Javad Salehi
Abstract
The ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation at the request of its prosecutor has a new achievement that has no precedent in the ICC jurisprudence. The prosecutor’s request for the ruling on jurisdiction is based on Article 19(3) of the Statute. However, the exercise of jurisdiction in the ...
Read More
The ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation at the request of its prosecutor has a new achievement that has no precedent in the ICC jurisprudence. The prosecutor’s request for the ruling on jurisdiction is based on Article 19(3) of the Statute. However, the exercise of jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation is hampered by its non-membership in the ICC. But Pre-trial seek by establishing a connection between Articles 19(3) and 12(2)(a) of the Statute to provide a new achievement for all non-states party in the ICC, whose dimensions are important and one of the aims and subject of this article. The research method is descriptive-analytical and relies on the provisions of the Statute and the ICC’s jurisprudence to answer the main question of the research. The research question is what is the achievement of the ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation for the international community? The findings show that the extension of the ICC jurisdiction from the Member State of Bangladesh’s territory to the non-member state of Myanmar’s territory is an achievement of the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation, which has been missing in its jurisprudence. Accordingly, the criminal situation of states due to their non-membership in the ICC or non-referral of their situation by the UN Security Council is no longer beyond the ICC jurisdiction if the offense is committed in the ICC state party and non-state party’s territories. In these circumstances, the membership of one state has a positive effect on the non-membership of another state, and its criminal situation puts it before the ICC’s judges.
