The article seeks to unlock a puzzle concerning the appropriate demarcation of spheres of jurisdiction of national and international criminal courts. In particular, the work examines the concept of gravity of crimes and cases embedded in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
For the ICC regime, the gravity of the crimes and cases at issue represents the primary normative justification for international adjudication. The notion that the core intern
ational crimes are particularly grave or serious is not new. In fact, most international criminal law scholarship and jurisprudence simply assume the necessity of a gravity element. This article takes a critical look at the roles that gravity plays in the ICC regime, from both theoretical and doctrinal standpoints, as follows:
ational crimes are particularly grave or serious is not new. In fact, most international criminal law scholarship and jurisprudence simply assume the necessity of a gravity element. This article takes a critical look at the roles that gravity plays in the ICC regime, from both theoretical and doctrinal standpoints, as follows:► In terms of theory, the article posits gravity as a key determinant of the ICC’s moral and sociological legitimacy. The Rome Statute’s gravity threshold for admissibility in Article 17 helps to ensure the Court’s minimal moral legitimacy by requiring a preliminary balancing of justice and sovereignty before the Court exercises jurisdiction.
► In a related but distinct role, the prosecution’s discretionary consideration of relative gravity, pursuant to Article 53 of the Rome Statute, helps to ensure the Court’s sociological legitimacy in relevant audiences.
The article’s prescriptive contribution seeks to assist the Court – not only the judges, but also Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo (above right) and his team, which must ensure the gravity of the cases it investigates and prosecutes – in developing a gravity doctrine and policies that comport with the theoretical roles that gravity plays in the ICC regime.
