Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 2 Article 10 6-1-2018 Pull and Push'- Implementing the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute of the ICC within the AU: Opportunities and Challenges Sascha Dominik Dov Bachmann Eda Luke Nwibo Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Sascha Dominik D. Bachmann & Eda L. Nwibo, Pull and Push'- Implementing the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute of the ICC within the AU: Opportunities and Challenges, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 457 (2018). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. PULL AND PUSH—IMPLEMENTING THE COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE ICC WITHIN THE AFRICAN UNION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Sascha Dominik Dov Bachmann* & Eda Luke Nwibo< INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 459 I. THE ROME STATUTE’S COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE UNDER ARTICLE 17 AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND NATIONAL LEGAL ORDERS................ 467 A. The Relationship Between International and National Systems of Criminal Justice and the ICC .......................... 468 B. The Rationale Behind Primacy and Complementarity Regimes ............................................................................... 472 1. The Primacy Relationship of the ICTY and the ICTR 475 2. The Complementarity Relationship of the ICC .......... 477 C. Models of Complementarity............................................ 478 1. Passive Complementarity ........................................... 479 2. Positive Complementarity........................................... 480 3. Proactive Complementarity ........................................ 482 * State Exam (Ludwig Maximillians Universität, Germany), Ass. Juris, Rechtsanwalt, (Barrister/Solicitor), Landgericht München I, High Court Mu- nich, Germany, LLM (Stell, RSA), LLD (UJ, RSA) Attorney (Munich High Court), Associate Professor in Law (Bournemouth University, UK), Associate Professor in War Studies (Swedish Defence University Stockholm) and Profes- sorial Research Fellow (CEMIS, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch Uni- versity). ‡ L.L.B (Ebonyi State University, Nigeria), B.L (Nigerian Law School, La- gos), L.L.M (Bournemouth University, United Kingdom), Barrister and Solici- tor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, PhD Candidate, Bournemouth University UK. The authors would like to thank the editors of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, particularly Ms. Jessica Martin and Michelle Lee for their painstaking editing of this article. Any shortcomings in the article are all ours. 458 BROOK. J. INT’L L. [Vol. 43:2 D. Complementarity, Jurisdiction, and Admissibility Issues Under Article 17 of the Statute: Analysis of its Elements and Components......................................................................... 484 1. The Unwillingness Test............................................... 486 2. The Inability and Unavailability Test ........................ 487 3. The Sufficient Gravity Threshold Test ....................... 489 E. Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle ........... 490 F. Shortcomings of the Complementarity Regime .............. 493 II. NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPLEMENTARITY REGIME WITHIN THE AFRICAN NATIONAL LEGAL ORDERS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ......................................... 495 A. E;amining States’ Obligation to Implement the Rome Statute................................................................................. 496 B. Legislative Steps Towards Implementation: The Need for African States to Implement the Rome Statute Through the Enactment of Complementarity Legislation....................... 502 1. The Minimalist Approach............................................ 504 2. The Express and Specific Criminalization Approach . 507 C. Challenges African States Face Implementing the Rome Statute’s Complementarity Regime .................................... 510 D. The Pull and Push of Acceptance of International Criminal Justice in Africa: Is States’ Mere Compliance with International Legal Norms Enough Indication of Acceptance? ............................................................................................. 514 III. THE AU VERSUS THE ICC: GROWING TENSION AND THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AFRICA ... 516 A. Addressing First Things First—The Politics of International Criminal Justice........................................... 517 B. Africa’s Contributions to the ICC................................... 523 C. Growing Tension between the AU and ICC: Analyzing the Pull Factors and Prospects of Resolving the Impasse ........ 524 D. African vs. International Criminal Justice: The Establishment of an African Regional Criminal Court with 2018] The AU and the Complementarity Principle 459 Regional Complementarity Jurisdiction as a Challenge to the ICC in Africa....................................................................... 531 E. The Future of International Criminal Justice and the ICC in Africa .............................................................................. 533 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 534 A. Policy-Oriented Approach to Implementation................ 535 B. Purposive Judicial Method of Interpreting the Complementarity Regime.................................................... 538 C. Domestic Capacity Building and Institutional Preparedness....................................................................... 539 D. Legislative and Technical Assistance ............................ 540 E. Improving Relations Between the AU and the ICC ....... 541 CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 541 INTRODUCTION Je inte'nationaH Qomm&nith’s 'esoH%e to l'inL to I&stiQe tJe Tperpetrators of serious international crimes, core crimes respectively, climaxed in the creation of the International Crim- inal Court (ICC)1 in 2002. The WCC’s establishment brought to conclusion a legal journey which had begun some eighty years prior.2 It started with the failed attempt to try German war crim- inals before allied tribunals after World War I, which was re- placed by a domestic judicial approach, whereas Germany was 1. The ICC was established under the Rome Statute of the International C'iminaH Co&'t f7WCC 8tat&te5d^ 9ome 8tat&te oM tJe Wnte'nationaH C'iminaH Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Rome Statute]. 2. Sascha Bachmann, Today’s )uest for International Criminal Justice—A Short Overview of the Present State Of Criminal Prosecution of International Crimes, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ARMED CONFLICT 289N90 (N. Quénivet & S. Shah-Davis eds., 2010); ANTONIO CASSESE, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 317N30 (2008); Steven Ratner & Jason S. Abrams,ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW-BEYOND THE NUREMBERG LEGACY 48N49 (2001). Further information is found in the German fifteenth century war trial, as described by Georg Schwarzenberger. See Georg Schwarzenberger, The Problem of an International Criminal Law, 3 CURRENT LEGAL PROBS. 263 (1950). 460 BROOK. J. INT’L L. [Vol. 43:2 responsible under the Treaty of Versailles3 to try a number of its alleged war criminals before the German Reichsgericht, located in Leipzig.4 This early attempt to establish criminal responsibil- ity regained momentum when the allied victors established the two ad hoc Nuremberg5 and Tokyo Tribunals6 post World War II. In the early 1990s, more than fifty years after Nuremberg, the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the For- mer Yugoslavia (ICTY)7 and the International Criminal Tribu- nal for Rwanda (ICTR)8 gave new impetus to the creation of an effective system of international criminal justice. This process was accompanied by the rather rapid development of interna- tional criminal law (ICL)9 since 1993. The notion of international criminal responsibility had become a recognized international law concept, as evident in the works of five ad hoc international investigation commissions,10 four ad hoc international criminal 3. Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles) arts. 228N30, June 28, 1919, 225 Consol. T.S. 188 [hereinafter Treaty of Versailles]. 4.CLAUDE MULLINS, THE LEIPZIG TRIALS 6N7, 9 (1921). 5. See Nuremberg Trials,HISTORY, http://www.history.com/topics/world- war-ii/nuremberg-trials (last visited June 27, 2017); The Nuremberg Trials, U.S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/ar- ticle.php?ModuleId=10007722 (last visited June 27, 2017); see also Richard Overy, Nuremberg: Nazis On Trial, World BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/his- tory/worldwars/wwtwo/nuremberg_article_01.shtml (last visited June 27, 2017). 6. See International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Jan. 19, 1946, T.I.A.S. No. 1586. 7. The ICTY was formally established by the U.N. Security Council in 1993. See S.C. Res. 827 (May 25, 1993). 8. The ICTR was formally established by the U.N. Security Council in 1994. See S.C. Res. 955 (Nov. 8, 1994). 9. See, e.g., Convention on the Prevention