Browsing by Author "Mehtonen, Susanna Jeanette Caroline"

In 2010 the Review Conference of the Rome Statute agreed to include a definition of the crime of aggression and conditions for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the crime into the Statute. Determining the existence of an act of aggression falls within the scope of the UN Security Council’s Chapter VII powers. The purpose of this study is to examine the consequence of these new jurisdictional provisions in the context of the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. In particular, the purpose of this study is to examine whether the International Criminal Court would engage in judicial review of Security Council resolutions on aggression, now that the Court has become entwined with the Council’s determinations on aggression under article 39. In international law, judicial review is understood as the review of Security Council resolutions (and sometimes General Assembly resolutions) by international courts. It is an examination or review conducted by a judiciary of the legality or consequences of acts of a legislative or executive body. The Charter of the UN does not directly empower any court with the power to review Security Council decisions. While some international courts have engaged in different forms of review or examination of Security Council resolutions, mainly due to questions arisen through litigation, no court has a similar jurisdictional relationship with the Security Council as the ICC does. The study examines the amendment provisions and the theory and practice behind judicial review in international law and concludes that it is possible that the ICC may engage in an expressive form of judicial review while deciding on acts of aggression and the crime of aggression.