But it became more and more evident that it
is a challenge to actually select situations and cases.
This is how the ICC adopted a managerial approach towards complementarity,
in which it adopted the approach to actually incentivize to provide
and to encourage domestic jurisdictions to bring cases to the Hague.
For instance, Luis Moreno Ocampo solicited referrals from the state to the ICC here.
At the same time, and this is what is called positive complementarity.
At the same time, tribunals still serve
as a kind of threat for domestic jurisdictions.
And this is what you might call a negative conception of complementarity.
Where there is almost this ward of international justice
hanging above domestic jurisdictions if they don't act efficiently.
>> Yes.
That actually brings me to the question.
What is the relationship between the International Court of
Justice, the Ad Hoc Tribunals and the International Criminal Court?
>> I think we should differentiate here.
On the one hand we have the relationship between the ICC and the Ad Hoc Tribunals.
I would describe this as a relationship between different generations of justice.
The top tribunals were the first wave of international tribunals, which
then influenced actually the norms and standards of the ICC Statute.
And the ICC is a permanent institution,
but which we present also a different approach.
So, at this moment the ICC is learning from the
practices of the top tribunals as a kind of first generation.
At the same time there's feedback, there's what I
would call cross-fertilization between, back from the ICC also
to the top tribunals, in relation to new phenomenon
such as sexual violence, how to deal with victims.
All of these new important questions are also now influenced in,
in the top tribunals by the work of the, of the ICC.
The relationship to the International Court of Justice is
a kind of different one because the International Court
of Justice deals with international law in its entirety
and international criminal law is a specialized body of law.
So there's almost a sense of competition about who is now
the ultimate guardian of the law in, particular international criminal law.
Sometimes we see actually conflicting decisions, of,
between tribunals, different approaches towards a crime,
different approaches towards responsibility, but I would
argue that this is actually a healthy development.
It shows that it's a dynamic and active field, we're just constantly.
Re-assessing and reorganizing it itself, and
adjusting itself to the challenges of time.
>> Thank you very much.
Very much an evolving picture that we indeed see this domain.
Actually international criminal law itself has not been for
that long, a specialization of law, a recognized specialization.
What is the reason dealt that actually at this become excepted
and why, what were the developments kind of underlined this trend?
>> Its often forgotten that this movement
was international criminal justice started quite early.
Already in 1919, at the time of the peace conference.
There was a movement, how could we think about, you know,
adjudicating war crimes and for
example and crimes against humanity internationally.
Then after World War II of course we
got the Nuremberg tribunal, we've got the Tokyo tribunal.
We afterwards have the United Nations general assembly codifying
the Nuremberg principals as part of United Nations law.
So in terms of the substantive law, much of the ground has
actually been paved already after World War I, after World War II.
Only the institutional dimension, the enforcement
dimension, we started to work efficiently only
in the 1990s when we had
the transformations and the collective security system.
When the security council took a more active
stance in relation to, peace building, peace operations
and justice then was part seen as an
integral part of peace under the United Nations' system.
And this is, it's through this nexus, to the collective security system, that
the new enforcement dimension of international
criminal justice actually gained this new energy.
This new movement towards we need to act now
and we cannot only leave it with substantive law.
We actually need real institutions on the ground to enforce some of these laws.
>> And this is indeed what we are witnessing and seeing today, in this city.
In The Hague.
Thank you very much for this very, very insightful interview.
Thank you and students, if you would like to
read more about the background of what you've just heard.
Please look at our reading list, and
you'll find some important papers on these subjects.
Thank you very much again, and see you soon.