| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.23 MB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Esta dissertação de mestrado tem dois propósitos fundamentais: (1) destacar a importância da jurisdição criminal no âmbito da soberania dos Estados, as teorias que legitimam o seu exercício por parte dos tribunais penais internacionais e a complementaridade do Tribunal Penal Internacional; (2) analisar as condições prévias ao exercício da jurisdição do Tribunal Penal Internacional, com especial enfoque no n.º 3 do artigo 12.º do Estatuto e, partindo de três casos concretos – Costa do Marfim, Uganda e Palestina - , examinar certas questões controversas que se colocam na prática do Tribunal. Em resumo, o autor conclui ser inadmissível a apresentação de declarações “parciais”, isto é, declarações que limitam a jurisdição do TPI a crimes e/ou indivíduos concretos, que é de excluir a hipótese de encarar as declarações apresentadas por Estados não Parte de forma análoga a uma denúncia apresentada por um Estado Parte e, por fim, que não deve ser permitida a denúncia das declarações apresentadas pelos Estados por via do artigo 12.º, n.º 3 do ERTPI.
This master’s thesis has two major purposes: (1) to highlight the importance of criminal jurisdiction on state’s sovereignty, the theories invoked to legitimize the operation of international criminal courts and the complementarity of the International Criminal Court; (2) to analyse the preconditions to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, with special focus on paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Statute and, considering three specific cases – Ivory Coast, Uganda and Palestine -, examine certain controversial issues that arise in the practice of the Court. In conclusion, the author states that “partial” declarations, e.g., declarations that limit the jurisdiction of the ICC to specific crimes and/or individuals are inadmissible, that the possibility to treat declarations submitted by States Party analogously to a referral of a State Party is to exclude, and, finally, that the withdrawal of declarations presented by States under Article 12, paragraph 3 of ICC Statute should not be allowed.
This master’s thesis has two major purposes: (1) to highlight the importance of criminal jurisdiction on state’s sovereignty, the theories invoked to legitimize the operation of international criminal courts and the complementarity of the International Criminal Court; (2) to analyse the preconditions to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, with special focus on paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Statute and, considering three specific cases – Ivory Coast, Uganda and Palestine -, examine certain controversial issues that arise in the practice of the Court. In conclusion, the author states that “partial” declarations, e.g., declarations that limit the jurisdiction of the ICC to specific crimes and/or individuals are inadmissible, that the possibility to treat declarations submitted by States Party analogously to a referral of a State Party is to exclude, and, finally, that the withdrawal of declarations presented by States under Article 12, paragraph 3 of ICC Statute should not be allowed.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Jurisdição criminal Tribunal Penal Internacional Declarações Estados não Parte Jurisdição delegada Jurisdição universal Soberania Primazia Complementaridade Costa do Marfim Uganda Palestina Ucrânia Criminal jurisdiction International Criminal Court Declarations Non-Party States Delegated jurisdiction Universal jurisdiction Sovereignty Primacy Complementarity Ivory coast Palestine Ukraine