| Popis: |
Chapter 5 begins the book’s journey through the accountability matrix with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although Russia and China vetoed the ICC referral resolution, thus preventing the Court from exercising its plenary jurisdiction over events in Syria, the transnational elements of the conflict mean that there are still some options for invoking the Court’s nationality and territorial jurisdiction. Given the proliferation of foreign fighters hailing from around the globe, including from ICC member states, the Syrian conflict offers the potential to activate the Court’s nationality jurisdiction. In addition, the spillover effects of the war implicate the territories of ICC states parties, in the region and beyond, as well as states where the ICC is already active, such as Libya. Finally, there are theoretical arguments that the Security Council could refer “the situation involving ISIL” to the Court, which could encompass either the organization itself, untethered from any territorial space, or the transboundary statelet that once encompassed ISIL’s self-proclaimed caliphate. Although many advocates and diplomats assumed that the ICC should be in the lead adjudicating the many international crimes committed in Syria, this chapter closes with some notes of caution as to why the ICC may not be the ideal forum, even assuming a Council referral were forthcoming. |
