thematic Prosecution of Sex Crimes’,in Bergsmo, M., ed, Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 11–44; deGuzman, M. M., and Schabas, W. A., ‘Initiation of Investigations and Selection of Cases’,in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–169; Deschênes, J., and Staker, C., ‘Article 39 – Chambers’, in Triffterer, ICC Commentary (2008), 957–960; De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre–Trial Chamber in the Fact–Finding Process of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440; De Vos, C.M., ‘Investigating from Afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024; di Giovanni, A., ‘The Prospect of ICC Reparations in the Case Concerning Northern Uganda – On a Collision Course with Incoherence?’, JILIR, 2 (2005–2006), 25–64; Dicker, R., ‘Making Justice Meaningful for Victims’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 267–273; Dieckmann, J. and Kerll, C., ‘Representing the “General Interests of the Defence”–Boon or Bane? – A Stocktaking of the System of Ad Hoc Counsel at the ICC’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 105–136; Dive, G., ‘The Registry’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 262–284; Dixon, P., and Tenove, C., ‘International Criminal Justice as a Transnational Field – Rules, Authority and Victims’, IJTJ, 7 (2013), 393–412; Doak, J., ‘The Therapeutic Dimension of Transitional Justice – Emotional Repair and Victim Satisfaction in International Trials and Truth Commissions’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 263–298; Dodd, T. J., ‘The Nuremberg Trials’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 190–199; Doherty, T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945; Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Role of Victims in the ICC Proceedings’, in Lattanzi, F., ed, The Inter- national Criminal Court – Comments on the Draft Statute (Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 1998), 251–272; Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Role of Victims in ICC Proceedings’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i (2000), 251–277; Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Rights of Victims and International Criminal Justice’, in Carlizzi, G. et al., eds, La Corte Penale Internazionale – Problemi e prospettive (Napoli: Vivarium, 2003), 347–367; Bibliography 25
Donat–Cattin, D., ‘Article 68 – Protection of Victims and Witnesses and their Participation in the Proceedings’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1681–1711; Donat–Cattin, D., ‘Article 75 – Reparations to Victims’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1853–1870; du Plessis, M. and Gevers, C., ‘The Independent Oversight Mechanism Argument is not Merely about Administrative Functions, but Is Situated within a Broader Debate over the Role of the Assembly of States Parties’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015; Dwertmann, E., The Reparation System of the International Criminal Court – Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010); Eckelmans, F. C., ‘The ICC’s Practice on Victim Participation’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2013), 189–221; El Zeidy, M. M., The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law – Origin, Development and Practice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008); Elberling, B., ‘Article 63 – Trial in the Presence of the Accused’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 507–508, accessed 11 December 2015; Elberling, B., The Defendant in International Criminal Proceedings – Between Law and Historiog- raphy (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012); Eser, A., ‘Zur Schlüsselrolle des Anklägers für die internationale Strafjustiz’, in Griesbaum, R., Hannich, R., and Schnarr, K. H., eds, Strafrecht und Justizgewährung – Festschrift für Kay Nehm zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, 2006), 111–124; Evans, C., The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Fairlie, M. A., ‘Adding Fuel to Milosevic’s Fire – How the Use of Substitute Judges Discredits the UN War Crimes Tribunals’, CLF, 16 (2005), 107–157; Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘Definition of Victims and General Principle’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 427–434; Ferstman, C., ‘The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court – Practical Consider- ations’, LJIL, 15 (2002), 667–686; FIDH, Enhancing Victims’ Rights Before the ICC – A View from Situation Countries on Victims’ Rights at the International Criminal Court (November 2013) (< http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ fidh_victimsrights_621a_nov2013_ld.pdf/> accessed 1 May 2015); FIDH et al., Open Letter to the Search Committee Members (16 March 2011) (
Funk, T. M., Victims’ Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court (Oxford, New York: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010); Gallant, K. S. and Kirsch, S., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R., and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense in International Criminal Proceedings – Cases, Materials and Com- mentary (Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers, 2006), 437–482; Garkawe, S., ‘Victims and the International Criminal Court’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 345–367; Goldston, J. A., ‘More Candour about Criteria – The Exercise of Discretion by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 383–406; Gonfrier, O., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, candidature et élection des juges’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 969–978; Greco, G., ‘Victims’ Rights Overview under the ICC Legal Framework – A Jurisprudential Analysis’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 531–547; Grossman, N., ‘Sex Representation on the Bench and the Legitimacy of International Criminal Courts’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 643–653; Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court – A New Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133; Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–217; Guariglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the Pre–Trial Chamber in Relation to a Unique Investigative Opportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420; Guariglia, F., and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 57 – Functions and Powers of the Pre–Trial Chamber’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1421–1436; Guhr, A. H., ‘Aktuelle Entwicklung zur Beteiligung von Opfern im Strafverfahren vor dem IStGH‘, ZIS, 3 (2008), 367–370; Guhr, A. H., ‘Victim Participation During the Pre–Trial Stage at the International Criminal Court’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 109–140; Gut, T., Counsel Misconduct before the International Criminal Court – Professional Responsibility in International Criminal Defence (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2012); Gut, T., Kirsch, S., Mundis, D., and Taylor, M, ‘Defence Issues’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1203–1297; Hall, C. K., and Jacobs, D. L., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investigation’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1394–1410; Hall, C. K., and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 58 – Issuance by the Pre–Trial Chamber of a Warrant of Arrest or a Summons to Appear’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1437–1457; Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 849–898; Hamber, B., ‘The Dilemmas of Reparations – In Search of a Process–Driven Approach’, in Feyter, K. de, et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005), 135–149; Haslam, E., ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court – A Triumph of Hope Over Experience?’, in McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P., and Donnelly, E., eds, The Permanent International Criminal Court – Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2004), 315–334; Haslam, E., and Edmunds, R., ‘Common Legal Representation at the International Criminal Court – More Symbolic than Real?’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 871–903; Haslam, E. and Edmunds, R., ‘Managing a New “Partnership”’, CLF, 24 (2013), 49–85; Heikkilä, M., International Criminal Tribunals and Victims of Crimes (Turku: Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2004); Heller, K. J., ‘Completion’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 886–925; Heller K. J., ‘Will the New RPE 134 Provisions Survive Judicial Review? (Probably Not)’, Opinio Juris (2013),
Henzelin, M., Heiskanen, V., and Mettraux, G., ‘Reparations to Victims before the International Criminal Court: Lessons from International Mass Claims Processes’, CLF, 17 (2006), 317–344; Hiéramente, M., ‘In the Case Prosecutor v. Defence – Der Haftbefehl gegen Bemba und Mitglieder seines Verteidigungsteams vom 20.11.2013’, ZIS, 9 (2014), 123–128; Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre–Trial Proceedings – The Future of International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401; Higgins, G., ‘The Development of the Right to Self Representation before the International Criminal Tribunals’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds, Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 252–285; Horovitz, S., ‘The Role of Victims’, in Carter and Pocar, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 166–191; Hoven, E., ‘Verfahrensende und kein Urteil in Sicht – Das Beschleunigungsgebot in der Praxis internationaler Strafgerichte’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 830–837; Hoven, E., ‘Ideal und Wirklichkeit der Opferbeteiligung im Völkerstrafverfahren’, ZIS, 9 (2014), 679–703; Hoven, E., ‘Civil Party Participation in Trials of Mass Crimes – A Qualitative Study at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 81–107; Hoven, E., Feiler, M., and Scheibel, S., Victims in Trials of Mass Crimes – A Multi–Perspective Study of Civil Party Participation at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Cologne: Institute for International Peace and Security Law, 2013); Hoyle, C., and Ulrich, L., ‘New Court, New Justice? The Evolution of “Justice for Victims’ at Domestic Courts and at the International Criminal Court”’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 681–703; HRW, The Selection of Situations and Cases for Trial before the International Criminal Court (2006) (
Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 286–312; Jørgensen, N. H. B., and Zahar, A., ‘Deliberation, Dissent, Judgment’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1151–1201; Kaoutzanis, C., ‘Two Birds with One Stone – How the Use of the Class Action Device for Victim Participation in the International Criminal Court Can Improve both the Fight against Impunity and Victim Participation’, UCDavisJIL&Pol’y, 17 (2010), 111–150; Kaul, H.–P., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof nach fünf Jahren – Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus richterlicher Sicht’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 494–499; Kaul, H.–P., ‘Victims’ Rights and Peace’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 223–229; Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814; Keita X.–J., Fourçans, C., Masselot, M., Preira, D. D., Aziz Mbaye, A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 67 – Droits de l’ accusé’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1497–1543; Kelly, Michael J., ‘The Status of Victims under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdis- ciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 47–66; Kendall, S., ‘Commodifying Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 113–134; Kendall, S., and Nouwen, S., ‘Representational Practices at the International Criminal Court – The Gap between Juridified and Abstract Victimhood’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 235–262; Khan, A., ‘The Real Issue Concerns Delimitation of the Court’s Independence and the Oversight Role of the Assembly Which Can only Be Decided through a Constructive Dialogue between the Assembly, Court Officials and Civil Society on the Expectations of Oversight’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015; Kirsch, S., ‘The Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 275–292; Kirsch, S., ‘“Aufgedrängte” Verteidigung’, in Weigend, T., Walther, S. and Grunewald, B., eds, Strafverteidigung vor neuen Herausforderungen – Denkanstöße aus sieben Rechtsordnungen (Berlin: Dunkler and Humblot, 2008), 85–102; Kiza, E., Rathgeber, C., and Rohne, H.–C., Victims of War – An Empirical Study on War– Victimization and Victims’ Attitudes towards Addressing Atrocities (Hamburg: Hamburg Edition HIS, 2006); Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 56–58’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 447–472, accessed 11 December 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 509–529, accessed 11 December 2015; Kleffner, J. K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2008); Knottnerus A. S., ‘Extraordinary Exceptions at the International Criminal Court – The (New) Rules and Jurisprudence on Presence at Trial’, LPICT, 13 (2014), 261–285; Knottnerus A. S., ‘The International Criminal Court on Presence at Trial – The (In)validity of Rule 134quater’, International Crimes Database Brief, 5 (2014),
Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad–Hoc–Tribunalen zum Internatio- nalen Strafgerichtshof ’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259; Kroker, P., Zivilparteien in Völkerstrafverfahren – Eine Analyse der Opferbeteiligung an den Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2012); Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005), 835–909; Le Floch, G., Lemey, M., and Paiola, L., ‘Procedural Developments at the International Criminal Court (2013)’, LPICT, 14 (2015), 171–228; Le Fraper du Hellen, B., ‘Interview – ICC Prosecutors Will Refute Allegations That Intermediaries Manipulated Evidence in Lubanga Case’, International Justice Monitor, (15 March 2010), available at
McDermott, Y., ‘Article 42 – The Office of the Prosecutor’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 368–377, accessed 16 December 2015; McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Apples and Oranges? Victim Participation Approaches at the ICC and ECCC’, in Ryngaert, C., ed, The Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice (Antwerp: Inter- sentia, 2009), 91–115; McGonigle Leyh, B., Procedural Justice? Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011); McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Understanding Limitations – Victim Participation and the International Criminal Court’, in Letschert, R., et al., eds, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes – Africa (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011), 493–525; McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Victim–Oriented Measures at International Criminal Institutions – Partici- pation and its Pitfalls’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 375–408; Mégret, F., ‘Accountability and Ethics’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 416–487; Meisenberg, S. M., ‘The Right to Legal Assistance at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda – A Review of Its Jurisprudence’, in Decaux, E., Dieng A. and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama, (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 125–158; Meloni, C., ‘Victims in International Criminal Justice’, in Lupária L., ed, Victims and Criminal Justice – European Standards and National Good Practices (San Giuliano Milanese: Wolters Kluwer, 2015), 47–63; Miller, M. L. and Wright, R. F., Criminal Procedures – Cases, Statutes, and Executive Materials (New York: Aspen, 2nd edn, 2003); Mochochoko, P., ‘The Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court’, FordhamILJ, 25 (2001), 638–664; Moffett, L., ‘The Role of Victims in International Criminal Tribunals of the Second World War’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 245–270; Moffet, L., ‘Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court – Beyond Rhetoric and The Hague’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 281–311; Moffet, L., ‘Meaningful and Effective? Considering Victims’ Interests Through Participation at the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 26 (2015), 255–289; Mohan, M., ‘The Paradox of Victim–Centrism – Victim Participation at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 733–775; Moreno–Ocampo, L., ‘Now End This Darfur Denial’, The Guardian (15 July 2010) (
Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Article 40 – Indépendance des juges’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,i (2012), 1007–1012; Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Article 41 – Décharge et récusation des juges’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 1013–1017; O’Donohue, ‘The ICC and the ASP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 105–138; Obote–Odora, A., ‘Case Selection and Prioritization Criteria in the Work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 45–67; O’Brien, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion as an Obstacle to Prosecution of United Nations Peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 525–545; Oehmichen, A., ‘Sonderbares Recht am Sondergerictshof für den Libanon – Die Entscheidungen zur Legalität und In–Absentia’, in Esser, R. et al., eds, Festschrift für Hans–Heiner Kühne zum 70. Geburtstag (Heidelberg et al.: C. F. Müller et al., 2013), 613–627; Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 185–208; Olásolo, H., The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (Leiden, Boston: Marti- nus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005); Olásolo, H., ‘The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatment of the Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of Office of the Prosecutor’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 121–146; Olásolo, H., ‘Systematic and Casuistic Approaches to the Role of Victims in Criminal Proceedings Before the International Criminal Court’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 513–528; Olásolo, H. et al., Assessing the Role of the Independent Oversight Mechanism in Enhancing the Efficiency and Economy of the ICC, (August 2011) (
Piragoff, D. K., ‘Article 70 – Offences against the Administration of Justice’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1751–1759; Piragoff, D. K. and Clarke, P., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1712–1750; Plevin, A. M., ‘Beyond a “Victims’ Right”–Truth–Finding Power and Procedure at the ICC’, CLF, 25 (2014), 441–464; Pratlong, D., ‘The Victims in the First Judgement of the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 639–657; Preira, D. D., Mbaye A. A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 63 – Procès en présence de l’accusé’,in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1423–1442; Rastan, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 141–178; Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of National Security Information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1775–1815; Rauschenbach, M. and Scalia, D., ‘Victims and International Criminal Justice – A Vexed Ques- tion?’, IRRC, 90 (2008), 441–459; Razesberger, F., The International Criminal Court – The Principle of Complementarity (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006); Röben, V., ‘The Procedure of the ICC – Status and Function of the Prosecutor’, MPYbUNL,7 (2003), 513–552; Rombouts, H., Sardaro, P., and Vandeginste, S., ‘The Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Violations of Human Rights’, in de Feyter, K., et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005), 345–516; Roosevelt, T., ‘Ethics for the Ethical – A Code of Conduct for the International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor’, GeoJLegalEthics, 24 (2011), 835–851; Rwelamira, M. R., ‘Composition and Administration of the Court’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 153–173; Saabel, E., ‘Article 79 – Fonds au profit des victimes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,ii (2012), 1693–1716; SáCouto, S. and Cleary, K., ‘Victims’ Participation in the Investigations of the International Criminal Court’, Transnat’lLCP, 17 (2008), 73–105; Safferling, C., ‘Das Opfer völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen’, ZStW, 115 (2003), 352–384; Safferling, C., ‘The Rights and Interests of the Defence in the Pre–Trial Phase’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 651–667; Safferling, C., ‘The Role of the Victim in the Criminal Process – A Paradigm Shift in National German and International Law?’, ICLR 11 (2011), 183–215; Safferling, C., and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen – Entwicklungen in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794; Sarkin, J., ‘Reparations for Gross Human Rights Violations as an Outcome of Criminal versus Civil Court Proceedings’,indeFeyter,K.,etal.,eds,Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005), 151–188; Sarvarian, A., ‘Ethical Standards for Prosecution and Defence Counsel before International Courts – The Legacy of Nuremberg’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 423–446; Scalia, D., ‘Le droit international pénal face aux victimes’, in Strickler, Y., ed, La place de la victime dans le procès pénal (Brussels: Buylant, 2009), 229–251; Schabas, W. and Caruana, V., ‘Article 63 – Trial in the Presence of the Accused’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1563–1587; Schabas, W. A., and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1650–1680; Scharf, M. P., ‘Self–Representation of the Accused before International Tribunals’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 284–298; Bibliography 33
Seibert–Fohr, A., ‘International Judicial Ethics’, in Romano, C., Alter, K., and Shany, Y., eds, The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2014), 757–778; Seils, P., ‘The Selection and Prioritization of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Inter- national Criminal Court’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 69–78; Shelton, D. L., Reparations to Victims at the International Criminal Court (1999) (
T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 175–188; Swart, M., ‘Book Reviews’, LJIL, 24 (2011), 789–792; Swoboda, S., ‘Didaktische Dimensionen internationaler Strafverfahren – Dargestellt am Beispiel der UN ad hoc–Tribunale’, ZIS, 5 (2010), 100–115; Takemura, H., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in International Justice – Between Fragmentation and Unification’, in van den Herik, L. J., Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 633–656; Terris, D., Romano, C. P. R., and Swigart, L., The International Judge – An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World’s Cases (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007); Thalmann, V., ‘The Role of the Judge and the Parties in Pre–Trial Proceedings’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 455–481; Thompson, B., ‘The Role of the Internationale Prosecutor as a Custodian of Global Morality’,in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 47–57; Timm, B., ‘The Legal Position of Victims in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 289–308; Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 46 – Removal from Office’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1299–1306; Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 47 – Disciplinary Measures’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1307–1309; Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 48 – Privileges and Immunities’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1310–1318; Tolbert, D., and Swinnen F., ‘The Protection of, and Assistance to, Witnesses at the ICTY’,in Abtahi, H., and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 193–229; Tonellato, M., ‘The Victims’ Participation at a Crossroads – How the International Criminal Court Could Devise a Meaningful Victims’ Participation while Respecting the Rights of the Defendant’, EJCCLCJ, 20 (2012), 315–359; Townsend, G., ‘Structure and Management’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 171–318; Triffterer, O. and Burchard, C., ‘Article 71 – Sanctions for Misconduct before the Court’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1760–1774; Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), rp; Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85; Trumbull IV, C. P., ‘The Victims of Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings’, MichJIL, 29 (2008), 777–826; Tsereteli, N., ‘Victim Participation in ICC Proceedings’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 625–658; Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2009); Turner, J. I., ‘Policing International Prosecutors’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 45 (2012), 175–258; Turner, J. I., ‘Accountability of International Prosecutors’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 382–407; Turone, G., ‘Powers and Duties of the Prosecutor, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1137–1180; UNGA, ‘Report of the Secretary–General on the Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ (6 February 1997) 51th session, UN Doc A/51/789; UNGA, ‘Report of the International Criminal Court for 2004’ (1 August 2005), 60th session, UN Doc A/60/177; UNGA, ‘Report of the International Criminal Court for 2005–2006’ (3 August 2006), 61st session, UN Doc A/61/217; Bibliography 35 van Boven, T., ‘The Position of the Victim in the Statute of the International Criminal Court’,in von Hebel, H., Lammers, J., and Schukking, J., eds, Reflections on the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 1999), 77–89; van den Wyngaert, C., ‘Victims before International Criminal Courts – Some Views and Concerns of an ICC Trial Judge’, CWRJIL, 44 (2011), 475–496; van der Wilt, H., ‘The Demand of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that any Investigation by the Independent Oversight Mechanism into Alleged Misconduct of his Staff Members Requires his Prior Authorization is not Unreasonable or Far–Fetched’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015; van der Wilt, H. and Lyngdorf, S., ‘Procedural Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights – Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of “Unwillingness” and “Inability” in the Context of the Complementarity Principle’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 39–75; Vasiliev, S., ‘Article 68 (3) and the Personal Interests of Victims in the Emerging Practice of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 635–690; Vasiliev, S., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 610–619, accessed 11 December 2015; Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 543–655; Vasiliev, S., ‘Victim Participation Revisited – What the ICC is Learning about Itself ’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1133–1202; Vlaming, F. de, ‘Selection of Defendants’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 542–571; von Wistinghausen, N., ‘Victims as Witnesses – Views from the Defence’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2013), 165–173; VRWG, Making Victim Participation Effective and Meaningful (June 2014) (
Williams, S. and Woolaver, H., ‘The Role of the Amicus Curiae before International Criminal Tribunals’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 151–189; Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’sOffice of the Prosecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 273–318; Zappalà, S., ‘Rights of Persons during an Investigation’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1181–1203; Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of the Accused’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1319–1354; Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of Victims v. the Rights of the Accused’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 137–164; Zappalà, S., ‘Introduction’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 40–54; Zeegers, K., ‘Defence Counsel Immunity at the Ad Hoc Tribunals’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 869–890; Zegveld, L., ‘Victims’ Reparations Claims and International Criminal Courts – Incompatible Values?’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 79–111.
CHAPTER 3 Abass, A., ‘The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 349–385; Abass, A., ‘The Proposed International Criminal Jurisdiction for the African Court – Some Problematic Aspects’, NILR, 60 (2013), 27–50; Abdou, M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 215–216, 218–220, 222–224, accessed 18 December 2015; Abdou, M., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 233–242, accessed 18 December 2015; Abelson, A., ‘The Prosecute/Extradite Dilemma – Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction and Global Governance’, UCDavisJIL&Pol’y, 16 (2009), 1–38; Agirre Aranburu, X., ‘Gravity of Crimes and Responsibility of the Suspect’, in Bergsmo, Criteria for Prioritizing (2009), 147–166; Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction – The Duty of States to Enact and Enforce Legislation, 31 August 2011, 14 chapters; Amnesty International, Germany – End Impunity through Universal Jurisdiction, 2008,
Ambos, K., ‘International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction and § 153 f German Criminal Procedure Code – A Commentary on the Decisions of the Federal Prosecutor General and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case’, CLF, 18 (2007), 43–58; Ambos, K. ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure –“Adversial”, “Inquisitorial” or “Mixed”?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503; Ambos, K., ‘Prosecuting Guantánamo in Europe – Can and Shall the Masterminds of the “Torture Memos” be Held Criminally Responsible on the Basis of Universal Jurisdiction?’, CWRJIL,42 (2009), 405–448; Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC‘, in Ambos, Large, and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103; Ambos, K., Procedimiento de la Ley de Justicia y Paz (Ley 975 de 2005) y derecho penal internacional – Estudio sobre la facultad de intervencio ́n complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional a la luz del denominado proceso de ‘justicia y paz’ en Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial Temis, 2010); Ambos, K., The Colombian Peace Process and the Principle of Complementarity of the ICC – An Inductive, Situation–Based Approach (Heidelberg et al.: Springer, 2010); Ambos, K., ‘§7 – Geltung für Auslandstaten in anderen Fällen’, in Joecks and Miebach, Münchener Kommentar StGB, i (2011), 240–256; Ambos, K., ‘Vorbemerkung zu den §§ 3–7’, in Joecks and Miebach, Münchener Kommentar StGB,i (2011), 115–192; Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court – Is There a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change,58 (2012), 391–413; Ambos, K., ‘§1– Anwendungsbereich’, in Joecks and Miebach, Münchener Kommentar StGB, viii (2013), 1003–1030; Ambos, K., ‘Development of International Criminal Law and Tribunals’, in Bruinsma, G., and Weisburd, D., eds, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (New York et al.: Springer, 2013), 1030–1045; Ambos, K., ‘Punishment without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law – A First Contribution towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law’, OJLS, 33 (2013), 293–315; Ambos, K., and Timmermann, A., ‘Neue transnationale Verbrechen für das VStGB?’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 305–338; Ambos, K., ‘Palestine, Non–Member Observer Status and ICC Jurisdiction’, EJILTalk 6 May 2014
Arsanjani, M. H. and Reisman, W. M., ‘The Law–in–Action of the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403; Arsanjani, M. and Reisman, M., ‘The ICC and the Congo – From Theory to Reality’, in Sadat, L. and Scharf, M., eds, The Theory and Practice of International Criminal Law – Essays in Honour of M. Cherif Bassiouni (Leiden: Marinus Nijhoff, 2008), 325–47; Arzt, G., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die formelle Wahrheit’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 691–704; ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/8/Res. 9 (25 March 2010); ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/11/Res. 6 – Complementarity (21 November 2012); ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/12/Res. 4 – Complementarity (27 November 2013); Azarov, V. and Meloni, C., ‘Disentangling the Knots – A Comment on Ambos’“Palestine, ‘Non– Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction”’, EJILTalk 27 May 2014
Benzing, M., ‘The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court – International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’, MPYbUN, 7 (2003), 591–632; Benzing, M., ‘Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect in International Criminal Law’,in König, D., Stoll, P.–T., Röben, V. and Matz–Lück, N., eds, International Law Today – New Challenges and the Need for Reform? (Berlin: Springer, 2008), 17–50; Bergsmo, M., ‘The Jurisdictional Régime of the International Criminal Court (Part II, Articles 11–19)’, EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 345–363; Bergsmo, M, Pejic, J. and Zhu, D., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 770–780; Binding, K., Handbuch des Strafrechts I (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1885); Bergsmo, M., ‘The Theme of Selection and Prioritization Criteria and Why It is Relevant’,in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 7–14; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Complementarity after Kampala – Capacity Building and the ICC’s Legal Tools’, GoJIL, 2 (2010), 791–811; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes – The ICC Legal Tools Project’, HRLR, 10 (2010), 715–729; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Constructing National Ability to Investigate, Prosecute and Adjudicate Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 3–23; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes – The ICC Legal Tools’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 25–42; Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Preserving the Overview of Law and Facts – The Case Matrix’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, rd), 43–66; Birdsall, A., ‘The Responsibility to Prosecute and the ICC – A Problematic Relationship?’, CLF,26 (2015), 51–72; Bishop, A., ‘Failure of Complementarity – The Future of the ICC Following the Libyan Admissi- bility Challenge’, MinnesotaJIL, 22 (2013), 388–421; Bitti, G. and El Zeidy, M., ‘The Katanga Trial Chamber Decision – Selected Issues’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 319–329; Blanco Cordero, I., ‘Crisis del principio de jurisdicción universal en el derecho penal internacional contemporáneo’, La Ley, 5980 (2004), 1–8; Blumenstock, T. and Pittman, W., ‘The Transfer of Cases Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to Competent National Jurisdictions’, HuV–I, 21 (2008), 106–115; Bo, M., ‘The Situation in Libya and the ICC’s Understanding of Complementarity in the Context of UNSC–Referred Cases’, CLF, 25 (2014), 505–540; Bock, S. ‘Western Sahara and Universal Jurisdiction in Germany’, BelgianRIL, 43 (2010), 43–60; Boister, N., ‘Transnational Criminal Law?’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 953–976; Bock, S. and Preis, L., ‘Strafbarkeit nach Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder Verstoß gegen das Rück- wirkungsverbot? – Drittstaatsangehörige vor dem IStGH’, HuV–I, 20 (2007), 148–155; Böse, M., ‘Die Ermittlung der “besten” Strafgewalt im Spannungsfeld von Strafanwendungsrecht und internationaler Zuständigkeit’, in Zöller, M. A., Hilger, H., Küper, W., and Roxin, C., eds, Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension – Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter zum 70. Geburtstag am 7. September 2013 (Berlin: Dunckler & Humblot, 2013), 1311–1328; Böse, M., and Meyer, F., ‘Die Beschränkung nationaler Strafgewalten als Möglichkeit zur Vermei- dung von Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der EU’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 336–344; Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., ‘Comparative Analysis’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i: National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 411–463; Böse, M., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu § 3’, in Kindhäuser, Neumann and Paeffgen, Nomos Kommentar StGB, i (2013), 296–349; 40 Bibliography
Bothe, M., ‘Complementarity – Ensuring Compliance with International Law though Criminal Prosecutions – Whose Responsibility?’, Friedens–Warte, 83 (2008), 59–72; Bowett, D. W., ‘Jurisdiction – Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’, BYbIL, 53 (1982), 1–26; Brandt, E., ‘Verfahren der Seepiraterie in Deutschland – Rechtlicher Rahmen und Umsetzung in der Praxis’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 279–303; Brighton, C., ‘Addressing the Political Pitfalls Inherent in the Complementarity Regime of the ICC’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 629–664; Broomhall, B., ‘An Effective System of Universal Jurisdiction for Crimes under International Law’, NewEngLR, 35 (2001), 399–420; Broomhall, B., ‘Article 22 – Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 949–966; Brunger, Y. M., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 214, accessed 18 December 2015; Brunner, M. and Frau, R., ‘Die Maßnahmen des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen in Bezug auf Libyen 2011’, HuV–I, 24 (2011), 192–201; Buchan, R., ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 25 (2014), 465–503; Büchler, H., and Kreuzer, R., ‘Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender organisierter Kri- minalität – Fallbeispiele aus der Praxis’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzübers- chreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 123–139; Bungenberg, M., ‘Extraterritoriale Strafrechtsanwendung bei Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Völkermord – Zugleich Anmerkung zum Völkermord–Urteil des BGH vom 30. April 1999’, AVR, 39 (2001), 170–201; Burchards, W., Die Verfolgung von Völkerrechtsverbrechen durch Drittstaaten (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, 2005); Burke–White, W., ‘Complementarity in Practice – The ICC as Part of a System of Multi–Level Global Governance in the DRC’, LJIL, 18 (2005), 559–90; Burke–White, W., ‘Implementing a Policy of Positive Complementarity in the Rome System of Justice’, CLF, 19 (2008), 59–85; Burke–White, W., ‘Proactive Complementarity – The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of International Justice’, HarvILJ, 49 (2008), 53–108; Burke–White, W. and Kaplan, S., ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice – The International Criminal Court and an Admissibility Challenge in the Uganda Situation’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 79–114; Burke–White, W. and Kaplan, S., ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice – The International Criminal Court and an Admissibility Challenge in the Uganda Situation’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 257–279; Burke–White, W. W., ‘Reframing Positive Complementarity – Reflections on the First Decade and Insights from the US Federal Criminal Justice System’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,i (2011), 341–360; Caeiro, P., Fundamento, conteúdo e limites da jurisdiçăo penal do estado (Coimbra: Wolters Kluwer, 2010); Caeiro, P., ‘Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the EU – Negative and Positive Conflicts, and beyond’, KritV, 4 (2010), 366–379; Caeiro, P., ‘A jurisdição penal da União Europeia como meta–jurisdição – Em especial, a compe- tência para legislar sobre as bases de jurisdição nacionais’, in Correia, F. A., Machado, J. E. M., Loureiro, J. C., eds, Estudos em Homenagem ao Prof. Doutor José Joaquim Gomes Canotilho, iii (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2012), 179–210; Calvo–Goller, K. N., La procédure et la jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Pars: Lextenso Éditions, 2012); Bibliography 41
Cameron, I., The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994); Cameron, I., International Criminal Law from a Swedish Perspective (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2011); Cárdenas, C., Die Zulässigkeitsprüfung vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, 2005); Cárdenas, C., ‘The Admissibility Test before the ICC under Special Considerations of Amnesties and Truth Commissions’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds, Complementary Views on Comple- mentarity – Proceedings of the International Roundtable on the Complementary Nature of the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam 25/26 June 2004 (La Haya: TMC Asser Press, 2006), 115–139; Cárdenas, C., ‘The Admissibility Test before the ICC’, in Werle, G., ed, Justice in Transition – Prosecution and Amnesty in Germany and South Africa (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, 2006), 239–255; Cárdenas, C., ‘Wann darf der Internationale Strafgerichtshof ermitteln oder verfolgen?’, in Hankel, G., ed, Die Macht und das Recht – Beiträge zum Völkerrecht und Völkerstrafrecht am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts (Hamburg: Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung, 2008), 127–156; Carnero Rojo, E., ‘The Role of Fair Trial Considerations in the Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: from “No Peace Without Justice” to “No peace Without Victor’s Justice”?’, LJIL, 18 (2005), 829–869; Carnero Rojo, E., ‘National Legislation Providing for the Prosecution and Punishment of Inter- national Crimes in Spain’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 699–728; Carter, A. S., ‘“For These Reasons, the Chamber Denies the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral”– The False Hope of Rule 11bis Note’, FordhamILJ, 32 (2009), 1614–1656; Carter, L. E., ‘The International Criminal Court in 2021’, SouthwesternJIL, 18 (2011), 199–212; Cassese, A., ‘Is the ICC Still Having Teething Problems?’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 434–441; Chappell, L., Grey, R. and Waller, E., ‘The Gender Justice Shadow of Complementarity – Lessons from the ICC’s Preliminary Examinations in Guinea and Colombia’, ICTJ, 7 (2013), 455–75; Chatzinikolaou, N., Papakyriakou, T, Zachariadis, A., and Kaiafa–Gbandi, M., ‘Country Report “Greece”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 187–257; Chehtman, A., The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Clark, R. S., ‘Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complemen- tarity, ii (2011), 721–744; Commission of the European Communities, ‘Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to the Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in idem in Criminal Proceedings’ (23 December 2005), http://eur–lex.europa.eu/legal–content/EN/TXT/HTML/? uri=CELEX:52005SC1767&from=EN>, accessed 1 April 2016; Condorelli, L. and Ciampi, A., ‘Comments on the Security Council Referral of the Situation in Darfur to the ICC’, JICJ 3 (2005), 590–599; Cosnard, M., ‘La compétence universelle en matière pénale’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J. M., eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order – Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), 355–372; Council of Europe, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction (Strasbourg: European Committee on Crime Problems, 1990); Council of the EU, ‘The AU–EU Technical Ad hoc Expert Group on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction Report, 16 April 2009’,
Cryer, R., ‘Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 195–222; Cryer, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 49–69; Cryer, R., ‘The ICC and its Relationship to Non–States Parties’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 260–280; Dahm, G., Zur Problematik des Völkerstrafrechts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956); d’Aspremont, J., ‘Multilateral versus Unilateral Exercises of Universal Criminal Jurisdiction’, IsLR, 43 (2010), 301–329; Damaška, M., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 19–35; Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365; Danilenko, G., M., ‘ICC Statute and Third States’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1871–1897; David, E., Éléments de droit pénal international et européen (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009); deGuzman, M. M., ‘Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’, FordhamILJ, 32 (2008), 1400–1465; deGuzman, M. M., ‘How Serious are International Crimes? – The Gravity Problem in International Criminal Law’, ColJTransnat’lL, 51 (2012/13), 18–68; deGuzman, M. M. and Schabas, W., ‘Initiation of Investigations and Selection of Cases’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–170; De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2015); Deprez, C., ‘Extent of Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Proceedings before the ICC – On Possible Reductive Factors’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 721–741; De Vos, C., ‘Investigating from Afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024; Deumeland, K., ‘Seeschiffe als Inland des Flaggenstaates’, VR, 50 (2004), 93–94; Dicker, R., ‘The International Criminal Court (ICC) and Double Standards of International Justice’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 3–12; Doehring, K., Völkerrecht – Ein Lehrbuch (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2nd edn, 2004); Domestici–Met, M.–J., ‘Protecting in Libya on Behalf of the International Community’, GoJIL,3 (2011), 861–889; Donlon, F., ‘TheRoleoftheJudgesintheDefinition and Implementation of the Completion Strategies of the International Criminal Tribunals’,inDarcy,S.andPowderly,J.,eds.,Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 353–383; Donnedieu de–Vabres, H., ‘La portée extraterritoriale des sentences répressives étrangères’, An- nuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 43, 2 (1950), 257–264; Donnedieu de–Vabres, H., ‘The System of Universal Jurisdiction – Historical Origins and Con- temporary Forms’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 905–930; Drumbl, M. A., ‘Policy Through Complementarity – The Attrocity Trial as Justice’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 197–232; du Plessis, M., ‘A Case of Negative Regional Complementarity? Giving the African Court of Justice and Human Rights Jurisdiction over International Crimes’, EJILTalk! (27 August 2012),
Einarsen, T., The Concept of Universal Crimes in International Law (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012); Eisele, J., ‘Jurisdiktionskonflikte in der EU – Vom nationalen Strafanwendungsrecht zum Euro- päischen Kollisionsrecht?’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 1–33; Eisele, J. and Majer, C. F., ‘Strafbarkeit der Zwangsheirat nach § 237 StGB im Lichte des Inter- nationalen Straf– und Privatrechts’, NStZ, 31 (2011), 546–552; ElDeeb, H., ‘An Attempt to Prosecute – The Muslim Brotherhood’s Communication to the ICC Relating to Alleged Crimes in Egypt’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 733–762; Ellis, M. S., ‘The International Criminal Court and Its Implication for Domestic Law and National Capacity Building’, FloridaJIL, 15 (2002), 215–242; Ellis, M., ‘The ICC and Complementarity – Support for National Courts and the Rule of Law’,in Muller, S. and Zouridis, S., eds, Law and Justice – A Strategy Perspective (The Hague: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 177–197; Ellis, M. S., Sovereignty and Justice – Balancing the Principle of Complementarity between Inter- national and Domestic War Crimes Tribunals (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014); El Zeidy, M., ‘The Principle of Complementarity – A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law’, MichJIL, 23 (2002), 869–975; El Zeidy, M., ‘The United States Dropped the Atomic Bomb of Article 16 of the ICC Statute – Security Council Power of Deferrals and Resolution 1422’,35VanderbiltJTL, 35 (2002), 1503–1544; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Test of the Complementarity Principle – An Assessment of the First State’s Party Referral to the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 83–119; El Zeidy, M., ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest Warrant Proceedings before the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 741–752; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the ICC’, CLF, 19 (2008), 35–57; El Zeidy, M., The Principle of Complementarity in the International Criminal Law – Origin, Development and Practice (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008); El Zeidy, M., ‘From Primacy to Complementarity and Backwards: Revisiting Rule 11bis of the ad hoc Tribunals’, ICLQ, 57 (2008), 403–415; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Legitimacy of Withdrawing State Party Referrals and Ad Hoc Declarations under the Statute of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 55–78; El Zeidy, M., ‘Admissibility in International Criminal Law’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 211–230; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Genesis of Complementarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, The ICC and Complemen- tarity, i (2011), 71–141; El Zeidy, M., ‘Ad Hoc Declarations of Acceptance of Jurisdiction – The Palestinian Situation under Scrutiny’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 179–209; Eser, A., ‘Völkermord und deutsche Strafgewalt – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Weltrechtsprinzip und legitimierendem Inlandsbezug’, in Eser, A., Goydke, J., and Maatz, K. R., eds, Strafverfah- rensrecht in Theorie und Praxis – Festschrift für Meyer–Goßner zum 65. Geburtstag (Munich: Beck, 2001), 3–31; Eser, A., ‘For Universal Jurisdiction – Against Fletcher’s Antagonism’, TulsaLR, 39 (2004), 955–978; Eser, A., ‘Kritische Würdigung der Modellentwürfe eines Regelungsmechanismus zur Vermeidung von Jurisdiktionskonflikten’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 557–572; Eser, A., ‘§7 – Geltung für Auslandstaten in anderen Fällen’, in Schönke and Schröder, Strafge- setzbuch (2014), 101–105; Eser, A., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 3–9 – Territoriales und Transnationales Strafanwendungs- recht (sog. Internationales Strafrecht)’, in Schönke and Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch (2014), 68–90; Esser, R. and Fischer, S., ‘Strafvereitelung durch Überstellung von Piraterieverdächtigen an Dritt- staaten?’, JZ, 65 (2010), 217–226; 44 Bibliography
European Criminal Policy Initiative, ‘A Manifesto on European Criminal Procedure Law’, ZIS,8 (2013), 430–446; Evans, R. D.,’Amnesties, Pardons and Complementarity – Does the ICC have the Tools to End Impunity?’, HRLC, 1 (2005), 1–10; Evenson, E. and Smith, A., ‘Completion, Legacy, and Complementarity at the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1259–1276; Fairlie, M. A. and Powderly, J., ‘Complementarity and Burden Allocation’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 642–682; Fakhouri Gómez, Y. ‘La competencia de la CPI – Competencia material, personal y temporal y sus condiciones de ejercicio y de control’, in Bacigalupo, S. and Cancio Meliá, M., eds, Derecho penal y política transnacional (Barcelona: Atelier, 2005), 85–123; Feeley, M. M., The Process Is the Punishment – Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992); Feller, S. Z., ‘Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction in the International Sphere’, IsLR, 16 (1981), 40–74; Ferdinandusse, W., ‘On the Question of Dutch Courts’ Universal Jurisdiction – A Response to Mettraux’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 881–883; Fernández–Pacheco Estrada, C., ‘La jurisprudencia Española en aplicación del principio de jur- isdicción universal – El caso de la represión en Argentina’, JpD, 61 (2008) 101–117; Ferstman, C., and Schurr, J., ‘The Practice and Politics of Universal Jurisdiction Cases Relating to Crimes Committed in Africa’, in Letschert, R., Haveman, R., de Bouwer, A.–M., Pemberton, A., Victimological Approaches to International Crimes – Africa (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia Publishers, 2011), 439–462; Fikarova, D., ‘Prospects of the Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings’,in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 103–107; Fink, U., ‘Der Bürgerkrieg in Libyen im UN–Sicherheitsrat’, in Meng, W., Ress, G. and Stein, T., eds, Europaischë Integration und Globalisierung – Festschrift zum 60–jahrigen̈ Bestehen des Europa–Instituts (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2011), 137–151; Fixson, O., ‘Der IStGH – Seine Entstehung und seine Stellung im Völkerrecht’, in Kirsch, Inter- nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 207–229; Fleck, D., ‘Shortcomings of the Grave Breaches Regime’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 833–854; Fletcher, G. P., ‘The Right and the Reasonable’, HarvLR, 98 (1985), 949–982; Fletcher, G. P., ‘Against Universal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 580–584; Fletcher, G. P., ‘Parochial versus Universal Criminal Law’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 20–34; Fletcher, G. P., ‘Reasonableness im amerikanischen und Völkerstrafrecht’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 739–749; Fletcher, G. P., and Ohlin, ‘The ICC – Two Courts in One?’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 428–433; Fletcher, G. P., and Sheppard, S., American Law in a Global Context – The Basics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Foffani, L., Orlandi, R. and Ruggeri, S., ‘Italien’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzü- berschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 307–325; Ford, S., ‘How Much Money Does the ICC Need?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 84–104; Fouladvand, S., ‘Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity – Decision–making by the ICC Pros- ecutor in the Darfur Situation’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 1028–66; Frände, D. and Helenius, D., ‘Country Report “Finland”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 63–106; Frau, R., ‘Das Völkerstrafrecht in der jüngsten Praxis des VN–Sicherheitsrates’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 784–794; Bibliography 45
Frau, R., ‘Die Überweisung der Lage in Libyen an den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof durch den Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen – Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Völkerstrafrechtspraxis des Sicherheitsrates’, AVR, 49 (2011), 276–309; Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481; Fry, E., ‘Between Show Trials and Sham Prosecutions – The Rome Statute’s Potential Effect on Domestic Due Process Protections’, CLF, 23 (2012), 35–62; Fry, E., The Contours of International Prosecutions (Amsterdam: Academisch Proefschrift, 2015); Frimpong, K., ‘Punishing Offences Committed Abroad – Practical (National) Relevance or The- oretical Claim’, in Eser, A. and Lagodny, O., eds, Principles and Procedures for a New Trans- national Criminal Law (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max–Planck–Institut f. ausländ. u. inter. Strafrecht, 1992), 29–47; Gaeta, P., ‘Il diritto internazionale e la competenza giurisdizionale degli Stati per crimini inter- nazionali’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 497–511; Galand, A. S., ‘The Situation Concerning the Islamic State – Carte Blanche for the ICC if the Security Council Refers?’ EJILTalk 27 May 2015,
Gropengießer, H. and Meißner, J., ‘Amnesties and the Rome Statute of the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 267–300; Gropp, W., ‘Kollision nationaler Strafgewalten – Nulla prosecutio transnationalis sine lege’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 41–61; Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–218; Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364; Hafner, G., ‘An Attempt to Explain the Position of the USA towards the ICC’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 323–332; Hall, C. K., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – New Uses for an Old Tool’, in Lattimer, M. and Sands, P., ed, Justice for Crimes against Humanity (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2003), 47–?; Hall, C. K., ‘Suggestions Concerning International Criminal Court Prosecutorial Policy and Strategy and External Relations. Contribution to an Expert Consultation Process on General Issues Relevant to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’ (28 March 2003),
Henzelin, M., Le principe de l’universalité en droit pénal international (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000); Henzelin, M., ‘“Ne bis in idem”, un principe à géométrie variable’, ZStR, 123 (2005), 345–382; Herdegen, M., ‘Die Achtung fremder Hoheitsrechte als Schranke nationaler Strafgewalt’, ZaöRV,47 (1987), 221–242; Hirst, M., Jurisdiction and the Ambit of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Hirst, M., ‘Country Report “England and Wales”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 27–61; Hobbs, H. O., ‘The Security Council and the Complementarity Regime of the ICC – Lessons from Libya’, Eyes on the ICC, 9 (2012/13), 19–51; Hoffman, J., ‘IGH vom 14.2.2002 – Demokratische Republik Kongo – Belgien Völkerstrafrecht und Immunität vor dem IGH – eine vertane Möglichkeit?’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann, J., eds, Völkerrechtsprechung – Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 439–446; Hoffmeister, F. und Knoke, S., ‘Das Vorermittlungsverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafger- ichtshof – Prüfstein für die Effektivität der neuen Gerichtsbarkeit im Völkerstrafrecht, ZaöRV,59 (1999), 785–808; Holmes, J. T., ‘The Principle of Complementarity’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 41–78; Holmes, J. T., ‘Complementarity – National Courts versus the ICC’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute,i (2002), 667–686; Höpfel, F., ‘Der Beitrag des Internationalen Gerichtshofs zur Strafrechtsentwicklung’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 765–776; Hoven, E., ‘Frieden versus Gerechtigkeit? Zur Aussetzung der Ermittlungen gegen Omar Hassan al–Bashir nach Art. 16 IStGH–Statut’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 230–239; Hoven, E., ‘Der Tatbestand der Aggression – Wege zur Implementierung der Ergebnisse von Kampala in das VStGB’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 339–372; Hoyer, A., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 3–7’, in Rudolphi, et al., Systematischer Kommentar StGB (2014), I 1; Human Rights Watch, ‘Benchmarks for Assessing Possible National Alternatives to International Criminal Court Cases against LRA Leaders’ (May 2007), 1–10, 20the%20court/office%20of%20the%20prosecutor/network%20with%20partners/public%20 hearings/second%20public%20hearing/Pages/second%20public%20hearing.aspx> accessed 3 April 2016; ICC–OTP, Eighth Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the UN Security Council pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005) (3 December 2008), Kaul, H. P., ‘Special Note – The Struggle for the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction‘, EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 364–376; Kearney, M. and Reynolds, J., ‘Palestine and the Politics of International Criminal Justice’,in Schabas, W., McDermott, Y., and Hayes, N., eds, The Ashgate Research Companion to Inter- national Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 407–433; Kendall, S., ‘Commodifying Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 113–134; Keller, R., ‘Abhandlungen – Grenzen, Unabhängigkeit und Subsidiarität der Weltrechtspflege’, GA, 146 (2006), 25–37; Kimpimäki, M., ‘Genocide in Rwanda – Is It Really Finland’s Concern?’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 155–176; Kindt, A., Menschenrechte und Souveränität – Diskutiert anhand der internationalen Strafrechtsp- flege (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009); King, E. B. L., ‘Amnesties in A Time of Transition’, GeoWashILR, 41 (2010), 577–618; Kirsch, P. and Holmes, J. T., ‘The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court – The Negotiating Process’, AJIL, 93 (1999), 2–12; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 11 – Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 173–174, accessed 18 December 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 181–183, accessed 18 December 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 217, 221, accessed 18 December 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Unification or Fragmentation? Structural Tendencies in International Criminal Procedure’, in van den Herik, L. and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Leiden: Martin Nijhoff, 2012), 591–631; Kleffner, J. K., ‘The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of Substantive International Criminal Law’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 86–113; Kleffner, J. K., ‘Complementarity as a Catalyst for Compliance’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds, Complementary Views on Complementarity (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006), 79–104; Kleffner, J. K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Kleffner, J. K., ‘The Law and Policy of Complementarity in Relation to “Criminal Proceedings” Carried Out by Non–State Organized Armed Groups’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 707–720; Klip, A., European Criminal Law – An Integrative Approach (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Inter- sentia, 2nd edn, 2012); Knoops, G.–J. A. and Zwart, T., ‘The Flotilla Case before the ICC – The Need to Do Justice While Keeping Heaven Intact’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 1069–1097; Kolb, A. S., Neumann, T. and Salomon, T. R., ‘Die Entführung deutscher Seeschiffe – Flaggenrecht, Strafanwendungsrecht und diplomatischer Schutz’, ZaöRV, 71 (2011), 191–246; Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 1–294; Kontorovich, E., ‘When Gravity Fails – Israeli Settlements and Admissibility at the ICC’, IsLR,47 (2014), 379–399; Kourula, E., ‘Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPubl- isher, 2012), 129–148; Kravik, A. M., ‘The Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court Decides to Delete Article 124 of the Rome Statute’, EJILTalk, 12 April 2016, available at Kreß, C., Völkerstrafrecht und Weltrechtspflegeprinzip im Blickfeld des Internationalen Gericht- shofs – Zum Votenstreit der Richter des IGH im Haftbefehlsfall (Demokratische Republik Kongo gegen Belgien)’, ZStW, 114 (2002), 818–849; Kreß, C., ‘“Self–Referrals” and “Waivers of Complementarity”–Some Considerations in Law and Policy’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 944–948; Kreß, C., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen’, Kempf, E., Jansen, G., Müller, E., eds, Festschrift für Christian Richter II – Verstehen und Widerstehen (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2006), 319–330; Kreß, C., ‘“Staateneigenüberweisung” an den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und die Rolle des Chefanklägers – Kursorische Anmerkungen zur ersten Verfahrenspraxis des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, in Neubacher, F. und Klein, A., eds, Vom Recht der Macht zur Macht des Rechts? Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Zukunft internationaler Strafgerichte (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006), 103–110; Kreß, C., ‘Nationale Umsetzung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches – Öffentliche Anhörung im Ausschuss für Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe des Deutschen Bundestages – Kurzstel- lungnahme’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 515–525; Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/ Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1; Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad–Hoc–Tribunalen zum IStGH’, in Kirsch, Inter- nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259; Krings, B. L., ‘The Principles of “Complementarity” and Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law – Antagonists or Perfect Match?’, GoJIL, 4 (2012), 737–763; Kuhli, M., ‘Rezension – Laurent Lafleur, Der Grundsatz der Komplementarität’, GA, 152 (2012), 763–766; Kunig, P. and Uerpmann, R., ‘Die klassische Entscheidung – Der Fall des Postschiffes Lotus – StIGH – Urt. v. 7.9.1927 = PCIJ Series A No. 10’, Jura, 4 (1994), 186–194; Kurth, M. E., Das Verhältnis des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs zum UN–Sicherheitsrat – Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Sicherheitsratsresolution (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2006); Labuda, P., ‘Complementarity Compromised? The ICC Gives Congo the Green Light to Re–Try Katanga’, Opinio Juris, (13 April 2016), Langer, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction as Janus–Faced – The Dual Nature of the German International Criminal Code’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 737–762; Langer, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction is Not Disappearing – The Shift from “Global Enforcer” to “No Safe Haven”’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 245–256; Laursen, A., ‘A Danish Paradox? A Brief Review of the Status of International Crimes in Danish Law’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 997–1016; Lee, W., ‘International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction’, in May and Hoskins, ICL and Philoso- phy (2010), 15–38; Lelieur, J., ‘Country Report “France”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 107–140; Lelieur, J., ‘L’Union européenne face aux conflits de compétences pénales’, in Brach–Thiel, D. and Fourment, F., eds, Questions de droit pénal international, européen et comparé – Mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Alain Fournier (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 2013), 257–293; Lind, C., ‘Article 22 – Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 255–258, accessed 18 December 2015; Lindemann, L., Referral of Cases from International to National Criminal Jurisdictions – Transfer- ring Cases from the ICTY and the ICTR to National Jurisdictions (Baden–Baden: Nomos, Stämpfli Verlag, 2013); Linke, R., ‘Zwischenstaatliche Kompetenzkonflikte auf dem Gebiet des Strafrechts’, in Oehler, D., Pötz, P. G. and Grützner, H., eds, Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zur Gestaltung des internationalen und eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner̈ zum 65. Geburtstag (Hamburg: R. v. Decker, 1970), 85–91; Lønseth, P., ‘Between Territoriality and Universality – Reflections by a Core International Crimes Prosecutor’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 161–164; Ma, C., ‘The Connotation of Universal Jurisdiction and its Application in the Criminal Law of China’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 149–189; Maged, A., ‘Withdrawal of Referrals – A Serious Challenge to the Function of the ICC’, ICLR,6 (2006), 419–446; Mangiaracina, A., ‘Verso l’affermazione del ne bis in idem nello “spazio giudiziario europeo”’, LP,2 (2006), 631–651; Majzub, D., ‘Peace and Justice? Amnesties and the ICC’, MelbJIL, 3 (2002), 247–279; Mann, F. A. ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’, Recueil des Cours, 111 (1964), 1, 1–162; Marauhn, T., and Simon, S., ‘Die völkerrechtlichen Voraussetzungen der Strafgewalt in internatio- nalen Fallgestaltungen’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Krimi- nalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 21–39; Marchesi, A. and Chaitidou, E., ‘Article 14 – Referral of a Situation by a State Party’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 703–724; Marong, A., ‘Unlocking the Mysteriousness of Complementarity – In Search of a Forum Con- veniens for Trial of the Leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army’, GeorgiaJI&CompL, 40 (2011/12), 67–103; Maunganidze, O. A. and du Plessis, A., ‘The ICC and the AU’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 65–83; Mayer, H., ‘Völkerrecht und internationales Strafrecht’, JZ, 7 (1952), 609–611; Mayer, M., Ne–bis–in–idem–Wirkung europäischer Strafentscheidungen (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992); McCarthy, C., ‘The Rome Statute’s Regime of Victim Redress – Challenges and Prospects’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1203–1221; 52 Bibliography Mégret, F., ‘Too Much of a Good Thing? – Implementation and the Uses of Complementarity’,in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 361–390; Mégret, F., ‘Between R2P and the ICC –“Robust Peacekeeping” and the Quest for Civilian Protection’, CLF, 26 (2015), 101–151; Mégret, F. and Giles Samson, M., ‘Holding the Line on Complementarity in Libya – The Case for Tolerating Flawed Domestic Trials’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 571–589; Meißner, J., Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem römischen Statut (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2003); Mendes, E. P., Peace and Justice at the International Criminal Court – A Court of Last Resort (Northampton/Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2010); Méndez, J. E., ‘Justice and Prevention’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 33–51; Meng, W., ‘Regeln über die Jurisdiktion der Staaten im amerikanischen Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law’, AVR, 27 (1989), 156–194; Merkel, R., ‘Universale Jurisdiktion bei völkerrechtlichen Verbrechen’, in Lüderssen, K., ed, Auf- geklärte Kriminalpolitik oder Kampf gegen das Böse?, iii: Makrodelinquenz (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 1998), 237–271; Merkel, R., ‘Legitimation der Weltrechtspflege’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts’ (Baden– Baden: Nomos, 2013), 45–63; Mettraux, G., ‘Dutch Courts’ Universal Jurisdiction over Violations of Common Article 3 qua War Crimes’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 362–371; Meyer, F., ‘Completing Complementarity’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 549–583; Meyer, F.,‘Country Report “Germany”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 141–180; Mezei, P., ‘Double Jeopardy in a Global Context – A Comparative Analysis of the Right not to be Tried or Punished Twice for the Same Criminal Offense’ (November 1, 2012), in Badó, A., ed, Studies in the Fields of Comparative Law and Comparative Constitutional Law (Szeged: Pro Talentis Universitatis Foundations, 2012), 109–129; Mezei, P., ‘“Not Twice for the Same”–Double Jeopardy Protections against Multiple Punishments – A Comparative Analysis of the Origins, Historical Development and Modern Application of the Ne Bis In Idem Principle’, in Badó, A., ed, Fair Trial and Judicial Independence – Hungarian Perspectives (Szeged: Springer, 2014), 197–219; Miller, D. and Rackow, P., ‘Transnationale Täterschaft und Teilnahme – Beteiligungsdogmatik und Strafanwendungsrecht’, ZStW, 117 (2005), 379–417; Mills, A., ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’, BYbIL, 84 (2014), 187–239; Mills, K., ‘R2P and the ICC – At Odds or in Sync?’, CLF, 26 (2015), 73–99; Ministry of Justice of Israel, ‘Israel – Commissions of Inquiry Law and Amendments’, ILM,22 (1983), 658–666; Moffett, L., ‘Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court – Beyond Rhetoric and The Hague’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 281–311; Mokhtar, A., ‘The Fine Art of Arm –Twisting: The US Resolution 1422 and Security Council Deferral Power under the Rome Statute’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 295–344; Morel, S., La mise en œuvre du principe de complémentarité par la cour pénale internationale – Le case particulier des amnisties (Lausanne: Editions Bis et Ter, 2005); Moreno–Ocampo, L., ‘A Positive Approach to Complementarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Comple- mentarity, i (2011), 21–32; Müller, A. T. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Self–Referrals on Trial – From Panacea to Patient’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 1267–1294; Munivrana Vajda, M., ‘The 2009 AIDP’s Resolution on Universal Jurisdiction – An Epitaph or a Revival Call?!’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 325–344; Murphy, R., ‘Gravity Issues and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 17 (2006), 281–315; Bibliography 53 Murphy, R., ‘Establishing a Precedent in Uganda – The Legitimacy of National Amnesties under the ICC’, Eyes on the ICC, 3 (2006), 33–56; Murungu, C. B., ‘Towards a Criminal Chamber in the African Court of Justice and Human Rights’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 1067–1088; Nemane, V. V. and Gunjal, I. D., ‘Art. 124 of the Rome Statute of the ICC –“Transitional Provision” or “The Right to (Convenient) Opt–Out”’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 949–969; Neubacher, F., Kriminologische Grundlagen einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit – Politische Ideen– und Dogmengeschichte, kriminalwissenschaftliche Legitimation, strafrechtliche Perspekti- ven (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Newton, M., ‘Comparative Complementarity – Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the ICC’, MilLR, 167 (2001), 20–73; Nmehielle, V. O., ‘“Saddling” the New African Regional Human Rights Court with International Criminal Jurisdiction – Innovative, Obstructive, Expedient?’, AfrJLS, 7 (2014), 7–42; Nolte, G., ‘Universal Jurisdiction in the Area of Private Law À The Alien Tort Claims Act’,in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J. M., eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order – Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), 373–383; Nouwen, S., ‘Fine–tuning Complementarity’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 206–231; Nouwen, S., ‘Complementarity in Uganda – Domestic Diversity or International Imposition?’,in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 1120–1154; Nouwen, S. and Lewis, D., ‘Jurisdictional Arrangements and International Criminal Procedure’,in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 116–129; Nouwen, S. and Werner, W., ‘Monopolizing Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015) 157–176; Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 500–506; Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘The ICC and Complementarity in Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 427–447; Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Article 18 – Preliminary Rulings Regarding Admissibility’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 832–848; O’Donohue, J., ‘The ICC and the ASP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 105–138; Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 185–208; O’Keefe, R., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – Clarifying the Basic Concept’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 735–760; O’Keefe, R., ‘The Grave Breaches Regime and Universal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 811–831; O’Keefe, R., ‘Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of the International Law of Jurisdiction’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 541–558; Oehler, D., Internationales Strafrecht – Geltungsbereich des Strafrechts, internationales Rechtshilfer- echt – Recht der Gemeinschaften, Völkerstrafrecht (Cologne: Heymanns, 2nd edn, 1983); Oehler, D., ‘Neuer Wandel in den Bestimmungen über den Strafrechtlichen Geltungsbereich in den völkerrechtlichen Verträgen’, in Börner, B., Jahrreiß, H. and Carstens, K., eds, Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit – Festschrift für Karl Carstens zum 70. Geburtstag am 14. Dezember 1984,i: Europarecht – Völkerrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns, 1984), 435–448; Oehler, D., ‘Theorie des Strafanwendungsrechts’, in Oehler, D., Pötz, P. G. and Grützner, H., eds, Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zur Gestaltung des internationalen und eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner̈ zum 65. Geburtstag (Hamburg: R. v. Decker, 1970), 110–126; Oeter, S., ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Stra- frecht’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts’ (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 101–122; Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 185–208; Olásolo, H., Corte penal internacional ¿dónde investigar? – Especial referencia a la fiscalía en el proceso de activación (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2003); 54 Bibliography Olásolo, H., ‘The Prosecutor of the ICC before the Initiation of Investigations – A Quasi Judicial or Political Body?’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 87–150; Olásolo, H., The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005); Olásolo, H., ‘Reflections on the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdictional Reach’, CLF,16 (2005), 279–301; Olásolo, H., ‘The Lack of Attention to the Distinction between Situation and Cases in National Laws on Co–operation with the International Criminal Court with Particular Reference to the Spanish Case’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 193–261; Olásolo, H., ‘Admissibilidad de Situaciones y Casos Objeto de Procesos de Justicia de Transición ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Almqvist, J. and Espósito, C., eds, Justicia transicional en Iberoamérica (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2009), 255–289; Olásolo, H. and Carnero–Rojo, E., ‘The Application of the Principle of Complementarity to the Decision of Where to Open an Investigation – The Admissibility of “Situations”’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 393–420; Orentlicher, D., ‘Owning Justice and Reckoning with its Complexity’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 517–526; O’Shea, A., Amnesty for Crime in International Law and Practice (London, New York, The Hague: Kluwer, 2002); Osiel, M., ‘How Should the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Choose its Cases? The Multiple Meanings of “Situational Gravity”’, The Hague Justice Portal, 5 March 2009, 1–7 Pocar, F., and Maystre, M., ‘The Principle of Complementarity – A Means Towards a More Pragmatic Enforcement of the Goal Pursued by Universal Jurisdiction’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 247–303; Podgor, E. S., ‘Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction – Replacing “Objective Territoriality” With “Defensive Territoriality”’, in Sarat, A., and Etwick, P., eds, Studies in Law, Politics, and Society (Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2003), 117–135; Politi, M., ‘Reflections on Complementarity at the Rome Conference and Beyond’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 142–149; Quattrocolo, S., ‘La fase preliminare al giudizio davanti alla C.P.I. – I soggetti coinvolti e il meccanismo de esercizio dell’azione penale’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 275–322; Quesada–Alcalá, C., ‘The Obstacles to the International Criminal Court – impediments to the enforce- ment of International Humanitarian Law’, in Fernández–Sánchez, P. A., ed, The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), 295–314; Radosavljevic, D., ‘Scope and Limits of Psychiatric Evidence in International Criminal Law’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 1013–1035; Ralph, J., ‘Introduction – The Responsibility to Protect and Prosecute’, CLF, 26 (2015), 1–12; Randall, K. C., ‘Book Review –Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction – International and Municipal Legal Perspectives’, AJIL, 98, (2004), 627–631; Rastan, R., ‘What is a “Case” for the Purpose of the Rome Statute?’, CLF, 19 (2008), 435–448; Rastan, R., ‘Complementarity – Contest or Collaboration?’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 83–132; Rastan, R., ‘Situation and Case – Defining the Parameters’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 421–459; Rastan, R., ‘The Jurisdictional Scope of Situations before the ICC’, CLF, 23 (2012), 1–34; Rastan, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 141–178; Rastan, R. and Badar M., ‘Article 11 – Jurisdiction ratione temporis’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 657–671; Rau, K., ‘Jurisprudential Innovation or Accountability Avoidance? The ICC and Proposed Expan- sion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights’, MinnesotaLR, 97 (2012), 669–708; Rau, M., ‘Das Ende der Weltrechtspflege? Zur Abschaffung des belgischen Gesetzes über die universelle Verfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen’, HuV–I, 16 (2003), 212–216; Razesberger, F., The Principle of Complementarity (Pieterlen, Swizerland: Peter Lang, 2006); Reisman, W. M. and Arsanjani, M., ‘The Law–in–Action of the ICC’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403; Reydams, L., Universal Jurisdiction – International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Rikhof, J., ‘Fewer Places to Hide? The Impact of Domestic War Crimes Prosecutions on Inter- national Impunity’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdic- tion for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 7–81; Roach, S. C., ‘Multilayered Justice in Northern Uganda – ICC Intervention and Local Procedures of Accountability’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 249–268; Robinson, D., ‘Serving the Interests of Justice – Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the ICC’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 481–505; Robinson, D., ‘The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity’, CLF, 21 (2010), 67–102; Robinson, D., ‘The Inaction Controversy – Neglected Words and New Opportunities’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 460–502; Robinson, D., ‘The Controversy over Territorial State Referrals and Reflections on ICL Discourse’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 355–384; Robinson, D., ‘Three Theories of Complementarity – Charge, Sentence, or Process? Responding to Kevin Jon Heller, A Sentence–Based Theory of Complementarity’, HarvILJOnline, 53 (2012), 165–182; 56 Bibliography Robinson, D., ‘Three Theories of Complementarity – Charge, Sentence or Process? A Comment on Kevin Heller’s Sentence–Based Theory of Complementarity’, in Schabas, W. A., McDermott, Y., and Hayes, N., eds, The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law – Critical Perspectives (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), 369–384; Rodman, K., ‘Is Peace in the Interest of Justice? The Case for Broad Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 99–126; Rodrigues, A. M., ‘Princípio da jurisdiçao penal universal e Tribunal Penal Internacional – Exclusão ou complementaridade?’, in Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra and Goethe– Institut Lisboa, Direito penal internacional para a protecção dos direitos humanos (Lisbon: Fim de Século, 2003), 57–75; Rohrer, S., Legalitäts– oder Opportunitätsprinzip beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Cologne: Carl Heymanns, 2011); Roht–Arriaza, N., ‘The Pinochet Effect and the Spanish Contribution to Universal Jurisdiction’,in Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., and Weiss, P., eds, International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Berlin: Springer, 2007), 113–123; Roht–Arriaza, N. and Fernando, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 359–372; Ronen, Y., ‘Israel, Palestine and the ICC – Territory Uncharted but not Unknown’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 7–25; Rosswog, E., Das Problem der Vereinbarkeit des aktiven und passiven Personalgrundsatzes mit dem Völkerrecht (Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1965); Rudolf, W., ‘Anwendungsbereich und Auslegung von §5 StGB’, NJW, 6 (1954), 219–220; Ruiz Verduzco, D., ‘The Relationship between the ICC and the United Nations Security Council’,in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 30–64; Ryngaert, C., ‘Universal Jurisdiction in an ICC Era – A Role to Play for EU Member States with the Support of the European Union’, EJCCLCJ, 14 (2006), 46–80; Ryngaert, C., ‘Applying the Rome Statute’s Complementarity Principle – Drawing Lessons from the Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle’, CLF, 19 (2008), 153–180; Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction over Antitrust Violations in International Law (Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2008); Ryngaert, C., ‘Complementarity in Universality Cases – Legal–Systemic and Legal Policy Consid- erations’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 165–200; Sácouto, S. and Cleary, K., ‘The Katanga Complementarity Decisions – Sound Law but Flawed Policy’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 363–374; Sadat, L. N., ‘Unpacking the Complexities of International Criminal Tribunal Jurisdiction’,in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 197–209; Safferling, C., Internationales Strafrecht – Strafanwendungsrecht, Völkerstrafrecht, Europäisches Strafrecht (Heidelberg: Springer, 2011); Sainati, T. E., ‘Divided We Fall: How the International Criminal Court Can Promote Compliance with International Law by Working with Regional Courts’, VanderbiltJTL, 49 (2016), 191–243; Samir Hassanein, A., ‘Physical and Legal Inability under Article 17 (3) of the Rome Statute’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 101–123; Sánchez Legido, A., Jurisdicción universal penal y derecho internacional (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2004); Satzger, H., Die Europäisierung des Strafrechts – Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluß des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das deutsche Strafrecht (Cologne: Heymann, 2001); Satzger, H., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu §§ 3–7’, in Satzger, Schluckebier und Widmaier, StGB Kommen- tar (2014), 32–36; Sautenet, V., ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – Activities in 2004’, ChinJIL, 4 (2005), 515–564; Bibliography 57 Schabas, W. A., ‘First Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court’, HRLJ, 27 (2006), 25–40; Schabas, W. A., ‘“Complementarity Practice”–Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’, CLF,19 (2008), 5–33; Schabas, W. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the ICC’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 731–761; Schabas, W. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion and Gravity’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 229–246; Schabas, W. A., ‘National Amnesties, Truth Commissions and International Criminal Tribunals’,in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 373–390; Schabas, W. A., ‘The Rise and Fall of Complemenarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,i (2011), 150–164; Schabas, W. A., Kein Frieden ohne Gerechtigkeit? – Die Rolle der internationalen Strafjustiz (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2013); Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Situations and Cases’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 365–381; Schabas, W. A. and El Zeidy, M., M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 781–831; Schabas, W. A. and Pecorella, G., ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 672–689; Schabas, W. A. and Pecorella, G., ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 690–702; Scharf, M., ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’, CornILJ, 32 (1999), 507–527; Scharf, M. P., ‘The ICC’s Jurisdiction over the Nationals of Non–party States – A Critique of the U. S. Position’, LCP, 64 (2001), 67–118; Scheffer, D. J., ‘How to Turn the Tide Using the Rome Statute’s Temporal Jurisdiction’, JICJ,2 (2004), 26–34; Schiff, B. N., Building the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Schmitz, A., Das aktive Personalitätsprinzip im internationalen Strafrecht – Zugleich ein kritischer Beitrag zur Legitimation der Ausdehnung der Strafgewalt auf Auslandstaten Deutscher (Frank- furt: Peter Lang, 2002); Schomburg, W. and Nemitz, C., ‘Hauptteil VI – Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit’, in Schomburg, W., Lagodny, O., Gleß, S., and Hackner, T., eds, Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Munich: C. H. Beck, 4th edn, 2006), 1719–1730; Schönke, A., ‘Gegenwartsfragen des internationalen Strafrechts’, in Englisch, K. and Maurach, R., eds, Festschrift für Edmund Mezger zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich, Berlin: C. H. Beck, 1954), 105–116; Schröder, H., ‘Grundlagen und Grenzen des Personalitätsprinzips im internationalen Strafrecht’, JZ, 23 (1968), 241–244; Schüller, A., ‘Gravity under the Rome Statute – Procedural Filter or Instrument of Shaping Criminal Policy?’, HuV–I, 21 (2008), 73–81; Sedman, D., ‘Should the Prosecution of Ordinary Crimes in Domestic Jurisdictions Satisfy the Complementarity Principle?’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Perspectives (2010), 259–266; Seibert–Fohr, A., ‘The Relevance of the Rome Staute of the ICC for Amnesties and Truth Commissions’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 553–90; Seils, P., ‘The Selection and Prioritization of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC’,in Bergsmo, Criteria for Prioritizing (2009), 55–60; Seils, P., ‘Making Complementarity Work – Maximizing the Limited Role of the Prosecutor’,in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 989–1013; Seils, P., ‘Putting Complementarity in its Place’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 305–327; Seils, P. and Wierda, M., ‘The International Criminal Court and Comflict Mediation’ ICTJ, (June 2005) Shany, Y., ‘How can International Criminal Courts Have a Greater Impact on National Criminal Proceedings? – Lessons from the First Two Decades of International Criminal Justice in Operation’, IsLR, 46 (2013), 431–453; Shaw, M. N., ‘The Article 12(3) Declaration of the Palestinian Authority, the International Criminal Court and International Law’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 301–324; Sheng, A. Y., ‘Analysing the International Criminal Court Complementarity Principle through a Federal Courts Lens’, ILSAJICL, 13 (2006/2007), 413–452; Shraga, D., ‘Politics and Justice – The Role of the Security Council’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 168–174; Sieber, U., ‘Straftaten und Strafverfolgung im Internet’, in Ständige Deputation des Deutschen Juristentages, ed, Verhandlungen des 69. Deutschen Juristentages, i/3: Gutachten C (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012); Sinn, A., ‘Jurisdictional Law as the Key to Resolving Conflicts – Comparative–Law Observations’,in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 531–554; Sinn, A., ‘Draft Models of a Regulatory Mechanism for the Avoidance of Jurisdictional Conflicts’,in Sinn, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität (2012), 597–615; Sinn, A., ‘Die Vermeidung von strafrechtlichen Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der EU’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 1–9; Smeulers, A., Weerdesteijn, M. and Hola, B., ‘The Selection of Situations by the ICC – An Empirically Based Evalutation of the OTP’s Performance’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 1–39; Smith, S. E. ‘Inventing the Laws of Gravity – The ICC’s Initial Lubanga Decision and Its Regressive Consequences’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 331–352; Sriram, C. L. and Brown, S., ‘Kenya in the Shadow of the ICC – Complementarity, Gravity and Impact’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 219–244; Stahn, C., ‘The Ambiguities of Security Council Resolution 1422’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 85–104; Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice – Some Interpretative Guidelines for the ICC’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 695–720; Stahn, C., ‘The Geometry of Transitional Justice – Choices of Institutional Design’, LJIL, 18 (2005), 425–466; Stahn, C., Stahn, C., El Zeidy, M. and Olásolo, H., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Revisited’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 421–431; ‘Complementarity – A Tale of Two Notions’, CLF, 19 (2008), 87–113; Stahn, C., ‘Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion – Five Years on’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 247–280; Stahn, C., ‘Perspectives on Katanga – An Introduction’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 311–318; Stahn, C., ‘How Is the Water? Light and Shadow in the First Years of the ICC’, CLF, 22 (2011), 175–197; Stahn, C., ‘Introduction – Bridge over Troubled Waters?’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,i (2011), 1–18; Stahn, C., ‘Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity – A Test for “Shared Responsibility”’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 325–349; Stahn, C., ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? – Second Thoughts on a ’”Sentence–Based” Theory of Complementarity’, HarvILJ, 53 (2012), 183–196; Stahn, C., ‘Why the ICC Should be Cautious to Use the Islamic State to Get Out of Africa – Part 1’, EJILTalk 3 December 2014 Stegmiller, I., ‘Articles 14–15’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 184–196, accessed 18 December 2015; Stegmiller, I., ‘The Gravity Threshold Under the ICC Statute – Gravity Back and Forth in Lubanga and Ntaganda’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 547–565; Stegmiller, I., ‘Complementary Thoughts’, CLF, 20 (2010), 159–74; Stegmiller, I., ‘Interpretative Gravity under the Rome Statute – Identifying Common Gravity Criteria’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 603–641; Stegmiller, I., ‘The ICC and Mali – Towards more Transparency in International Criminal Law Investigations’, CLF, 24 (2013), 475–499; Stephen, C., ‘International Criminal Law – Wielding the Sword of Universal Criminal Justice?’, ICLQ, 61 (2012), 55–90; Stewart, J. G., ‘The Future of the Grave Breaches Regime – Segregate, Assimilate or Abandon?’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 855–877; Stigen, J., ‘The Relationship between the Principle of Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 133–159; Stigen, J., The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions – The Principle of Complementarity (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2008); Stigen, J., ‘The Admissibility Procedures’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 503–557; Sulzer, J., ‘Implementing the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in France’, in Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., and Weiss, P., eds, International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Berlin: Springer, 2007), 125–137; Švedas, G., ‘Country Report “Lithuania”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 295–327; Swart, B., ‘La place des critères traditionnels de compétence dans la poursuite des crimes inter- nationaux’, in Cassese, A. and Delmas–Marty, M., eds, Juridictions nationales et crimes inter- nationaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002), 567–587; Takemura, H., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in International Criminal Justice – Between Fragmentation and Unification’, in van den Herik, L. and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Leiden: Martin Nijhoff, 2012), 633–656; Taylor, M., ‘Article 18 – Preliminary Rulings Regarding Admissibility’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 225–232, accessed 18 December 2015; Terracino, J. B., ‘National Implementation of ICC Crimes – Impact on National Jurisdictions and the ICC’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 421–440; Tharakan, S., Konkretisierung des Komplementaritätsprinzips des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Zurich, St. Gallen: Dike Verlag, 2009); Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591; Tomuschat, C., ‘The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes Committed by Individuals’,in Cremer, H. J., Giegerich, T., Richter, D., and Zimmermann, A., eds, Tradition und Weltoffenheit des Rechts – Festschrift für Helmut Steinberger (Berlin et al.: Springer Verlag, 2002), 315–329; Tomuschat, C., ‘Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 1074–1081; Tomuschat, C. and Currie, D. P., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin: German Bundestag, 2012), available at Triffterer, O., Bergsmo, M. and Ambos, K., ‘Preamble’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1–13; Triggs, G., ‘Challenges for the International Criminal Court – Terrorism, Immunity Agreements and National Trials’, in Dolgopol, U., and Gardam, J., eds, The Challenge of Conflict – Inter- national Law Responds (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2005), 315–330; Trouille, H. L., ‘France, Universal Jurisdiction and Rwandan génocidaires’, JICJ 14 (2016), 195–217; Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85; Vagias, M. and Ferencz, J., ‘Burden and Standard of Proof in Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the ICC’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 133–155; Vaid, K., ‘What Counts as “State Action” under Article 17 of the Rome Statute? Applying the ICC’s Complementarity Test to Non–Criminal Investigations by the United States into War Crimes in Afghanistan’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 44 (2011/12), 573–628; Valiñas, M., ‘Interpreting Complementarity and Interests of Justice in the Presence of Restorative– Based Alternative Forms of Justice’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Perspectives (2010), 267–288; van den Wyngaert, C. and Ongena, T., ‘Ne bis in idem Principle, Including the Issue of Amnesty’,in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, i (2002), 705–729; van der Beken, T., Vermeulen, G. and Lagodny, O., ‘Kriterien für die jeweils “beste” Strafgewalt in Europa – Zur Lösung von Strafgewaltskonflikten jenseits eines transnationalen Ne–bis–in– idem’, NStZ, 22 (2002), 624–628; van der Merwe, H. J., ‘The Show Must not Go On – Complementarity, the Due Process Thesis and Overzealous Domestic Prosecutions’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 40–75; van der Wilt, H. and Lyngdorf, S., ‘Procedural Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights – Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of “Unwillingness” and “Ability” in the Context of the Complementarity Principle’ ICLR, 9 (2009), 39–75; van der Wilt, H., ‘Universal Jurisdiction under Attack – An Assessment of African Misgivings towards International Criminal Justice as Administered by Western States’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 1043–1066; van der Wilt, H., ‘State’s Obligations to Investigate and Prosecute Perpetrators of International Crimes – The Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 685–706; van der Wilt, H., ‘Self–Referrals as an Indication of the Inability of States to Cope with Non–State Actors’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 210–227; van Schaak, B., ‘Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet – Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 133–164; van Steenberghe, R., ‘The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute – Clarifying its Nature’, JICJ,9 (2011), 1089–1116; Vandermeersch, D., ‘La compétence universelle’, in Cassese, A. and Delmas–Marty, M., eds, Juridictions nationales et crimes internationaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002), 589–661; Vinjamuri, L., ‘The ICC and the Politics of Peace and Justice’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 13–29; Vinjamuri, L., ‘The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of Authority’, LCP, 79 (2016), 275–87; Vogler, T., ‘Entwicklungstendenzen im internationalen Strafrecht unter Berücksichtigung der Konvention des Europarats’, in Schroeder, F. C. and Zipf, H., eds, Festschrift für Reinhart Maurach zum 70. Geburtstag (Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972), 595–614; Vogler, T., ‘Geltungsanspruch und Geltungsbereich der Strafgesetze’, in Oehler, D., Pötz, P. G. and Grützner, H., eds, Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zur Gestaltung des internationalen und eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner̈ zum 65. Geburtstag (Hamburg: R. v. Decker, 1970), 149–159; von Weber, H., ‘Das interlokale Strafrecht’, DStR, 7 (1940), 182–192; Walter, T., ‘Einführung in das internationale Strafrecht’, JuS, 10 (2006), 870–873; Bibliography 61 Walther, S., ‘Terra Incognita – Wird staatliche internationale Strafgewalt den Menschen gerecht?’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 925–954; Wamser, I. K., ‘Der Geltungsbereich des deutschen StGB auf See auf der Grundlage des § 3 StGB’, StraFo, 7 (2010), 279–281; Wang, H. W., Der universale Strafanspruch des nationalen Staates – Eine Untersuchung über das Weltrechtsprinzip im Internationalen Strafrecht (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005); Waugaman, A., ‘Five Minutes with Luis Moreno–Ocampo – An Interview with the ICC Prosecu- tor’, IAR, 15 (2006), 2; WCRO, The Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court (Washington D. C.: American University, 2008) Wolswijk, H., ‘Country Report “the Netherlands”’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union,i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 329–367; Wong, C., Criminal Act, Criminal Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice (Krakow: Polpress, 2004); Wörner, L., and Wörner, M., ‘Deutschland’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzübers- chreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 203–261; Wouters, J. and Verhoeven, S., ‘Cases Identified for Investigation and Prosecution by the ICC’,in Ankumah, E. A. and Kwakwa, E. K., eds, African Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (Accra, Maastricht: Africa Legal Aid, 2005), 133–160; Yee, S., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – Concept, Logic, and Reality’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 503–530; Zappalá, S., ‘L’universalità della giurisdizione e la Corte Penale Internazionale’, in Cassese, Chia- vario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 549–559; Zhou, L., ‘Brief Analysis of a Few Controversial Issues in Contemporary International Criminal Law’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 21–53; Zhu, L., ‘Universal Jurisdiction before the United Nations General Assembly – Seeking Common Understanding under International Law’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 191–222; Ziegenhain, H. J., Exterritoriale Rechtsanwendung und die Bedeutung des Genuine–Link Erforder- nisses – eine Darstellung der deutschen und amerikanischen Staatenpraxis, (Munich: Beck, 1992); Zieher, W., Das sog. Internationale Strafrecht nach der Reform – Der Rechtsgrund bei Straftaten im Ausland nach §§ 5 und 6 StGB (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997); Zimmermann, A., ‘Die Schaffung eines ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes’, ZaöRV,58 (1998), 47–108; Zimmermann, A., ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Backwards? Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) and the Council’s Power to Refer Situations to the International Criminal Court’,in Dupuy, P.–M., Fassbender, B., Shaw, M N. and Sommermann, K.–P., eds, Völkerrecht als Wertordnung – Festschrift für Christian Tomuschat (Kehl: N. P. Engel, 2006), 681–700; Zimmermann, A., ‘Violations of Fundamental Norms of International Law and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J. M., eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order – Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), 335–353; Zimmermann, A., ‘Palestine and the ICC Quo Vadis?’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 303–329; Zimmermann, A., and Freiburg, E., ‘Article 15bis – Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression (State Referral, Proprio Motu)’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 741–764; Zimmermann, A., and Freiburg, E., ‘Article 15ter – Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression (Security Council Referral)’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 765–769; Zimmerman, D. and Klamberg, M., ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’,in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 175–180, accessed 18 December 2015; Zöller, M. A., ‘Die transnationale Geltung des Grundsatzes “ne bis in idem” nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon’, in Amelung, K., Günther, H. L. and Kühne, H. H., eds, Festschrift für Volker Krey zum Geburtstag am 9. Juli 2010 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 501–522. CHAPTER 4 Acquaviva, G., ‘Single and Bifurcated Trials’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 534–543; Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘A Model of International Judicial Administration? The Evolution of Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP, 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161; Ambach, P., ‘A Look towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt”’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1277–1295; Bibliography 63 Ambos, K., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor of an International Criminal Court from a Comparative Perspective’, The Review (IntComJur), 58/59 (1997), 45–56; Ambos, K., ‘The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court – A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports’, EJCCLCJ, 8 (2000), 89–118; Ambos, K., ‘Die Rolle des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, APuZ, 42 (2006), 10–17; Ambos, K., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the National and International Level – Between Justice and Realpolitik’, in Kaleck, W. et al., eds, International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2006), 55–68; Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure –“Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503; Ambos, K., ‘Confidential Investigations (Article 54 (3)(e) ICC Statute) vs. Disclosure Obligations – The Lubanga Case and National Law’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 543–568; Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC’, in Ambos, Large and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103; Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsrLR, 42 (2009), 362–397; Ambos, K., ‘The First Confirmation Decision of the International Criminal Court – Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Kotsalis, L., Courakis, N. and Mylonopoulos, C., eds, Essays in Honour of Argyrios Karras (Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2010), 979–1003; Ambos, K., ‘Das erste Urteil des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Prosecutor v. Lubanga) – Eine kritische Analyse der Rechtsfragen’, ZIS, 7 (2012), 313–337; Ambos, K., ‘Thematic Investigations and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes – Some Critical Comments from a Theoretical and Comparative Perspective’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 291–315; Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Procedural Regimes’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, International Prosecutors (2012), 488–541; Ambos, K. and Miller, D., ‘Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 335–360; Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court – Is There a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change,59 (2013), 415–437; Arsanjani, M. H., ‘The International Criminal Court and National Amnesty Laws’, in ASIL, Proceedings of the Ninety-Third Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Washigton DC: ASIL, 1999), 65–68; Arsanjani, M. H. and Reisman, W. M., ‘The Law-in-Action of the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403; Arzt, G., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die formelle Wahrheit’, in Arnold, J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 691–704; Bassiouni, M. C. and Manikas, P., The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1996); Behrens, H. J., ‘The Trial Proceedings’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 238–246; Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘El enjuicamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI (2003), 351–382; Bensouda, F., ‘The ICC-Statute – An Insider’s Perspective on a Sui Generis System for Global Justice’, NCJIL&ComReg, 36 (2010–2011), 277–285; Bensouda, F., ‘The Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes Policy Paper of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 327–354; Bergsmo, M. and Bekou O., ‘Article 53 – Initiation of an Investigation’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1365–1380; 64 Bibliography Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J and Zhu, D., ‘Article 15 – Prosecutor’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 725–740; Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J and Zhu, D., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 770–780; Bergsmo, M., Cissé, C. and Staker, C., ‘The Prosecutors of the International Tribunals – The Cases of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the ICTY and ICTR, and the ICC Compared’, in Arbour et al., The Prosecutor of a Permanent ICC (2000), 121–154; Bernaz, N., ‘Sentencing and Penalties’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 289–303; Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2015); Bitti, G., ‘Two Bones of Contention between Civil and Common Law – The Record of the Proceedings and the Treatment of a Concursus Delictorum’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 273–288; Bitti, G., ‘Article 21 and the Hierarchy of Sources of Law before the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 411–443; Bitti, G., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1588–1620; Bock, S., ‘Wiedergutmachung im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach Lubanga’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 297–321; Bohlander, M., ‘Radbruch Redux – The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Common and Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 24 (2011), 393–410; Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359; Brady, H. J., ‘Setting the Record Straight: A Short Note on Disclosure and the Record of the Proceedings’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 261–72; Broomhall, B., ‘Article 51 – Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen- tary (2016), 1332–1351; Brubacher, M. R., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion within the International Criminal Court’ JICJ, 2 (2004), 71–95; Buchan, R., ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 25 (2014), 465–503; Burens, L., ‘Plea Bargaining in International Criminal Tribunals’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 322–333; Burnham, M., ‘Fragmentation in International Criminal Law and the Rights of Victims’, in van den Herik, L., and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International Criminal Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 657–679; Byrne, R., ‘Drawing the Missing Map –What Socio-legal Research Can Offer to International Criminal Trial Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 991–1007; Carmichael Keen, P., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in Inter- national Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814; Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Standard of Proof Required to Issue an Arrest Warrant for Genocide’, Merkour- ios UJIEL, 27 (2011), 61–64; Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the charges before trial, The Rome Statute’,in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, accessed 7 January 2016; Cissé, A., ‘Article 51 – Règlement de procédure et de preuve’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 1139–1148; Coalition for the ICC, ‘Active Period for Pre-Trial Chamber on Congo Case’, Insight ICC, 5 (2005), 10; Combs, N. A., ‘Procuring Guilty Pleas for International Crimes – The Limited Influence of Sentence Discounts’, VanderbiltLR, 59 (2006), 67–151; Combs, N. A., Guilty Pleas in International Criminal Law – Constructing a Restorative Justice Approach (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007); Bibliography 65 Combs, N.A., Fact-Finding without Facts: the Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions (Cambridge: CUP, 2010); Combs, N. A., ‘Evidence’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 323–334; Combs, N. A., ‘Structure of Uncontested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 682–88; Combs, N. A., ‘Control over the Sequence of Case Presentation’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 734–743; Creta, V. M., ‘Search for Justice in the Former Yugoslavia and Beyond – Analyzing the Rights of the Accused under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, HoustonJIL, 20 (1998), 381–418; Cummings, L. P., ‘Can an Ethical Person be an Ethical Prosecutor? A Social Cognitive Approach to Systematic Reform’, CardozoLR, 31 (2009–2010), 2139–2159; Damaška, M. R., ‘Free Proof and its Detractors’, AJCompL, 43 (1995), 343–357; Damaška, M. R., Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997); Damaška, M. R., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365; Damaška, M. R., ‘Problematic Features of International Criminal Procedure’, in Cassese, Compan- ion (2009), 175–186; Damaška, M. R., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009) 19–35; Damaška, M. R., ‘Unacknowledged Presences in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012) 1239–56; Davies, M., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice – An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales (Harlow: Longman, 3rd edn, 2005); Davis, C., ‘Political Considerations in Prosecutorial Discretion at the ICC’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 170–189; De Beco, G., ‘The Confirmation of Charges before the International Criminal Court – Evaluation and First Application’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 469–481; De Hemptinne, J., ‘The Creation of Investigating Chambers at the International Criminal Court – An Option Worth Pursuing?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 402–18; De Hemptinne, J., and Rindi, F., ‘ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Allows Victims to Participate in the Investigation Phase of Proceedings’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 342–350; De Meester, K., Pitcher, K., Rastan, R. and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, and Surrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379; De Meester, K., ‘Aricle 53 – Initiation of an Investigation’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, accessed 7 January 2016; De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2015). De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Fact-finding Process of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440; De Smet, S., ‘The International Criminal Standard of Proof at the ICC – Beyond Reasonable Doubt or Beyond Reason?, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 861–890; De Vos, C. M., ‘Investigating from afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024; Deal, D., ‘Der strafprozessuale Vergleich’, StV, 2 (1982), 545–552; deGuzman, M., and Schabas, W. A., ‘Initiation of Investigation and Selection of Cases’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–169; Delmas-Marty, M., ‘La CPI et les interactions entre droit international penal et droit penal interne à la phase d’ouverture du process pénal’, RSC, 3 (2005), 473–482; Diggelmann, O., ‘Staatsverbrechen und international Justiz – Zur Einlösbarkeit der Erwartungen an internationale Straftribunale’, AVR, 45 (2007), 382–399; Doherty, T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945; 66 Bibliography Donat-Cattin, D., ‘Article 75 – Reparations to Victims’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1853–1870; Dugard, J., ‘Possible Conflicts of Jurisdiction with Truth Commissions’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, i (2002), 693–704; Dugard, J., ‘Dealing with Crimes of a Past Regime – Is Amnesty Still an Option?’, LJIL, 12 (1999), 1001–1015; Dumbryte, A., ‘The Roads to Freedom – Interim Release in the Practice of the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1063–1083; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Test of the Complementarity Principle – An Assessment of the First State’s Party Referral to the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 83–120; El Zeidy, M., ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest Warrant Proceedings before the ICC’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 741–751; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the ICC’, CLF, 19 (2008), 35–57; Eser, A., ‘Vorzugswürdigkeit des adversatorischen Prozesssystems in der internationalen Strafjus- tiz? Reflektionen eines Richters’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung – Zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 167–188; Fairlie, M. A., ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and its Progeny, Due Process Deficit’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 243–319; Fairlie, M. A., ‘Alternate Judges as Sine Qua Nons for International Criminal Trials’, VanderbiltJTL, 48 (2015), 67–122; Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘The Process of Negotiations’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 217–226; Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘Elaboration of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 235–257; FIDH, ‘Justice at Risk – States Parties to the ICC Statute Concede to Political Pressure’,28 November 2013, Gavron, J., ‘Amnesties in the Light of Developments in International Law and the Establishment of the International Criminal Court’, ICLQ, 51 (2002), 91–117; Gibson, K. and Rudy, D., ‘A New Model of International Criminal Procedure? – The Progress of the Duch Trial at the ECCC’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 1005–1022; Goldston, J. A., ‘More Candour about Criteria – The Exercise of Discretion by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 383–406; Goldstone, R. J. and Fritz, N., ‘In the Interests of Justice and Independent Referral – The ICC Prosecutor’s Unprecedented Powers’, LJIL, 13 (2000), 655–667; Gómez Colomer, J. L., ‘La investigación del crimen den el proceso penal ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI (2003), 227–324; Gordon, G. S., ‘Toward an International Criminal Procedure – Due Process Aspirations and Limitations’, ColJTransnat’lL, 45 (2007), 635–710; Gropengießer, H. and Meißner, J., ‘Amnesties and the Rome Statute of the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 267–300; Guariglia, F., ‘Investigation and Prosecution’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 227–238; Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court – A New Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133; Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–218; Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the PTC in Relation to a Unique Investigative Opportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420; Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 57 – Functions and Powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1421–1436; Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 65 – Proceedings on an Admission of Guilt’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1621–1634; Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364; Hager, G., Rechtsmethoden in Europa (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Hall, C. K. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 58 – Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a Warrant of Arrest or a Summons to Appear’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1437–1457; Hall, C. K. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 59 – Arrest Proceedings in the Custodial State’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1458–1471; Harmon, M. B., ‘The Pre-trial Process at the ICTY as a Means of Ensuring Expeditious Trials – A Potential Unrealized’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 377–393; Harmon, M., ‘Plea-Bargaining - The Uninvited Guest at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 163–182; Harmon, M. B. and Gaynor, F., ‘Editor’s Choice – Ordinary Sentences for Extraordinary Crimes’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 683–712; Hayes, N., ‘La Lutte Continue – Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Violence at the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 801–839; Heller, K. J., ‘Will the New RPE 134 Provisions Survive Judicial Review? (Probably Not.)’, Opinio Juris, 28 November 2013 (http://opiniojuris.org/2013/11/28/will-new-rpe-134-provisions- survive-judicial-review/, accessed 26 August 2015); Heller, K. J., ‘“A Stick to Hit the Accused With”–The Legal Recharacterizaton of Facts under Regulation 55’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 981–1006; Heller, K.J., ‘The Ruto Trial Chamber invents the mistrial without prejudice’, Opinio Juris, 28 April 2016 (http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/08/the-icc-invents-the-possibility-of-a-mistrial/, accessed 11 April 2016); Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre-trial Proceedings – The Future of International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401; 68 Bibliography Hoffmeister, F. and Knoke, S., ‘Das Vorermittlungsverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafger- ichtshof ̶Prüfstein für die Effektivität der neuen Gerichtsbarkeit im Völkerstrafrecht, ZaöRV,59 (1999), 785–808; Human Rights Watch, Policy Paper – The Meaning of the ‘Interests of Justice’ in Article 53 of the Rome Statute (June 2005) Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 109–124; Klinkner, M., ‘Is All Fair in Love and War Crimes Trials? Regulation 55 and the Katanga Case’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 396–410; Kramer, E. A., Juristische Methodenlehre (München, Wien, Bern: C.H. Beck, Manz, Stämpfli, 2013); Kreß, C., ‘Witnesses in Proceedings before the ICC – An Analysis from a Perspective of Compara- tive Criminal Procedure’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 309–383; Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617; Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/ Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1; Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum Internatonalen Strafgericht- shof ’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259; Kwon, O., ‘Editor’s Choice – The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 360–376; Langbein, J., ‘Land without Plea Bargaining – How the Germans do it’, MichLR, 78 (1979), 204–225; Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in ICL’, AJCompL, 53 (2005), 835–909; Langer, M., and Doherty, J. W., ‘Managerial Judging Goes International, but its Promise Remains Unfulfilled – An Empirical Assessment of the ICTY Reforms’, YaleJIL, 36 (2011), 241–305; Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: The Interplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International Criminal Law’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314; Lewis, P., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC – Confirmation Hearing to Trial’,in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 219–234; Lewis, P., ‘Trial Procedure’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 539–553; Lindenmann, J., ‘Stärkung der Effizienz der Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 529–531; Linderfalk, U., On the Interpretation of Treaties (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007); Linton, S., ‘Joinder and Severance’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 491–533; Llobet Rodríguez, J., Die Unschuldsvermutung und die materiellen Voraussetzungen der Untersu- chungshaft – Ein Beitrag zur Strafprozeßreform in Lateinamerika (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max- Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, 1995); Llobet Rodríguez, J., La prisión preventiva – Límites constitucionales (San José: Editorial Jurídica Continental, 2010, 3rd edn, 2010); Lorenz, S., ‘Die Beweisaufnahme in Internationalen Strafgerichten’, in Kühne, Esser, and Gerding, Völkerstrafrecht (2007), 319–340; Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en œvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Cour pénale internationale’, in Kolb, Droit international pénal (2008), 267–309; Mochochoko, P., ‘The Experience of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Concerning Arrest Strategies and Lessons Learnt for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 71–89; Maffei, S., ‘Negotiations “on Evidence” and Negotiations “on Sentence”–Adversarial Experiments in Italian Criminal Procedure’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 1050–1069; Majola, B. C., ‘Cumulative Charges under International Criminal Law’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 201–221; Manirabona, A., M., and Wemmers, J.-A., ‘Specific Reparation for Specific Victimization – A Case for Suitable Reparation Strategies for War Crimes Victims in the DRC’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 977–1012; Marchesiello, M., ‘Proceedings Before the Pre-Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute,ii (2002), 1231–1246; Mariniello, T., ‘Questioning the Standard of Proof – The Purpose of the ICC Confirmation of Charges’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 579–599; 70 Bibliography Marsh, I., Criminal Justice – An Introduction to Philosophies, Theories and Practice (London, New York: Routledge, 2004); Mathias, E., ‘The Balance of Power between the Police and the Public Prosecutor’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002), 459–487; May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Trends in International Criminal Evidence – Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, and Arusha’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37 (1999), 725–765; McCarthy, C., ‘Victim Redress and International Criminal Justice – Competing Paradigms, or Compatible Forms of Justice?’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 351–372; Meernik, J., ‘What Kind of Bargain is a Plea?’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 200–217; Mégret, F., ‘Beyond “Fairness”–Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Procedure’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 69–76; Mégret, F., ‘What Sort of Global Justice is ‘International Criminal Justice?’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 77–96; Mégret, F., ‘The Anxieties of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 29 (2016), 197–221; Meyer, F., ‘Complementing Complementarity’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 549–583; Miraglia, M., ‘Admissibility of Evidence, Standard of Proof, and Nature of the Decision in the ICC Confirmation of Charges in Lubanga’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 489–503; Mouthaan, S., ‘The Prosecution of Gender-based Crimes at the ICC – Challenges and Opportun- ities’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 775–802; Möller, C., ‘Das Vorverfahren im Strafprozess vor dem Internationalen Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 19–52; Nemitz, J. C., ‘Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts’,in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 53–73; Nerlich, V., ‘The Confirmation of Charges Procedure at the International Criminal Court – Advance or Failure?’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 1339–1356; Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion before National Courts and International Tribu- nals’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 124–144; Nyawo, J., ‘International Justice in Africa – Recent Developments at the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), African Union (AU) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)’, Newsletter SupraCrim, 8 (2013), 7–8 ( Planchadell Gargallo, A., ‘El Fiscal ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI (2003), 163–188; Quattrocolo, S., ‘La fase preliminare al giudizio davanti alla C.P.I. – I soggetti coinvolti e il meccanismo di esercizio dell’azione penale’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 275–322; Ramsden, M. and Chung, C., ‘“Reasonable Grounds to Believe”–An Unreasonably Unclear Evidentiary Threshold in the ICC Statute’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 555–577; Rastan, R., ‘Testing Co-operation – The International Criminal Court and National Authorities’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 431–456; Rastan, R., ‘The Jurisdictional Scope of Situations before the International Criminal Court’, CLF,23 (2012), 1–34; Rauxloh, R. E., ‘Negotiated History – The Historical Record in International Criminal Law and Plea Bargaining’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 739–770; Razesberger, F., The International Criminal Court – The Principle of Complementarity (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006); Reisert, G., ‘Der Beginn der Ermittlungen am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, StV, 25 (2005), 637–639; Roberts, P., ‘The priority of procedure and the neglect of evidence and proof ’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 479–506; Robinson, D., ‘Serving the Interests of Justice – Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the Inter- national Criminal Court’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 481–505; Robinson, D., ‘Comments on Chapter 4 of Claudia Cárdenas Aravena’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds, Complementary Views on Complementarity – Proceedings of the International Round- table on the Complementary Nature of the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam 25/26 June 2004 (The Hague: Asser Press, 2006), 141–146; Robinson, D., ‘Inescapable Dyads – Why the ICC Cannot Win’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 323–347; Rodman, K., ‘Is Peace in the Interest of Justice? The Case for Broad Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 99–126; Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364; Rohrer, S., Legalitäts- oder Opportunitätsprinzip beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Köln: Heymann, 2010); SáCouto, S. and Cleary Thompson, K., ‘Investigative Management, Strategies, and Techniques of the ICC’s OTP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 328–349; Sadat, L. N. and Carden, S. R., ‘The New International Criminal Court – An Uneasy Revolution’, GeoLJ, 88 (2000), 381–459; Safferling, C. J. M., and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen – Entwicklung in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794; Safferling, C. J. M., ‘The Rights and Interests of the Defence in the Pre-Trial Phase’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 651–667; Sainati, T. E., ‘Divided We Fall: How the International Criminal Court Can Promote Compliance with International Law by Working with Regional Courts’, VanderbiltJTL, 49 (2016), 191–243; Schabas, W. A., ‘Complementarity in Practice – Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’, CLF,19 (2008), 5–33; Schabas, W. A., ‘Victor’s Justice – Selecting “Situations” at the International Criminal Court’, JMarshallLR, 43 (2010), 535–552; Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Situations and Cases’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 365–381; Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 58–70; Schabas, W.A., ‘The mistrial, an innovation in international criminal law’, 8 April 2016, (http:// humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-mistrial-innovation-in.html, accessed 10 April 2016); 72 Bibliography Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649; Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1650–1680; Schabas, W. A., Chaitidou, E. and El Zeidy, M., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the Charges before Trial’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1484–1549; Scharf, M., ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’, CornILJ, 32 (1999), 507–527; Scharf, M. P., ‘Trading Justice for Efficiency – Plea-Bargaining and International Tribunals’, JICJ,2 (2004), 1070–1081; Scheffer, D., ‘A Review of the Experiences of the Pre-Trial and Appeals Chambers of the Inter- national Criminal Court Regarding the Disclosure of Evidence’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 151–164; Schehr, R., ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes: Intellectual Dishonesty and the Unconstitutionality of Plea-Bargaining’, Tex. A&M L. R., 2 (2015), 385–432; Seibert-Fohr, A., ‘The Relevance of the Rome Statute of the ICC for Amnesties and Truth Commissions’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 553–590; Seils, P. and Wierda, M., The International Criminal Court and Conflict Mediation (New York: International Center for Transitional Justice, 2005); Sluiter, G., ‘The Laws of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Criminal Trials’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 605–635; Sluiter, G., ‘Human Rights Protection in the ICC Pre-Trial Phase’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 459–475; Sluiter, G., ‘Trends in the Development of a Unified Law of International Criminal Procedure’,in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 585–599; Spencer, J. R., ‘Introduction’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002), 1–75; Spencer, J. R., ‘The English System’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002), 142–217; Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice – Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 695–720; Stahn, C., ‘Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System – A Portrayal of Regulation 55’, CLF, 16 (2005), 1–31; Stahn, C., ‘Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion – Five Years on’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 247–279; Stahn, C., ‘Justice Delivered or Justice Denied? – The Legacy of the Katanga Judgment’, JICJ,12 (2014), 809–834; Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1963–1983; Staker, C. and Jacobs, D., ‘Article 52 – Regulations of the Court’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1356–1368; Stegmiller, I., ‘The ICC and Mali – Towards more Transparency in International Criminal Law Investigations’, CLF, 24 (2013), 475–499; Stegmiller, I., ‘Confirmation of Charges’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 891–908; Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Cumulative Charges and Cumulative Convictions’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 840–858; Swart, B., ‘Damaška and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114; Tallgren, I., ‘The Voice of the International – Who is Speaking?’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 135–155; Terrier, F., ‘The Procedure before the Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1277–1318; Terrill, R. J., World Criminal Justice Systems – A Comparative Survey (New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, 7th edn 2009); Thalmann, V., ‘The Role of the Judge and the Parties in Pre-Trial Proceedings’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 455–481; Bibliography 73 Tieger, A. and Shin, M., ‘Plea Agreements in the ICTY – Purpose, Effects and Propriety’, JICJ,3 (2005), 666–679; Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591; Tochilovsky, V., ‘International Criminal Justice – Strangers in the Foreign System’, CLF, 15 (2004), 319–344; Trendafilova, E., ‘Fairness and Expeditiousness in the International Criminal Court’s Pre-Trial Proceedings’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 441–457; Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1820–1845; Trüg, G., ‘Erkenntnisse aus der Untersuchung des US-amerikanischen plea bargaining-Systems für den deutschen Absprachendiskurs’, ZStW, 120 (2008), 331–374; Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85; Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2009); Tulkens, F., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002), 641–687; Turner, J. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1375–1413; Turone, G., ‘Powers and Duties of the Prosecutor’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1137–1180; Uertz-Retzlaff, H., ‘Zwanzig Jahre in Den Haag – Erfahrungen einer Staatsanwältin’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 532–536; Valiñas, M., ‘Interpreting Complementarity and Interests of Justice in the Presence of Restorative- based Alternative Forms of Justice’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 267–288; van der Voort, K. and Zwanenburg, M., ‘From ‘Raison d’État’ to ‘État de Droit International’– Amnesties and the French Implementation of the Rome Statute’, ICLR, 1 (2001), 315–342; van Heeck, S., Die Weiterentwicklung des formellen Völkerstrafrechts – Von den ad hoc Tribunalen der Vereinten Nationen zum ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof unter besonderer Ber- ücksichtigung des Ermittlungsverfahrens (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006); van Kessel, G., ‘Adversary Excesses in the American Trial’, NotreDameLR, 67 (1991–1992), 403–551; Vasiliev, S., ‘Trial’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, International Prosecutors (2012), 700–796; Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 543–682; Vinjamuri, L., ‘The ICC and the Politics of Peace and Justice’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 13–29; Vohrah, L. C., ‘Pre-Trial Procedures and Practices’, in McDonald and Swaak-Goldman, Substantive and Procedural Aspects (2000), 485–545; Wasef, M., ‘Procedural Rules in International Litigation – Admissibility of Transcript of Interview of Accused against Co-accused’, CLF, 20 (2009), 447–469; WCRO, Regulation 55 and the Rights of the Accused at the ICC (Washington D. C.: American University, 2013) https://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/Report17.pdf accessed 27 August 2015; WCRO, The Confirmation of Charges Process at the International Criminal Court – A Critical Assessment and Recommendations for Change (Washington D. C.: American University, 2015) https://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/ documents/TheConfirmationofChargesProcessattheInternationalCriminalCourt- ACriticalAssessmentandRecomme.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016; Weigend, T. and Turner, J., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’, GermanLJ, 15 (2014), 81–105; 74 Bibliography Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’sOffice of the Prosecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 273–318; Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’sOffice of the Prosecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability?’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 345–386; Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007); Whiting, A, ‘Dynamic Investigative Practice at the ICC’, LCP, 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 163–189; Zakerhossein, M. H. and de Brouwer, A.-M., ‘Diverse Approaches to Total and Partial in Absentia Trials by International Criminal Tribunals’, CLF, 26 (2015), 181–224; Zappalà, S., ‘Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint in International Criminal Justice’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 216–223; Zawati, H. M., Fair Labelling and the Dilemma of Prosecuting Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Tribunals (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). CHAPTER 5 Abrahamson, W., Dwyer, J. B. and Fitzpatrick, A., Discovery and Disclosure (Dublin: Thomson Reuters, 2nd edn, 2013) Acquaviva, G. and Heikkilä, M., ‘Protective and Special Measures for Witnesses’, in Sluiter, et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 818–859 Acquaviva, G. et al., ‘Trial Process’, in Sluiter, G. et al., eds., International Criminal Procedure- Rules and Principles (2013), 489–878 AIDP, ‘Resolutionen des XIX. Internationalen Strafrechtskongresses der AIDP 2014’, ZStW, 127 (2015), 479–495 Alexis, A., ‘The Convergence of the Common Law and Inquisitorial Systems’, in Decaux, E., Dieng, A. and Sow, M., eds., From Human Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), 461–481 Ambach, P., ‘A Look towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt”’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1277–1295 Ambos, K., ‘The Right of Non-Self-Incrimination of Witnesses before the ICC’, LJIL, 15 (2002), 155–177 Ambos, K., ‘Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und die Verfahrensrechte – Waf- fengleichheit, partizipatorisches Vorverfahren und Art.6 EMRK’, ZStW, 115 (2003), 583–637 Ambos, K., ‘International Criminal Procedure –“Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’, ICLR,3 (2003), 1–37 Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure – Adversarial, Inquisitorial or Mixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–504 Ambos, K. and Miller, D., ‘Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 335–360 Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsLR, 42 (2009), 362–397 Ambos, K., ’Confidential Investigations (Article 54(3)(E) ICC Statute) v. Disclosure Obligations: The Lubanga Case and National Law’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 543–568 Ambos, K., ‘“Witness Proofing” before the ICC – Neither Legally Admissible nor Necessary’,in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 599–614 Ambos, K., Beweisverwertungsverbote – Grundlagen und Kasuistik – Internationale Bezüge – Ausgewählte Probleme (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2010) Ambos, K., ‘The First Confirmation Decision of the International Criminal Court – Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Kotsalis, L., Courakis, N. and Mylonopoulos, C., eds, Essays in Honour of Argyrios Karras (Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2010), 979–1003 Ambos, K., ‘Witness Proofing’ before the International Criminal Court – A Reply to Karemaker, Taylor, and Pittman’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 911–916 Bibliography 75 Ambos, K., ‘International Courts and Their Judges – Reviewing R. Mackenzie/K. Malleson/ P. Martin/P. Sands, Selecting International Judges – Principle, Process and Politics’, CLF 23 (2012), 223–228 Ambos, K., ‘The First Judgment of the ICC (Prosecutor v Lubanga) – A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 115–153 Ambos, K., ‘Das erste Urteil des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Prosecutor v. Lubanga)’, ZIS,7 (2012), 313–337 Ambos, K., ‘Thematic Investigations and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes – Some Critical Comments from a Theoretical and Comparative Perspective’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 291–315 Ambos, K., ‘Karadzic’s Genocidal Intent as the “Only Reasonable Inference”?’, EJIL: Talk, 1 April 2016, available at Brown, D. K., ‘The Decline of Defense Counsel and the Rise of Accuracy in Criminal Adjudication’, CalLR, 93 (2005), 1585–1646 Broun, K. S, McCormick on Evidence (St. Paul: West Academic, 7th edn, 2014) Burkoff, J. M., ‘Exclusionary Rules’, in Kadish, S. H., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, ii (New York: Free Press, MacMillan, 1983), 715–724 Byrne, R., ‘Drawing the Missing Map – What Socio-Legal Research Can Offer to International Criminal Trial Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 991–1007 Caianiello, M., ‘Indeterminatezza delle fattispecie e ruolo creativo del giudice in tema di ammis- sione ed acquisizione della prova nel processo penale davanti alla Corte penale internazionale’,in Delmas-Marty, M., Fronza, E. and Lambert-Abdelgawad, É., eds, Les sources du droit inter- national pénal – L’expérience des Tribunaux Pénaux Internationaux et le Statut de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Paris: Société de Législation Comparée, 2004), 339–352 Caianiello, M., ‘Disclosure before the ICC: The Emergence of a new Form of Policies Implemen- tation System in International Criminal Justice?’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 23–42 Caianiello, M., ‘First Decisions on Admission of Evidence at ICC Trials – A Blending of Accusa- torial and Inquisitorial Models?’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 385–410 Capra, D. J., ‘Access to Exculpatory Evidence – Avoiding the Agurs Problems of Prosecutorial Discretion and Retrospective Review’, FordhamLR, 53 (1984–1985), 391–448 Combs, N. A., Fact-Finding without Facts – The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) Combs, N. A., ‘Evidence’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 323–334 Combs, N. A., ‘Control over the Sequence of Case Presentation’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 734–743 Combs, N. A., ‘Fact-Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 698–733 Combs, N. A., ‘A new look at fact-finding at the ICTR: Advances in judicial acknowledgement’, CLF, 26 (2015), 387–401 Creta, V. M., ‘Search for Justice in the Former Yugoslavia and Beyond: Analyzing the Rights of the Accused under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Hous. J. Int’lL., 20 (1998), 381–418 Croquet, N., ‘Implied External Limitations on the Right to Cross-Examine Prosecution Witnesses’, Melbourne JIL, 11 (2010), 27–67 Cryer, R., ‘Witness Tampering and International Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 27 (2014), 191–203 Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice (New Haven: YUP 1986) Damaška, M. R., ‘The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants – Anglo-American and Contin- ental Experiments’, AJCL, 45 (1997), 839–852 Damaška, M. R., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–368 Damaška, M. R., ‘Problematic Features of International Criminal Procedures’, in Cassese, Com- panion (2009), 175–186 Damaška, M. R., ‘Reflections on Fairness in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 611–620 de Brouwer, A.-M., ‘The Problem of Witness Interference before International Criminal Tribunals’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 700–732 De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Factfinding Process of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440 De Smet, S., ‘The International Criminal Standard of Proof at the ICC – Beyond Reasonable Doubt or Beyond Reason?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 861–890 Defrancia, C., ‘Due Process in International Criminal Courts – Why Procedure Matters’, Virgi- niaLRev, 87 (2001), 1381–1440 De Guzman, M. M., ‘Article 21 – Applicable law’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 932–948 Bibliography 77 Del Carpio, J., ‘Los testigos anónimos en la jurisprudencia des Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y en la de los Tribunales Penales Internationales ad-hoc’,RP, 19 (2007), 35–51 Dennis, I. H., ‘Witness anonymity in the criminal process’, in Chalmers, J. et al., eds., Essays in Criminal Law in Honour of Sir Gerald Gordon (2010), 241–263 Dennis, I. H., The Law of Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 2010) De Vos, C. M., ‘Investigating from afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024 Dixon, R., ‘Developing International Rules of Evidence for the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals’, Transnat’lLCP, 7 (1997), 81–102 Doherty, J. T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945 Donat-Cattin, D., ‘Article 68 – Protection of victims and witnesses and their participation in the proceedings’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1681–1711 Dubuisson, M., Betrand, A.-A. and Schauder, N., ‘Contribution of the Registry to Greater Respect for the Principles of Fairness and Expeditious Proceedings before the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 565–584 Emson, R., Evidence, 5th ed (New York et al.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Ernst, A., The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence (Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2015) Eser, A., ‘Vorzugswürdigkeit des adversatorischen Prozesssystems in der internationalen Strafjus- tiz? Reflektion eines Richters’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung – Zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 167–187 Eser, A., ‘The “Adversarial” Procedure – A Model Superior to Other Trial Systems in International Criminal Justice?’, in Kruessmann, T., ed, ICTY – Towards a Fair Trial? (Mortsel, Wien.: Intersentia, Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2008), 207–227 Fairlie, M., ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and its Progeny, Due Process Deficit’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 243–319 Fedorova, M., The Principle of Equality of Arms in International Criminal Proceedings (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia 2012) Fernández, S. and Friman, H., ‘The Rules of Procedure and the Regulations of the Court’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 797–824 Fidalgo Gallardo, C., Las ‘pruebas ilegales’ – De la exclusionary rule estadounidense al artículo11.1 LOPJ (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2003) Freedman, M. H., ‘Our Constitutionalized Adversary System’, ChapmanLR, 1 (1998), 57–90 Friman, H., ‘International Criminal Procedures – Trial and Appeal Procedures’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 271–288 Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481 Friman, H., ‘Trial Procedures – With a Particular Focus on the Relationship between the Proceed- ings of the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 909–931 Frisch, W., ‘Freie Beweiswürdigung und Beweismaßstab – Historische und erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagen’, in Bruns, A. et al., eds, Festschrift für Rolf Stürner zum 70. Geburtstag,i:Deutsches Recht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 849–874 Gallmetzer, R., ‘The TC’s Discretionary Power to Devise the Proceedings before It and Its Exercise in the Trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 501–524 Gaynor, F., ‘Admissibility of Documentary Evidence’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1044–1083 Gaynor, F., ‘Judicial Notice and Agreed Facts’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1107–1128 Gibson, K. and Rudy, D., ‘A New Model of International Criminal Procedure? – The Progress of the Duch Trial at the ECCC’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 1005–1022 Gibson, B. and Cavadino, P., The Criminal Justice System (Hampshire: Waterside Press, 3rd ed 2008) 78 Bibliography Gleß, S. Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006) Glover, R., Murphy on Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13th edn, 2013) Gómez Colomer, J. L. and Beltrán, A., ‘La regulación de la prueba en el proceso penal ante la CPI‘, in Gómez Colomer, J. L. et al., La CPI (2002), 325–350 Goodpaster, G., ‘On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial’, JCL&Crim,78 (1987–1988), 118–154 Groenhuijsen, M. S. and Selçuk, H., ‘The Principle of Immediacy in Dutch Criminal Procedure in the Perspective of European Human Rights Law’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 248–276 Guariglia, F., ‘The Admission of Documentary Evidence and of Alternative Means to Witness Testimony etc.’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 665–680 Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court: A New Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133 Guariglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the PTC in Relation to a Unique Investigative Opportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420 Harmon, M. B. and Karagiannakis, M., ‘The Disclosure of Exculpatory Material by the Prosecution to the Defence under Rule 68 of the ICTY Rules‘, in May, R., et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence (2001), 315–328 Harmon, M. B., ‘The Pre-Trial Process at the ICTY as a Means of Ensuring Expeditious Trials – A Potential Unrealized’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 377–393 Haslam, E. and Edmunds, R., ‘Managing a New “Partnership”‘, CLF, 24 (2013), 49–85 Heinsch, R., ‘How to Achieve Fair and Expeditious Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 479–500 Heinze, A., ‘Tor zu einer anderen Welt. Die systematische Auslegungsmethode im internationalen Strafprozessrecht’, in Bock, S., Harrendorf, S. and Ladiges, M., eds., Strafrecht als interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2015), 193–214 Henham, R., ‘Towards Restorative Sentencing in International Criminal Trials’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 809–832 Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre-trial Proceedings: The Future of International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401 Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und Civil Law (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005) ICRC, ‘The ICRC’s privilege of non-disclosure of confidential information’, IRRC, 97 (2015), 433–444 Jackson, J., ‘Faces of Transnational Justice – Two Attempts to Build Common Standards Beyond National Boundaries’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P., eds, Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context – Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2008), 221–250 Jackson, J., ‘Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for the International Criminal Tribunals – Beyond the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 17–39 Jackson, J. and Brunger, Y. M., ‘Witness Preparation in the ICC’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 601–624 Jackson, J. and M’Boge, Y., ‘The Effect of Legal Culture on the Development of International Evidentiary Practice – From the “Robing Room” to the “Melting Pot”’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 947–970 Jacobs, D., ‘Standard of Proof and Burden of Proof ’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1128–1149 Jalloh, C. C. and DiBella, A., ‘Equality of Arms in International Criminal Law: Continuing Challenges‘, in Schabas, W., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N., eds., ICL: Critical Perspectives (2013), 251–288 James, G. F., ‘Relevancy, Probability and the Law’, CalLR, 29 (1941), 689–705 Johnson, L. D., ‘The Lubanga Case and Cooperation between the UN and the ICC – Disclosure Obligation v. Confidentiality Obligation’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 887–904 Jones, J.R.W.D. and Powles, S., International Criminal Practice (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2003) Bibliography 79 Jordash, W., ‘The Practice of “Witness Proofing” in International Criminal Tribunals – Why the International Criminal Court Should Prohibit the Practice’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 501–523 Karemaker, R., Taylor, B. D. and Pittman, T. W., ‘Witness Proofing in International Criminal Tribunals – A Critical Analysis of Widening Procedural Divergence’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 683–698 Karemaker, R., Taylor, B. D. and Pittman, T. W., ‘Witness Proofing in International Criminal Tribunals: Response to Ambos’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 917–923 Katzman, R., ‘The Non-Disclosure of Confidential Exculpatory Evidence and the Lubanga Pro- ceedings: How the ICC Defense System Affects the Accused’s Right to a Fair Trial’, NWUJIHR,8 (2009), 77–101 Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814 Keita, X.-J. et al., ‘Article 67 – Droits de l’accusé’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,ii (2012), 1497–1543 Khan, K. A. A. and Buisman, C., ‘Sitting on Evidence? Systemic Failings in the ICC Disclosure Regime – Time for Reform’, in Stahn, ed., Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1029–1062 Kirsch, S., ‘Verteidigung in Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien’, StV, 23 (2003), 636–640 Kirsch, S., ‘The Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 275–292 Klamberg, M., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, accessed at https:// www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome- statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-6/#c2147 Klamberg, M., ‘General Requirements for the Admission of Evidence’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1016–1043 Klamberg, ‘The Alternative Hypothesis Approach, Robustness and International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 535–553 Klip, A., ‘Confidentiality Restrictions’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 645–660 Kochhar, S. and Hieramente, M., ‘Of Fallen Demons: Reflections on the International Criminal Court’s Defendant’, LJIL, 29 (2016), 223–44 Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617 Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum IStGH’, in Kirsch, Inter- nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–260 Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Article 93 – Other forms of cooperation’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2078–2102 Kurth, M. E., ‘Anonymous witnesses before the ICC‘, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G., The Emerging Practice of the ICC (2009), 615–634 Kuschnik, B., ‘International Criminal Due Process in the Making: New Tendencies in the Law of Non-Disclosure in the Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 157–185 Kwon, O.-G, ‘Editor’s Choice – The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 360–376 Lachowska, A., ‘The Support Work of the Court’s Registry’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 387–400 Langer, M., ‘El Sistema del Tribunal Gerencial en el Tribunal Penal Internacional para la ex- Yugoslavia’, in Baigún, D. et al., eds, Estudios sobre la Justicia Penal – Homenaje al Profesor Julio B. J. Maier (Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2005), 671–698 Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005), 835–910 Langer, M., and Doherty, J. W., ‘Managerial Judging Goes International, but Its Promise Remains Unfulfilled – An Empirical Assessment of the ICTY Reforms’, YaleJIL, 36 (2011), 241–305 Leblois-Happe, J., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im französischen Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 185–193 Leigh, M., ‘Editorial Comments’, AJIL, 91 (1997), 60–84 80 Bibliography Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: The Interplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International Criminal Law’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314 Lewis, P., ‘Trial Procedure’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 539–554 Lindenmann, J., ‘Stärkung der Effizienz der Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 529–531 Linton, S., ‘Testimony of Expert Witnesses, Journalists, ICRC, and UN staff ’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 878–938 Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en oeuvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Cour pénale internationale‘, in Kolb, R., Droit international pénal (2007), 267–309 Luban, D., The Good Lawyer – Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983) Lusty, D., ‘Anonymous Accusers: An Historical & Comparative Analysis of Secret Witnesses in Criminal Trials’, Syd LR, 24 (2002), 361–426 Marchesiello, M., in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1231–1246 May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Trends in International Criminal Evidence – Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, and Arusha – Essays on the Laws of War and War Crimes Tribunals in Honor of Teleford Taylor’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37 (1999), 725–766 May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Evidence before the ICTY’, in May, R., et al., eds, Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2001), 249–262 May, R. and Wierda, M., International Criminal Evidence (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2002) McCord, J. W. and McCord, S. L., Criminal Law and Procedure for the Paralegal – A System’s Approach (Clifton Park/New York: Cengage Learning, 3rd edn, 2006) McDermott, Y., ‘Regular Witness Testimony’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 859–878 McDermott, Y., ‘The Admissibility and Weight of Written Witness Testimony in International Criminal Law – A Socio-Legal Analysis’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 971–989 McDermott, Y., ‘Inferential Reasoning and Proof in International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 507–533 McDermott, Y., ‘The ICTR’s fact-finding legacy: Lessons for the future of proof in international criminal trials’, CLF, 26 (2015), 351–372 McIntyre, G., ‘Equality of Arms – Defining Human Rights in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, LJIL, 16 (2003), 269–320 Mégret, F., ‘Beyond Fairness – Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Proced- ure’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 37–76 Mégret, F., ‘Accountability and Ethics’, in Reydams, L., Wouters, J. and Ryngaert, C., eds., International Prosecutors (2012), 416–487 Möller, C., ‘Das Vorverfahren im Strafprozess vor dem Internationalen Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien‘, in Kirsch, S., Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 19–52 Moranchek, L., ‘Protecting National Security Evidence While Prosecuting War Crimes – Problems and lessons for the International Justice from the ICTY’, YaleJIL, 31 (2006), 477–502 Morrissey, P., ‘Applied Rights in International Criminal Law: Defence Counsel and the Right to Disclosure’, in Boas, G., Schabas, W. and Scharf, M., eds., ICJ (2012), 68–104 Mosteller R. P., ‘Discovery’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (New York et al.: MacMillan, 2nd ed 2002), 531–540 Mumba, F., ‘Ensuring a Fair Trial while Protecting Victims and Witnesses - Balancing of Interests?‘, in May, R. et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence (2001), 359–372 Murphy, P., ‘Excluding Justice or Facilitating Justice? – ICL Would Benefit from Rules of Evidence’, IJEP, 12 (2008), 1–31 Murphy, P., ‘No Free Lunch, No Free Proof – The Indiscriminate Admission of Evidence is a Serious Flaw in International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 8 (2010) 539–573 Nahamya, E. and Diarra, R., ’Disclosure of Evidence before the ICTR’, CLF, 13 (2002), 339–363 Bibliography 81 Negri, D., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip in der italienischen Strafprozessordnung – Kulturelle Hintergründe, Umwege der Rechtsprechung, verfassungsrechtliche Ergebnisse’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 214 -238 Nemitz, J. C., ‘Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts’,in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 53–74 Nerlich, V., ‘The Confirmation of Charges Procedure at the International Criminal Court’, JICJ,10 (2012), 1339–1356 Nerlich, V., ‘Daring Diversity – Why There Is Nothing Wrong with “Fragmentation” in Inter- national Criminal Procedure’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 777–781 Nice, C. and Vallières-Roland, P., ‘Procedural Innovations in War Crimes Trials’, in Abtahi, H. and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden, Bioston: Mrtinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 141–168 Nice, C. and Vallières-Roland, P., ‘Procedural Innovations in War Crimes Trials’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 354–380 Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, CLF, 5 (1994), 507–555 O’Sullivan, E. and Montgomery, D., ‘The Erosion of the Right to Confrontation under the Cloak of Fairness at the ICTY’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 511–538 Öberg, M. D., ‘Processing Evidence and Drafting Judgments in International Criminal Trial Chambers’, CLF, 24 (2013), 113–144 Olásolo, H. et al., Assessing the Role of the Independent Oversight Mechanism in Enhancing the Efficiency and the Economy of the ICC (2011) Orie, A. M., ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings’,in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1439–1495 Pipes, D. and Gagen, W. E., California Criminal Discovery (Newark: LexisNexis, 2008) Piragoff, D. K., ‘Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 349–401 Piragoff, D. K. and Clarke, P., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1712–1750 Pieroth, B., et al., Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (Munchen:̈ Beck, 8th ed. 2014) Pruitt, R., ‘Discovery: Mutual Disclosure, Unilateral Disclosure and Non-disclosure under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence‘, in May, R. et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence (2001), 305–314 Radosavljevic, D., ‘Scope and Limits of Psychiatric Evidence in International Criminal Law’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 1013–1035 Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of national security information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1775–1815 Riklin, F., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im schweizerischen Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 173–184 Roberts, R. C., ‘The Lubanga Trial Chamber’s Assessment of Evidence in Light of the Accused’s Right to the Presumption of Innocence’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 923–944 Roberts, P., ‘The Priority of Procedure and the Neglect of Evidence and Proof ’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 479–506 Robinson, P. L., ‘Ensuring Fair and Expeditious Trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, EJIL, 11 (2000), 569–589 Robinson,P.L.,‘So You want to be an International Criminal Lawyer? Getting and Defending a Case at the War Crimes Tribunals‘,inKirsch,S.,Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 113–128 Robinson, P. L., ‘Fair but Expeditious Trial’, in Abtahi, H. and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden, Bioston: Mrtinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 169–192 Rodrigues, A. and Tournaye, C., ‘Hearsay Evidence’, in May, R., et al., eds, Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2001), 291–304 82 Bibliography Rohan, C., ‘Protecting the Rights of the Accused in International Criminal Proceedings: Lip Service or Affirmative Action?’, in Schabas, W. A., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N., eds., International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (2013), 289–306 Rothe, D. L. and Overthon, A., ‘The International Criminal Court and the External Non-Witness Expert(s), Problematic Concerns: An Exploratory Endeavour’, ICLR 10 (2010), 345–364 Ryngeart, C., ‘The Doctrine of Abuse of Process: A Comment on the Cambodia Tribunal’s Decision in the Case against Duch’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 719–737 Safferling, C., ‘International Criminal Procedure and its Participants – An Examination of the Interaction of Judges, Prosecutors and Defence at the Yugoslav Tribunal’, YbIHL, 5 (2002), 219–254 Schabas, W. A., Chaitidou, E. and El Zeidy, M., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the Charges before Trial’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1484–1549 Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649 Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1650–1680 Scheffer, D., ‘A review of the experiences of the Pre-Trial and AppC of the ICC regarding the disclosure of evidence‘, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G., eds., The Emerging Practice of the ICC (2009), 585–598 Schuon, C., ‘The Appeals Decision in the ICC’s Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the Trial Chamber’s “Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecu- tion’s List of Evidence”’, LJIL, 25 (2012), 511–520 Schenke, W.-R., Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (Heidelberg: Muller,̈ 8th ed. 2013) Sharpe, S., ‘Disclosure, Immunity and Fair Trials’, JCL, 63 (1999), 67–82 Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein’s Monster – Creating a New International Procedure’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 451–462 Sluiter, G. K., International Criminal Adjudication and the Collection of Evidence – Obligations of States (Antwerp et al.: Intersentia, 2002) Sluiter, G. K., ‘The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes’, ICLR,6 (2006), 605–635 Sluiter, G. K., ‘Trends in the Development of a Unified Law of International Criminal Procedure’,in Stahn and van Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 585–599 Spencer, Evidence of Bad Character (Oxford et al.: Hart, 2nd ed 2009) Spencer, J. R., Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford et al.: Hart, 2008) Stahn, C., ‘Justice Delivered or Justice Denied? – The Legacy of the Katanga Judgment’, JICJ,12 (2014), 809–834 Stapleton, S., ‘Ensuring a Fair Trial in the International Criminal Court: Statutory Interpretation and the Impermissibility of Derogation’, NYUJILP, 31 (1999), 535–610 Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Swart, B., ‘Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114 Swoboda, S. ‘The ICC Disclosure Regime – A Defence Perspective’, CLF, 19 (2008), 449–472 Terrier, F., ‘Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1259–1276 Tochilovsky, V., ‘International Criminal Justice: “Strangers in the Foreign System”, CLF, 15 (2004), 319–344 id., ‘Legal systems and cultures in the ICC etc.‘, in Fischer, H., Kreß, C. and Lüder, R., eds., International and National Prosecution of Crimes under International Law (2001), 627–644 Tochilovsky, V., ‘Prosecution Disclosure Obligations in the ICC and Relevant Jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc Tribunals‘, in Doria, J., Gasser, H.-P. and Bassiouni, M. C., eds., The Legal Regime of the ICC (2009), 843–862 Tonellato, M., ‘The Victims’ Participation at a Crossroads: How the ICC Could Devise a Meaningful Victims’ Participation while Respecting the Rights of the Defendant’, Eur. J. Cr., 20 (2012), 315–359 Trendafilova, E., ‘Fairness and expeditiousness in the ICC’s pre-trial proceedings‘, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G., eds., The Emerging Practice of the ICC (2009), 441–458 Bibliography 83 Triffterer, O. and Burchard, C., ‘Article 71 – Sanctions for misconduct before the Court’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1760–1774 Triffterer, O. and Heinze, A., ‘Article 10’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 644–656 Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1826–1852 Trüg, G., Lösungskonvergenzen trotz Systemdivergenzen im deutschen und US-amerikanischen Verfahren (Tubingen:̈ Mohr Siebeck, 2003) Trüg, G., ‘Erkenntnisse aus der Untersuchung des US-amerikanischen plea bargaining-Systems für den deutschen Absprachendiskurs’, ZStW, 120 (2008), 331–374 Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85 Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2009) Tuinstra, J. T., ‘Defending the Defenders: The Role of Defence Counsel in International Criminal Tribunals’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 463–486 Turner, J. I., ‘Defense Perspectives on Law and Politics in International Criminal Trials’, VirgJIL,48 (2008), 529–594 Turner, J. I., ‘Policing International Prosecutors’, NYUJILP, 45 (2012), 175–258 Uertz-Retzlaff, U., ‘Zwanzig Jahre in Den Haag – Erfahrungen einer Staatsanwältin’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 532–536 van der Vyver, J. D., ‘Time is of the Essence: The In-Depth Analysis Chart in Proceedings Before the International Criminal Court, CrimLBull, 48 No. 4 (2012), 1–35 Vasiliev, S., ‘Proofing the Ban on “Witness Proofing”–Did the ICC Get it Right?’, CLF, 20 (2009), 193–261 Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 543–682 Velten, P., ‘Fehlentscheidungen im Strafverfahren’, GA, 162 (2015), 387–409 Vogler, R., ‘The Principle of Immediacy in English Criminal Procedural Law’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 239–247 Vohrah, L. C., ‘Pre-Trial Procedures and Practices’, in McDonald, G. K. and Swaak-Goldman, O., eds, Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law – The Experience of International and National Courts,i:Commentary (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2000), 479–546 Volk, K., Wahrheit und materielles Recht im Strafprozess (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 1980) Volk, K. and Engländer, A. Grundkurs StPO (Munich: Beck, 8th edn, 2013) von Braun, L., ‘Die Strafverfolgung von Menschenrechtsverbrechen aus der Praxis: Entwicklung, Struktur und Leistungsfähigkeit des Sondergerichts in Osttimor‘, HuV-I, 18 (2005), 93–105 Wald, P. M., ‘To Establish Incredible Events by Incredible Evidence – The Use of Affidavit Testimony in Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Proceedings’, HarvILJ, 42 (2001), 548 Ward, R. and Akhtar, A., Walker and Walker’s English Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10th ed 2008) WCRO, The Confirmation of Charges Process at the ICC: A critical assessment and recommenda- tions for change (Washington D.C.: American University, 2015) https://www.wcl.american.edu/ warcrimes/icc/documents/TheConfirmationofChargesProcessattheInternationalCriminalCourt- ACriticalAssessmentandRecomme.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016 Wei, Wu, Die Rolle des Anklägers eines Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2007) Weigend, T., ‘Rechtsvergleichende Bemerkungen zur Wahrheitssuche im Strafverfahren’, in Berns- mann, K. and Fischer, T., eds, Festschrift für Ruth Rissing-van Saan zum 65. Geburtstag am 25. Januar 2011 (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2011), 749–766 Whiting, A., ‘Lead Evidence and Discovery Before the International Criminal Court: The Lubanga Case’, UCLA JIL & ForAff 14 (2009), 207–233 Whiting, A., ‘In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered?’ HarvILJ, 50 (2009), 323–364 84 Bibliography Whiting, A., ‘Disclosure Challenges at the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1007–1028 Wigmore, J. H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law,i (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 3rd edn, 1940) Windridge, O. ‘Assessing circumstantial evidence and inference at the ICTR’, CLF, 26 (2015), 403–418 Worrall, J. L., Criminal Procedure (Boston: Pearson, 2nd ed 2007) Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of the Accused’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, Vol. II (2002), 1319–1354 Zappalà, S., ‘The Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Materials and the Recent Amendment to Rule 68 ICTY RPE’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 620–630 Zemach, A., ‘National Security Evidence: Enhancing Fairness in View of the Non-Disclosure Regime of the Rome Statute’, IsLR 47 (2014), 331–359. CHAPTER 6 Abdou, M., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 233–242, accessed 20 November 2015; Abtahi, H. and Young, R., ‘Article 38 – The Presidency’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1236–1246; Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘A Model of International Judicial Administration? The Evolution of Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161; Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure: ‘“Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503; Bachmaier Winter, L. and del Moral García, A., ‘Spain’, in Verbruggen and Franssen, International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Criminal Law, v (Alphen aan den Rijn 2012); Batros, B., ‘The Judgement on the Katanga Admissibility Appeal: Judicial Restraint at the ICC’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 343–362; Beltrán, A., ‘El enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., La Corte Penal Internacional (2003), 351–382; Boas, G., ‘Appelate Procedure’, in Sluiter, G. and Vasiliev, S., International Criminal Procedure (2009) 417–455; Boas, G., Jackson, J., Roche B. and Taylor III, D., ‘Appeals, Reviews, and Reconsideration’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 939–1014; Brady, H., ‘Appeal’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 575–596; Brady, H. and Jennings, M., ‘Appeal and Revision’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 294–304; Butler, A., ‘Limiting Rights’, in Carter, D., and Palmer, M., eds, Roles and Perspectives in the Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Ivor Richardson (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2002), 113–54; Calvo-Goller, K. N., La Procédure et la Jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Paris: Lextenso, 2012); Darbyshire, P., ‘Criminal Procedure in England and Wales’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 40–169; de Hoyos, M., ‘La apelación de resoluciones interlocutorias en el proceso ante la Corte Penal Internacional – Especial consideración de los criterios empleados para la concesión de la autorización para apelar’, in Ambos, K. and de Hoyos, M., eds, Cuestiones esenciales en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional (Granada: Comares, 2008), 23–54; Del Carmen, R. V., Criminal Procedure (Belmont: Thomson, 7th ed 2007); Deschênes, J. and Staker, C., ‘Article 38 – The Presidency’, in Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008), 951–956; Doria, J., ‘Standards of Appeal and Standards of Revision’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 945–972; Dreyssé, D., ‘Article 85 – Indemnisation des personnes arrêtées ou condamnées’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1783–1788; Bibliography 85 Eckelmans, F. C., ‘The First Jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 527–552; ‘El Abdallah, F., ‘Article 82 – Appel d’autres décisions’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,ii (2012), 1741–1757; Elberling, B., ‘Article 85 – Compensation to an Arrested or Convicted Person’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 672–675, accessed 20 November 2015; Friman, H., ‘Interlocutory Appeals in the Early Practice of the International Criminal Court’,in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 553–562; Friman, H., ‘International Criminal Procedures – Trial and Appeal Procedures’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 271–87; Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481; Friman, H., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 656–662, accessed 20 November 2015; Galbraith, J., ‘“New Facts” in ICTY and ICTR Review Proceedings’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 131–150; Gascón Inchausti, F. and Villamarín López, M. L.,‘Criminal Procedure in Spain’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 542–653; Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D. and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 - Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 849–898; Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Heller, K.J., ‘The Ruto Trial Chamber invents the mistrial without prejudice’, Opinio Juris, 10 April 2016 (http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/08/the-icc-invents-the-possibility-of-a-mistrial/, accessed 11 April 2016); Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und Civil Law (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005); Huber, B.,‘Criminal Procedure in Germany’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 269–371; Kirsch, S., ‘Verteidigung in Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien’, StV, 23 (2003), 636–640; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 81 – Appeal against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction or against Sentence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 651–655, accessed 20 November 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 663–668, accessed 20 November 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Article 84 – Revision of Conviction or Sentence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 669–671, accessed 20 November 2015; Knoops, G.-J. A., Redressing Miscarriages of Justice – Practice and Procedure in (International) Criminal Cases (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2nd edn, 2013); Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617; Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner, Pötz and Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1; Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en œuvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Cour pénale internationale’, in Kolb, Droit international pénal (2008), 267–309; Lundqvist, U. S., ‘Admitting and Evaluating Evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Appeals Chamber Proceedings – A Few Remarks’, LJIL, 15 (2002), 641–665; Maia, C., ‘Article 84 – Révision d’une décision sur la culpabilité ou la peine’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1770–1781; Maystre, M., ‘Right to Appeal’, in Carter and Pocar, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 192–240; McDermott, H., ‘Seeking a Stay of Proceedings for Irregular Apprehension before International Courts – Fighting a Losing Battle against the Pursuit of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ,14 (2016), 145–169; 86 Bibliography Meernik, J., ‘The Evolving Application of International Law – Insights from the Appeals Chamber of the Ad Hoc International Tribunals’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 117–132; Michels, J. D., ‘Compensating Acquitted Defendants for Detention before International Criminal Courts’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 407–424; Nagel, M., ‘§ 337 – Revisionsgründe’, in Radtke and Hohmann, StPO Kommentar (2011), 1729–1740; Nerlich, V., ‘The Role of the Appeals Chamber’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 963–980; Nerlich, V., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1954–1964; O’Neill, L. and Sluiter, G., ‘The Right to Appeal a Judgment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, MelbJIL, 10 (2009), 596–630; Paulussen, C., Male captus bene detentus? – Surrending Supsects to the International Criminal Court (Antwerp et al.: Intersentia, 2010); Re, D., ‘Appeal’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, International Prosecutors (2012), 797–885; Roth, R., and Henzelin, M., ‘The Appeal Procedure of the ICC’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute,ii (2002), 1535–1558; Schabas, W. A., ‘The Mistrial, an Innovation in International Criminal Law’, PhD Studies In Human Rights, 8 April 2016, (http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-mistrial- innovation-in.html, accessed 10 April 2016); Shahabuddeen, M., ‘Teething Phase of the ECCC’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 469–502; Southey, H. and Fulford, A., Judicial Review – A Practical Guide (Bristol: Jordans, 2004); Spencer, J. R., ‘International Law, People Trafficking and the Power to Stay Criminal Proceedings for Abuse of Process’, CambLJ, 73 (2014), 11–14; Staker, C., ‘Article 81 – Appeals against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction of Sentence’,in Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008), 1449–1474; Staker, C., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008), 1475–1480; Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 81 – Appeals against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction of Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1915–1953; Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1965–1985; Staker, C. and Nerlich, V., ‘Article 84 – Revision of Conviction or Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1986–1997; Staker, C. and Nerlich, V., ‘Article 85 – Compensation to an Arrested or Convicted Person’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1998–2002; Stuckenberg, C.-F., Double Jeopardy – Das Verbot doppelter Bestrafung und Strafverfolgung im US- amerikanischen Recht (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2001); Šugman Stubbs, K., ‘Criminal Procedure in Slovenia’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 483–539; Terrill, R. J., World Criminal Justice Systems – A Survey (Newark: Lexis Nexis, 2007); Trigeaud, L., ‘Article 81 – Appel d’une décision sur la culpabilité ou la peine’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1725–1740; Trigeaud, L., ‘Article 83 – Procédure d’appel’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1759–1770; Thomas III, G. C., Double Jeopardy – The History, The Law (New York, London: New York University Press, 1998); Tracol, X., ‘The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunals’, CLF, 12 (2001), 137–165; Vogler, R., ‘Criminal Procedure in France’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 171–268; WCRO, Interlocutory Appellate Review of Early Decisions by the International Criminal Court (Washington D.C.: American University Washington College of Law, 2008); Bibliography 87 Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 2007); Wirth, S., ‘Das Appeal Verfahren’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 75–88; Zappalá, S., ‘Appeal’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 246–247. CHAPTER 7 Abels, D., Prisoners of the International Community (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2012); Akande, D., ‘International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 98 (2004), 407–433; Akande, D., ‘Legal Nature of Security Council Referrals to the ICC and Its Impact on Al Bashir’s Immunities’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 333–352; Akande, D., ‘Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the ICC’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 299–324; Akande, D., ‘The Bashir Case – Has the South African Supreme Court Abolished Immunity for all Heads of States?’ EJILTalk, 29 March 2016, Boschiero, N., ‘The ICC Judicial Finding on Non-cooperation Against the DRC and No Immunity for Al-Bashir Based on UNSC Resolution 1593’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 625–623; Burchards, W., Die Verfolgung von Völkerrechtsverbrechen durch Drittstaaten (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2005); Burghardt, B. and Geneuss, J., ‘Der Präsident und sein Gericht – Die Entscheidung des Interna- tionalen Strafgerichtshofs über den Erlass eines Haftbefehls gegen Al Bashir’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 126–142; Burke-White, W. W., ‘Bargaining for Arrests at the International Criminal Court – A Response to Roper and Barria’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 477–482; Caeiro, P., ‘O procedimento de entrega previsto no Estatuto de Roma e a sua incorporação no Direito Português’, in Caeiro, P. and Moreira, V., eds, O Tribunal Penal Internacional e a ordem jurídica portuguesa (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2004), 69–157; Caeiro, P. and Lemos, M. A., ‘Commentary’, in Klip, A. and Freeland, S., eds, Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals – The International Criminal Court 2008–2009 (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2013), 611–614; Calvo-Goller, K. N., La Procédure et la Jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Paris: Lextenso, 2012); Cassese, A., ‘On the Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of Breaches of International Humanitarian Law’, EJIL, 9 (1998), 2–17; Cazala, J., ‘Article 89 – Remise de certaines personnes à la Cour’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1835–1847; Cazala, J., ‘Article 90 – Demandes concurrentes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,ii (2012), 1849–1861; Cazala, J., ‘Article 91 – Contenu de la demande d’arrestation et de remise’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1863–1871; Cazala, J., ‘Article 92 – Arrestation provisoire’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1873–1880; Chaumette, A. L., ‘The ICTY’s Power to Subpoena Individuals, to Issue Binding Orders to International Organisations and to Subpoena Their Agents’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 357–430; Chimimba, T. P., ‘Establishing an Enforcement Regime’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 345–356; Ciampi, A., ‘Other Forms of Cooperation’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1705–1747; Ciampi, A., ‘The Obligation to Cooperate’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1607–1638; Ciampi, A., ‘Article 87 – Demandes de cooperation – Dispositions générales’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1805–1821; Ciavola, A., ‘Arresto e consegna nel sistema della Corte Penale Internazionale’, in Cassese, Chia- vario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 431–457; Crawford, J., Sands, P., and Wilde, R., In the Matter of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and in the Matter of Bilateral Agreements Sought by the United States under Article 98 (2) of the Statute, Joint Opinion, 5 June 2003 ( Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute – Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 75–101; Gioia, F., ‘Complementarity and “Reverse Cooperation”’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 807–29; Godinho, J. A. F., ‘Surrender Agreements between the US and the ICTY and ICTR – A Critical View’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 502–516; Gómez Colomer, J. L., and Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘La regulación de la prueba en el proceso penal ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., La Corte Penal Internacional (2003), 325–350; Grützner, H., ‘International Judicial Assistance and Co-operation in Criminal Matters’, in Bas- siouni and Nanda, A Treatise on International Criminal Law, ii (1973), 189–249; Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D. and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 849–898; Hamann, H., ‘Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und Vereinte Nationen in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo’, ZStW, 118 (2006), 799–822; Harhoff, F. and Mochochoko, P., ‘International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 637–671; Heller, J. K., ‘Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute – Bizarre and Possibly Counterproductive’, Opinio Juris (9 March 2016), http://opiniojuris.org/2016/03/08/article-875-of-the-rome-statute-bizarre- and-counterproductive/, accessed 14 April 2016; Herencia Carrasco, S. M., La implementación del Estatuto de Roma en la Region Andina – Los casos de Chile, Ecuador y Venezuela (Lima: Comisión Andina de Juristas, 2009); Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und Civil Law (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005); ICC-OTP, ‘Informal Expert Paper – Fact-Finding and Investigative Functions of the Office of the Prosecutor, Including International Co-Operation’ (2003), Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 86–92’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 676–710, accessed 25 November 2015; Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 94–95’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 733–736, accessed 25 November 2015; Knoops, G. J. A., An Introduction to the Law of International Criminal Tribunals – A Comparative Study (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2nd edn, 2014); Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 1- 294; Korecki, L., ‘Procedural Tools for Ensuring Cooperation of States with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 927–944; Kreicker, H., Völkerrechtliche Exemtionen – Grundlagen und Grenzen völkerrechtlicher Immunitä- ten und ihre Wirkung im Strafrecht, i (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007); Kreicker, H., ‘Der Präsident des Sudan vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof – EinVerstoß gegen dasVölkerrecht? Überlegungen zur völkerrechtlichen Immunität von Staatsoberhäuptern anlässlich des Haftbefehlsantrages gegen Omar al-Bashir’, HuV-I, 21 (2008), 157–164; Kreicker, H., ‘Immunität und IStGH – Zur Bedeutung völkerrechtlicher Exemtionen für den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 350–367; Kreicker, H., ‘Vorbemerkungen’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), Part III E; Kreß, C., ‘Penalties, Enforcement and Cooperation in the International Criminal Court Statute (Parts VII, IX, X)’, EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 442–460; Kreß, C., ‘Witnesses in Proceedings before the International Criminal Court – An Analysis in the Light of Comparative Criminal Procedure’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 309–384; Kreß, C., ‘Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617; Kreß, C., ‘The International Criminal Court and Immunities under International Law for States Not Party to the Court’s Statute’, in Bergsmo, M. and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 223–266; Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/ Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), Part IV A1; Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Part 9 – International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance – Preliminary Remarks’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2003–2013; Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Articles 86–100’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2014–2157; Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Article 102’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2170–2171; Kreß, C. and Sluiter, G., ‘Enforcement’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1751–1838; Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum Internatio- nalen Strafgerichtshof – Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Entwicklung der Völkerstrafgerichtsbar- keit’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259; Kushen, R., ‘Surrender Agreements between the US and the ICTY and ICTR – The American View’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 517–519; Kwast, P. J. ‘Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute – It’s Complicated…But Not Bizarre’, Opinio Juris (16 March 2016), http://opiniojuris.org/2016/03/16/article-875-of-the-rome-statute-its- complicatedbut-not-bizarre/, accessed 14 April 2016; Lind, C., ‘Article 98 – Cooperation with Respect to Waiver of Immunity and Consent to Surrender’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 752–755, accessed 25 November 2015; Lindemann, J., ‘Völkerrechtliche Anforderungen an die Schweiz für die Zusammenarbeit mit den internationalen Strafgerichten’, in Ziegler, A. R., Wehrenberg, S. and Weber, R., eds, Kriegsver- brecherprozesse in der Schweiz (Brussels: Bruylant, Baden-Baden: Nomos, Zurich: Schulthess, 2009), 215–241; MacLean, J., ‘Gesetzentwurf über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof‘, ZRP, 35 (2002), 260–264; Maikowski, T., Staatliche Kooperationspflichten gegenüber dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Berlin: BWV, 2002); 92 Bibliography Malaguti, M. C., ‘Article 88 of the Rome Statute –“Horizontal” versus “Vertical” Cooperation’,in Malaguti, M. C., ed, ICC and International Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute – Proceedings of the Workshop held in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 103–129; Mbaye, A. A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 86 – Obligation générale de coopérer’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1791–1804; McDermott, H., ‘The Structure of International Cooperation in the Transfer of Suspects – Extradite or Abduct?’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 254–297; Meernik, J., ‘Why Do Individuals Surrender to the International Criminal Tribunals?’, ICLR,15 (2015), 926–948; Meißner, J., Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem Römischen Statut (München: Beck, 2003); Melillo, M., ‘Cooperation between the UN Peacekeeping Operation and the ICC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 763–782; Mochochoko, P., ‘International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 305–317; Mochochoko, P., ‘The Experience of the OTP of the ICTR Concerning Arrest Strategies and Lessons Learnt for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh, C. C. and Alhagi, B. M. M., eds, Promoting Accountability under International Law for Gross Human Rights Violations in Africa – Essays in Honour of Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow (Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), 71–89; Moranchek, L., ‘Protecting National Security Evidence While Prosecuting War Crimes – Problems and Lessons for International Justice from the ICTY’, YaleJIL, 31 (2006), 477–501; Moschetta, T. M., ‘Cooperation between the European Union and the International Criminal Court – Legal Bases and Opportunities for Implementation’, in Politi, M. and Gioia, eds, The Inter- national Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (Farnham, Burlington: Aschgate, 2008), 123–130; Nagel, K. F., Beweisaufnahme im Ausland – Rechtsgrundlagen und Praxis der internationalen Rechtshilfe für deutsche Strafverfahren (Freiburg im Breisgau: Eigenverlag Max-Planck-Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Strafrecht, 1988); Nemitz, J. C. and Schomburg, W., ‘Einführung in die deutschsprachigen Zusammenarbeitsgesetze mit dem IStGH’, in Schomburg et al., Internationale Rechtshilfe (2012), 2292–2331; Ntoubandi, F., ‘Towards Ending Impunity in Darfur – The ICC Arrest Warrant of 27 April 2007’, ZaöRV, 69 (2009), 123–154; Ohlin, J. D., ‘More Thoughts on al-Bashir, Sudan, and South Africa’, Opinio Juris (17 June 2015), http://opiniojuris.org/2015/06/17/more-thoughts-on-al-bashir-sudan-and-south-africa/, accessed 9 July 2015; Palma, R., ‘Implementation Duties under Chapter IX of the Rome Statute and “Droit desirable”’,in Malaguti, M. C., ed, ICC and International Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute – Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 203–258; Palmisano, G., ‘The ICC and Third States’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute,i (2000), 391–425; Papillon, S., ‘Has the United Nations Security Council Implicitly Removed Al Bashir’s Immunity?’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 275–288; Paulussen, C. Y. M., Male captus bene detentus? – Surrendering Suspects to the International Criminal Court (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2010); Påle-Bartes, K., ‘Article 102 – Use of Terms’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 774, accessed 25 November 2015; Påle-Bartes, K., ‘Article 93 – Other Forms of Cooperation’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 711–732, accessed 25 November 2015; Pedretti, R., Immunity of Heads of State and State Officials for International Crimes (Leiden: Brill, Nijhoff, 2015); Plachta, M., ‘“Surrender”, in the Context of the International Criminal Court and the European Union’, in Association International de Droit Pénal (AIDP), International Criminal Law – Quo Bibliography 93 Vadis? – Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Siracusa, Italy, 28 November - 3 December 2002, on the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the ISISC (Ramonville Saint-Agne: Erès, 2004), 465–504; Quesada-Alcalá, C., ‘The Obstacles to the International Criminal Court – Impediments to the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law’, in Fernández-Sánchez, P. A., ed, The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – In Honour of Professor Juan Antonio Carrillo-Salcedo (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 295–314; Quirico, O., ‘Article 101 – Règle de la spécialité’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome,ii (2012), 1943–1949; Quirico, O., ‘Article 102 – Emploi des termes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1951–1955; Rackow, ‘Allgemeine Struktur des Rechtshilfeverfahrens’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2014), 95–115; Ralph, J., ‘Article 98 – Coopération en relation avec la renunciation à l’immunité et consentement à la remise’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1913–1927; Raspail, H., ‘Article 88 – Procédures disponibles selon la législation nationale’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1823–1833; Rastan, R., ‘Testing Co-Operation – The International Criminal Court and National Authorities’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 431–456; Rastan, R., ‘The Responsibility to Enforce – Connecting Justice with Unity’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 163–182; Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of national security information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1775–1815; Reisert, G., ‘Der Beginn der Ermittlungen am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, StV, 11 (2005), 637–640; Rinoldi, D. and Parisi, N., ‘International Co-operation and Judicial Assistance between States Parties and the International Criminal Court’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i (2000), 339–390; Robinson, D., ‘Inescapable Dyads – Why the ICC Cannot Win’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 323–347; Roper, S. D. and Barria, L. A., ‘State Co-operation and International Criminal Court Bargaining Influence in the Arrest and the Surrender of Suspects’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 457–476; Rosenfeld, E., ‘Application of U.S. Status of Forces Agreements to Article 98 of the Rome Statute’, WashUGlSLR, 2 (2003), 273–293; Scharf, M. P., ‘The Tools for Enforcing International Criminal Justice in the New Millennium – Lessons from the Yugoslavia Tribunal’, DePaulLR, 49 (2000), 925–979; Scheffer, D. J., ‘Article 98 (2) of the Rome Statute – America’s Original Intent’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 333–353; Schomburg, W., ‘Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit – Eine Einführung’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 9–17; Schrotz, J. O., Individualrechtsverletzungen bei der Überstellung an die internationale Strafgerichts- barkeit – Zu den Rechtsfolgen individualrechtswidrigen Vorfeldverhaltens im internationalen Strafverfahren (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006); Sendel, B., ‘Bilaterale Nichtüberstellungsabkommen der Vereinigten Staaten und Article 98 Abs. 2 des Römischen Statuts zur Errichtung eines ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, ZIS,2 (2007), 118–128; Senn, S., Immunitäten vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Köln: Heymann, 2010); Sluiter, G. K., ‘Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 681–725; Sluiter, G. K., International Criminal Adjudication and the Collection of Evidence – Obligations of States (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002); Sluiter, G. K., ‘Book Review – Jörg Meissner, Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem Römischen Statut, Verlag C. H. Beck: Munich, 2003, 307 pp’, CLF, 14 (2003), 449–454; 94 Bibliography Sluiter, G. K., ‘Obtaining Cooperation from Sudan – Where is the Law?’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 871–884; Sluiter, G. K., ‘Cooperation of States with International Criminal Tribunals’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 187–200; Sluiter, G. K., ‘Procedural Lawmaking at the International Criminal Tribunals’, in Darcy and Powderly, Judicial Creativity (2010), 315–331; Sluiter, G., ‘Using the Genocide Convention to Strengthen Cooperation with the ICC in the Al Bashir Case’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 365–382; Slye, R., ‘United States Cooperation with the ICC – Support and Arrest’, in Gore, R., ed, Beyond Kampala – Next Steps for U.S. Principled Engagement with the International Criminal Court (Washington D. C.: The American Society of International Law, 2010), 17–26; Souza, A. B. G., ‘Reservas ao Estatuto de Roma – Uma Análise do Direito de Reservas aos Tratados Multilaterais e seus Reflexos no Estatuto do Tribunal Penal Internacional’, in Ambos, K. and Japiassú, C. E. A., eds, Tribunal Penal Internacional – Possibilidades e Desafios (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lumen Juris, 2005), 89–119; Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity – A Tale of Two Notions’, CLF, 19 (2008), 87–113; Stein, T., ‘Die Bilateral Immunity Agreements der USA und Article 98 des Rom-Statuts’,in Bröhmer, J. et al., eds, Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte – Festschrift für Georg Ress zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 2005 (Köln: Heymann, 2005), 295–306; Steinberger-Fraunhofer, T., Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und Drittstaaten – Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Position der USA (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2008); Swart, B., ‘Arrest and Surrender’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1639–1703; Swart, B., ‘Arrest Proceedings in the Custodial State’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1247–1255; Swart, B., ‘General Problems’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1589–1605; Swart, B., ‘Cooperation Challenges for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1153–1163; Swoboda, S., ‘Voraussetzungen der Außervollzugsetzung eines Haftbefehls vor dem Jugoslawien- tribunal’, GA, 153 (2006), 629–643; Talmon, ‘Immunität von Staatsbediensteten’, in Paulus, A. et al., Internationales, nationales und privates Recht – Hybridisierung der Rechtsordnungen? Immunität (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2014), 313–376; Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591; Tladi, D., ‘The ICC Decisions on Chad and Malawi – On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 199–222; Tladi, D., ‘The Duty on South Africa to Arrest and Surrender President Al-Bashir under South African and International Law – A Perspective from International Law’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 1027–1047; Tladi, D., ‘The International Criminal Court and the Duty to Arrest and Surrender The Case of Omar Al-Bashir in South Africa’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 493–500; Tomuschat, C. and Currie, D. P., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin: German Bundestag, 2012), available at Veneziano, D., ‘II principio di specialità’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 459–466; Ventura, M. J., ‘Escape from Johannesburg? Sudanese President Al-Bashir Visits South Africa, and the Implicit Removal of Head of State Immunity by the UN Security Council in Light of Al- Jedda’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 995–1025; Vervaele, J. A. E. and Klip, A. H., European Cooperation between Tax, Customs and Judicial Authorities (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002); Vest, H., Gerechtigkeit fur̈ Humanitätsverbrechen? (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Wartanian, A., ‘The ICC Prosecutor’s Battlefield – Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States’ Cooperation – Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda’, GeoJIL,36 (2005), 1289–1316; Wenqui, Z., ‘On Co-operation by States not Party to the International Criminal Court’, IRRC,88 (2006), 87–110; Whiting, A, ‘Dynamic Investigative Practice at the International Criminal Court’, LCP, 76, nos. 3 & 4 (2013), 163–189; Wilkitzki, P., ‘The German Law on Co-Operation with the ICC’, ICLR, 2 (2002), 195–212; Wilkitzki, P., ‘Article 101 – Rule of Speciality’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2158–2169; Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2007), 119–148; Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2010), 144–180; Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 146–180; Wuerth, I. B., ‘Pinochet’s Legacy Reassessed’, AJIL, 106 (2012), 731–768; Zappalà, S., ‘The Reaction of the US to the Entry into Force of the ICC Statute – Comments on UN SC Resolution 1422 (2002) and Article 98 Agreements’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 114–134; Zhang, B., ‘Articles 99–100’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 756–770, accessed 25 Novem- ber 2015; Zhang, Y., ‘Articles 96–97’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 737–751, accessed 25 November 2015. CHAPTER 8 Alldridge, P., Money Laundering Law – Forfeiture, Confiscation, Civil Recovery, Criminal Launder- ing and Taxation of the Proceeds of the Crime (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2003); Ambach, P., ‘The ICC Reparations Scheme – Promise for Victims or Recipe for Failure? – A Critical Discussion of Joakim Dungel’s Unpublished Article “Reparations and the ICC – Is the Court Ready for the Job?”’, in Ambach P. et al., eds, The Protection of Non-Combatants During Armed Conflict and Safeguarding the Rights of Victims in Post-Conflict Society – Essays in Honour of the Life and Work of Joakim Dungel (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2015), 455–520; Ambos, K., Malarino, E. and Woischnik, J., eds, Dificultades jurídicas y políticas para la ratificación o implementación del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (Bogotá: Temis, 2007); Ambos, K. and Poschadel, A., ‘1. Hauptteil – Grundlagen’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2015), 57–95; Abels, D., Prisoners of the International Community - The Legal Position of Persons Detained at International Criminal Tribunals (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2012); Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘El enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI (2003), 351–382; Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2004); Chimimba, T. P., ‘Establishing an Enforcement Regime’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 345–356; Clark, R. S., ‘Article 105 – Enforcement of the Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2190–2191; 96 Bibliography Clark, R. S., ‘Article 106 – Supervision of Enforcement of Sentences and Conditions of Imprison- ment’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2192–2195; Clark, R. S., ‘Article 107 – Transfer of the Person upon Completion of Sentence’, in Triffterer/ Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2196–2198; Doyle, C., Crime and Forfeiture (Congressional Research Service 2015), available at https://www. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-139.pdf>, accessed 11 April 2016; Elberling, B., ‘German Practice Regarding Enforcement of Sentences Passed by International Criminal Courts and Tribunals’, GYbIL, 54 (2011), 665–670; Eser, A., ‘Verfall und Einziehung – Vorbemerkungen’, in Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch - Kommentar (München: C.H. Beck, 29th edn, 2014), 1215–1221; Friman, H., ‘Sentencing and Penalties’, in Cryer et al., Introduction to ICL (2014), 500–513; Galvis Martínez, M., ‘Forfeiture of Assets at the ICC’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 193–217; Garretson, H. J., ‘Federal Criminal Forfeiture – A Royal Pain in the Assets’, SCaliforniaRL&SocJ,18 (2008–2009), 45–77; Gartner, I., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence on Co-Operation and Enforcement’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 423–445; Hess, M., Knust, N., and Schuon, C., ‘Implementation of the Rome Statute in Germany’, FYbIL,16 (2005), 133–161; Hochmayr, G., ‘Neue Kriminalsanktionen im Rechtsvergleich’, ZStW, 124 (2012), 64–86; Hoffmann, K., ‘Some Remarks on the Enforcement of International Sentences in Light of the Galić Case at the ICTY’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 838–842; Holá, B. and van Wijk, J., ‘Life after Conviction at International Criminal Tribunals – An Empirical Overview’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 109–132; Holvoet, M. and Yabasun, D., ‘Former ICC Defendant – Ngudjolo – Applies for Asylum in the Netherlands’, EJIL:Talk!, 28 March 2013, Nemitz, J. C. and Schomburg, W., ‘Einführung in die deutschsprachigen Zusammenarbeitsgesetze mit dem IStGH’, in Schomburg et al., Internationale Rechtshilfe (2012), 2292–2331; Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Articles 103–109’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1959–1993; Oehmichen, A., ‘Article 110 – Review by the Court Concerning Reduction of Sentence’,in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 810–818, accessed 11 April 2016; Palmisano, G., ‘The ICC and Third States’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute,i (2000), 391–425; Piva, D., ‘Le sanzioni nello Statuto della Corte Penale Internazionale’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 141–152; Prost, K., ‘Enforcement’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 673–702; Pulvirenti, A., ‘L’esecuzione delle pene detentive inflitte dalla Corte penale internazionale – Un difficile equilibrio tra effettività e garanzie costituzionali’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Fran- cesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 467–494; Puza, R., Res Iudicata – Rechtskraft und Fehlerhaftes Urteil in den Decisionen der römischen Rota (Graz: Leykam Verlag, 1973); Rochner, J., Strafvollstreckung und Strafvollzug im internationalen Strafrecht: Zu den rechtsstaatli- chen Problemen der Vollstreckung der Strafen der internationalen Strafgerichte (Hamburg: Kovač, 2014); Saltzburg, S. A. and Capra, D. J., American Criminal Procedure – Cases and Commentary (St. Paul, Minnesota: Thomson and West, 9th edn, 2010); Savadogo, R. O., ‘Non-coupables! Le non-refoulement, les assurances diplomatiques et la réinstal- lation des acquittés des juridictions pénales internationales dans leurs pays d’origine’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 785–822; Schabas, W. A., ‘Article 108 – Limitation on the Prosecution or Punishment of Other Offences’,in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2199–2204; Schabas, W. A., ‘Article 109 – Enforcement of Fines and Forfeiture Measures’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2205–2209; Sluiter, G., ‘Implementation of the ICC Statute in the Dutch Legal Order’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 158–178; Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Articles 103–106’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 775–792, accessed 11 April 2016; Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Articles 108–109’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 796–809, accessed 11 April 2016; Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Article 111 – Escape’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 819–821 accessed 11 April 2016; Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 3 – Seat of the Court’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 41–102; Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 103 – Role of States in Enforcement of Sentences of Imprisonment ’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2173–2186; Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 104 – Change in Designation of State of Enforcement’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2187–2189; Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 110 – Review by the Court Concerning Reduction of Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2210–2211; Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 111 – Escape’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen- tary (2016), 2212–2213; Tolbert, D. ‘The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Enforcement of Sentences’, LJIL, 11 (1998), 655–669; van Zyl Smit, D., ‘International Imprisonment’, ICLQ, 54 (2005), 357–386; Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht – Theorie und Praxis (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 3rd edn, 1984); Wilkitzki, P.,‘ Deutsche Vollstreckungshilfe für den Internationalen Jugoslawien Gerichtshof oder: Gedanken zur Lernfähigkeit des Gesetzgebers’, in Triffterer, O., ed, Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (Heidelberg: C. F. Muller, 2004), 263–274.