DOCSLIB.ORG

China's Policy Towards the ICC Seen Through the Lens of the UN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China's Policy Towards the ICC Seen Through the Lens of the UN POLICY BRIEF SERIES China’s Policy Towards the ICC Seen Through the Lens of the UN Security Council By XUE Ru FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 27 (2014) China is not a State Party to the Statute of the International 1.2. ICTR Criminal Court (‘ICC’), but is one of the five permanent UNSC Resolution 955 (1994) adopted under Chapter VII members of the United Nations Security Council established the ICTR by 13 votes in favour, one against (‘UNSC’). This policy brief examines the positions, atti- (Rwanda), and one abstaining (China).5 The Chinese del- tudes and views of China towards the ICC, drawing pri- egation abstained because it was not in favour of “invok- marily on China’s conduct in the UNSC. It will analyse ing at will Chapter VII of the Charter to establish an inter- China’s substantive concerns towards the ICC, and some national tribunal through the adoption of a Security key factors contributing to the uncertain future of the rela- Council resolution”; it also believed that without Rwan- tionship between China and the ICC. da’s support and co-operation it would be “difficult for the Tribunal to perform its duties in an effective manner”.6 In 1. Chinese Position on the Establishment of the ICTY, principle, China did not oppose the setting up of the ICTR ICTR and ICC1 and in all subsequent UNSC votes, she voted in favour of 1.1. ICTY it. The ICTY was established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1.3. ICC 827 on 25 May 1993, on the basis of a report prepared by the UN Secretary General with input from many States and During the 1998 Rome Diplomatic Conference, China non-governmental organizations (‘NGOs’).2 China voted provided clear and specific suggestions and comments on in favour of this resolution, but she made clear her reserva- various legal issues pertaining to the nature and functions tion as regards the legal approach taken. Apart from em- of the ICC, such as the jurisdiction of the Court, definition phasizing the special circumstances of the former Yugosla- of the crimes, criminal responsibility of legal persons, via, the Chinese delegate expressed concern about the criminal responsibility of superiors, powers of the prose- possible abuse by the UNSC of its powers under Chapter cutor, criteria for admissibility, selection of the judges, and VII of the UN Charter in establishing an international tri- the process of voting on the text of the draft ICC Statute.7 bunal. The representative also made it clear that China pre- Some of its suggestions were subsequently incorporated ferred that such a tribunal should be established by a new into the Statute. Regrettably, at the end of the Conference, multilateral treaty. That approach would respect the prin- China voted against adopting the Statute because her fun- ciple of State judicial sovereignty to the extent possible, damental concerns had not been satisfactorily addressed. and many difficulties both in theory and practice could be After the Conference, the head of the Chinese delega- avoided.3 Although China voted for the establishment of tion explained the reasons for voting against the Statute in the ICTY with reservations, she has since supported its op- a newspaper interview.8 He pointed out that the text im- eration in practice. There has always been a Chinese judge 4 at the ICTY. LIU Daqun has been Judge since 2000. 5 UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994) (http://www.legal-tools.org/ 1 ‘ICTY’ and ‘ICTR’ stands for the ad hoc international criminal doc/97d395/). tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 6 UN Doc. S/PV.3453. 2 UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993) (http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/ 7 For a comprehensive analysis of the position of China during the dc079b/). Rome Diplomatic Conference, see JIA Bingbing, ‘China and the 3 UN Doc. S/PV.3217. International Criminal Court: The Current Situation’, in Singapore 4 Mr. LI Haopei was the first Chinese Judge at the ICTY (1993– Year Book of International Law, 2006, Vol. 10, p. 87. 1997); Mr. WANG Tieya succeeded him (1997–2000); and Mr. 8 ‘WANG Guangya on the Statute of the International Criminal www.toaep.org posed obligations on non-States Parties without their con- inter alia, to refer the situation of Libya to the ICC.14 It sent and, as a result, violated the principle of State sover- was the first time that a situation was unanimously referred eignty and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; to the ICC by all members of the Council. The Chinese war crimes and crimes against humanity defined by the delegation voted in favour of the resolution because of text went beyond generally accepted customary interna- “the special situation in Libya at this time and the concerns tional law; the proprio motu power of the ICC Prosecutor and views of the Arab and African Countries”.15 to initiate investigations could lead to political abuse of the Court; and China would rather see the UNSC acting in 2.3. Syria situations of aggression without any constraints.9 In sum, On 22 May 2014, 64 States submitted a proposed resolu- China took a negative view of some provisions of the ICC tion to the UNSC to refer the situation of Syria to the Statute. ICC.16 The draft resolution was not adopted due to the op- position of two permanent members of the UNSC, namely 2. Chinese Position on Security Council Referral and China and Russia. The representative of China provided Deferral three reasons for the position taken. First, China believed By mid-July 2014, the Darfur, Libya, Syria and Kenya that any action to seek recourse to the ICC to prosecute the situations had been discussed by the UNSC with a view to perpetrators of serious violations of the international crim- ICC referral or deferral. Let us consider China’s position inal law should be conducted on the basis of respect for on each of these situations. State judicial sovereignty and the principle of complemen- tarity. Second, in China’s view, an ICC referral would not 2.1. Darfur be conducive to the political settlement of the dispute, and In 2005, by UNSC Resolution 1593 the situation in Darfur would only serve to jeopardize the fragile peace efforts. was referred to the ICC.10 Eleven States voted in favour Third, instead of rushing through a vote on the proposed and there were four abstentions, including one by China. resolution, China saw the need for a longer process of con- In the explanation of vote, the Chinese delegate restated sultation among the UNSC members as the best way to China’s position on the ICC. China believed that there overcome obstruction to consensus on the way forward. At were more effective and feasible approaches than referring the same time, China expressed deep concern at the wors- the Darfur situation to the ICC. China expressed major res- ening humanitarian situation in Syria and had provided ervations about the exercise of ICC jurisdiction against the humanitarian assistance through various channels on sev- will of non-States Parties.11 Moreover, China had concerns eral occasions.17 about the arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar 2.4. Kenya al-Bashir and supported the proposal in the UNSC to defer the ICC proceedings against him, although it was not ad- On 15 November 2013, 14 African States submitted a pro- opted.12 President al-Bashir – a person suspected by the posed resolution to the UNSC requesting the ICC to defer ICC for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes the investigation and prosecution of Kenyan President Ke- – visited China in his capacity as Head of State in June nyatta and Deputy President Ruto for a period of 12 months 2011 at the invitation of the Chinese President.13 in line with Article 16 of the ICC Statute.18 Mr. LIU Jieyi, the representative of China and President of the UNSC that 2.2. Libya month, presided over the meeting and put the draft resolu- On 26 February 2011, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1970, tion to a vote. It received seven votes in favour and eight abstentions, hence failing to obtain the requisite majority. Court’, Legal Daily, 29 July 1998, p. 4 (http://www.legal-tools. org/doc/bb0b03/); ‘The State Sovereignty should be stressed in the The Chinese delegation voted in favour and Mr. LIU ex- establishment of the International Criminal Court’, People’s Daily, pressed regret at the failure to adopt the resolution. He 18 June 1998, p. 6 (http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/39b90e/). stated that the Kenyan leaders play an important role in 9 For more details, see also JIA Bingbing, 2006, p. 91, see supra note maintaining peace and stability in Kenya and in Africa in 6; LU Jiangping and WANG Zhixiang, ‘China’s Attitude Towards the ICC’, in Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005, Vol. general, and that the principles of complementarity and ju- 3, p. 611. dicial sovereignty should, moreover, be respected by inter- 10 UN Doc. S/RES/1593 (2005) (http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/ national judicial institutions.19 The Chinese Prime Minister da64ab/). visited Kenya and held talks with President Kenyatta on 10 11 UN Doc. S/PV. 5158. 12 Foreign Ministry Spokesperson QIN Gang held a regular press conference and answered questions about the arrest warrant 14 UN Doc. S/RES/1970 (2011) (http://www.legal-tools.org/ against President al-Bashir issued by the ICC, see ‘China regretful, doc/00a45e/). worried about Sudan president arrest warrant’, 5 March 2009, Xin- 15 UN Doc. S/PV.6491. hua Net (http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/1ba9e6/ and http://www.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae ……………….…………… 2 - List of Publications…………………………… 10 - List of University Courses Taught…………… 30 - List of Guest Lectures………………………
    Prof. Dr. Peter Malanczuk page - Curriculum Vitae ……………….…………… 2 - List of Publications…………………………… 10 - List of University Courses Taught…………… 30 - List of Guest Lectures………………………... 36 - List of Contributions to Conferences…………. 50 20120410 Malanczuk Full CV (compiled) Page 1 of 73 Prof. Dr. iur Peter Malanczuk Peking University School of Transnational Law Email: [email protected] PKU Shenzhen Campus HomePage: www.malanczuk.com Graduate School Building B University Town Nanshan District, Xili Shenzhen, 518055 P.R. China Current positions: C.V. Starr Professor of Law, Peking University (PKU) School of Transnational Law [First American-style J.D. programme approved by the State Council in China] located at the PKU Shenzhen Campus Co-Director, Center for Research on Transnational Law (CTL), PKU STL Member of the Academic Advisory Council of the University of Heidelberg, Germany Courses currently taught: Transnational Law Advanced Transnational Law International Economic Law International Commercial Arbitration and ADR International Investment Law and Investor-State Dispute Settlement Curriculum Vitae 1948 Born in Salzgitter-Bad, Germany 1950 Emigration to Canada (Canadian nationality 1958-71) 1959 Return to Germany (German nationality since 1971) Since 2008 Permanent Resident of Hong Kong (SAR), P.R. China Education: 1955-59 Primary school, Sudbury & Toronto, Ontario, Canada 1960-68 Gymnasium Salzgitter-Bad, Germany (Abitur) 1968-73 Studies at the Universities of Göttingen, München and Heidelberg (Certificate: First State Law Examination
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Control in International Fact-Finding Outside Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes
    130522 Quality Control in International Fact-Finding Outside Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes The 2013 LI Haopei Lecture and Seminar A seminar organized by the Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law, the European University Institute, and Peking University International Law Institute, on 20 May 2013, 09:00-18:00, at The Refectory, Badia Fiesolana, European University Institute, Florence. There are academic efforts under way to map, and analyse best practices of, the plethora of in- ternational fact-finding1 commissions and other mandates2 to look into allegations of serious violations of international criminal, humanitarian or human rights law. There have been signifi- cant developments in international practice in this area since the Commission of Experts for the former Yugoslavia established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 780 (1992), an institution which served as a catalyst for later developments. The FICHL supports these academic efforts, and it seeks, together with the European University Institute and Peking University International Law Institute, to supplement them by focusing the 2013 LI Haopei Seminar on the specific topic of ‘Quality Control in International Fact-Finding Outside Criminal Justice for Core International Crimes’.3 To serve the interests of professionalization, how can the quality of international fact- finding, -analysis and -reporting be improved? How should the significant developments in fact- work in international criminal jurisdictions since the mid-1990s
    [Show full text]
  • China's Approach to Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Agenda
    This is a repository copy of China’s Approach to Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Agenda. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/96001/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Subedi, SP (2015) China’s Approach to Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Agenda. Chinese Journal of International Law, 14 (3). pp. 437-464. ISSN 1540-1650 https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv037 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ China’s Approach to Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Agenda Surya P. Subedi* Abstract There is an apprehension in the democratic world about the possible impact of the economic rise of China on the UN human rights agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tribute to Professor Wang Tieya
    A Tribute to Professor Wang Tieya Sienho Yee Professor Wang Tieya and I were several generations apart. Yet we had something in common. We were co-editors for two projects: a book in honor of Li Haopei,1 a dear friend of his and a kind supervisor of mine, and the Chinese Journal of International Law. To some extent we were both rebels. We both had done things that might be perceived to go against common wisdom. Despite the fact that he had been such an eminent scholar when I, a fun-loving undergraduate at Peking University, was introduced to him, Professor Wang displayed no air of importance or stature that normally one might see in a person on Olympic heights. Soon we developed a friendship that in Chinese would be called “Wangnianzhijiao”, friendship defying the gap of age. We shared stories. We exchanged arguments. He critiqued my works. He appreciated a good argument when he saw one. He criticized a questionable one when he found it. He gave credit where it was due. I benefited greatly from his wisdom. Then in 1998, it was suggested that Professor Wang and I co-edit the memorial collection for Li Haopei. Professor Wang immediately accepted the task, despite the fact that I was still a very young man then, although older than I was when I was introduced to him.2 That project was completed in 2000 and the book was published in 2001. In the course of editing that book, some of the disputes between some authors and me were put to him for final decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Possible to Prevent Or Punish Future Aggressive War-Making?
    Is it Possible to Prevent or Punish Future Aggressive War‐making? Address by Judge Dr. jur. h. c. Hans‐Peter Kaul Second Vice‐President of the International Criminal Court At the Li Haopei Lecture Series “Implications of the Criminalization of Aggression” 8 February 2011 Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law Oslo, Norway Check against delivery – embargoed until 8 February 2011, at 14h00. Let me begin with a question, a question of some importance. Is it the natural right, the inherent right of States to make war? Is war-making a national right? When we look at the reality of today’s world, it seems quite obvious that certain States, powerful States, continue to reserve for them, openly or more discreetly, also as some kind of hidden agenda, the option to go to war for their interests. The question, however, is crucial: Is it the natural, the inherent right of States or governments to use military force against other States when they believe it is in their interest? This is the fundamental question which is at the centre of today’s lecture. As some may know, on 11 June 2010, something surprising, something unexpected happened: against all odds, against most expectations, the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held in Kampala, Uganda adopted a full and complete package proposal on the crime of aggression. The amendments to the Rome Statute contain a definition of the crime of aggression and set out the conditions under which the Court will have, from 2017 onwards, jurisdiction with regard to this crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications for Bing Ling 2021 2020 2018 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
    Publications for Bing Ling 2021 Beijing, China: Presentation. Ling, B. (2021). The New Contract Law in the Chinese Civil Ling, B. (2014). Rule of Law in Foreign Policy-making: Code. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 8, 1-77. <a China's Non-Appearance in the South China Sea Arbitration. href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa030">[More 9th Annual Conference of the European China Law Studies Information]</a> Association (ECLS) 2014: Making, Enforcing and Accessing 2020 the Law, Hong Kong: Presentation. Ling, B. (2014). The Development of Rule of Law in China Ling, B. (2020). Constitutional and Legal Framework of the under the Xi Jinping Administration (2012-14). Hong Kong National Security Law. Webinar on National Security Law of Hong Kong: Legal and Social Implications, Ling, B. (2014). The Limit of Cosmopolitanism: The Role of Sydney, NSW: Presentation. Comparative Contract Law in China's Reform of Contract Law. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Ling, B. (2020). Dispute Settlement Mechanism of International Third Annual Conference 2014 - Stepping away from the State: Organisations: An Examination of the Jurisdiction of the Universality and Cosmopolitanism in International and International Court of Justice (in Chinese). China Law Review, Comparative Law, Cambridge, England: Presentation. 34(4), 2-11. Ling, B. (2020). Does NPC's National Security Legislation 2013 Conform with Article 159 of the Basic Law (in Chinese). Ming Ling, B. (2013). A Tale of Two Jurisdictions: China's State Pao Daily. Secret Law and Disclosure Rules on Cross-border Financial Ling, B. (2020). International Proceedings against China for Information. Shanghai Forum 2013, Shanghai, China: COVID-19 Compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Judicial Modernization and Its Legacies to the People's Republic of China
    An Irresistible Inheritance: Republican Judicial Modernization and Its Legacies to the People’s Republic of China Glenn Tiffert, University of California, Berkeley Abstract Commentators have long treated the Republican and People’s Republic of China (PRC) judicial systems in nearly hermetic isolation from each other. Yet it is impossible to grasp fully the history of the PRC judicial system independent of its Republican heritage, and to decouple the two is therefore to foreclose critical avenues of understanding. As a step toward repairing that rupture, this paper specifies the configurations and distributions of courts, as well as the discourses of judicial malaise and reform that the Republican period deposited on the doorstep of the PRC. It establishes the necessary empirical foundation from which to appreciate the institutional deficits and imbalances, developmental dilemmas, and normative discourses that confronted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) judicial planners in 1949, and it equips the reader to understand the planners’ responses—not just through the lens of ideology but also as reasoned reactions to concrete, practical problems. Additionally, this paper suggests that memory of the Republican judicial system served as a repository of value from which to shape, assess, and comprehend law’s fate in the PRC. Keywords: Republican China, Chinese judicial system About the 1949 Chinese Revolution, the eminent PRC legal reformer and scholar Cai Dingjian1 once observed that if we had overthrown the old legal order generally, yet embraced the attitude that law could be inherited; if we had not criticized or scorned it all; if we had concretely analyzed specific laws, brought forward a series of legal concepts— such as justice, equality, impartiality, the authority of law, respect for law, honesty, keeping one’s word, and so on—and inherited concrete rules and procedures for resolving conflicts, then the construction of New China’s legal system would not have had such a low starting point, and perhaps would not have met such misfortune.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Expropriation and Nationalization Risk in China
    An Analysis of Expropriation and Nationalization Risk in China Lianlian Lint John R. Alisontt I. CHINA IN THE EMERGiNG GLOBAL ECONOMY ............................ 136 H. NATIONALIZATION, EXPROPRIATION, AND OTHER HOST-GOVERNMENT TAKINGS OF FOREIGN ASSETS ......................................... 138 . THE COMPENSATION STANDARD: FROM THE HULL RULE TO APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION AND PEIRHAPS BACK AGAIN ....................... 141 A. U.N. Documents and Their Interpretation .......................... 144 B. DecisionalAuthority ........................................ 147 C. Actual Claims-Settlement Practicesof Developing Countries ............... 152 D. Continued Vitality of the TraditionalStandard ........................ 154 IV. EXPROPRIATION RISK IN CHINA: THEORY, POLICY, LAW, AND PRACTICE ............................................. 159 A. Chinese Academic Theory ..................................... 160 1. The Debate on Legislative Immunity from Expropriation .............. 161 a. Sovereignty and Self-Restraint .......................... 161 b. The Right of Expropriation ............................ 162 C. China and the Third World ............................. 163 2. Academic Debate on Other Issues ........................... 163 a. The Nature of Property .............................. 164 b. A Question of Domestic or InternationalLaw? ................ 165 C. The NondiscriminationPrinciple ......................... 166 d. The Compensation Standard ........................... 167 B. China's Expressions of Government Policy .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Charting Socio-Legal Approaches to International Law in China: Taking the Interdisciplinary Study of International Law and History As an Example
    E-ISSN 2281-4612 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 9 No 1 January 2020 ISSN 2281-3993 www.richtmann.org . Research Article © 2020 Shisong Jiang. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) Charting Socio-Legal Approaches to International Law in China: Taking the Interdisciplinary Study of International Law and History as an Example Shisong Jiang Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy; Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Belgium Doi: 10.36941/ajis-2020-0001 Abstract The mainstream of international legal academia has started to address a distinctive fundamental question of whether international law is international in recent years, in which national differences in terms of the understandings of and approaches to international law have been (re)recognized and accentuated. Thanks to its increasing importance and influence in the international community, the ways in which China engages with a variety of international legal issues and topics have garnered more attention from the so-called western scholars. Meanwhile, Chinese international legal scholars have also committed to establishing a Chinese school of international law through which to intensively and comprehensively showcase its own characteristics in this regard. Against this backdrop, this article aims to unveil the underestimated part of its characteristics concerning the socio-legal scholarship in China’s international law research by taking the interdisciplinary study of international law and history as an example. To that end, this article first reviews the overall configuration of international law research in China and roughly summarizes the current “Chinese characteristics” as follows: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The PLA and International Humanitarian Law: Achievements and Challenges
    The PLA and International Humanitarian Law: Achievements and Challenges Wang Wenjuan ASIA PAPER October 2013 The PLA and International Humanitarian Law: Achievements and Challenges Wang Wenjuan (Translated from Chinese by Kelly Chen) Institute for Security and Development Policy Västra Finnbodavägen 2, 131 30 Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden www.isdp.eu The PLA and International Humanitarian Law: Achievements and Challenges is an Asia Paper published by the Institute for Security and Development Policy. The Asia Pa- pers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Institute’s Asia Program, and addresses topical and timely subjects. The Institute is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and cooperates closely with research centers worldwide. Through its Silk Road Studies Program, the In- stitute runs a joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center with the Central Asia-Cau- casus Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. The Institute is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. It is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and develop- ment. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion. The opinions and conclusions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Security and Development Policy or its sponsors. © Institute for Security and Development Policy, 2013 ISBN: 978-91-86635-66-4 Printed in Singapore Distributed in Europe by: Institute for Security and Development Policy Västra Finnbodavägen 2, 131 30 Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law Morten Bergsmo and LING Yan (Editors)
    State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law Morten Bergsmo and LING Yan (editors) PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/82ec96/ PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/82ec96/ State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law Morten Bergsmo and LING Yan (editors) 2012 Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher Beijing PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/82ec96/ This and other books in the FICHL Publication Series may be openly accessed and downloaded through the website www.fichl.org. This site uses Persistent URLs (PURL) for all publications it makes available. The URLs of these publications will not be changed. Printed copies may be ordered through online distributors such as www.amazon.co.uk. This book was first published on 19 November 2012. © Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012 All rights are reserved. You may read, print or download this book or any part of it from www.fichl.org for personal use, but you may not in any way charge for its use by others, directly or by reproducing it, storing it in a retrieval system, transmitting it, or utilising it in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, in whole or in part, without the prior permission in writing of the copyright holder. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the copyright holder. You must not circulate this book in any other cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer. You must not make this book or any part of it available on the Internet by any other URL than that on www.fichl.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Morten Bergsmo and Ling Yan (Eds). State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law
    Book Reviews 625 Morten Bergsmo and Ling Yan (eds). State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law. Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012. Pp. 281. £15. ISBN: 9788293081357. State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law, edited by Morten Bergsmo and Ling Yan, brings together two recent issues of international law: the rise of international criminal law as a building block in the nascent constitution of the international legal order and the increasingly active par- ticipation of China in international law. Even though China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), it has until recently been de facto absent from the debates over norms of international law. Likewise, international criminal justice is a field of law that stagnated for more than 40 years. The last two decades have witnessed a revival of both phoenixes. This anthology, prepared in the context of the Li Haopei Lecture Series of the Forum for Downloaded from International Criminal Law, offers the view of Chinese and European international lawyers, scholars and judges on three issues: immunity of state officials from foreign prosecution for international crimes; universal jurisdiction and the newly adopted amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) on the crime of aggression.1 These three issues are highly topical. http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ In the third and perhaps pivotal chapter, Zhou Lulu, director of the Treaty Division of the Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry Foreign Affairs of China, gives a brief analysis of a few controversial issues in contemporary international criminal law. All of the controversial issues addressed in this article, including aggression, universal jurisdiction and immunity, are dis- cussed by the other contributors to the book – some agreeing and some disagreeing with Zhou.
    [Show full text]