Michael Vagias analyses the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

The book provides a holistic examination of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The main focus is placed on the three pillars which form the ICC’s foundation pursuant to the Rome Statute: the preconditions to the exercise of its jurisdiction (Article 12 Rome Statute) the substantive competence, i.e. the core crimes (Article 5-8bis Rome Statute, i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crime of aggression) the principle of complementarity (Article 17§1 (a) Rome Statute) The latter governs the ICC's ‘ultimate jurisdiction’, since it is not merely sufficient for a crime to be within the Court's jurisdiction (according to the substantive, geographical, personal and temporal jurisdictional criteria), but the State Party must also be unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Finally yet importantly, the main ‘negative preconditions’ for the Court’s jurisdiction, i.e. immunities (Article 27 Rome Statute) and exceptions via Security Council referrals are thoroughly examined.The book is an excellent resource for scholars as well as practitioners and notably contributes to the existing literature.

"There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; compe;tence de la compe;tence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections"--

There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; compétence de la compétence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections.

Galand critically spells out a comprehensive conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to the various limits to the International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over situations that concern nationals and territories of non-party States.

The first book-length work to provide a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the ICC's jurisdiction over nationals of non-States Parties.

Essay from the year 2008 in the subject Law - Comparative Legal Systems, Comparative Law, grade: 1,7, University of Bremen, language: English, abstract: Fifty years after the Nuremberg-Tribunal, the U.N. Commission of Experts on the Former Yugoslavia stated, that “states may choose to combine their jurisdictions under the universality principle and vest this combined jurisdiction in an international tribunal.” This tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC), finally was created by a diplomatic conference held in Rome in 1998, where 120 States voted to adopt the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , rendering into force in 2002. This detailed international treaty provides for the creation of an international criminal court with power to try and punish for the most serious violations of human rights in cases where national justice systems fail at the task. The ICC therefore ushers in a new era in the protection of human rights. Some authors even say that to a great extent, the success of the Court parallels the growth of the international human rights movement, much of whose fundamental philosophy and outlook it shares. Lately mainly questions concerning the Iraq-conflict were raised, concerning the problem, whether criminal proceedings against the main actors before the ICC would be “successful”.