The Relationship of International Criminal Tribunals to Domestic Courts: Towards a New Division of Labor? (L'Articulation Entre Tribunaux Penaux Internationaux Et Juridictions Nationales: Vers Un Nouveau Partage Des Competences Judiciaires?)
International criminal justice claims to challenge the very fundamentals of the international legal order. Yet international criminal justice is also still very much a work in progress. It success will depend on how well it can deal with its great founding dilemmas, while respecting international law and its continuity. No question seems more central yet more ambiguous to international criminal tribunals' existence, in this context, than how they relate to domestic courts. This is an issue which in fact raises anew the very conundrum at the heart of international criminal tribunals' creation and identity. On the one hand, international criminal tribunals can be seen from a "universalist" perspective which argues that they are first and foremost about the emergence of a global public order; on the other hand, they can be conceived from a "sovereignist" angle, which sees their prime duty as working for the benefit of states whose crimes they are judging. It is by putting this problematic relationship back into its overall evolution and, in particular, by focusing on what a "non-functioning" domestic court is under international law, that it will become possible to transcend that ambiguity. It will appear that the issue of what is a domestic court that is either "unwilling" or "unable" is in fact an old international law question whose understanding can be improved by a dynamic reading of the evolution of international law. In final analysis, however, it may be that the International Criminal Court's capacity to emancipate itself entirely from the political will be limited, as the Prosecutor adopts a prosecutorial policy which, in itself, is unlikely to be reducible to law's categories.
The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity
Together with the provisions on jurisdiction, the principle of complementarity is the pivotal mechanism to delineate the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC from that of national authorities, including national courts. Designed to find a balance between state sovereignty and the interest of the international community in the effective prosecution of international crimes, it may well prove to be one of the most contentious features of the Statute in its application. The principle of complementarity has thus been described as essential for the acceptance of the Statute by states, and is often referred to as the underlying principle or the cornerstone of the ICC Statute. The present article seeks to contribute to the discussion on one of the most opalescent notions of the Statute. Starting with an analysis of the rationale of the complementarity principle, it examines the substantive elements contained in Article 17 ICC Statute as well as the procedural framework as set out in Articles 18 and 19 ICC Statute. The article furthermore explores the question of the impact of Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter and the possibility of states to "waive" complementarity.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.