Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.807973
Title: Ne bis in idem in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Author: Nuridzhanian, Gaiane
Awarding Body: UCL (University College London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2020
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 01 May 2022
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis is dedicated to the principle of ne bis in idem in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Ne bis in idem, or the principle that a person shall not be tried twice in the same matter, is embodied in three separate ne bis in idem rules in Article 20 of the Rome Statute. The thesis examines in detail the precise content and function of each of the ne bis in idem rules in Article 20 of the Rome Statute. The meaning of each rule is established in accordance with the customary international law rules of treaty interpretation. The relevance of other rules of international law, and in particular of international human rights law, to the interpretation and application of the rule is discussed. Finally, a comparison is drawn with the ne bis in idem rules in the law and practice of other international criminal courts and the ne bis idem guarantee in domestic law. The analysis of Article 20 of the Rome Statute shows that there exist in the Rome Statute no single ‘ne bis in idem principle’. The content of ‘ne bis in idem principle’ in the Rome Statute varies depending on the circumstances in which it applies. The ne bis in idem rules in Article 20, which embody the principle, constitute a complex and idiosyncratic formula. This formula may appear to consist of a disjointed patchwork of legal rules. However, a closer examination reveals that Article 20 forms a coherent set of rules which seek to realise the same aim of protecting the person’s interest in not being tried twice for the same matter while respecting a fundamental aspect of the legal system in which they operate: the complementary nature of the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.807973  DOI: Not available
Share: