On The Jurisdiction Of ICC

The jurisdiction of International Criminal Court (ICC) is the most controversial issue among various countries and scholars. This fierce argument not only roots in different points of view, but also in the biased understanding of Rome Statute's related stipulation and ignorance of its backgrounds and origins. The paper systematically studies the contradiction of ICC jurisdiction; by probing into the evolvement of international society system and dialectically analyzing the national sovereignty theory, it reveals the contradiction's social source and theory basis, as the jurisdiction of ICC is a result of compromise.The jurisdiction of ICC is the result of contradiction. The jurisdiction over international crimes follows a tortuous path, gradually changes from unitary national jurisdiction to multi-jurisdiction including the jurisdiction of national courts, ad hoc Tribunals and ICC. The establishment of ICC jurisdiction is the result of more than 100 years' efforts, which testifies the existence of contradiction. This contradiction is penetrated in the jurisdiction mechanism. Firstly, the jurisdiction of ICC is multi-dimensional. It is generally complementary and compelling at the same time. Secondly, the jurisdiction scope of ICC embodies the contradiction between its limitedness and expansibility. It is limited in principle over the territories of States Parties, on natural persons who are nationals of States Parties, and only to the most serious international crimes. However, according to Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of ICC may expand to the Non-Party States; the crimes' determining standards are extensive and subjective, which may also result in the expansion of its jurisdiction scope. Thirdly, the trigger mechanism of its jurisdiction is both arbitrary and restrictive, which reflects two opinions on the jurisdiction respectively, one to expand and one to restrict. The contradiction of its jurisdictional inner mechanism actually embodies the contradiction between national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of ICC, between the authority of Security Council and the jurisdiction of ICC; mirrors the conflict of different points of view, which even lasts after the establishment of the jurisdiction of ICC.The contradiction of ICC jurisdiction is reasonable. The core of its contradiction is the contradiction between national sovereignty and global administration. But in fact, national sovereignty and ICC jurisdiction have a common interest in pursuing the legal order of international society. In respect of respecting national sovereignty and ensuring the penalty for serious international crimes at the same time, Rome Statute has established a subtle balance. The contradiction of ICC jurisdiction mirrors the reality of international society. The contradiction and consistency of sovereignty system and globalization are inevitably reflected in the jurisdiction of ICC, which is based on the principle of national sovereignty on one hand and unavoidably has supranational authority factors on the other. Being the reflection of international society reality, this contradiction has a reasonable basis. Actually, the establishment and smooth execution of ICC jurisdiction mirrors its value of existence.With above analysis, the thesis holds that, the contradiction of ICC jurisdiction, as the result of compromise, is an objective and reasonable reality. Thus, it is necessary to persist in the consistency of national interest and the common interest of international society, ensure the balance between state power and international order. As an opposing party to Rome Statute, China should reexamine the relationship between national sovereignty and the jurisdiction of ICC, and make a rational choice about whether or not to ratify the Rome Statute.