{"id":1773,"date":"2008-01-01T09:04:49","date_gmt":"2008-01-01T13:04:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/site\/?p=1773"},"modified":"2010-09-25T21:48:39","modified_gmt":"2010-09-26T01:48:39","slug":"issue_49-1_burke-white","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2008\/01\/issue_49-1_burke-white\/","title":{"rendered":"Proactive Complementarity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Abstract<\/span><\/p>\n<p><em>When  the International Criminal Court (\u201cICC\u201d or \u201cCourt\u201d) was established in  2002, states, nongovernmental organizations (\u201cNGOs\u201d), and the  international community had extraordinarily high expectations that the  Court would bring an end to impunity and provide broad-based  accountability for international crimes. Nearly five years later, those  expectations remain largely unfulfilled due to political constraints,  resource limitations, and the limited ability of the ICC to apprehend  suspects. This article offers a novel solution to the misalignment  between the Court\u2019s limited resources and legal mandate on the one hand  and the lofty expectations for it on the other, arguing that the Court  must engage more actively with national governments and must encourage  states to undertake their own prosecutions of international crimes. It  advocates a shift in the ICC\u2019s role through a policy of \u201cproactive  complementarity,\u201d whereby the Court would encourage and at times assist  states in undertaking domestic prosecutions of international crimes. The  article examines the legal mandate for such a policy, considers the  political constraints on the Court, offers a practical framework for the  implementation of proactive complementarity in the range of  circumstances the ICC is likely to face, and documents examples of  proactive complementarity in the ICC\u2019s initial operations. Overall, the  article argues that encouraging national prosecutions within the \u201cRome  System of Justice\u201d and shifting burdens back to national governments  offer the best and perhaps the only ways for the ICC to meet its mandate  and help end impunity.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When the International Criminal Court (\u201cICC\u201d or \u201cCourt\u201d) was established in 2002, states, nongovernmental organizations (\u201cNGOs\u201d), and the international community had extraordinarily high expectations that the Court would bring an end to impunity and provide broad-based accountability for international crimes. Nearly five years later, those expectations remain largely unfulfilled due to political constraints, resource limitations, and the limited ability of the ICC to apprehend suspects. This article offers a novel solution to the misalignment between the Court\u2019s limited resources and legal mandate on the one hand and the lofty expectations for it on the other, arguing that the Court must engage more actively with national governments and must encourage states to undertake their own prosecutions of international crimes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print-archives"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-sB","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}