Jurisdiction and cooperation in criminal matters
Week 2 – the international law of jurisdiction in relation to international and transnational crimes ... 2
ICC Bangladesh/Myanmar decision .................................................................................................... 2
Referral pursuant to art. 14 Rome Statute to the Prosecutor of the ICC by the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela with respect to Unilateral Coercive Measures .............................................................. 3
Week 4 – extradition and human rights.................................................................................................. 5
ECtHR Soering ..................................................................................................................................... 5
ECtHR Othman .................................................................................................................................... 5
Week 5 – alternatives to extradition: disguised extradition, abduction, luring ...................................... 8
ICTY Nikolic ......................................................................................................................................... 8
, Week 2 – the international law of jurisdiction in relation to international and
transnational crimes
ICC Bangladesh/Myanmar decision
Territorial jurisdiction of the ICC; crimes committed partly in the territory of a non-state party.
Facts
This case concerns coercive acts of the perpetrators, which took place in Myanmar (a non-state party),
who have forced the Rohingya population to cross the border into Bangladesh (a state party).
Question
I. May the ICC exercise its jurisdiction over crimes that occurred partially on the territory of a state
party and partially on the territory of a non-state party? So, can the ICC assert territorial jurisdiction
even when (part of) the crime has been committed on the territory of a non-state party (in this case
Myanmar)?
II. Is it required that all the conduct takes place in the territory of one or more state parties?
III. Was the ICC allowed to exercise jurisdiction over conduct (i.e., the alleged deportation of Rohingya
across the Bangladesh-Myanmar border) in this case?
Decision
I. Art. 12(2)(a) Rome Statute – interpreted as an expression of the territoriality principle – establishes
that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction in the event of a state party referral or as a result of the
Prosecutor’s proprio motu initiation of an investigation if one or more of the following states are
parties to the Rome Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC in accordance with paragraph
3: (a) the state on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was
committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the state of registration of that vessel or aircraft; (b) the state
of which the person accused of the crime is a national.
In the context of the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, the ICC decided that “the ICC may
assert jurisdiction pursuant to art. 12(2)(a) Rome Statute if at least one element of a crime within the
jurisdiction of the ICC or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a state party to the Rome
Statute. So, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over crimes when part of the criminal conduct takes place
on the territory of a state party. However, it is important that at least part of the conduct (i.e., the
actus reus of the crime) must take place in the territory of a state party.
II. Customary international law does not prevent states from asserting jurisdiction over acts that took
place outside their territory on the basis of the territoriality principle. A brief survey of state practice
reveals that states have developed different concepts for a variety of situations that enables domestic
prosecuting authorities to assert territorial jurisdiction in transboundary criminal matters, such as:
- The objective territoriality principle according to which the state may assert territorial
jurisdiction if the crime is initiated abroad but completed in the state’s territory.
- The subjective territoriality principle, according to which the state may assert territorial
jurisdiction if the crime has been initiated in the state’s territory but completed abroad.
2
Week 2 – the international law of jurisdiction in relation to international and transnational crimes ... 2
ICC Bangladesh/Myanmar decision .................................................................................................... 2
Referral pursuant to art. 14 Rome Statute to the Prosecutor of the ICC by the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela with respect to Unilateral Coercive Measures .............................................................. 3
Week 4 – extradition and human rights.................................................................................................. 5
ECtHR Soering ..................................................................................................................................... 5
ECtHR Othman .................................................................................................................................... 5
Week 5 – alternatives to extradition: disguised extradition, abduction, luring ...................................... 8
ICTY Nikolic ......................................................................................................................................... 8
, Week 2 – the international law of jurisdiction in relation to international and
transnational crimes
ICC Bangladesh/Myanmar decision
Territorial jurisdiction of the ICC; crimes committed partly in the territory of a non-state party.
Facts
This case concerns coercive acts of the perpetrators, which took place in Myanmar (a non-state party),
who have forced the Rohingya population to cross the border into Bangladesh (a state party).
Question
I. May the ICC exercise its jurisdiction over crimes that occurred partially on the territory of a state
party and partially on the territory of a non-state party? So, can the ICC assert territorial jurisdiction
even when (part of) the crime has been committed on the territory of a non-state party (in this case
Myanmar)?
II. Is it required that all the conduct takes place in the territory of one or more state parties?
III. Was the ICC allowed to exercise jurisdiction over conduct (i.e., the alleged deportation of Rohingya
across the Bangladesh-Myanmar border) in this case?
Decision
I. Art. 12(2)(a) Rome Statute – interpreted as an expression of the territoriality principle – establishes
that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction in the event of a state party referral or as a result of the
Prosecutor’s proprio motu initiation of an investigation if one or more of the following states are
parties to the Rome Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC in accordance with paragraph
3: (a) the state on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was
committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the state of registration of that vessel or aircraft; (b) the state
of which the person accused of the crime is a national.
In the context of the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, the ICC decided that “the ICC may
assert jurisdiction pursuant to art. 12(2)(a) Rome Statute if at least one element of a crime within the
jurisdiction of the ICC or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a state party to the Rome
Statute. So, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over crimes when part of the criminal conduct takes place
on the territory of a state party. However, it is important that at least part of the conduct (i.e., the
actus reus of the crime) must take place in the territory of a state party.
II. Customary international law does not prevent states from asserting jurisdiction over acts that took
place outside their territory on the basis of the territoriality principle. A brief survey of state practice
reveals that states have developed different concepts for a variety of situations that enables domestic
prosecuting authorities to assert territorial jurisdiction in transboundary criminal matters, such as:
- The objective territoriality principle according to which the state may assert territorial
jurisdiction if the crime is initiated abroad but completed in the state’s territory.
- The subjective territoriality principle, according to which the state may assert territorial
jurisdiction if the crime has been initiated in the state’s territory but completed abroad.
2
