This Week: The International Criminal Court

At this week’s meeting, we will be debating the International Criminal Court. The definitions are below and we hope to see you at Phi Kappa Hall at 7PM this Thursday!

BIHR: The International Criminal Court should be able to exercise universal jurisdiction.

Terms for the Debate:
International Criminal Court, often referred to as the ICC, is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. As of now the Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.

Universal jurisdiction is a principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country.

Should be able: The implication of “should be able” is that if this resolution is passed then the ICC should be allowed to immediately practice universal jurisdiction. This would include jurisdiction over states, such as the United States, that have never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.