Treatise on InternationalCriminal Law

Volume III: International Criminal Procedure

Kai Ambos

Bibliography

CHAPTER 1

Acquaviva, G., ‘Human Rights Violations before International Tribunals – Reflections on Respon-sibility of International Organizations’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 613–636;

Acquaviva, G., ‘Was a Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals Really Neces-sary?’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 789–796;

Acquaviva, G., ‘Single and Bifurcated Trials’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure(2013), 534–543;

Acquaviva, G. and Heikkilä, M., ‘Protective and Special Measures for Witnesses’, in Sluiter et al,International Criminal Procedure (2013), 818–859;

Akhavan, P., ‘Justice in The Hague, peace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the UnitedNations War Crimes Tribunal’, HRQ, 20 (1998), 737–816;

Alamuddin, A., ‘Collection of Evidence’, in Khan, K. A. A., Buisman, C. and Gosnell, C., eds. Principlesof Evidence in International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 231–305;

Ambach, P., ‘Laufen hybride ad hoc-Gerichte dem IStGH den Rang ab?’, HuV-I, 18 (2005),106–118;

Ambos, K., The Right of Non-Self-Incrimination ofWitnesses before the ICC, LJIL, 15 (2002), 155–177;Ambos, K., ‘Europarechtliche Vorgaben für das (deutsche) Strafverfahren – Teil II – Zur Re-

chtsprechung des EGMR von 2000–2002’, NStZ, 23 (2003), 14–17;Ambos, K., ‘International Criminal Procedure – “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed’, ICLR, 3

(2003), 1–37;Ambos, K.,‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen völkerrechtlichen Rechtsguterschutzes’, in Neubacher, F.

and Klein, A., eds, Vom Recht der Macht zur Macht des Rechts? (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,2006), 111–116;

Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure – “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” orMixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503;

Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsrLR, 42 (2009), 362–397;Ambos, K., Beweisverwertungsverbote – Grundlagen und Kasuistik – Internationale Bezüge –

Ausgewählte Probleme (Berlin: Dunkler & Humblot, 2010);Ambos, K., ‘Book Review – International Courts and Their Judges – Ruth Mackenzie, Kate

Malleson, Penny Martin and Philippe Sands, Selecting International Judges: Principle, Process,and Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2010)’, CLF, 23 (2012), 223–228;

Ambos, K., ‘Prosecution of Former Nazi Camp Guards: About Restoring Society’s Trust in Law andParticipation in a Criminal Enterprise’, EJIL: Talk!, 20 May 2013, available at http://www.ejiltalk.

org/prosecution-of-former-nazi-camp-guards-about-restoring-societys-trust-in-law-and-participation-in-a-criminal-enterprise/, last visited 1 October 2015;

Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law – Striking the Right BalanceBetween the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, CrLPhil, 9 (2015), 301–329;

Ambos, K., ‘Guest Post: Colombia–How Much Justice Can the Peace Take?’, Opinio Juris (8 October2015), available at <http://opiniojuris.org/2015/10/08/guest-post-colombia-how-much-justice-can-the-peace-take/>, last visited 25 December 2015;

Ambos, K., ‘La piede de toque del acuerdo de paz’, El Espectador, 20 Dec. 2015, p. 46, available at <http://www.elespectador.com/opinion/piedra-de-toque-del-acuerdo-de-paz> last visited 4 Jan. 2016;

Ambos, K. and Steiner, C., ‘Vom Sinn des Strafens auf innerstaatlicher und supranationaler Ebene’,JuS, 41 (2001), 9–13;

Amelung, K., Rechtsguterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft – Untersuchungen zum Inhalt und zumAnwendungsbereich eines Strafrechtsprinzips auf dogmengeschichtlicher Grundlage – zugleich einBeitrag zur Lehre von der ‘Sozialschädlichkeit’ des Verbrechens (Frankfurt amMain: Athenäum, 1972);

American Bar Association, Comparative Analysis of Criminal Defense Advocacy in Albania, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Serbia (Washington, DC: American Bar Association,February 2014);

Andenaes J., ‘The General Preventive Effects of Punishment’, UPaLR, 114 (1966), 949–983;Anonymous, ‘Human Rights in Peace Negotiations’, HRQ, 18 (1996), 249–258;Aptel, C., ‘Some Innovations in the Statute of the STL’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1107–1124;Arendt, H., Eichmann in Jerusalem – A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Penguin Books,

2006);Arquint, S., ‘ “Anwalt der ersten Stunde”? – Ein Positionspapier!’, in Schindler, B. and Schlauri, R.,

eds, Auf dem Weg zu einem einheitlichen Verfahren (Zürich: Schulthess, 2001), 175–202;Arzt, G., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die formelle Wahrheit’, in Arnold et al., eds,

Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (München:C. H. Beck, 2005), 691–704;

Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L., ‘Prevention, Censure and Responsibility – The Recent Debate on thePurposes of Punishment’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U., eds, LiberalCriminal Theory – Essays for Andreas von Hirsch (Oxford, Portland/Oregon: Hart Publishing,2014), 3–22;

Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn,2010);

Aßmann, J., ‘The Challenges of Genocide Trials’, in Safferling, C. J. M. and Conze, E.-A., eds, TheGenocide Convention Sixty Years after its Adoption (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2010),183–194;

Aviram, H., ‘Packer in Context – Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model’, Law & SocInquiry, 36 (2011), 237–258;

Ayat, M., ‘Justice pénale internationale pour la paix et la réconciliation’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 391–424;Bachmaier Winter, L., ‘Proceso penal y protección de los derechos fundamentales del imputado en

Europa – La propuesta de decisión marco sobre determinados derechos procesales en losprocesos penales celebrados en la Unión Europea’, in Oliva Santos, A. D. L., Armenta Deu, T.and Calderón Cuadrado, M. P., eds, Garantías fundamentales del proceso penal en el espaciojudicial europeo (Madrid: Editorial Colex, 2007), 41–69;

Bagaric, M. and Morss, J., ‘International Sentencing Law – In Search of a Justification and CoherentFramework’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 191–255;

Balasco, L. M., ‘The International Criminal Court as a Human Security Agent’, FletcherJHS, 28(2013), 46–67;

Barrot, J., ‘Die Unschuldsvermutung in der Rechtssprechung des EGMR’, ZJS, 3 (2010), 701–706;Bassiouni, M. C., ‘Post-Conflict Justice in Iraq – An Appraisal of the Iraq Special Tribunal’,

CornILJ, 38 (2005), 327–390;Bassiouni, M. C., ‘The United Nations Commission of Experts Pursuant to Security Council

Resolution 780 (1992)’, AJIL, 88 (1994), 784–805;Baumanns, S., Der Beschleunigungsgrundsatz im Strafverfahren (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2011);

2 Bibliography

Beigbeder, Y., International Justice against Impunity –Progress and New Challenges (Leiden: BrillAcademic Publishers, 2005);

Bentham, J., ‘Punishment and Deterrence’, in von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J., eds,Principled Sentencing – Readings on Theory and Policy (Oxford, Portland, Oregon: Hart Pub-lishing, 3rd edn, 2009), 53–56;

Beresford, S., ‘Redressing the Wrongs of the International Criminal Justice System’, in Dolgopol, U.and Gardam, J., eds, The Challenges of Conflict – International Law Responds (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2005), 367–392;

Bernard, B., ‘Ne bis in idem – Protector of Defendants’ Rights or Jurisdictional Pointsman?’, JICJ,9 (2011), 863–880;

Bermejo, M. J. and Wirtz, G., ‘Strafverteidigerhonorar und Geldwäsche aus europäischer Perspek-tive – Gleiches Problem, gleiche Lösung?’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 398–406;

Bernhardt, R., ‘Die Entscheidungen des EGMR im deutschen Rechtsraum’, in Geiger, R., eds,Völkerrechtlicher Vertrag und staatliches Recht vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender Verdichtungder internationalen Beziehungen – Symposion vom 28. bis 30. Januar 1999 in Leipzig (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000), 147–161;

Beulke, W., ‘Konfrontation und Strafprozessreform – Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK und ein “partizi-patorisches” Vorverfahren anstelle einer Hauptverhandlung in ihrer bisherigen kontradiktor-ischen Struktur’, in Hanack, E.-W. et al., eds, Festschrift für Peter Riess zum 70. Geburtstag am 4.Juni 2002 (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2002), 3–30;

Beulke, W. and Barisch, K.-T., ‘Beweiswürdigung, rechtmäßige Inanspruchnahme der Eilkompe-tenz der StA’, StV, 26 (2006), 569–571;

Biddle, F., ‘The Nürnberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxfordet al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 200–212;

Biddle, F., In Brief Authority (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1962, reprinted 1976);Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin:

Duncker & Humblot 2015);Binding, K., Die Normen und ihre Übertretung, i: Normen und Strafgesetze (Leipzig: Engelmann,

1872);Birnbaum, J. M. F., ‘Über das Erfordernis einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens’,

Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge, 15 (1834), 149–194;Blumenson, E., ‘The Challenge of a Global Standard of Justice – Peace, Pluralism, and Punishment

at the International Criminal Court’, ColJTransnat’lL, 44 (2005–2006), 801–872;Boas, G., ‘A Code of Evidence and Procedure for International Criminal Law? – The Rules of the

ICTY’, in Boas, G. and Schabas, W., eds, International Criminal Law (2003), 1–34;Boas, G., Jackson, J., Roche, B. and Taylor, D. III, ‘Appeals, Reviews, and Reconsideration’, in Sluiter

et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 939–1114;Bock, S., ‘Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZStW, 119 (2007), 664–680;Bohlander, M., ‘Radbruch Redux – The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Common

and Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 24 (2011),393–410;

Bohlander, M., ‘Language, Culture, Legal Traditions, and International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 12(2014), 491–513;

Bohlander, M., ‘Article 36 – Qualification, nomination and election of judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos,ICC Commentary (2016), 1216–1225;

Bohlander, M. and Winter, R., ‘Internationalisierte Strafgerichte auf nationaler Ebene – Kosovo,Kambodscha, Sierra Leone und Timor-Leste’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005),261–280;

Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359;Boss, B. and Angarella, N. L., ‘Negotiating Federal Plea Agreements Post-Booker’, CrimJust, 21

(2006), 22–26;Brady, H., ‘Disclosure of Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 403–427;Braitsch, T., Gerichtssprache für Sprachunkundige im Lichte des ‘fair trial’ – Eine rechtsvergleichende

Untersuchung zum geltenden Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Schweiz unter dem

Bibliography 3

Blickwinkel der EuropäischenMenschenrechtskonvention und verfahrensstrukturellen Grundprin-zipien (Frankfurt am Main et al: Lang, 1991);

Brands, C., ‘Complicated Legacies of Justice – The Netherlands and WorldWar II’, JICJ, 13 (2015),763–781;

Brodzisz, Z., ‘Der Grundsatz der Waffengleichheit und seine Bedeutung für das Ermittlungsverfahrenin Polen � Staatsanwaltschaft und kontradiktorisches Vorverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 109–119;

Brunhöber, B., ‘Für ein Grundrecht auf ein faires Verfahren in der strafprozessualen Praxis’, ZIS, 5(2010), 761–771;

Bucherer, J., Die Vereinbarkeit von Militärgerichten mit dem Recht auf ein faires Verfahren gemäßArt. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK, Art. 8 Abs. 1 AMRK und Art. 14 Abs. 1 des UN-Paktes über bürgerliche undpolitische Rechte (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2005);

Burns, R., A Theory of the Trial (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1999);Bushnell, D., ‘Re-thinking International Criminal Law – Re-connecting Theory with Practice in the

Search for Justice and Peace’, AustYBIL, 28 (2009), 57–89;Cape, E., Namoradze, Z., Smith, R. and Spronken, T., Effective Criminal Defence in Europe -

Executive Summary and Recommendations (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia, 2010);Casal, J. M., ‘Artículo 7 – Derecho a la Libertad Personal’, in Steiner, C. and Uribe, P., eds,

Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos – Comentario (Berlin, Bogotá: Konrad Ade-nauer Stiftung, 2014), 180–206;

Cassese, A., ‘Reflections on International Criminal Justice’, MLR, 61 (1998), 1–10;Chand, ‘Independent Witness’, NLJ, 150 (2000), 1666;Chiam, M., ‘Different Models of Tribunals’, in Blumenthal, D. A. and McCormack, T. L. H., eds,

The Legacy of Nuremberg – Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (Leiden, Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), 205–228;

Cimiotta, E., ‘The Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office in Kosovo’, JICJ, 14(2016), 53–72;

Citroni, G., ‘The Specialist Chambers of Kosovo’, JICJ, 14 (2016), 123–143;Choongh, S., ‘Policing the Dross –A Social DisciplinaryModel of Policing’, BJCrim, 38 (1998), 623–634;Combs, N., ‘Fact-Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 689–733;Cornacchia, L., Funzione della pena nello statuto della Corte Penale Internazionale (Milan: Giuffrè

Editore, 2009);Cornelius, K., ‘Konfrontationsrecht und Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz’, NStZ, 28 (2008), 244–248;Cowles, W. B., ‘Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals’, ABAJ, 30 (1944), 330–362;Cross, M. E., ‘Equipping the Specialist Chambers of Kosovo to Try Transnational Crimes’, JICJ, 14

(2016), 73–100;Cryer, R., ‘The Aims, Objectives and Justification of International Criminal Law’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 28–46;Dainow, J., ‘The Civil Law and the Common Law – Some Points of Comparison’, AJCompL, 15

(1966–1967), 419–435;Damaška, M., ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure –

A Comparative Study’, UPaLR, 121 (1972–1973), 506–589;Damaška, M., The Faces of Justice and State Authority (New Haven and London: Yale University

Press, 1986);Damaška, M., Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997);Damaška, M., ‘Adversary System’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (New York:

MacMillan, 2nd edn, 2002), 25–31;Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Law’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365;Damaška, ‘The Competing Visions of Fairness – The Basic Choice for International Criminal

Tribunals’, NCJIL&ComReg, 36 (2010–2011), 365–387;Danet, B., ‘Language in the Legal Process’, Law&Soc’yR, 14 (1979–1980), 445–564;Danner, A. M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the

International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 97 (2003), 510–552;Danner, A. M. and Martinez, J. S., ‘Guilty Associations – Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command

Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’, CalLR, 93 (2005), 75–167;

4 Bibliography

Däubler-Gmelin, H., ‘Überlegungen zur Reform des Strafprozesses’, StV, 21 (2001), 359–363;Davies, M., Croall, H. and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice - An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System

in England and Wales (Harlow: Longman, 3rd edn, 2005);Davis, A. J., Arbitrary Justice – The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2007);De Haan, W., ‘Knowing What We Know Now – International Crimes in Historical Perspective’,

JICJ, 13 (2015), 783–799;DeMeester, K., Pitcher, K., Rastan, R. and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, and

Surrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379;De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.:

Intersentia, 2015);Dehne-Niemann, J., ‘ “Nie sollst du mich befragen” – Zur Behandlung des Rechts zur Konfronta-

tion mitbeschuldigter Belastungszeugen (Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK) durch den BGH’, HRRS, 11(2010), 189–207;

Demko, D., ‘Das Fragerecht des Angeklagten nach Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK aus Sicht desEuropäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, der schweizerischen sowie der deutschen Re-chtsprechung’, ZStrR, 122 (2004), 416–435;

Demko, D., ‘Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK inStrafverfahren und dessen Verhältnis zum Recht auf wirksame Beschwerde gemäß Art. 13EMRK in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR, Teil 1’, HRRS 6 (2005), 283–296;

Demko, D., ‘Die gerichtliche Fürsorgepflicht zur Wahrung einer “tatsächlichen und wirksamen”Verteidigung im Rahmen des Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK’, HRRS, 7 (2006), 250–259;

Demko, D., ‘Das Recht des Angeklagten auf unentgeltlichen Beistand eines staatlich bestelltenVerteidigers und das Erfordernis der “interests of justice” ’, in Gaede, K., Meyer, F. and Schlegel,S., eds, HRRS-Festgabe für Gerhard Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag am 29. Oktober 2008 (Hamburg:HRRS, 2008), 1–20;

Demko, D., ‘Menschenrecht auf Verteidigung’ und Fairness des Strafverfahrens auf nationaler, euro-päischer und internationaler Ebene - Dargestellt anhand eines Strafrechtsvergleichs zum Konfronta-tionsrecht des Angeklagten gegenüber Belastungszeugen und unter Zugrundelegung vonErkenntnissen aus Philosophie und Psychologie (Bern, Berlin: Stämpfli, Duncker & Humblot, 2014);

Denis, C., ‘Critical Overview of the “Residual Functions” of the Mechanism and its Date ofCommencement (including Transitional Arrangements)’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 819–837;

de Serpa Soares, M., ‘Special Editorial. An Age of Accountability‘, JICJ, 13 (2015), 669–676;De Smet, S. ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Fact-Finding Process

of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 401–440;Diehm, D.,Die Menschenrechte der EMRK und ihr Einfluss auf das deutsche Strafgesetzbuch (Berlin:

Logos Verlag, 2006);Dodd, T., ‘The Nürnberg Trials’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.:

Oxford University Press, 2008), 190–199;Donlon, F., ‘Hybrid Tribunals’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 85–105;Donlon, F., ‘The Transition of Responsibilities from the Special Court to the Residual Special Court

for Sierra Leone’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 857–874;Doran, S., Jackson, J. and Seigel, M., ‘Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials’, AJCL,

23 (1995–1996), 1–69;Dripps, D. A., ‘Miscarriages of Justice and the Constitution’, BuffCLR, 2 (1999), 637–680;Drumbl, M., Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2007);Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds, The Trial on Trial, ii: Judgment and Calling

to Account (Oxford: Hart, 2006);Duff, R. A., ‘Punishment, Retribution and Communication’, in von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and

Roberts, J., eds, Principled Sentencing – Readings on Theory and Policy (Oxford, Portland,Oregon: Hart Publishing, 3rd edn, 2009), 126–134;

ECtHR, Overview 1959–2012 ECHR (Strasbourg: ECtHR, 2013), www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592012_ENG.pdf, accessed 1 October 2015;

Bibliography 5

Ehrenfreund, N., The Nuremberg Legacy (New York: Palgrave, 2007);Eisenberg, U. and Conen, S., ‘§ 152 StPO – Legalitätsprinzip im gerichtsfreien Raum?’, NJW, 51

(1998), 2241–2249;Elberling B., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of innocence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

539–542, accessed 26 December 2015;Elberling, B. and Pérez-León Acevedo, J. P., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Klamberg,

Online Commentary ICC, 545–555;Engländer, A., ‘Anmerkung’, JZ, 64 (2009), 1179–1180;Engelhart, M., ‘Der Weg zum Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Eine kurze Geschichte des Völkerstra-

frechts’, Jura, 26 (2004), 734–743;Enikö, F., ‘The Rising Importance on the Protection of Witnesses in the European Union’, RIDP, 77

(2006), 313–322;Eser, A., ‘The Principle of “Harm” in the Concept of Crime – A Comparative Analysis of the

Criminally Protected Legal Interests’, DuqULR, 4 (rd-66), 345–417;Esser, R., ‘Verurteilung wegen Beteiligung an der Entführung der Lufthansa-Maschine Landshut

auf Grund anonymer Zeugen – Anmerkung’, NStZ, 27 (2007),103–109;Esser, R., ‘EGMR in Sachen Gäfgen v. Deutschland (22978/05), Urt. v. 30. 6. 2008’, NStZ, 28 (2008),

657–662;Esser, R., Gaede, K. and Tsambikakis, M., ‘Übersicht zur Rechtsprechung des EGMR in den Jahren

2008 bis Mitte 2010 – Teil II’, NStZ, 31 (2011), 140–148;European Criminal Policy Initiative, ‘A Manifesto on European Criminal Procedure Law’, ZIS, 8

(2013), 430–446;Ewick, P. and Silbey, S. S., ‘Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales – Toward a Sociology of

Narrative’, Law&Soc’yR, 29 (1995), 197–226;Fabian, K., ‘Proof and Consequences – An Analysis of the Tadic and Akayesu Trials’, DePaulLR, 49

(2000), 981–1039;Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘The Process of Negotiations’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 217–227;Findley, K., ‘Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice – How the Innocence Movement Merges

Crime Control and Due Process’, TexTechLR, 41 (2008–2009), 133–174;Findlay, M., ‘Synthesis in Trial Procedures? The Experience of International Criminal Tribunals’,

ICLQ, 50 (2001), 26–53;Fisher, K. J.,Moral Accountability and International Criminal Law (London, New York: Routledge,

2012);Flinterman, C. ‘The Right to a Review by a Higher Tribunal’, in van Dijk, et al., European

Convention on Human Rights (2006), 971–978;Francis, L. P. and Francis, J. G., ‘International Criminal Courts, the Rule of Law, and the Prevention

of Harm – Building Justice in Times of Injustice’, in May and Hoskins, ICL (2010), 58–71;Friman, H., ‘Participation of Victims before the ICC – A Critical Assessment of the Early

Developments’, in Sluiter and Vasiliev, International Criminal Procedure (2009), 205–238;Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 421–481;Friman, H., Brady, H., Costi, M., Guariglia, F. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Charges’, in Sluiter et al,

International Criminal Procedure (2013), 381–488;Frister, H., ‘Der Anspruch des Beschuldigten auf Mitteilung der Beschuldigung aus Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit.

a EMRK’, StV, 18 (1998), 159–164;Fuchs, H., ‘Strafprozessrecht – Verdeckte Ermittler – anonyme Zeugen’, ÖJZ, 56 (2001), 495–503;Futamura, M.,War Crimes Tribunals and Transitional Justice (London, New York: Routledge, 2008);Gaede, K., ‘Schranken des fairen Verfahrens gemäß Art. 6 EMRK bei der Sperrung verteidigungs-

relevanter Informationen und Zeugen’, StV, 26 (2006), 599–607;Gaede, K., Fairness als Teilhabe – Das Recht auf konkrete und wirksame Teilhabe durch Verteidi-

gung gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007);Gaede, K., ‘Ungehobene Schätze in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR für die Verteidigung? –

Argumentationspotentiale und Verteidigungschancen des Art. 6 EMRK’, in Gaede, K., Meyer,

6 Bibliography

F. and Schlegel, S., eds, HRRS-Festgabe für Gerhard Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag am 29. Oktober2008 (Hamburg: HRRS, 2008), 21–51;

Gaede, K., ‘Beweisverbote zur Wahrung des fairen Strafverfahrens in der Rechtsprechung desEGMR insbesondere bei verdeckten Ermittlungen’, JR, 81 (2009), 493–502;

Gaede, K., ‘Rückwirkende Sicherungsverwahrung – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Satz 2 EMRK als andere geset-zliche Bestimmung i. S. d. § 2 Abs. 6 StGB’, HRRS, 11 (2010), 329–339;

Gaeta, P., ‘To Be (Present) or not to Be (Present) –Trials in Absentia Before the Special Tribunal forLebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1165–1174;

Galbraith, J., ‘The Pace of International Criminal Justice’, MichJIL, 31 (2009–2010), 79–155;Gärditz, K. F., ‘EGMR vom 21.11.2001 –Al Adsani – Staatsimmunität, ius cogens und das Recht auf

Zugang zu einem Gericht’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann, J., eds., Völkerrechtspre-chung – Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2005), 434–439;

Gärditz, K. F., ‘EGMR vom 8.6.1976 – Engel – Zum Anwendungsbereich strafrechtlicher Garantiendes Art. 6 EMRK’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann, J., eds., Völkerrechtsprechung –Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),530–532;

Gaynor, F., ‘Admissibility of Documentary Evidence’, in Sluiter et al, International CriminalProcedure (2013), 1044–1083;

Gaynor, F., ‘Judicial Notice and Agreed Facts’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure(2013), 1107–1128;

Gil Gil, A., ‘Die Tatbestände der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und des Völkermordes imRömischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, ZStW, 112 (2000), 381–397;

Gillmeister, F., ‘Rechtliches Gehör im Ermittlungsverfahren’, StraFo, (1996), 114–118;Gleß, S., Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung (Baden-Baden:

Nomos, 2006);Glueck, S., ‘By What Tribunal Shall War Offenders Be Tried?’, NebraskaLR, 24 (1945), 143–167;Golash, D., ‘The Justification of Punishment in the International Context’, in May and Hoskins, ICL

(2010), 201–223;Goldstone, R. J., Prosecuting War Criminals (London: David Davies Memorial Institute of Inter-

national Studies 1996);Goldstone, R. J., ‘Justice as a Tool for Peace Making’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 28 (1996), 485–503;Goodhart, A., ‘The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the

Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 626–237;Goodpaster, G., ‘On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, JCL&Crim, 78

(1987–1988), 118–154;Gozani, D., ‘Beginning to Learn How to End: Lessons on Completion Strategies, Residual Mech-

anisms, and Legacy Considerations from Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals to theInternational Criminal Court’, Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 36 (2015), 331–381;

Grabenwarter, C., ‘Die Revisionsbegründungsfrist nach § 345 I StPO und das Recht auf angemes-sene Vorbereitung der Verteidigung’, NJW, 55 (2002), 109–111;

Grabenwarter, C., European Convention on Human Rights - Commentary (Munich et al.: C. H. Becket. al., 2014);

Grabenwarter, C. and Pabel, K., ‘Kapitel 14 – Der Grundsatz des fairen Verfahrens’, in Dörr et al.,EMRK/GG, i (2013), 642–719;

Gradoni, L., ‘International Criminal Courts and Tribunals – Bound by Human Rights Norms…orTied Down?’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 847–873;

Gradoni, L., ‘The Human Rights Dimension of International Criminal Procedure’, in Sluiter et al.,International Criminal Procedure (2013), 74–95;

Greco, G., ‘Victims’ Rights Overview under the ICC Legal Framework – Jurisprudential Analysis’,ICLR, 7 (2007), 531–547;

Greenawalt, A. K. A, ‘Justice without Politics? – Prosecutorial Discretion and the InternationalCriminal Court’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 39 (2007) 583–673;

Bibliography 7

Griffiths, J., ‘Ideology in Criminal Procedure or a Third “Model” of the Criminal Process’, YaleLJ,79 (1969–1970), 359–417;

Guariglia, F., Concepto, fin y alcance de las prohibiciones de valoración en el procedimiento penal –una propuesta de fundamentación (Buenos Aires: Del Puerto, 2005);

Gundel, J., ‘§ 146 – Verfahrensrechte’, in Merten, D. and Papier, H.-J., eds, Handbuch derGrundrechte – In Deutschland und Europa, vi/1: Europäische Grundrechte (Heidelberg et al.:C. F. Müller, 2010), 349–462;

Günther, K., ‘Criminal Law, Crime and Punishment as Communication’, in Simester, A. P., duBois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U., eds, Liberal Criminal Theory – Essays for Andreas von Hirsch(Oxford, Portland/Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014), 123–139;

Gut, T., Kirsch, S., Mundis, D. and Taylor, M., ‘Defence Issues’, in Sluiter et al, InternationalCriminal Procedure (2013), 1203–1297;

Haensel, C., ‘The Nurnberg Trials Revisited’, DePaulLR, 13 (1963–1964), 248–260;Haensel, C. and Kempner, R. W. M., eds, Das Urteil im Wilhelmstraßenprozeß (Schwäbisch-

Gmünd: Bürger Verlag, 1950);Hall, C. K., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investigation’, in Triffterer, ICC Commentary

(2008), 1089–1105;Hall, C. K. and Jakobs, D. L., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons during an Investigation’, in Triffterer/

Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1394–1410;Hassan-Morlai, P., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Trials – Lessons and Contributions from

the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, AfrJLS, 3 (2009), 96–118;Hauck, P., ‘Lauschangriff in der U-Haft – Anmerkungen zu BGH, Urt. v. 29. 4. 2009 (1 StR 701/08)

und Versuch einer dogmatischen Klärung’, NStZ, 30 (2010), 17–22;Hauck, P., Heimliche Strafverfolgung und Schutz der Privatheit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014);Havemann, R., ‘Supranational Expectations of a Punitive Approach’, in Havemann, R. and Olusa-

nya, O., eds, Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law (Antwerp: Intersentia,2006), 145–160;

Heikkilä, M., International Criminal Tribunals and Victims of Crimes (Turku: Institute of HumanRights, Abo Akademi University 2004);

Heller, K. J., ‘Poisoned Chalice – The Substantive and Procedural Defects of the Iraqi HighTribunal, A Symposium Articles and Transcripts’, CWRJIL, 39 (2006–2007), 261–304;

Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the origins of International Criminal Law(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012);

Henham, R., ‘International Sentencing in the Context of Collective Violence’, ICLR, 7 (2007),449–468;

Henzelin, M., Heiskanen, V. and Mettraux, G., ‘Reparations to Victims Before the InternationalCriminal Court – Lessons From International Mass Claims Processes’, CLF, 17 (2006), 317–344;

Herrmann, J., ‘Various Models of Criminal Proceedings’, SAfrJCL&Crim, 2 (1978), 3–19;Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und Civil

Law (Bern: Stämpfli Verlag, 2005);Hörnle, T., ‘Unterschiede zwischen Strafverfahrensordnungen und ihre kulturellen Hintergrunde’,

ZStW, 117 (2005), 801–838;HRW, Judging Dujail – The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal (19 November 2006),

<https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iraq1106webwcover.pdf>, accessed 01 April2016;

HRW, The Iraqi High Tribunal and Representation of the Accused (February 2006), available at<http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/mena/iraq0206/iraq0206.pdf>, accessed 1 April2016;

HRW, ‘Human Rights Watch Analysis of Colombia-FARC Agreement’ (21 December 2015),available at <https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/21/human-rights-watch-analysis-colombia-farc-agreement#_edn2>, accessed 1 April 2016;

Hubrach, J., ‘§ 56 f –Widerruf der Strafaussetzung’, in Laufhütte, Rissing-van Saan and Tiedemann,Leipziger Kommentar StGB (2008), 70–100;

8 Bibliography

Ibañez Rivas, J. M., ‘Artículo 8 – Garantías Judiciales’, in Steiner, C. and Uribe, P., eds, ConvenciónAmericana sobre Derechos Humanos – Comentario (Berlin, Bogotá: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung,2014), 207–254;

ICTJ, Creation and First Trials of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (October 2005);International Crisis Group, Trial by Fire – The Politics of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

(2 December 2010), available at <http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Iraq%20Syria%20Lebanon/Lebanon/100%20Trial%20by%20Fire%20–%20The%20Politics%20of%20the%20Special%20Tribunal%20for%20Lebanon.pdf>, accessed1 April 2016;

Illuminati, G., ‘The Accusatorial Process from the Italian Point of View’, NCJIL&ComReg, 35(2009–2010), 297–318;

Jackson, J. D., ‘The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Conver-gence, Divergence or Realignment of Legal Systems’, MLR, 68 (2005), 737–764;

Jackson, R., ‘Some Problems in Developing an International Legal System’, TempleLQ, 22(1948–1949), 147–158;

Jackson, R., ‘Nuremberg in Retrospect – Legal Answer to International Lawlessness’, ABAJ, 35(1949), 813–816, 881–887;

Jacobs, D., ‘Standard of Proof and Burden of Proof ’, in Sluiter et al., International CriminalProcedure (2013), 1128–1149;

Jäger, H., ‘Menschheitsverbrechen und die Grenzen des Kriminalitätskonzepts’, KritV, 76 (1993),259–275;

Jalloh, C. C., ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon – A Defense Perspective’, VanderbiltJTL, 47 (2014),765–824;

Jalloh, C. C., ‘The Contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the Development ofInternational Law, AfrJICompL, 15 (2007), 165–207;

Jeßberger, F., ‘On the Origins of Individual Criminal Responsibility under International Law forBusiness Activity’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 783–802;

Jones, J. R. W. D., et al., ‘The Special Court for Sierra Leone –A Defence Perspective’, JICJ, 2 (2004),211–230;

Jordash, W. and Coughlan, J., ‘The Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Charges –A Potentially Formidable Jurisprudential Legacy’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds., JudicialCreativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010),286–312;

Jörg, N., Field, S. and Brants, C., ‘Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging?’, inHarding, C., et al., eds, Criminal Justice in Europe – A Comparative Study (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1995), 41–56;

Jørgensen, N. and Zahar, A., ‘Deliberation, Dissent, Judgment’, in Sluiter, G. et al., eds, Inter-national Criminal Procedure (2013), 1151–1202;

Joseph, S. and Castan, M., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Cases, Materials,and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn., 2013);

Jung, H., ‘Strafverteidigung in Europa’, StV, 10 (1990), 509–517;Jung, H., ‘ “Funktionstüchtigkeit der Strafrechtspflege” kontra “schützende Formen” – Ein prozes-

sualer “Klassiker” im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschen-rechte’, GA, 150 (2003), 191–203;

Jung, H., ‘Neues zum Konfrontationsrecht? Zugleich Besprechung von EGMR, Urteil vom29.1.2009’, GA, 156 (2009), 233–240;

Jung, H., ‘Faires Verfahren und menschenrechtswidrige Beweiserhebung – Zugleich Besprechungvon EGMR, Urteil vom 21.1.2009’, GA, 158 (2009), 651–656;

Jung, H., ‘Zum Verbot der Vollverschleierung, Zugleich Besprechung von EGMR, Urteil vom1.7.2014’, GA, 162 (2015), 35–41;

Jung, H., ‘Upgrade für die margin of appreciation’, in Callies, C., ed, Herausforderungen an Staatund Verfassung – Völkerrecht, Europarecht, Menschenrechte – Liber Amicorum für Torsten Steinzum 70. Geburtstag (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2015), 976–987;

Bibliography 9

Kadelbach, S., ‘Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention – Bedeutung und Wege zu Durchset-zung im Strafverfahren’, in Strafverteidigervereinigungen, eds, Reform oder Roll-Back? – Wei-chenstellung für das Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – 21. Strafverteidigertag vom 11. bis 13. April1997 in Kassel (Cologne: Der andere Buchladen, 1997), 247–263;

Kagan, R. A., Adversarial Legalism, The American Way of Law (Harvard, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press, 2003);

Kamardi, C., Die Ausformung einer Prozessordnung sui generis durch das ICTY unter Berücksichti-gung des Fair-Trial-Prinzips (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2009);

Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolosius, 1798);Kant, I., ‘The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)’, in Gregor, M. J., ed, The Cambridge Edition of the

Works of Immanuel Kant – Practical Philosophy (Cambridge et al.: CUP, 1996), 353–604;Karstedt, S., ‘The Nuremberg Tribunal and German Society – International Justice and Local

Judgment in Post-Conflict Reconstruction’, in Blumenthal, D. A. and McCormack, T. L. H.,eds, The Legacy of Nuremberg – Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (Leiden,Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), 13–36;

Karstedt, S., ‘Managing Criminal Reputations – West German Elites after the Nuremberg Trials,1946–1960’, JICJ 13 (2015), 723–743;

Kashyap, S., ‘The Framework of the Prosecution in Cambodia’, in Ambos, K. and Othman, M., eds,New Approaches in International Criminal Justice – Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone andCambodia (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International CriminalLaw, 2003), 189–205;

Kastner, K., Von den Siegern zur Rechenschaft gezogen (Nürnberg: Hofmann Verlag, 2001);Katzenstein, S., ‘Note, Hybrid Tribunals – Searching for Justice in East Timor’,HarvHRJ, 16 (2003),

245–278;Kauffmann, K., ‘Translation the Nuremberg Trial in Retrospect’,WhittierLR, 9 (1987–1988), 537- 552;Kaul, H.-P., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof nach fünf Jahren – Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus

richterlicher Sicht’, Kaul, ZIS, 2 (2007), 494–499;Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International

Criminal Tribunals, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814;Keitner, S., ‘Crafting the International Criminal Court – Trials and Tribulations in Article 98(2)’,

UCLA JIL & ForAff, 6 (2001/2002), 215–264;Kempner, R. M., Ankläger einer Epoche (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1986);Kersten, M., ‘A New War Crimes Court is Born, but Who is Responsible in Kosovo?’, Justice in

Conflict (10 August 2015), available at <http://justiceinconflict.org/2015/08/10/a-new-war-crimes-court-is-born-but-who-is-responsible-in-kosovo/>, accessed 01 April 2016;

Khan, K. A. A. and Alagendra, D. S., ‘An Unbreakable Thread? The Presumption of Innocence inInternational Law’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 157–200;

Kieschke, O., Die Praxis des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und ihre Auswirkungenauf das deutsche Strafverfahrensrecht – Eine Bestandsaufnahme am Beispiel ausgewählter En-tscheidungen des EGMR gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,2003);

Kirsch, S., ‘Faires Verfahren für Völkermörder? – Die Rechte der Beschuldigten vor dem Inter-nationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, AnwBl, 16 (2011), 166–169;

Klamberg, M., ‘General Requirements for the Admission’, in Sluiter et al, International CriminalProcedure (2013), 1016–1143;

Klamberg, M., ‘Prosecution Access to the Defence Material’, in Sluiter et al, International CriminalProcedure (2013), 1099–1107;

Koch, C. H. Jr., ‘Envisioning a Global Legal Culture’, MichJIL, 25 (2003–2004), 1–76;Kochhar, S. and Hieramente, M., ‘Of Fallen Demons: Reflections on the International Criminal

Court’s Defendant’, LJIL, 29 (2016), 223–44;Kohlbacher, U., Verteidigung und Verteidigungsrechte unter dem Aspekt der ‘Waffengleichheit’ –

Mit einer kritischen Analyse der geltenden Regelungen, insbesondere im Bund und im KantonZürich (Zürich: Schulthess, 1979);

10 Bibliography

Koller, D. S., ‘The Faith of the International Criminal Lawyer’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 40 (2007–2008),1019–1069;

Kraus, K., Der Bewährungswiderruf gemäß § 56 f Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 StGB und die Unschuldsver-mutung – Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im Fall Böhmer und seineAuswirkungen (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2007);

Krauß, K., V-Leute im Strafprozeß und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (Freiburg imBreisgau: Ed. Iuscrim, 1999);

Kreicker, H., ‘§ 51 – Strafrechtliche Garantien der EMRK’, in Sieber, U., Satzger, H. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B., eds, Europäisches Strafrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd edn, 2014), 903–936;

Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad Hoc Tribunalen zum IStGH’, inKirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–260;

Kroker, P., ‘Auf gutem Weg – Die Verfahren vor dem Rote-Khmer-Tribunal in Kambodscha’,ZStW, 122 (2010), 685–705;

Kronstein, H., ‘Book Review – Warum wurde Krupp verurteilt?, by Tilo Frhr. von Wilmowsky’,ColLRev, 53 (1953), 139–145;

Krumm, C., ‘Bewährungswiderruf trotz Unschuldsvermutung?’, NJW, 58 (2005), 1832–1835;Ku, J. and Nzelibe, J., ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian

Atrocities?’, WashULR, 84 (2006), 777–833;Kuty, F., ‘Le sort à réserver aux actes d’un juge d’instruction légitimement suspecté de partialité’,

RevDPC, 87 (2007), 365–377;Kühl, K., ‘Der Einfluss der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten der Europäischen Menschen-

rechtskonvention auf das deutsche und europäische Strafrecht’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds,Festschrift für Heike Jung zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007),433–444;

Kühl, K., ‘§ 56 f – Widerruf der Strafaussetzung’, in Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., eds, StrafgesetzbuchKommentar (Munich: C. H. Beck, 27th edn, 2011);

Kühne, H.-H., ‘Anmerkung’, StV, 14 (1994), 66–67;Kwon, O., ‘The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007)

360–376;La Rosa, A.-M., ‘A Tremendous Challenge for the International Criminal Tribunals: Reconciling

the Requirements of International Humanitarian Law with Those of Fair Trial’, IRRC, 37 (1997),635–650;

Lagodny, O., ‘Legitimation und Bedeutung des IStGH’, ZStW, 113 (2001), 800–826;Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations – The Globalization of Plea Bargaining

and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, HarvILJ, 45 (2004), 1–64;Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005),

835–909;Laternser, H., ‘Looking Back at the Nuremberg Trials with Special Consideration of the Processes

Against Military Leaders’, WhittierLR, 8 (1986–1987), 557–580;Laternser, H., ‘Looking Back at the Nuremberg Trials with Special Consideration of the Processes

against Military Leaders’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford et al.:Oxford University Press, 2008), 473–491;

Lauer, L., ‘The International War Criminal Trials and the Common Law of War’, St.John’sLR, 20(1945), 18–24;

Lawrence, G., ‘The Nuremberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial(Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008), 290–298;

Lederer, F., The Road to the Military Courthouse (Chicago: Section of General Practice, MilitaryLawyers Committee, American Bar Association, 1976);

Leithead, A., ‘Rwanda genocide: International Criminal Tribunal closes’, BBC (14 December 2015),available at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35070220, accessed 01 April 2016;

Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: TheInterplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International CriminalLaw’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314;

Bibliography 11

Letsas, G., ‘The Truth in Autonomous Concepts – How to Interpret the ECHR’, EJIL, 15 (2004),279–305;

Linton, S., ‘Rising from the Ashes of a Viable Criminal Justice System in East Timor’,MelbULR, 25(2001), 122–188;

Linton, S., ‘Putting Cambodia’s Extraordinary Chambers into Context’, SYBIL, 11 (2007), 195–259;Linton, S., ‘Completing the Circle: Accountability for the Crimes of the 1971 Bangladesh War of

Liberation’, CLF, 21 (2010), 191–311;Linton, S., ‘Testimony of Expert Witnesses, Journalists, ICRC, and UN Staff ’, in Sluiter et al,

International Criminal Procedure (2013), 878–938;Lorenzmeier, S., ‘Kartellrechtliche Geldbußen als strafrechtliche Anklage im Sinne der Euro-

päischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 20–30;Lozzi, G., Lezioni de procedura penale (Torino: Giappichelli, 4th edn, 2001);Lubig, S. and Sprenger, J., ‘Beweisverwertungsverbote aus dem Fairnessgebot des Art. 6 EMRK in

der Rechtsprechung des EGMR’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 433–440;Mackenzie, R., Malleson, K., Martin, P. and Sands, P., Selecting International Judges – Principle,

Process and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010);Maculan, E., ‘The Colombian ‘Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non

Repetition”: A Holistic and Innovative Proposal’, International Law Blog (14 December 2015),available at <https://aninternationallawblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/>, accessed 01 April 2016;

Massidda, P. and Pellet, S., ‘Role and Practice of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims’, in Stahnand Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 691–706;

Maffei, S., The European Right to Confrontation in Criminal Proceedings – Absent, Anonymous andVulnerable Witnesses (Groningen: Europa Law Publising, 2006);

Marrus, M., The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial 1945–46 – A Documentary History (Boston: BedfordSt. Martin’s, 1997);

Matscher, F., ‘Probleme der österreichischen Strafrechtspflege im Lichte der neueren Rechtspre-chung der Straßburger Konventionsorgane’, ÖRiZ, 86 (1993), 154–166;

Matt, H., ‘Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare – Europäische Perspektiven’, GA, 153 (2006), 323–328;May, L., Aggression and Crimes Against Peace (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press,

2008);May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Trends in International Criminal Evidence – Nuremberg, Tokyo, The

Haque, and Arusha’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37 (1998–1999), 725–765;May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Evidence before the ICTY’, in May, R. et al., eds, Essays on ICTY

Procedure and Evidence – In Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague: Kluwer LawInternational, 2001), 249–261;

McDermott, Y., ‘General Duty to Ensure the Integrity of the Proceedings’, in Sluiter et al,International Criminal Procedure (2013), 743–770;

McDermott, Y., ‘General Duty to Ensure the Right to a Fair and Expeditious Trial’, in Sluiter et al,International Criminal Procedure (2013), 770–818;

McDermott, Y., ‘Regular Witness Testimony’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure(2013), 859–878;

McGonigle Leyh, B., Procedural Justice? Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings(Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2011);

McIntyre, G., ‘The International Residual Mechanism and the Legacy of the International CriminalTribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda’, GoJIL, 3 (2011), 923–983;

Medina, C., The American Convention on Human Rights – Crucial Rights and their Theory andPratice (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intesentia 2014);

Mégret, F., ‘A Special Tribunal for Lebanon: The UN Security Council and the Emancipation ofInternational Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 485–512;

Mégret, F., ‘Beyond “Fairness” – Understanding the Determinants of International CriminalProcedure’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 37–76;

Melloh, F., Einheitliche Strafzumessung in den Rechtsquellen des ICC-Statuts (Berlin: Duncker &Humblot, 2010);

12 Bibliography

Meron, T., ‘Procedural Evolution in the ICTY’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 521–525;Merrills, J. G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights

(Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2nd edn, 1993);Mettraux, G., ‘The 2005 Revision of the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal’, JICJ, 5 (2007),

287–293;Mphepo, T. ‘The Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone – Rationale and Challenges’, ICLR, 14

(2014), 177–199;Milanovic, M., ‘An Odd Couple – Domestic Crimes on International Responsibility in the Special

Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1139–1152;Minear, R. H., Victors’ Justice – The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1971);Minelli, L. A., ‘Faires Verfahren im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 der EMRK’, in Europäische Anwalts-

vereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6 EMRK (Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto SchmidtKG, 2005), 29–49;

Minow, M., Between Vengeance and Forgiveness – Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence(Boston: Beacon Press, 1998);

Momsen, C. and Rackow, P., ‘Die Straftheorien’, JA, 36 (2004), 336–340;Morris, V. and Scharf, M. P., An Insider’s Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the

Former Yugoslavia, i (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1995);Morsch, A., ‘Die Verfahrensgarantien des Art. 6 der Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und

das deutsche Steuerrecht’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung zum 65.Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 601–620;

Moscarini, P., ‘Il silenzio dell’imputato sul fatto prorio secondo Ia Corte di Strasburgo e nell’esper-ienza italiana’, RIDPP, 49 (2006), 611–647;

Mundis, D. A., ‘From “Common Law” Towards “Civil Law” – The Evolution of the ICTY Rules ofProcedure and Evidence’, LJIL, 14 (2001), 367–382;

Mundis, D. A., ‘The Election of Ad Litem Judges and Other Recent Developments at the Inter-national Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 14 (2001), 851–866;

Murati, R., ‘Protection of Human Rights under Kosovo’s Criminal Code and Criminal ProcedureCode’, ChicKentLR, 80 (2005), 99–116;

Murphy, C., ‘Political Reconciliation and International Criminal Trials’, in May and Hoskins, ICL(2010), 224–244;

Nack, A., ‘Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht und Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention’, in Boet-ticher, A. et al., eds, Sonderheft für Gerhard Schäfer zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 2002(Munich, Frankfurt am Main: C. H. Beck, 2002), 46–52;

Neubacher, F., ‘Der Bewährungswiderruf wegen einer neuen Straftat und die Unschuldsvermutung– Zugleich Besprechung von EGMR, Urteil vom 3.10.2002’, GA, 151 (2004), 402–417;

Nmehielle, V. and Jalloh, C. C., ‘The Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, FletcherFWAJ, 30(2) (2006), 107–124;

Nobis, F., ‘Reform des Strafprozessrechts – Neue Ufer oder ausgetretene Pfade?’ StV 35 (2015)56–61;

Noor Muhammad, H. N. A., ‘Due Process of Law for Persons Accused of Crime‘, in Henkin, L., ed,The International Bill of Rights – The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York:Columbia University Press, 1981), 139–165;

Nowak, M., U.N. Convenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Commentary (Kehl am Rhein:N. P. Engel, 2nd edn., 2005);

Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia’, CLF, 5 (1994), 507–555;

Ohlin, J. D., ‘A Meta-Theory of International Criminal Procedure, Vindicating the Rule of Law’,UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 77–120;

Pache, E., ‘Das europäische Grundrecht auf einen fairen Prozess’, NVwZ, 20 (2001), 1342–1347;Packer, H. L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford/California, Oxford: Stanford Univer-

sity Press, Oxford University Press, 1969);

Bibliography 13

Pannenbecker, O., ‘The Nuremberg War-Crimes Trial’, DePaulLR, 14 (1964–1965), 348–358;Pastor, D. R., El plazo razonable en el proceso del Estado de derecho (Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2002);Paul, A., Kritische Analyse und Reformvorschlag zu Art. II Genozidkonvention (Berlin: Springer,

2008);Pauly, J., ‘Verteidigungsrechte des Angeklagten bei alleiniger Belastung durch Verletzten einer

Sexualstraftat – Anmerkung’, StV, 22 (2002), 289–292;Pauly, J., ‘Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung bei Bewährungswiderruf – Anmerkung’, StV, 23

(2003), 82–86;Pawlik, M., ‘Kritik der präventionstheoretischen Strafbegründungen’, in Rogall et al., eds, Festschrift

für Hans-Joachim Rudolphi zum 70. Geburtstag (Neuwied: Wolters Kluwer, Luchterhand, 2004),213–230;

Peglau, J., ‘Unschuldsvermutung und Widerruf der Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung – Die neueRechtsprechung des EGMR’, ZRP, 36 (2003), 242–244;

Peglau, J., ‘Bewährungswiderruf und Unschuldsvermutung’, NStZ, 24 (2004), 248–252;Pena, M., ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court: Achievements Made and

Challenges Lying Ahead’, ILSAJICL, 16 (2009–2010), 497–516;Perriello, T. and Wierda, M., Lessons from the Deployment of International Judges and Prosecutors

in Kosovo (New York: International Center for Transitional Justice, 2006);Peters, A. and Altwicker, T., Menschenrechtskonvention – Mit rechtsvergleichenden Bezügen zum

deutschen Grundgesetz (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2nd edn, 2012);Peters, C. J., ‘Adjudication as Representation’, ColLR, 97 (1997), 312–436;Petit, R. and Ahmed, A., ‘A Review of the Jurisprudence of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal’, NWJIHR, 8

(2010), 165–182;Petrig, A., ‘Negotiated Justice and the Goals of International Criminal Tribunals –With a Focus on

the Plea-Bargaining Practice of the ICTY and the Legal Framework of the ICC’, ChiKentJI&-CompL, 8 (2008), 1–31;

Peukert, W., ‘Die Bedeutung der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) für denStrafprozeß’, in Strafverteidigervereinigungen, eds, Reform oder Roll-Back? – Weichenstellungfür das Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – 21. Strafverteidigertag vom 11. bis 13. April 1997 in Kassel(Cologne: Der andere Buchladen, 1997), 231–246;

Peukert, W., ‘Artikel 6’, in Frowein and Peukert, EMRK-Kommentar (2009), 140–268;Plowden, P. and Kerrigan, K., ‘Cards on the Table – Part 1’, NLJ, 151 (2001), 735–736;Posner, E., ‘Political Trials in Domestic and International Law’, DukeLJ, 55 (2005–2006), 75–152;Posner, E. A. and Vermeule, A., ‘Transitional Justice as Ordinary Justice’, HarvLR, 117 (2004),

761–825;Prichard, J. and Zaide, M., The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (New York: Garland Publishing, 1981);Rabkin, J., ‘Global Criminal Justice – An Idea Whose Time Has Passed’, CornILJ, 38 (2005)

753–777;Ransiek, A. and Winsel, A., ‘Die Selbstbelastung im Sinne des “nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare”-

Grundsatzes’, GA, 162 (2015), 620–638;Rassat, M.-L., Traité de procédure pénale (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 3rd edn, 2001);Rau, P., ‘Rechtliches Gehör auf Grund von Akteneinsicht in strafprozessualen Beschwerdeverfah-

ren’, StraFo, (2008), 9–15;Rech, E., ‘Auswirkungen von EGMR-Urteilen zu Art. 6 EMRK auf das österreichische Strafpro-

zessrecht’, in Europäische Anwaltsvereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6 EMRK(Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt KG, 2005), 77–92;

Redress, ‘Implementing Victim’s Rights (March 2006)’, available at http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/Reparation%20Principles.pdf, accessed 01 April 2016;

Renzikowski, J., ‘Fair trial und anonymer Zeuge’, JZ, 54 (1999), 605–613;Reuss, V., Zivilcourage als Strafzweck des Völkerstrafrechts (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2012);Ristic, M., ‘Kosovo’s NewWar Court: HowWill it Work?’, BalkanInsight (6 August 2015), available

at <http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/how-will-special-kosovo-court-work–08-05-2015>,accessed 01 April 2016;

14 Bibliography

Roach, K., ‘Four Models of the Criminal Process’, JCL&Crim, 89 (1999), 671–716;Roberts, P., ‘Comparative Criminal Justice Goes Global’, OJLS, 28 (2008), 369–391;Robertson, G., ‘Mistakes the Mladic Trial Needs to Avoid’, The Independent, 28 May 2011, available

at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/geoffrey-robertson-mistakes-the-mladic-trial-needs-to-avoid-2290229.html, last visited 14 September 2014;

Roche, D., ‘Truth Commission Amnesties and the International Criminal Court’, BJCrim, 45(2005), 565–581;

Rothe, D. L., Meernik, J. and Ingadóttir, P., The Realities of International Criminal Justice (Leiden,Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013);

Roxin, C., ‘Prevention, Censure and Responsibility – The Recent Debate on the Purposes ofPunishment’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U., eds, Liberal CriminalTheory – Essays for Andreas von Hirsch (Oxford, Portland/Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014),23–41;

Roxin, C., Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil, i (Mu nchen: C. H. Beck, 4th edn, 2006);Rönnau, T., Die Absprache im Strafprozeß – Eine rechtssystematische Untersuchung der Zulässigkeit

von Absprachen nach dem geltenden Strafprozeßrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1990);Rutledge, K. D., ‘Spoiling Everything – But for Whom? – Rules of Evidence and International

Criminal Proceedings’, RegentULR, 16 (2003–2004), 151–189;Rzepka, D., Zur Fairness im deutschen Strafverfahren (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann,

2000);Safferling, C. J. M., ‘Verdeckte Ermittler im Strafverfahren – Deutsche und europäische Rechtspre-

chung im Konflikt?’, NStZ, 26 (2006), 75–82;Safferling, C. J. M. and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen – Entwick-

lungen in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794;Safferling, C. J. M., ‘Die Rolle des Opfers im Strafverfahren – Paradigmenwechsel im nationalen

und internationalen Recht?’, ZStW, 122 (2010), 87–116;Safferling, C. J. M. and Graebke, P., ‘Strafverteidigung im Nürnberger Hauptkriegsverbrecherpro-

zess – Strategien und Wirkung’, ZStW, 123 (2011), 47–81;Sanders, J., ‘Law and Legal Systems’, in Borgatta, E. F. and Montgomery, R. J. V., eds, Encyclopedia

of Sociology, iii (New York: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 2000), 1544–1552;Satzger, H., ‘Der Einfluss der EMRK auf das deutsche Straf- und Strafprozessrecht – Grundlagen

und wichtige Einzelprobleme’, Jura, 31 (2009), 759–768;Schabas, W. A., ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Is a “Tribunal of an International Character”

Equivalent to an “International Criminal Court”?’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 513–528;Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos,

ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649;Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 1650–1680;Schaerz, P. A., ‘Der Begriff des “fairen Verfahrens” gemäss Art. 6 EMRK in der schweizerischen

Rechtspraxis’, in Europäische Anwaltsvereinigung e.V., ed, Das faire Verfahren nach Art. 6EMRK (Cologne: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt KG, 2005), 51–75;

Scharf, M. P., ‘The Iraqi High Tribunal’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 258–263;Scharf, M. P., ‘A Critique of the Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal’, DenvJIL&Pol’y, 25 (1997),

305–312;Schäfers, B., Freispruch in Nürnberg – Der Weg zum freisprechenden Urteil des Internationalen

Militärtribunals von Nürnberg im Fall Hans Fritzsche (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2012);Schleiminger, D., Konfrontation im Strafprozess – Art. 6 Ziff. 3 lit. d EMRK mit besonderer

Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses zum Opferschutz im Bereich von Sexualdelikten gegen Mind-erjährige (Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, 2001);

Schlothauer, R., ‘Die Flucht aus der Justizförmigkeit durch die europäische Hintertür – Zum Urteildes BGH v. 25.07.2000–1 StR 169/00 = StV 2000, 593’, StV, 21 (2001), 127–131;

Schmid, N., Strafprozessrecht – Eine Einführung auf der Grundlage des Strafprozessrechtes desKantons Zürich und des Bundes (Zurich: Schulthess, 4th edn, 2004);

Bibliography 15

Schomburg W. and Nemitz, J. C., ‘The Protection of Human Rights of the Accused before theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, in Decaux, E., Dieng A. and Sow, M., eds, FromHuman Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the LateJudge Laïty Kama, (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 89–108;

Schöpsdau, K., ‘Platon – Nomoi – Buch VIII-XII’, in Heitsch, E., Muller, C. W. and Sier, K., eds,Platon Werke – Übersetzung und Kommentar, ix/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011);

Schrag, M., ‘Lessons Learned from ICTY Experience’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 427–434;Schünemann, B., ‘Der deutsche Strafprozeß im Spannungsfeld von Zeugenschutz und materieller

Wahrheit – Kritische Anmerkungen zum Thema des 62. Deutschen Juristentages 1998’, StV, 18(1998), 391–401

Schünemann, B., ‘Der Richter im Strafverfahren als manipulierter Dritter? – Zur empirischenBestätigung von Perseveranz- und Schulterschlußeffekt’, StV, 20 (2000), 159–165;

Schünemann, B., ‘Zur Reform des strafprozessualen Ermittlungsverfahrens in Europa – Kontra-diktorische Ausbalancierung statt Partizipation’, in Triffterer, O., ed, Gedächtnisschrift für TheoVogler (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2004), 81–92;

Seher, G., ‘Bewährungswiderruf wegen Begehung einer neuen Straftat – Konsequenzen der Re-chtsprechung des EGMR zur Unschuldsvermutung’, ZStW, 118 (2006), 101–158;

Seifert, J., ‘§ 56 f I Nr 1 StGB – Der Bewährungswiderruf infolge einer neuerlichen Straftat in derPraxis’, Jura, 30 (2008), 684–690;

Seneca, L. A.,Moral Essays, i, translation by Basore, J. W. (London: Heinemann, 1928, repr., 1958);Shahabuddeen, M., ‘Teething Phase of the ECCC’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 469–502;Shany, Y., Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, rd);Simon, O., Die Beschuldigtenrechte nach Art. 6 Abs. 3 EMRK – Ein Vergleich zur StPO im Hinblick

auf die Auswirkungen der Konventionsrechte auf die deutsche Strafrechtsprechung (Tübingen:Köhler-Druck, 1998);

Simperingham, E. and Gard, C., The Prosecution Witness and Documentary Evidence Phases of theAnfal Trial (ICTJ, 2007), available at https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Iraq-Anfal-Tribunal-2007-English_0.pdf, last visited 13 July 2015

Sina, P., Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs ‘Rechtsgut’ (Basel: Helbing & Lichten-hahn, 1962);

Sissons, M. and Bassin, A. S., ‘Was the Dujail Trial Fair?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 272–286;Skilbeck, R., ‘Building the Fourth Pillar – Defence Rights at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’,

EssexHRR, 1 (2004), 66–86;Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein’s Monster - Creating a New International Procedure’, JICJ, 8 (2010),

451–462;Sloane, R. D., ‘The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment – The Limits of the National

Law Analogy and the Potential of ICL’, StanfordJIL, 43 (2007), 39–94;Sommer, U., ‘Strafprozessordnung und Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention’, in Brüssow, R.,

Gatzweiler, N., Krekeler, W. and Mehle, V., eds, Strafverteidigung in der Praxis (Bonn: DeutscherAnwaltverlag, 4th edn, 2007), 811–856;

Sommer, U., ‘Anmerkung zu EGMR, Entsch. v. 11.9.206 (Nr. 22007/03; Sapunarescu v. Deutsch-land – Agent Provocater)’, Strafo, (2007), 109–111;

Soufi, J. and Maurice, S., ‘Structure, Functions and Initial Achievements of the Mechanism forInternational Criminal Tribunals (MICT)’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 544–564;

Spaniol, M., Das Recht auf Verteidigerbeistand im Grundgesetz und in der Europäischen Menschen-rechtskonvention (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990);

Spaniol, M., ‘Das Recht des Angeklagten auf Eigenverteidigung bei Verständigung im Strafverfah-ren’, in Burkhardt, B. et al., eds, Scripta Amicitiae – Freundschaftsgabe für Albin Eser zum 80.Geburtstag am 26. Januar 2015 (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2015), 431–448;

Spernbauer, M., EU Peacebuilding in Kosovo and Afghanistan (Leiden, Boston: Martinus NijhoffPublishers, 2014);

Spurlock, P. E., ‘The Yokohama War Crimes Trials – The Truth about a Misunderstood Subject’,ABAJ, 36 (May 1950), 387–389;

16 Bibliography

Stahn, C., ‘Between “Faith” and “Facts” – By what Standards Should We Assess InternationalCriminal Justice’, LJIL, 25 (2012), 251–282;

Stahn, C., Olásolo, H. and Gibson, K., ‘Participation of Victims in Pre-Trail Proceedings of theICC’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 219–238;

Stanziola Vieira, R., Paridade de Armas no Processo Penal (Brasília: Gazeta Jurídica, 2014);Steiner, D., Fairnessprinzip im Strafprozeß (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995);Stree, W. and Kinzig, J., ‘§ 56 f – Widerruf der Strafaussetzung’, in Schönke and Schröder, StGB

Kommentar (2010), 908–918;Streim, A., ‘Zum Beispiel’, in Rückerl, A., ed, NS-Prozesse – Nach 25 Jahren Strafverfolgung –

Möglichkeiten, Grenzen, Ergebnisse (Karlsruhe: Müller Verlag, 1971);Swart, B., ‘Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114;Swoboda, S., ‘A Normative Theory of Criminal Procedure, Book Review’, CLF, 18 (2007), 151–170;Taylor, T., The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials – A Personal Memoir (New York: Skyhorse

Publishing, 1992);Tiwisina, C., Rechtsfragen überlanger Verfahrensdauer nach nationalem Recht und der EMRK

(Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010);Tochilovsky, V., ‘Trial in International Criminal Jurisdictions – Battle or Scrutiny?’, EJCCLCJ, 6

(1998), 55–59;Tochilovsky, V., ‘Defence Access to the Prosecution Material’, in Sluiter et al, International

Criminal Procedure (2013), 1083–1098;Toney, R. J., ‘Disclosure of Evidence and Legal Assistance at Custodial Interrogation – What Does

the European Convention on Human Rights Require?’, IJEP, 5 (2001), 39–60;Trahan, J., ‘A Critical Guide to the Iraqi High Tribunal’s Anfal Judgment – Genocide against the

Kurds’, MichJIL, 30 (2009), 305–412;Trechsel, S., Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, ihr Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit und

die schweizerischen Strafprozessrechte (Bern: Stämpfli, 1974);Trechsel, S., ‘Die Verteidigungsrechte in der Praxis zur europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’,

ZStrR, 96 (1979), 337–392;Trechsel, S., ‘Akteneinsicht – Information als Grundlage des fairen Verfahrens’, in Schweizer, R. J.,

Burkert, H. and Gasser, U., eds, Festschrift für Jean Nicolas Druey zum 65. Geburtstag (Zürich:Schulthess, 2002), 993–1008;

Triffterer, O., ‘Der lange Weg zu einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit’, ZStW, 114 (2002),321–371;

Triffterer, O./Bergsmo, M./Ambos, K., ‘Preamble’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),1–13;

Trüg, G., Lösungskonvergenzen trotz Systemdivergenzen im deutschen and US-amerikanischenStrafverfahren – Ein strukturanalytischer Vergleich am Beispiel der Wahrheitserforschung (Tü-bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003);

Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu eineropferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85;

Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press,2009);

Tulkens, F., ‘Criminal Procedure –Main Comparable Features of the National Systems’, in Delmas-Marty, M., ed, The Criminal Process and Human Rights – Towards a European Consciousness(Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995), 5–12;

Tulkens, F. and Donnay, L., ‘L’usage de la marge d’appréciation par la Cour européenne des droits del’homme – Paravent juridique superflu oumécanisme indispensable par nature?’, RSC, (2006), 3–23;

Turner, J. I., ‘Legal Ethics in International Criminal Defense’, ChicJIL, 10 (2009–2010), 685–746;Úbeda de Torres, A., ‘The Right to Due Process’, in Burgorgue-Larsen, L. and Úbeda de Torres, A.,

eds, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Case Law and Commentary (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2011), 641–672;

United States Institute of Peace, Truth Commission – Sierra Leone, available at http://www.usip.org/publications/truth-commission-sierra-leone, accessed 4 October 2015;

Bibliography 17

United States Institute of Peace, Truth Commission – South Africa, available at http://www.usip.org/publications/truth-commission-south-africa, accessed 4 October 2015;

van Esveld, B., The Anfal Trial and the Iraqi High Tribunal (ICTJ, 2009), available at https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Iraq-Tribunal-Anfal-2009-English.pdf, accessed 13 July 2015;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Introductory Remarks’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),489–490;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trials’, in Sluiter et al, International Criminal Procedure (2013),543–682;

Velten, P., ‘Der Auslandszeuge als Einbruchstelle für den Abbau von Verteidigungsrechten undUnmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz im Namen der Prozeßökonomie’, StV, 27 (2007), 97–105;

Viering, M., ‘Right to a Fair and Public Hearing’, in van Dijk et al., European Convention on HumanRights (2006), 578–650;

Vogel, J. and Matt, H., ‘Gemeinsame Standards für Strafverfahren in der Europäischen Union’, StV,27 (2007), 206–214;

von Braun, L., Internationalisierte Strafgerichte – Eine Analyse der Strafverfolgung schwererMenschenrechtsverletzungen in Osttimor, Sierra Leone und Bosnien-Herzegowina (Berlin: Ber-liner Wissenschaftlichs-Verlag, 2008);

von Liszt, F., ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, ZStW, 3 (1883), 1–47;Wald, P., ‘Running the Trial of the Century: The Nuremberg Legacy’, CardozoLR, 27 (2005–2006),

1559–1597;Walischewski, B., Probleme des Akteneinsichtsrechts der Verteidigung im Ermittlungsverfahren im

Lichte der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes fürMenschenrechte – Ein Plädoyer für die Offenheit und Transparenz des Ermittlungsverfahrens(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999);

Wallach, E.J., ‘The Procedural and Evidentiary Rules of the Post-World War II War Crimes Trials:Did They Provide an Outline for International Legal Procedure?’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37(1998–1999), 851–885;

Walter, T., ‘Fair trial statt Nemo tenetur? –Der Durchgriff auf Artikel 6 Absatz 1 EMRK bei listigenErmittlungen (zugleich Besprechung von BGH 1 StR 701/08)’, in Roth, H., ed, Europäisierung desRechts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 291–308;

Walther, S., ‘Zur Frage eines Rechts des Beschuldigten auf “Konfrontation von Belastungszeugen” ’,GA, 150 (2003), 204–225;

Walther, S., ‘Strafprozessuales Konfrontationsrecht-ade?’, JZ, 59 (2004), 1107–1115;Wasek-Wiaderek, M., Principle of ‘Equality of Arms’ in Criminal Procedure under Article 6 of the

European Convention on Human Rights and Its Functions in Criminal Justice of SelectedEuropean Countries – A Comparative View (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001);

Weigend, T., ‘Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als deutsches Recht – Kollisionen undihre Lösung’, StV, 20 (2000), 384–390;

Weigend, T., ‘Unverzichtbares im Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 113 (2001), 371–304;Weigend, T., ‘Prosecution – Comparative Aspects’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and

Justice (New York: MacMillan, 2nd edn, 2002), 1232–1242;Weissbrodt, D. and Zinsmaster, K. K., ‘Protecting the Fair Trial Rights of the Accused in Inter-

national Criminal Law – Comparison of the International Criminal Court and the MilitaryCommissions in Guantánamo’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 261–283;

Werle, G., ‘Die Zukunft des Völkerstrafrechts’, in Grundmann, S., et al., eds, Festschrift 200 JahreJuristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin – Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft (Ber-lin: De Gruyter, 2009), 1219–1239;

Wessing, J., ‘Zeugnisverweigerungsrechte ausla ndischer Strafverteidiger’, wistra, 26 (2007),171–174;

Whiting, A., ‘In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered’,HarvILJ, 50 (2009), 323–364;

Wiessner, S. and Willard, A. R., ‘Policy-Oriented Jurisprudence and Human Rights Abuses inInternal Conflict – Toward a World Public Order of Human Dignity’, AJIL, 93 (1999), 291–334;

18 Bibliography

Williams, P. R. and Scharf, M. P., Peace with Justice? (Lanham et al.: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, 2002);

Williams, S., ‘The Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegalese Courts’, JICJ, 11 (2013),1139–1160;

Williams, S., ‘The Specialist Chambers of Kosovo’, JICJ, 14 (2016), 25–51;Wilson, R., ‘Judging History – The Historical Record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the

Former Yugoslavia’, HRQ, 27 (2005), 908–942;Wilson, S., ‘The Sentence is Only Half the Story From Stern Justice to Clemency for Japanese War

Criminals, 1945–1958’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 745–761;Wippman, D., ‘Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice’, FordhamILJ, 23

(1999–2000), 473–488;Wohlers, W., ‘Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d) EMRK als Grenze der Einführung des Wissens anonym

bleibender Zeugen’, in Donatsch, A., Forster, M. and Schwarzenegger, C., eds, Strafrecht,Strafprozessrecht und Menschenrechte – Festschrift für Stefan Trechsel zum 65. Geburtstag(Zurich: Schulthess, 2002), 813–831;

Wohlers, W., ‘Das partizipatorische Ermittlungsverfahren – Kriminalpolitische Forderung oder“unverfügbarer Bestandteil” eines fairen Strafverfahrens?’, GA, 152 (2005), 11–35;

Wohlers, W., ‘Abhandlungen – Etudes - Aktuelle Fragen des Zeugenschutzes – Zur Vereinbarkeitder im Strafprozessrecht des Kantons Zu rich anwendbaren Zeugenschutznormen mit Art. 6 Abs.3 lit. d EMRK’, ZStrR, 123 (2005), 144–173;

Wohlers, W. and Schlegel, S., ‘Zum Umfang des Rechts der Verteidigung auf Akteneinsicht gemäߧ 147 I StPO – Zugleich Besprechung von BGH – Urteil vom 18. 6. 2009 – 3 StR 89/09 – (LGHannover)’, NStZ, 30 (2010), 486–492;

Wolfe, J. S. and Proszek, L. B., ‘Interaction Dynamics in Federal Administrative Decision Making –The Role of the Inquisitorial Judge and the Adversarial Lawyer’, TulsaLR, 33 (1997), 293–347;

Woods, A. K., ‘Moral Judgments and International Crimes – The Disutility of Desert’, VirgJIL, 52(2011–2012), 633–681;

Wright, Q., ‘The Law of Nuremberg Trial’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), 320–354;

Yanev, L., ‘Co-Perpetration Responsibility in the Kosovo Specialist Chambers’, JICJ, 14 (2016),101–21;

Yun, J., ‘Special Tribunal for Lebanon – A Tribunal of an International Character Devoid ofInternational Law’, SantaClaraJIL, 7 (2010), 181–195;

Zacchè, F., ‘Lettura di atti assunti senza contraddittorio e giusto processo’, Indice penale, 9 (2006),427–440;

Zander, M., ‘Forms and Functions of the Sources of the Law from a Common Law Perspective’, inEser, A. and Rabenstein, C., ed, Neighbours in Law – Are Common Law and Civil Law MovingCloser Together? – Papers in Honour of Barbara Huber on her 65th Birthday (Freiburg imBreisgau: Edition Iuscrim, 2001), 9–43;

Zappalà, S., ‘The Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Materials and the Recent Amendmentto Rule 68 ICTY RPE’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 620–630;

Zappalà, S., ‘I diritti dell’ accusato nel processo penale internazionale’, in Cassese, Chiavario and DeFrancesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 399–430;

Zappalà, S., ‘Comparative Models and the Enduring Relevance of the Accusatorial-InquisitorialDichotomy’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 44–54;

Zerbes, I., ‘Anonyme Zeugen – Faires Verfahren in Österreich und der Schweiz?’, in Cottier, M.,Sahlfeld, K.W. and Rüetschi, D., eds, Information und Recht (Basel, Geneva, Munich: HelbingLichtenhahn, 2002), 379–403;

Zegveld, L., ‘Remedies’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 611–624;Zöller, M., ‘Entscheidungsanmerkung – Zum Verstoß gegen Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK bei fehlender

Möglichkeit zur konfrontativen Befragung’, ZJS, 3 (2010), 441–446;Zwaak, L., ‘The Supervisory Task of the Committee of Ministers’, in van Dijk et al., European

Convention on Human Rights (2006), 291–321.

Bibliography 19

CHAPTER 2

Abline, G., ‘Article 46 – Perte de fonctions’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012),1089–1098;

Abline, G., ‘Article 47 – Sanctions disciplinaires’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i(2012), 1099–1102;

Abo Youssef, O. a.–F.,Die Stellung des Opfers im Völkerstrafrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigungdes ICC–Statuts und der Rechte der Opfer von Völkerstrafrechtsverbrechen in der Schweiz (Zürich,Basel, Genf: Schulthess, 2008);

Abtahi, H., ‘Article 39 – Les Chambres’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012),999–1005;

Abtahi, H., and Young, R., ‘Article 39 – Chambers’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),1247–1252;

Abtahi, H., and Young, R., ‘Article 41 – Excusing and Disqualification of Judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1258–1266;

Alexy, R., Theorie der Grundrechte (Frankfurt a.Main: Suhrkamp, 1986);Alexy, R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2002);Almqvist, J., ‘A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for International

Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 91–112;Alvarez, J. E., ‘The Proposed Independent Oversight Mechanism for the International Criminal

Court’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015;Ambach, P., ‘Selbstvertretung im internationalen Strafprozess – Grundlagen, Kritik und ein

Lösungsansatz für die prozessuale Handhabe in der Zukunft’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 286–305;Ambach, P., ‘The ICC Reparations Scheme – Promise for Victims or Recipe for Failure? –A Critical

Discussion of Joakim Dungel’s Unpublished Article “Reparations and the ICC – Is the CourtReady for the Job?” ’, in Ambach P. et al., eds, The Protection of Non–Combatants During ArmedConflict and Safeguarding the Rights of Victims in Post–Conflict Society – Essays in Honour of theLife and Work of Joakim Dungel (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2015), 455–520;

Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘AModel of International Judicial Administration? The Evolutionof Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161;

Ambos, K., ‘Zur Stellung von Verteidiger und Beschuldigtem vor dem UN–Jugoslawiengerichtshof ’,NStZ, 18 (1998), 123–127;

Ambos, K., ‘Judicial Accountability of Perpetrators of Human Rights and the Role of Victims’,International Peacekeeping, 6 (2000), 67–77;

Ambos, K., ‘The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt – A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports’, EJCCLCJ, 8 (2000),89–118;

Ambos, K., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor – Rapporteur’s Report’, in Livingstone, S., ed, Towards aProcedural Regime for the International Criminal Court (Nottingham: Nottingham UniversityPress, 2002), 11–63;

Ambos, K., ‘ “Witness Proofing” before the International Criminal Court – A Reply to Karemaker,Taylor, and Pittman’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 911–916;

Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focuson the Role of the ICC’, in Ambos, Large and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103;

Ambos, K., The Colombian Peace Process and the Principle of Complementarity of the InternationalCriminal Court – An Inductive, Situation–based Approach (Heidelberg et al.: Springer, 2010);

Ambos, K., ‘The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v. Lubanga) –A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues, ICLR, 12 (2012), 115–153;

Ambos, K., ‘Wiedergutmachung’, in Stan, L., and Nedelsky, N., eds, Encyclopedia of TransitionalJustice, i (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 291–292;

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Procedural Regimes’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors(2012), 488–541;

20 Bibliography

Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, S., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International CriminalCourt – Is there a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change,58 (2012), 391–413;

Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court – Making the Right Choices, Part II –Organizing the Court and Guaranteeing a Fair Trial, AI Index: IOR 40/11/97 (July 1997)(<http://www.iccnow.org/documents/AIMakingRightChoicesPart2.pdf> accessed 5 December2015);

Angermaier, C., ‘Case Selection and Prioritization Criteria in the Work of the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 27–43;

ASP, Second Session, New York, 8–12 September 2003, Official Records (2003);ASP, Third Session, The Hague, 6–10 September 2004, Official Records (2004);ASP, Report on the Conditions of Service and Compensation of the Prosecutor and the Deputy

Prosecutors pursuant to Paragraph 26 of Resolution ICC–ASP/3/Res. 3, ICC–ASP/4/11 (9 August2005);

ASP, Proposed Programme Budget for 2006 of the International Criminal Court, ICC–ASP/4/5 (14August 2005);

ASP, Report of the Court on the Review of the System for Victims to Apply to Participate inProceedings, ICC–ASP/11/22 (5 November 2012);

ASP, Proposed Programme Budget for 2014 of the International Criminal Court, ICC–ASP/12/10(19 July 2013);

ASP, Report of the Court on Principles Relating to Victims’ Reparation, ICC–ASP/12/39 (8 October2013);

ASP, Second Report of the Court on the financial implications of the draft Guidelines governing therelations between the Court and Intermediaries, ICC–ASP/12/53, (30 October 2013);

ASP, Consolidated Report of the Independent Oversight Mechanism on its Activities during 2013,ICC–ASP/12/55 (6 November 2013);

ASP, Proposed Programme Budget for 2015 of the International Criminal Court, ICC–ASP/13/10(18 Sptember 2014);

Bachvarova, T., ‘Victims’ Eligibility before the International Criminal Court in Historical andComparative Context’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 665–706;

Bachvarova, T., ‘Impact of the Death of a Convicted Person on Pending Proceedings before theInternational Criminal Court’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 547–559;

Badar, M. E. and Karsten, N., ‘Current Developments at the International Criminal Tribunals’,ICLR, 7 (2007), 163–186;

Bass, G. J., Stay the Hand of Vengeance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000);Bassiouni, M. C., ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice – Identifying International

Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions’, DukeJComp&IL,3 (1993), 235–297;

Bassiouni, M. C., ‘International Recognition’, in Bassiouni, M. C., ed, The Pursuit of InternationalCriminal Justice – A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post–Conflict Justice,i (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia, 2010), 575–654;

Baumgartner, E., ‘Aspects of Victim Participation in the Proceedings of the International CriminalCourt’, IRRC, 90 (2008), 409–440;

Behrens, H.–J., ‘Das Verfahren des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs nach dem Statut von Rom’,HuV–I, 11 (1998), 144–151;

Bensouda, F., ‘The ICC Statute – An Insider’s Perspective on a Sui Generis System for GlobalJustice’, NCJIL&ComReg, 36 (2011), 277–285;

Benzing, M., ‘The Complementarity Regime of the ICC – International Criminal Justice betweenState Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 591–632;

Beresford, S., ‘The Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court – Are TheySufficient for the Proper Functioning of the Court or Is There Still Room for Improvement’,SanDiegoILJ, 3 (2002), 83–132;

Bibliography 21

Bergsmo, M., ‘The Theme of Selection and Prioritization Criteria and Why It Is Relevant’, inBergsmo, Criteria (2010), 7–14;

Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Complementarity After Kampala – Capacity Building andthe ICC’s Legal Tools’, GoJIL, 2 (2010), 791–811;

Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core InternationalCrimes – The ICC Legal Tools’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Active Complementarity – Legal InformationTransfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 25–42;

Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Preserving the Overview of Law and Facts – The CaseMatrix’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: TorkelOpsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 43–66;

Bergsmo, M., Cissé, C. and Staker, C., ‘The Prosecutors of the International Tribunals – The Casesof the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the ICTY and ICTR Compared’, in Arbour et al.,Prosecutor (2000), 121–154;

Bergsmo, M., Harhoff, F. and Zhu, D. ‘Article 42 – The Office of the Prosecutor’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1267–1277;

Bitti, G., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1588–1620;

Bitti, G., and Friman, H., ‘Participation of Victims in the Proceedings’, in Lee, The ICC (2001),456–474;

Boas, G., ‘The Right to Self–Representation in International and Domestic Criminal Law –Limitations and Qualifications on that Right’, in Abtahi, H. and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamicsof International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2006), 39–94;

Billis, E.,Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und im inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin:Duncker and Humblot, 2015);

Bitti, G., ‘Self–Representation before the ICTY – A Case for Reform’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 53–83;Bock, S., ‘Commentary’, in Klip, A., and Freeland, S., eds, Annotated Leading Cases of International

Criminal Tribunals – The International Criminal Court, xl (Cambridge, Antwerp, Poland:Intersentia, 2013), 283–294;

Bock, S., ‘Wiedergutmachung im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshofnach Lubanga’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 297–321;

Boed, R., and Niang, M. M., ‘ICTR’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R. and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense inInternational Criminal Proceedings – Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Ardsley/New York:Transnational Publishers, 2006), 137–435;

Bohlander, M., ‘ “A Fool for a Client” – Remarks on the Freedom of Choice and Assignment ofCounsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, CLF, 16 (2005),159–173;

Bohlander, M., ‘The International Criminal Judiciary – Problems of Judicial Selection, Independ-ence and Ethics’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 325–390;

Bohlander, M., ‘Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility? A Pragmatic Proposal for theRecruitment of Judges at the ICC and Other International Criminal Courts’, NCLR, 12 (2009),529–542;

Bohlander, M., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, Nomination and Election of Judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1216–1225;

Bohlander, M. and Latour, C., The German Judiciary in the Nineties – A Study of the Recruitment,Promotion and Remuneration of German Judges (Aachen: Shaker, 1998);

Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359;Bonomy, I., ‘Making War Crimes Trials Work – Balancing Fairness and Expedition’, in Boas, G.,

Schabas, W. A., and Scharf, M., P., eds, International Criminal Justice – Legitimacy andCoherence (Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012), 44–67;

Bourgon, S., Ogetto, K., and Bendler, W., ‘Associations of Defense Counsel – Development andRole’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R., and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense in International Criminal

22 Bibliography

Proceedings – Cases, Materials and Commentary (Ardsley/New York: Transnational Publshers,2006), 483–617;

Broomhall, B., ‘Article 51 – Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen-tary (2016), 1332–1351;

Buisman, C., ‘The Prosecutor’s Obligation to Investigate Incriminating and Exonerating Circum-stances Equally – Illusion or Reality?’, LJIL, 27 (2014), 205–226;

Buisman, C., Gumpert, B. and Hallers, M., ‘Trial and Error –How Effective is Legal Representationin International Criminal Proceedings?’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 1–82;

Burnham, M., ‘Fragmentation in International Criminal Law and the Rights of Victims’, in van denHerik, L., and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International CriminalLaw (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 657–679;

Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Article 68 – Protection of the Victims and Witnesses and their Participation inthe Proceedings’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 556–573, accessed 16 December 2015;

Cassese, A., ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court – Some Preliminary Reflections’, EJIL,10 (1999), 144–171;

Catani, L., ‘Victims at the International Criminal Court – Some Lessons Learned from the LubangaCase’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 905–912;

Chakravarti, S., ‘More than “Cheap Sentimentality” – Victim Testimony at Nuremberg, theEichmann Trial and Truth Commissions’, Constellations, 15 (2008), 223–235;

Chiavario, M., ‘Some Considerations on Faces of Justice by a “Non–Specialist” ’, JICJ, 6 (2008),69–86;

Chifflet, P., ‘The Role and Status of the Victim’, in Boas, G., and Schabas, W. A., eds, InternationalCriminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (Leiden, Boston: Martinus NijhoffPublishers, 2003), 75–111;

Chung, C. H., ‘Victims’ Participation at the International Criminal Court – Are Concessions of theCourt Clouding the Promise?’, NWJIHR, 6 (2008), 459–545;

Cissé, A., ‘Article 51 – Règlement de procédure et de preuve’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut deRome, i (2012), 1138–1148;

Combs, N., ‘Fact–Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),689–733;

Correa, C., ‘Reparations for Victims of Massive Crimes –Making Concrete a Message of Inclusion’,in Letschert, R. et al., eds, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes – Africa (Cam-bridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011), 185–233;

Côté, L., ‘Independence and Impartiality’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012),319–415;

Cotte, B., and Saracco, M., ‘Article 64 – Fonctions et pouvoirs de la Chambre de première instance’,in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1443–1471;

Cowdery, N. R., ‘When Dealing with Alleged Misconduct by Staff in the Prosecutor’s Office, theProsecutor and not the Independent Oversight Mechanism Should Retain and Must ExerciseAuthority to Investigate and Decide’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight,accessed 27 December 2015;

Damaška, M., ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure –A Comparative Study’, UPaLR, 121 (1972–1973), 506–589;

Damaška, M., ‘Assignment of Counsel and Perceptions of Fairness’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 3–8;Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008), 329–365;Damaška, M., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL

& ForAff, 14 (2009), 19–35;Damaška, M., ‘Reflections on Fairness in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 611–620;Danieli, Y., ‘Reappraising the Nuremberg Trials and Their Legacy – The Role of Victims in

International Law’, CardozoLR, 27 (2006), 1633–1649;Dannenbaum, T., ‘The International Criminal Court, Article 79, and Transitional Justice – The

Case for an Independent Trust Fund for Victims’, WILJ, 28 (2010), 234–298;

Bibliography 23

Danner, M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at theInternational Criminal Court’, AJIL, 97 (2003), 510–552;

de Brouwer, A.–M., ‘Reparations to Victims of Sexual Violence – Possibilities at the InternationalCriminal Court and at the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 207–237;

de Brouwer, A.–M., and Heikkilä, M., ‘Victim Issues – Participation, Protection, Reparation, andAssistance’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 1299–1374;

de Greiff, P., ‘Justice and Reparations’, in de Greiff, P., ed, The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford:Oxford Universtiy Press, 2006), 451–477;

de Greiff, P., and Wierda, M., ‘The Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court:Between Possibilities and Constraints’, in de Feyter, K., et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparationfor Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia,2005), 225–243;

deGuzman, M. M., ‘Giving Priority to Sex Crime Prosecutions – The Philosophical Foundations ofa Feminist Agenda’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 515–528;

de Hemptinne, J., ‘The Creation of Investigation Chambers at the International Criminal Court –An Option Worth Pursuing?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 402–418;

de Hemptinne, J., ‘ “Challenges Raised by Victims” Participation in the Proceedings of the SpecialTribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 8 (2010), rp;

de Hemptinne, J., and Rindi, F., ‘ICC Pre–Trial Chamber Allows Victims to Participate in theInvestigation Phase of Proceedings’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 342–350;

de Meester, K. Pitcher, K., Rastan R., and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, andSurrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379;

deGuzman, M. M., ‘An Expressive Rationale for the Thematic Prosecution of Sex Crimes’, inBergsmo, M., ed, Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel OpsahlAcademic EPublisher, 2012), 11–44;

deGuzman, M. M., and Schabas, W. A., ‘Initiation of Investigations and Selection of Cases’, inSluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–169;

Deschênes, J., and Staker, C., ‘Article 39 – Chambers’, in Triffterer, ICC Commentary (2008),957–960;

De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre–Trial Chamber in the Fact–FindingProcess of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440;

De Vos, C.M., ‘Investigating from Afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024;di Giovanni, A., ‘The Prospect of ICC Reparations in the Case Concerning Northern Uganda – On

a Collision Course with Incoherence?’, JILIR, 2 (2005–2006), 25–64;Dicker, R., ‘Making Justice Meaningful for Victims’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 267–273;Dieckmann, J. and Kerll, C., ‘Representing the “General Interests of the Defence” – Boon or Bane? –

A Stocktaking of the System of Ad Hoc Counsel at the ICC’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 105–136;Dive, G., ‘The Registry’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 262–284;Dixon, P., and Tenove, C., ‘International Criminal Justice as a Transnational Field – Rules,

Authority and Victims’, IJTJ, 7 (2013), 393–412;Doak, J., ‘The Therapeutic Dimension of Transitional Justice – Emotional Repair and Victim

Satisfaction in International Trials and Truth Commissions’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 263–298;Dodd, T. J., ‘The Nuremberg Trials’, in Mettraux, G., ed, Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 190–199;Doherty, T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and

International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945;Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Role of Victims in the ICC Proceedings’, in Lattanzi, F., ed, The Inter-

national Criminal Court – Comments on the Draft Statute (Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 1998),251–272;

Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Role of Victims in ICC Proceedings’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on theRome Statute, i (2000), 251–277;

Donat–Cattin, D., ‘The Rights of Victims and International Criminal Justice’, in Carlizzi, G. et al.,eds, La Corte Penale Internazionale – Problemi e prospettive (Napoli: Vivarium, 2003), 347–367;

24 Bibliography

Donat–Cattin, D., ‘Article 68 – Protection of Victims and Witnesses and their Participation in theProceedings’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1681–1711;

Donat–Cattin, D., ‘Article 75 – Reparations to Victims’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1853–1870;

du Plessis, M. and Gevers, C., ‘The Independent Oversight Mechanism Argument is not Merelyabout Administrative Functions, but Is Situated within a Broader Debate over the Role of theAssembly of States Parties’, ICC Forum, available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27December 2015;

Dwertmann, E., The Reparation System of the International Criminal Court – Its Implementation,Possibilities and Limitations (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010);

Eckelmans, F. C., ‘The ICC’s Practice on Victim Participation’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C.,eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T.M.C. AsserPress, 2013), 189–221;

El Zeidy, M. M., The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law – Origin,Development and Practice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008);

Elberling, B., ‘Article 63 – Trial in the Presence of the Accused’, in Klamberg, Online CommentaryICC, 507–508, accessed 11 December 2015;

Elberling, B., The Defendant in International Criminal Proceedings – Between Law and Historiog-raphy (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012);

Eser, A., ‘Zur Schlüsselrolle des Anklägers für die internationale Strafjustiz’, in Griesbaum, R.,Hannich, R., and Schnarr, K. H., eds, Strafrecht und Justizgewährung – Festschrift für Kay Nehmzum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, 2006), 111–124;

Evans, C., The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (Cambridgeet al.: Cambridge University Press, 2012);

Fairlie, M. A., ‘Adding Fuel to Milosevic’s Fire – How the Use of Substitute Judges Discredits theUN War Crimes Tribunals’, CLF, 16 (2005), 107–157;

Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘Definition of Victims and General Principle’, in Lee, The ICC(2001), 427–434;

Ferstman, C., ‘The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court – Practical Consider-ations’, LJIL, 15 (2002), 667–686;

FIDH, Enhancing Victims’ Rights Before the ICC – A View from Situation Countries on Victims’Rights at the International Criminal Court (November 2013) (< http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/fidh_victimsrights_621a_nov2013_ld.pdf/> accessed 1 May 2015);

FIDH et al., Open Letter to the Search Committee Members (16 March 2011) (<http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/ICC%20prosecutor%20criteria%2003.16.11.pdf> accessed1 May 2015);

Fischer, P. G., ‘The Victims’ Trust Fund of the International Criminal Court – Formation of aFunctional Reparations Scheme’, EmoryILR, 17 (2003), 187–240;

Freckelton I. and Karagiannakis M., ‘Fitness to Stand Trial under International Criminal Law –Challenges for Law and Policy’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 705–729;

Friman, H., ‘Interlocutory Appeal in the Early Practice of the International Criminal Court’, inStahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 553–561;

Friman, H., ‘The International Criminal Court and Participation of Victims – A Third Party to theProceedings?’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 485–500;

Friman, H., ‘Trying Cases at the International Criminal Tribunals in the Absence of the Accused?’,in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds, Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals(Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 332–352;

Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481;

Friman, H., ‘Victims in the International Criminal Process’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014),482–499;

Friman, H., ‘Article 75 – Reparations to Victims’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 620–630,accessed 16 December 2015;

Bibliography 25

Funk, T. M., Victims’ Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court (Oxford, New York:Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010);

Gallant, K. S. and Kirsch, S., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R., andWilson, R. J., eds, Defense in International Criminal Proceedings – Cases, Materials and Com-mentary (Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers, 2006), 437–482;

Garkawe, S., ‘Victims and the International Criminal Court’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 345–367;Goldston, J. A., ‘More Candour about Criteria – The Exercise of Discretion by the Prosecutor of the

International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 383–406;Gonfrier, O., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, candidature et élection des juges’, in Fernandez and

Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i (2012), 969–978;Greco, G., ‘Victims’ Rights Overview under the ICC Legal Framework –A Jurisprudential Analysis’,

ICLR, 7 (2007), 531–547;Grossman, N., ‘Sex Representation on the Bench and the Legitimacy of International Criminal

Courts’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 643–653;Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court – A New

Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese etal., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133;

Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–217;

Guariglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the Pre–Trial Chamber in Relation to aUnique Investigative Opportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420;

Guariglia, F., and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 57 – Functions and Powers of the Pre–Trial Chamber’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1421–1436;

Guhr, A. H., ‘Aktuelle Entwicklung zur Beteiligung von Opfern im Strafverfahren vor dem IStGH‘,ZIS, 3 (2008), 367–370;

Guhr, A. H., ‘Victim Participation During the Pre–Trial Stage at the International Criminal Court’,ICLR, 8 (2008), 109–140;

Gut, T., Counsel Misconduct before the International Criminal Court – Professional Responsibility inInternational Criminal Defence (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2012);

Gut, T., Kirsch, S., Mundis, D., and Taylor, M, ‘Defence Issues’, in Sluiter et al., InternationalCriminal Procedure (2013), 1203–1297;

Hall, C. K., and Jacobs, D. L., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investigation’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1394–1410;

Hall, C. K., and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 58 – Issuance by the Pre–Trial Chamber of a Warrant ofArrest or a Summons to Appear’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1437–1457;

Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction ofthe Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),849–898;

Hamber, B., ‘The Dilemmas of Reparations – In Search of a Process–Driven Approach’, in Feyter,K. de, et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human RightsViolations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005), 135–149;

Haslam, E., ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court – A Triumph of Hope OverExperience?’, in McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P., and Donnelly, E., eds, The Permanent InternationalCriminal Court – Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2004), 315–334;

Haslam, E., and Edmunds, R., ‘Common Legal Representation at the International Criminal Court– More Symbolic than Real?’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 871–903;

Haslam, E. and Edmunds, R., ‘Managing a New “Partnership” ’, CLF, 24 (2013), 49–85;Heikkilä, M., International Criminal Tribunals and Victims of Crimes (Turku: Institute for Human

Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2004);Heller, K. J., ‘Completion’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 886–925;Heller K. J., ‘Will the New RPE 134 Provisions Survive Judicial Review? (Probably Not)’, Opinio

Juris (2013), <http://opiniojuris.org/2013/11/28/will–new–rpe–134–provisions–survive–judicial–review/>, accessed 1 May 2015;

26 Bibliography

Henzelin, M., Heiskanen, V., and Mettraux, G., ‘Reparations to Victims before the InternationalCriminal Court: Lessons from International Mass Claims Processes’, CLF, 17 (2006), 317–344;

Hiéramente, M., ‘In the Case Prosecutor v. Defence – Der Haftbefehl gegen Bemba und Mitgliederseines Verteidigungsteams vom 20.11.2013’, ZIS, 9 (2014), 123–128;

Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre–Trial Proceedings – The Future of International CriminalTrials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401;

Higgins, G., ‘The Development of the Right to Self Representation before the InternationalCriminal Tribunals’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds, Judicial Creativity at the InternationalCriminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 252–285;

Horovitz, S., ‘The Role of Victims’, in Carter and Pocar, International Criminal Procedure (2013),166–191;

Hoven, E., ‘Verfahrensende und kein Urteil in Sicht – Das Beschleunigungsgebot in der Praxisinternationaler Strafgerichte’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 830–837;

Hoven, E., ‘Ideal und Wirklichkeit der Opferbeteiligung im Völkerstrafverfahren’, ZIS, 9 (2014),679–703;

Hoven, E., ‘Civil Party Participation in Trials of Mass Crimes – A Qualitative Study at theExtraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 81–107;

Hoven, E., Feiler, M., and Scheibel, S., Victims in Trials of Mass Crimes – AMulti–Perspective Studyof Civil Party Participation at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Cologne:Institute for International Peace and Security Law, 2013);

Hoyle, C., and Ulrich, L., ‘New Court, New Justice? The Evolution of “Justice for Victims’ atDomestic Courts and at the International Criminal Court” ’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 681–703;

HRW, The Selection of Situations and Cases for Trial before the International Criminal Court (2006)(<http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/ij1006web.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015);

HRW, Unfinished Business – Closing Gaps in the Selection of ICC Cases (September 2011) (<http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/icc0911webwcover.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015);

IBA, Counsel Matters at the ICC – A Review of Key Developments Impacting Lawyers Practisingbefore the ICC (London: IBA, 2012) (http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/ICC_Outreach_Monitoring/IBA_ICC_Programme_Homepage.aspx, accessed 1 May 2015);

ICC, Booklet. Victims Before the International Criminal Court – A Guide for the Participation ofVictims in the Proceedings of the Court (undated) (<http://www.vrwg.org/downloads/publications/05/VPRS_Booklet_En.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015;

Ingadottir, T., The Trust Fund under Article 79 of the Rome Statute (1999) (<http://www.pict–pcti.org/publications/PICT_articles/REPARATIONS.PDF> accessed 1 May 2015);

International Commission of Jurists, International Principles on the Independence and Account-ability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors (Geneva, 2nd edn, 2007) (<http://icj.wpengine.netdna–cdn.com/wp–content/uploads/2012/04/International–Principles–on–the–Independence–and–Accountability–of–Judges–Lawyers–and–Procecutors–No.1–Practitioners–Guide–2009–Eng.pdf>,accessed 1 May 2015);

Ip, K. G., ‘Fulfilling the Mandate of National Reconciliation in the Extraordinary Chambers in theCourts of Cambodia (ECCC) – An Evaluation through the Prism of Victims’ Rights’, ICLR, 13(2013), 865–894;

Jalloh, C. C., ‘Does Living by the Sword Mean Dying by the Sword’, PennStLR, 117 (2012–2013),707–754;

Jalloh, C. C., ‘Self–Representation and the Use of Assigned, Standby and Amicus Counsel’, in Carterand Pocar, International Criminal Procedure (2013), 125–165;

Jenks, C., ‘Notice Otherwise Given – Will in Absentia Trials at the Special Tribunal for LebanonViolate Human Rights?’, FordhamILJ, 33 (2009), 57–100;

Jones, J. R. W. D., ‘The Office of the Prosecutor’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, i (2002), 269–274;Jorda, C., and de Hemptinne, J., ‘Status and Role of the Victims’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii

(2002), 1387–1419;Jordash, W. and Coughlan, J., ‘The Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Charges –

A Potentially Formidable Jurisprudential Legacy’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds, Judicial

Bibliography 27

Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010),286–312;

Jørgensen, N. H. B., and Zahar, A., ‘Deliberation, Dissent, Judgment’, in Sluiter et al., InternationalCriminal Procedure (2013), 1151–1201;

Kaoutzanis, C., ‘Two Birds with One Stone – How the Use of the Class Action Device for VictimParticipation in the International Criminal Court Can Improve both the Fight against Impunityand Victim Participation’, UCDavisJIL&Pol’y, 17 (2010), 111–150;

Kaul, H.–P., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof nach fünf Jahren – Ein Erfahrungsbericht ausrichterlicher Sicht’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 494–499;

Kaul, H.–P., ‘Victims’ Rights and Peace’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims ofInternational Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013),223–229;

Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the InternationalCriminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814;

Keita X.–J., Fourçans, C., Masselot, M., Preira, D. D., Aziz Mbaye, A., and Shoamanesh, S. S.,‘Article 67 –Droits de l’ accusé’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1497–1543;

Kelly, Michael J., ‘The Status of Victims under the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt’, in Bonacker, T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdis-ciplinary Discourse (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 47–66;

Kendall, S., ‘Commodifying Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 113–134;Kendall, S., and Nouwen, S., ‘Representational Practices at the International Criminal Court – The

Gap between Juridified and Abstract Victimhood’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 235–262;Khan, A., ‘The Real Issue Concerns Delimitation of the Court’s Independence and the Oversight

Role of the Assembly Which Can only Be Decided through a Constructive Dialogue between theAssembly, Court Officials and Civil Society on the Expectations of Oversight’, ICC Forum,available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015;

Kirsch, S., ‘The Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 275–292;Kirsch, S., ‘ “Aufgedrängte” Verteidigung’, in Weigend, T., Walther, S. and Grunewald, B., eds,

Strafverteidigung vor neuen Herausforderungen – Denkanstöße aus sieben Rechtsordnungen(Berlin: Dunkler and Humblot, 2008), 85–102;

Kiza, E., Rathgeber, C., and Rohne, H.–C., Victims of War – An Empirical Study on War–Victimization and Victims’ Attitudes towards Addressing Atrocities (Hamburg: Hamburg EditionHIS, 2006);

Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 56–58’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 447–472, accessed 11December 2015;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Klamberg, OnlineCommentary ICC, 509–529, accessed 11 December 2015;

Kleffner, J. K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (Oxford:Oxford University Pres, 2008);

Knottnerus A. S., ‘Extraordinary Exceptions at the International Criminal Court – The (New) Rulesand Jurisprudence on Presence at Trial’, LPICT, 13 (2014), 261–285;

Knottnerus A. S., ‘The International Criminal Court on Presence at Trial – The (In)validity of Rule134quater’, International Crimes Database Brief, 5 (2014), <http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/upload/documents/20140904T143535–ICD%20Brief%20–%20Abel%20S%20%20Knottnerus.pdf>, accessed 1 May 2015;

Kreß, C., ‘Resolution 827 (1993) des Sicherheitsrats der VN betr. den Internationalen Strafgericht-shof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehrin Strafsachen (2002), III 27;

Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), Part IV A1;

Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of aUnique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617;

28 Bibliography

Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad–Hoc–Tribunalen zum Internatio-nalen Strafgerichtshof ’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259;

Kroker, P., Zivilparteien in Völkerstrafverfahren – Eine Analyse der Opferbeteiligung an denExtraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2012);

Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005),835–909;

Le Floch, G., Lemey, M., and Paiola, L., ‘Procedural Developments at the International CriminalCourt (2013)’, LPICT, 14 (2015), 171–228;

Le Fraper du Hellen, B., ‘Interview – ICC Prosecutors Will Refute Allegations That IntermediariesManipulated Evidence in Lubanga Case’, International Justice Monitor, (15 March 2010), availableat <www.lubangatrial.org/2010/03/15/interview–icc–prosecutors–will–refute–allegations–that–intermediaries–manipulated–evidence–in–lubanga–case>, accessed 11 December 2015;

Letschert, R., and van Boven, T., ‘Providing Reparation in Situation of Mass Victimization – KeyChallenges Involved’, in Letschert, R., et al., eds, Victimological Approaches to InternationalCrimes – Africa (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011), 153–184;

Lewis, P., and Friman, H., ‘Reparations to Victims’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 474–491;Locke, J., ‘Indictments’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012), 604–646;Mackenzie, R., et al., Selecting International Judges – Principle, Process, and Politics (Oxford: Oxford

Universtiy Press, 2010);Manirabona, A. M., and Wemmers, J.–A., ‘Specific Reparation for Specific Victimization – A Case

for Suitable Reparation Strategies for War Crimes Victims in the DRC’, ICLR, 13 (2013),977–1012;

Markovic, M., ‘International Criminal Trials and the Disqualification of Judges on the Basis ofNationality’, WashUGSLR, 13 (2013), 1–59 (available <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2315804>, accessed 1 May 2015);

Markovic, M., ‘The ICC Prosecutor’s Missing Code of Conduct’, TexILJ, 47 (2011–2012), 201–236;Marrus, M. R., ‘A Jewish Lobby at Nuremberg – Jacob Robinson and the Institute of Jewish Affairs,

1945–1946’, CardozoLR, 27 (2006), 1651–1665;Martinez M., and Bohlander, M., ‘ICTY’, in Bohlander, M., Boed, R. and Wilson, R. J., eds, Defense

in International Criminal Proceedings – Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Ardsley/New York:Transnational Publishers, 2006), 67–136;

Massidda, P., and Pellet, S., ‘Role and Practice of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims’, in Stahnand Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 691–706;

Massidda, P., and Walter, C., ‘Article 68 – Protection et participation au procès des victimes et destémoins’, in Fernadez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1545–1567;

Maxeiner, J. R., ‘Legal Indeterminacy Made In America –U.S. Legal Methods and The Rule of Law’,VaparaisoULR, 41 (2006–2007), 517–589;

Mbaye, A. A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 55 – Droits des personnes das le cadre d’une enquête’,in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1259–1281;

McAuliffe, P., ‘Book Review’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 359–364;McCarthy, C., ‘Victim Redress and International Criminal Justice – Competing Paradigms, or

Compatible Forms of Justice?’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 351–371;McCarthy, C., ‘The Rome Statute’s Regime of Victim Redress – Challenges and Prospects’, in Stahn,

Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1203–1221;McDermott, Y., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, Nomination and Election of Judges’, in Klamberg,

Online Commentary ICC, 332–342, accessed 11 December 2015;McDermott, Y., ‘Articles 40–42’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 359–377, accessed 11

December 2015;McDermott, Y., ‘Articles 46–48’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 391–402, accessed 11

December 2015;McDermott, Y. and Klamberg, M., ‘Article 39 – Chambers’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

349–358, accessed 11 December 2015;

Bibliography 29

McDermott, Y., ‘Article 42 – The Office of the Prosecutor’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,368–377, accessed 16 December 2015;

McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Apples and Oranges? Victim Participation Approaches at the ICC andECCC’, in Ryngaert, C., ed, The Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice (Antwerp: Inter-sentia, 2009), 91–115;

McGonigle Leyh, B., Procedural Justice? Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings(Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011);

McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Understanding Limitations – Victim Participation and the InternationalCriminal Court’, in Letschert, R., et al., eds, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes– Africa (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, 2011), 493–525;

McGonigle Leyh, B., ‘Victim–Oriented Measures at International Criminal Institutions – Partici-pation and its Pitfalls’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 375–408;

Mégret, F., ‘Accountability and Ethics’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012),416–487;

Meisenberg, S. M., ‘The Right to Legal Assistance at the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda – A Review of Its Jurisprudence’, in Decaux, E., Dieng A. and Sow, M., eds, FromHuman Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the LateJudge Laïty Kama, (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 125–158;

Meloni, C., ‘Victims in International Criminal Justice’, in Lupária L., ed, Victims and CriminalJustice – European Standards and National Good Practices (San Giuliano Milanese: WoltersKluwer, 2015), 47–63;

Miller, M. L. and Wright, R. F., Criminal Procedures – Cases, Statutes, and Executive Materials(New York: Aspen, 2nd edn, 2003);

Mochochoko, P., ‘The Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International CriminalCourt’, FordhamILJ, 25 (2001), 638–664;

Moffett, L., ‘The Role of Victims in International Criminal Tribunals of the Second World War’,ICLR, 12 (2012), 245–270;

Moffet, L., ‘Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court – Beyond Rhetoricand The Hague’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 281–311;

Moffet, L., ‘Meaningful and Effective? Considering Victims’ Interests Through Participation at theInternational Criminal Court’, CLF, 26 (2015), 255–289;

Mohan, M., ‘The Paradox of Victim–Centrism – Victim Participation at the Khmer RougeTribunal’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 733–775;

Moreno–Ocampo, L., ‘Now End This Darfur Denial’, The Guardian (15 July 2010) (<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/15/world–cannot–ignore–darfur>accessed 1 May 2015);

Moulier, I., ‘Article 42 – Le Bureau du Procureuer’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i(2012), 1019–1031;

Mundis, D., ‘Amicus Curiae’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 243;Muttukumaru, C., ‘Reparation to Victims’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 262–270;Negri, S., ‘Equality of Arms – Guiding Light or Empty Shell?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal

Justice (2007), 13–73;Nerlich, V., ‘The Statuts of ICTY and ICTR Precedents in Proceedings before the ICC’, in Stahn and

Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 305–325;Niang, M. M., ‘The Right to Counsel before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, CLF,

13 (2002), 323–338;Nignan, B., ‘Article 74 – Conditions requises pour la décision’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de

Rome, ii (2012), 1639–1649;Nilsson, C., ‘Contextualizing the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International

Criminal Court’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 559-578;Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion before National Courts and International Tribu-

nals’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 124–144;

30 Bibliography

Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Article 40 – Indépendance des juges’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, i(2012), 1007–1012;

Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Article 41 – Décharge et récusation des juges’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statutde Rome, i (2012), 1013–1017;

O’Donohue, ‘The ICC and the ASP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 105–138;Obote–Odora, A., ‘Case Selection and Prioritization Criteria in the Work of the International

Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 45–67;O’Brien, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion as an Obstacle to Prosecution of United Nations Peacekeepers by

the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 525–545;Oehmichen, A., ‘Sonderbares Recht am Sondergerictshof für den Libanon – Die Entscheidungen

zur Legalität und In–Absentia’, in Esser, R. et al., eds, Festschrift für Hans–Heiner Kühne zum 70.Geburtstag (Heidelberg et al.: C. F. Müller et al., 2013), 613–627;

Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice(2009), 185–208;

Olásolo, H., The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (Leiden, Boston: Marti-nus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005);

Olásolo, H., ‘The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatment ofthe Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of Office of the Prosecutor’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 121–146;

Olásolo, H., ‘Systematic and Casuistic Approaches to the Role of Victims in Criminal ProceedingsBefore the International Criminal Court’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 513–528;

Olásolo, H. et al., Assessing the Role of the Independent Oversight Mechanism in Enhancing theEfficiency and Economy of the ICC, (August 2011) (<http://www.iilj.org/newsandevents/documents/iomfinalpaperaspublishedinotpwebsite.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015);

Orie, A., ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings prior to theEstablishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings before the ICC’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute,ii (2002), 1439–1495;

Palassis, S. N., ‘From the Hague to the Balkans – A Victim–oriented Reparations Approach toImproved International Criminal Justice’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 1–41;

Pellet, S., ‘Article 75 – Réparation en favour des victimes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut deRome, ii (2012), 1651–1668;

Pemberton, A., Letschert, R. M., de Brouwer, A.–M. and Haveman, R. H., ‘Coherence in Inter-nationale Criminal Justice – A Victimological Perspective’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 339–368;

Pena, M. and Carayon, G., ‘Is the ICC Making the Most of Victim Participation?’, IJTJ, 7 (2013),518–535;

Pérez–León Acevedo, J. P., Victims’ Status at International and Hybrid Criminal Court – Victims’Status as Witnesses, Victim Participants/Civil Parties and Reparation Claimants (Åbo: ÅboAkademi University Press, 2014);

Pérez–León Acevedo, J. P. and Elberling, B., ‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investiga-tion’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 444–446, accessed 11 December 2015;

Pérez–León Acevedo, J. P. and Elberling, B., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Klamberg,Online Commentary ICC, 543–555, accessed 11 December 2015;

Perrin, B., ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court – Examining the First Decadeof Investigative and Pre–Trial Proceedings’, ICLR 15 (2015), 298–338;

Peschke, K., ‘The Role and Mandate of the ICC Trust Fund for Victims’, in Bonacker, T., andSafferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague:T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 317–327;

Petersdorf, B., Eigenverteidigung und aufgedrängte Pflichtverteidigung im formellen Völkerstrafrecht– Auf rechtsvergleichender Grundlage und unter Berücksichtigung internationaler Menschen-rechtsstandards (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2010);

Pikis, M., The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court – Analysis of the Statute, the Rulesof Procedure and Evidence, the Regulations of the Court and Supplementary Instruments (Leiden,Bosten: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010);

Bibliography 31

Piragoff, D. K., ‘Article 70 – Offences against the Administration of Justice’, in Triffterer/Ambos,ICC Commentary (2016), 1751–1759;

Piragoff, D. K. and Clarke, P., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1712–1750;

Plevin, A. M., ‘Beyond a “Victims’ Right” – Truth–Finding Power and Procedure at the ICC’, CLF,25 (2014), 441–464;

Pratlong, D., ‘The Victims in the First Judgement of the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts ofCambodia’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 639–657;

Preira, D. D., Mbaye A. A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 63 – Procès en présence de l’accusé’, inFernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1423–1442;

Rastan, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 141–178;Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of National Security Information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 1775–1815;Rauschenbach, M. and Scalia, D., ‘Victims and International Criminal Justice – A Vexed Ques-

tion?’, IRRC, 90 (2008), 441–459;Razesberger, F., The International Criminal Court – The Principle of Complementarity (Frankfurt

am Main: Peter Lang, 2006);Röben, V., ‘The Procedure of the ICC – Status and Function of the Prosecutor’, MPYbUNL, 7

(2003), 513–552;Rombouts, H., Sardaro, P., and Vandeginste, S., ‘The Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross and

Systematic Violations of Human Rights’, in de Feyter, K., et al., eds,Out of the Ashes – Reparationfor Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia,2005), 345–516;

Roosevelt, T., ‘Ethics for the Ethical – A Code of Conduct for the International Criminal CourtOffice of the Prosecutor’, GeoJLegalEthics, 24 (2011), 835–851;

Rwelamira, M. R., ‘Composition and Administration of the Court’, in Lee, The ICC (1999),153–173;

Saabel, E., ‘Article 79 – Fonds au profit des victimes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1693–1716;

SáCouto, S. and Cleary, K., ‘Victims’ Participation in the Investigations of the InternationalCriminal Court’, Transnat’lLCP, 17 (2008), 73–105;

Safferling, C., ‘Das Opfer völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen’, ZStW, 115 (2003), 352–384;Safferling, C., ‘The Rights and Interests of the Defence in the Pre–Trial Phase’, JICJ, 9 (2011),

651–667;Safferling, C., ‘The Role of the Victim in the Criminal Process – A Paradigm Shift in National

German and International Law?’, ICLR 11 (2011), 183–215;Safferling, C., and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen – Entwicklungen

in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794;Sarkin, J., ‘Reparations for Gross Human Rights Violations as an Outcome of Criminal versus

Civil Court Proceedings’, in de Feyter, K., et al., eds, Out of the Ashes – Reparation for Victimsof Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations (Antwerp, Oxford: Intersentia, 2005),151–188;

Sarvarian, A., ‘Ethical Standards for Prosecution and Defence Counsel before International Courts– The Legacy of Nuremberg’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 423–446;

Scalia, D., ‘Le droit international pénal face aux victimes’, in Strickler, Y., ed, La place de la victimedans le procès pénal (Brussels: Buylant, 2009), 229–251;

Schabas, W. and Caruana, V., ‘Article 63 – Trial in the Presence of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1563–1587;

Schabas, W. A., and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1650–1680;

Scharf, M. P., ‘Self–Representation of the Accused before International Tribunals’, in Brown,Handbook ICL (2011), 284–298;

32 Bibliography

Seibert–Fohr, A., ‘International Judicial Ethics’, in Romano, C., Alter, K., and Shany, Y., eds, TheOxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2014),757–778;

Seils, P., ‘The Selection and Prioritization of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Inter-national Criminal Court’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 69–78;

Shelton, D. L., Reparations to Victims at the International Criminal Court (1999) (<http://www.pict–pcti.org/publications/PICT_articles/REPARATIONS.PDF> accessed 1 May 2015);

Sifris, R., ‘Weighing Judicial Independence against Judicial Accountability – Do the Scales of theInternational Criminal Court Balance?’, ChiKentJI&CompL, 8 (2008), 88–110;

Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein’s Monster – Creating a New International Procedure’, JICJ, 8 (2010),451–462;

Sluiter, G., ‘ “Fairness and the Interests of Justice” – Illusive Concepts in the Milošević Case’, JICJ, 3(2005), 9–19;

Sluiter, G., ‘Compromising the Authority of International Criminal Justice – How Vojislav ŠešeljRuns His Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 529–536;

Smeulers, A., Weerdesteijn, M., and Hola, B., ‘The Selection of Situations by the ICC – AnEmpirically Based Evaluation of the OTP’s Performance’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 1–39;

Smith–van Lin, L., ‘Victims’ Participation at the International Criminal Court: Benefit or Burden?’,in Schabas, McDermott and Hayes, Ashgate Research Companion (2013), 181–204;

Song, T, ‘Article 79 – Trust Fund’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 645–649, accessed 16December 2015;

Spaniol, M., ‘Das Recht des Angeklagten auf Eigenverteidigung bei Verständigung im Strafverfah-ren’, in Burkhardt, B. et al., eds, Scripta Amicitiae – Freundschaftsgabe für Albin Eser zum 80.Geburtstag am 26. Januar 2015 (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, 2015), 431–448;

Sperfeldt, C., ‘Collective Reparations at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’,ICLR, 12 (2012), 457–589;

Sperfeldt, C., ‘From the Margins of International Criminal Justice – Lessons Learned at theExtraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 1111–1137;

Spiga, V., ‘No Redress without Justice – Victims and International Criminal Law’, JICJ, 10 (2012),1377–1394;

Spiga, V., ‘Indirect Victims’ Participation in the Lubanga Trial’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 183–198;Stahn, C., ‘Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion – Five Years on’, in Stahn and Sluiter,

Emerging Practice (2009), 247–279;Stahn, C., Olásolo, H., and Gibson, K., ‘Participation of Victims in Pre–Trial Proceedings of the

ICC’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 218–238;Stahn, C, ‘Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeal Judgement – New Prospects for Expressivism

and Participatory Justice of “Juridified Victimhood” by Other Means?’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 801–813;Staker, C., Abtahi, H. and Young, R., ‘Article 40 – Independence of the Judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos,

ICC Commentary (2016), 1253–1257;Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 1965–1985;Stegmiller, I., ‘Legal Developments in Civil Party Participation at the Extraordinary Chambers in

the Courts of Cambodia’, LJIL, 27 (2014), 465–477;Stehle, S., Das Strafverfahren als immaterielle Wiedergutmachung – Die aktiven Beteiligungsrechte

des Verletzten im Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und in ausgewähltennationalen Strafverfahren (Hamburg: Dr. Kovać, 2007);

Stigen, J., The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions –The Principle of Complementarity (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008);

Stover, E., Balthazard, M., and Koenig, K. A., ‘Confronting Duch – Civil Party Proceedings in Case001 at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, IRRC, 93 (2011), 503–546;

Studzinsky, S., ‘Participation Rights of Victims as Civil Parties and the Challenges of TheirImplementation Before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, in Bonacker,

Bibliography 33

T., and Safferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (TheHague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), 175–188;

Swart, M., ‘Book Reviews’, LJIL, 24 (2011), 789–792;Swoboda, S., ‘Didaktische Dimensionen internationaler Strafverfahren –Dargestellt am Beispiel der

UN ad hoc–Tribunale’, ZIS, 5 (2010), 100–115;Takemura, H., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in International Justice – Between Fragmentation and

Unification’, in van den Herik, L. J., Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation ofInternational Criminal Law (Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 633–656;

Terris, D., Romano, C. P. R., and Swigart, L., The International Judge – An Introduction to the Menand Women Who Decide the World’s Cases (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007);

Thalmann, V., ‘The Role of the Judge and the Parties in Pre–Trial Proceedings’, in Kolb and Scalia,Droit international pénal (2012), 455–481;

Thompson, B., ‘The Role of the Internationale Prosecutor as a Custodian of Global Morality’, inJalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 47–57;

Timm, B., ‘The Legal Position of Victims in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Fischer et al.,Prosecution (2001), 289–308;

Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 46 – Removal from Office’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1299–1306;

Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 47 – Disciplinary Measures’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1307–1309;

Karagiannakis, M., ‘Article 48 – Privileges and Immunities’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1310–1318;

Tolbert, D., and Swinnen F., ‘The Protection of, and Assistance to, Witnesses at the ICTY’, inAbtahi, H., and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honourof Sir Richard May (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 193–229;

Tonellato, M., ‘The Victims’ Participation at a Crossroads – How the International Criminal CourtCould Devise a Meaningful Victims’ Participation while Respecting the Rights of the Defendant’,EJCCLCJ, 20 (2012), 315–359;

Townsend, G., ‘Structure and Management’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors(2012), 171–318;

Triffterer, O. and Burchard, C., ‘Article 71 – Sanctions for Misconduct before the Court’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1760–1774;

Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), rp;

Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu eineropferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85;

Trumbull IV, C. P., ‘The Victims of Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings’,MichJIL, 29 (2008), 777–826;

Tsereteli, N., ‘Victim Participation in ICC Proceedings’, in Stahn and van den Herik, FuturePerspectives (2010), 625–658;

Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press,2009);

Turner, J. I., ‘Policing International Prosecutors’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 45 (2012), 175–258;Turner, J. I., ‘Accountability of International Prosecutors’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC

(2015), 382–407;Turone, G., ‘Powers and Duties of the Prosecutor, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),

1137–1180;UNGA, ‘Report of the Secretary–General on the Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight

Services’ (6 February 1997) 51th session, UN Doc A/51/789;UNGA, ‘Report of the International Criminal Court for 2004’ (1 August 2005), 60th session, UN

Doc A/60/177;UNGA, ‘Report of the International Criminal Court for 2005–2006’ (3 August 2006), 61st session,

UN Doc A/61/217;

34 Bibliography

van Boven, T., ‘The Position of the Victim in the Statute of the International Criminal Court’, invon Hebel, H., Lammers, J., and Schukking, J., eds, Reflections on the International CriminalCourt – Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 1999), 77–89;

van den Wyngaert, C., ‘Victims before International Criminal Courts – Some Views and Concernsof an ICC Trial Judge’, CWRJIL, 44 (2011), 475–496;

van der Wilt, H., ‘The Demand of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that anyInvestigation by the Independent Oversight Mechanism into Alleged Misconduct of his StaffMembers Requires his Prior Authorization is not Unreasonable or Far–Fetched’, ICC Forum,available at http://iccforum.com/oversight, accessed 27 December 2015;

van der Wilt, H. and Lyngdorf, S., ‘Procedural Obligations under the European Convention onHuman Rights – Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of “Unwillingness” and “Inability” in theContext of the Complementarity Principle’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 39–75;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Article 68 (3) and the Personal Interests of Victims in the Emerging Practice of theICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 635–690;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,610–619, accessed 11 December 2015;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),543–655;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Victim Participation Revisited –What the ICC is Learning about Itself ’, in Stahn, Lawand Practice of the ICC (2015), 1133–1202;

Vlaming, F. de, ‘Selection of Defendants’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, Prosecutors (2012),542–571;

von Wistinghausen, N., ‘Victims as Witnesses – Views from the Defence’, in Bonacker, T., andSafferling, C., eds, Victims of International Crimes – An Interdisciplinary Discourse (The Hague:T.M.C. Asser Press, 2013), 165–173;

VRWG,Making Victim Participation Effective andMeaningful (June 2014) (<http://www.vrwg.org/downloads/englishvrwgpapermakingvictimparticipationeffectiveandmeaningful–june2014–%282%29.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015);

Wald, P. M., ‘Women on International Courts – Some Lessons Learned’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 401–408;WCRO, Victim Participation Before the International Criminal Court (November 2007);WCRO, Victim Participation at the Case Stage of the Proceedings (February 2009);WCRO, The Case–Based Reparations Scheme at the International Criminal Court (June 2010);WCRO, Ensuring Effective and Efficient Representation of Victims at the International Criminal

Court (December 2011);WCRO, Investigative Management, Strategies, and Techniques of the International Criminal Court’s

Office of the Prosecutor (October 2012);WCRO, Obtaining Victim Status for Purposes of Participating in Proceedings at the International

Criminal Court (December 2013);Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Peter

Lang, 2007);Weigend, T., ‘Prosecution – Comparative Aspects’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and

Justice (New York: MacMillan, 2002), 1232–1242;Weissbrodt, D. and Zinsmaster, K. K., ‘Protecting the Fair Trial Rights of the Accused in Inter-

national Criminal Law – International Criminal Law and the Military Commissions in Guantá-namo’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 261–283;

Wemmers, J.–A., ‘Victims’ Rights and the International Criminal Court – Perceptions within theCourt Regarding the Victims’ Right to Participate’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 629–643;

Whiting, A., ‘In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered’,HarvILJ, 50 (2009), 323–364;

Whiting, A, ‘Dynamic Investigative Practice at the ICC’, LCP, 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 163–189;Wierda, M., and de Greiff, P., Reparations and the International Criminal Court – A Prospective

Role for the Trust Fund for Victims (2004) (<http://ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ–Global–ICC–TrustFund–2004–English.pdf> accessed 1 May 2015);

Bibliography 35

Williams, S. and Woolaver, H., ‘The Role of the Amicus Curiae before International CriminalTribunals’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 151–189;

Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Office of theProsecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 273–318;

Zappalà, S., ‘Rights of Persons during an Investigation’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),1181–1203;

Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of the Accused’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1319–1354;Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of Victims v. the Rights of the Accused’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 137–164;Zappalà, S., ‘Introduction’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 40–54;Zeegers, K., ‘Defence Counsel Immunity at the Ad Hoc Tribunals’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 869–890;Zegveld, L., ‘Victims’ Reparations Claims and International Criminal Courts – Incompatible

Values?’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 79–111.

CHAPTER 3

Abass, A., ‘The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 349–385;Abass, A., ‘The Proposed International Criminal Jurisdiction for the African Court – Some

Problematic Aspects’, NILR, 60 (2013), 27–50;Abdou, M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 215–216,

218–220, 222–224, accessed 18 December 2015;Abdou, M., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’,

in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 233–242, accessed 18 December 2015;Abelson, A., ‘The Prosecute/Extradite Dilemma – Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction and Global

Governance’, UCDavisJIL&Pol’y, 16 (2009), 1–38;Agirre Aranburu, X., ‘Gravity of Crimes and Responsibility of the Suspect’, in Bergsmo, Criteria for

Prioritizing (2009), 147–166;Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction – The Duty of States to Enact and Enforce Legislation,

31 August 2011, 14 chapters;Amnesty International, Germany – End Impunity through Universal Jurisdiction, 2008, <https://

www.iccnow.org/documents/AI_Ger.pdf>, accessed 24 May 2015;AIDP, ‘ICL, Universal Jurisdiction, Resolution 2009’, ZStW, 122 (2010), 488–491;Akande, D., ‘The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non–Parties –

Legal Basis and Limits’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 618–650;Akehurst, M., ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’, BYbIL, 46 (1972/73), 145–257;Akhavan, P., ‘The Lord’s Resistance Army Case –Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to

the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 403–421;Akhavan, P., ‘Self–Referrals before the International Criminal Court – Are States the Villains or the

Victims of Atrocities?’, CLF, 21 (2010), 103–120;Akhavan, P., ‘Whither National Courts? The Rome Statute’s Missing Half – Towards an Express

and Enforceable Obligation for the National Repression of International Crimes’, JICJ, 8 (2010),1245–1266;

Akhavan, P, ‘The Rise, and Fall, and Rise, of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 11 (2013),527–536;

Alija Fernández, R. A., ‘The 2014 Reform of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain – From All to Nothing’,ZIS, 9 (2014), 717–727;

Almqvist, J., ‘A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for InternationalCriminal Justice’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 91–112;

Ambach, P., ‘A Look towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt” ’, in Stahn, Law andPractice of the ICC (2015), 1277–1295;

Ambos, K., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor of an International Criminal Court from a ComparativePerspective’, The Review (International Commission of Jurists), 58/59 (1997), 45–56;

Ambos, K., ‘Inmunidades en derecho (penal) nacional e internacional’, RDP, 15 (2005), 87–117;

36 Bibliography

Ambos, K., ‘International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction and § 153 f German CriminalProcedure Code – A Commentary on the Decisions of the Federal Prosecutor General and theStuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case’, CLF, 18 (2007), 43–58;

Ambos, K. ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure – “Adversial”, “Inquisitorial” or“Mixed”?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503;

Ambos, K., ‘Prosecuting Guantánamo in Europe – Can and Shall the Masterminds of the “TortureMemos” be Held Criminally Responsible on the Basis of Universal Jurisdiction?’, CWRJIL, 42(2009), 405–448;

Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focuson the Role of the ICC‘, in Ambos, Large, and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103;

Ambos, K., Procedimiento de la Ley de Justicia y Paz (Ley 975 de 2005) y derecho penal internacional– Estudio sobre la facultad de intervencio n complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional a laluz del denominado proceso de ‘justicia y paz’ en Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial Temis, 2010);

Ambos, K., The Colombian Peace Process and the Principle of Complementarity of the ICC – AnInductive, Situation–Based Approach (Heidelberg et al.: Springer, 2010);

Ambos, K., ‘§7 – Geltung für Auslandstaten in anderen Fällen’, in Joecks and Miebach,MünchenerKommentar StGB, i (2011), 240–256;

Ambos, K., ‘Vorbemerkung zu den §§ 3–7’, in Joecks and Miebach,Münchener Kommentar StGB, i(2011), 115–192;

Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court– Is There a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change, 58(2012), 391–413;

Ambos, K., ‘§ 1 – Anwendungsbereich’, in Joecks and Miebach, Münchener Kommentar StGB, viii(2013), 1003–1030;

Ambos, K., ‘Development of International Criminal Law and Tribunals’, in Bruinsma, G., andWeisburd, D., eds, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (New York et al.: Springer,2013), 1030–1045;

Ambos, K., ‘Punishment without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International CriminalLaw – A First Contribution towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law’, OJLS,33 (2013), 293–315;

Ambos, K., and Timmermann, A., ‘Neue transnationale Verbrechen für das VStGB?’, in Safferling,C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 305–338;

Ambos, K., ‘Palestine, Non–Member Observer Status and ICC Jurisdiction’, EJILTalk 6 May 2014<http://www.ejiltalk.org/palestine–un–non–member–observer–status–and–icc–jurisdiction/>,accessed 24 May 2015;

Ambos, K., ‘The new enemy of mankind: The Jurisdiction of the ICC over members of “IslamicState” ’, EJILTalk 26 November 2015 <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the–new–enemy–of–mankind–the–jurisdiction–of–the–icc–over–members–of–islamic–state/> accessed 26 December 2015;

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, The Foreign Relations Law of the UnitedStates, i: §§ 1 to 488 (Saint Paul, Minnesota: American Law Institute Publications, 1987);

Angermaier, C., ‘Case Selection and Prioritization Criteria in the Work of the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 27–43;

Arbia, S. and Bassy, G., ‘Proactive Complementarity – A Registrar’s Perspective and Plans’, in Stahnand El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 52–67;

Arbour, L. and Bergsmo, M., ‘Conspicious Absence of Jurisdictional Overreach’, in von Hebel, H.,Lammers, J. G. and Schukking, J., eds, Reflections on the International Criminal Court – Essays inHonour of Adriaan Bos (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 1999), 129–140;

Arbour, L., ‘International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and the Responsibility of States forChoice of Forum and Effective Enforcement’, in Dolgopol, U. and Gardam, J., eds, The Challengeof Conflict – International Law Responds (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 299–314;

Aronsson, M., ‘Articles 15bis–15ter’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 197–213, accessed 18December 2015;

Bibliography 37

Arsanjani, M. H. and Reisman, W. M., ‘The Law–in–Action of the International Criminal Court’,AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403;

Arsanjani, M. and Reisman, M., ‘The ICC and the Congo – From Theory to Reality’, in Sadat, L. andScharf, M., eds, The Theory and Practice of International Criminal Law – Essays in Honour ofM. Cherif Bassiouni (Leiden: Marinus Nijhoff, 2008), 325–47;

Arzt, G., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die formelle Wahrheit’, in Arnold J., et al., eds,Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich:C. H. Beck, 2005), 691–704;

ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/8/Res. 9 (25 March 2010);ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/11/Res. 6 – Complementarity (21 November 2012);ASP, Resolution ICC–ASP/12/Res. 4 – Complementarity (27 November 2013);Azarov, V. and Meloni, C., ‘Disentangling the Knots – A Comment on Ambos’ “Palestine, ‘Non–

Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction” ’, EJILTalk 27 May 2014 <http://www.ejiltalk.org/disentangling–the–knots–a–comment–on–ambos–palestine–non–member–observer–status–and–icc–jurisdiction/#more–10954>, accessed 24 May 2015;

Azarov, V. and Weill, S., ‘Israel’s Unwillingness? The Follow–Up Investigations to the UN GazaConflict Report and International Criminal Justice’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 905–935;

Bartelt, S., ‘Die Zulässigkeit von Wahrheitskommissionen im Lichte des neuen InternationalenStrafgerichtshofs’, AVR, 43 (2005), 187–217;

Bassiouni, M. C., ‘The ICC ─ Quo Vadis?’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 421–427;Bassiouni, M. C., ‘Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes – Historical Perspectives and

Contemporary Practice’, VirgJIL, 42 (2001), 81–162;Batros, B., ‘The Judgment on the Katanga Admissibility Appeal – Judicial Restraint at the ICC’,

LJIL, 23 (2010), 343–362;Batros, B., ‘The Evolution of the ICC Jurisprudence on Admissibility’, in Stahn and El Zeidy,

Complementarity, i (2011), 558–602;Baumgartner, E., ‘Die Verfolgung von Völkerstraftaten in der Schweiz’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch,

S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 399–431;Beck, T. and Ritscher, C., ‘Do Criminal Complaints Make Sense in (German) International

Criminal Law? – A Prosecutor’s Perspective’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 229–235;Behrendt, U. P., Die Verfolgung des Völkermordes in Ruanda durch internationale und nationale

Gerichte (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, 2005);Beigbeder, Y., International Justice against Impunity – Progress and New Challenges (Leiden:

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005);Bekou, O., ‘Complementarity and the ICC – A Dangerous Gamble?’, in Ulrich, G., ed, The

International Criminal Court – Challenges and Prospects – Proceedings of an InternationalConference Organised by the European Inter–University Centre for Human Rights and Democ-ratisation (EIUC) (Venecia: Marsiolio Editori, 2005), 61–81;

Bekou, O., ‘Rule 11bis – An Examination of the Process of Referrals to National Courts in ICTYJurisprudence’, FordhamILJ, 33 (2010), 723–791;

Bekou, O., ‘The ICC and Capacity Building at the National Level’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of theICC (2015), 1245–1258;

Ben–Naftali, O. and Sharon, M., ‘What the ICJ Did Not Say about the Duty to Punish Genocide –The Missing Pieces in a Puzzle’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 859–874;

Benavides, L., ‘The Universal Jurisdiction Principle – Nature and Scope’, AMDI, 1 (2001) 19–96;Benoit–Landale, B. P., ‘Das Komplementaritätsprinzip des Römer Statuts und seine Auswirkungen

auf die Schweiz’, in Andreas R. Ziegler, A. R., Wehrenberg, S. and Weber, R., eds, Kriegsver-brecherprozesse in der Schweiz (Baden–Baden: Nomos, Brussels: Bruylant, Zurich: Schulthess,2009) 243–261;

Benvenuti, P., ‘Complementarity of the International Criminal Court to National Criminal Juris-dictions’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i (2000), 21–50;

Benzing, M., ‘The Complementarity Regime of the ICC – International Criminal Justice betweenState Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 591–632;

38 Bibliography

Benzing, M., ‘The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court – InternationalCriminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’,MPYbUN, 7 (2003),591–632;

Benzing, M., ‘Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect in International Criminal Law’, inKönig, D., Stoll, P.–T., Röben, V. and Matz–Lück, N., eds, International Law Today – NewChallenges and the Need for Reform? (Berlin: Springer, 2008), 17–50;

Bergsmo, M., ‘The Jurisdictional Régime of the International Criminal Court (Part II, Articles11–19)’, EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 345–363;

Bergsmo, M, Pejic, J. and Zhu, D., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 770–780;

Binding, K., Handbuch des Strafrechts I (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1885);Bergsmo, M., ‘The Theme of Selection and Prioritization Criteria and Why It is Relevant’, in

Bergsmo, Criteria (2010), 7–14;Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Complementarity after Kampala – Capacity Building and

the ICC’s Legal Tools’, GoJIL, 2 (2010), 791–811;Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core International

Crimes – The ICC Legal Tools Project’, HRLR, 10 (2010), 715–729;Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Constructing National Ability to Investigate, Prosecute and

Adjudicate Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – LegalInformation Transfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 3–23;

Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘New Technologies in Criminal Justice for Core InternationalCrimes – The ICC Legal Tools’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – Legal InformationTransfer (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2011), 25–42;

Bergsmo, M., Bekou, O. and Jones, A., ‘Preserving the Overview of Law and Facts – The CaseMatrix’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity – Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: TorkelOpsahl Academic EPublisher, rd), 43–66;

Birdsall, A., ‘The Responsibility to Prosecute and the ICC – A Problematic Relationship?’, CLF, 26(2015), 51–72;

Bishop, A., ‘Failure of Complementarity – The Future of the ICC Following the Libyan Admissi-bility Challenge’, MinnesotaJIL, 22 (2013), 388–421;

Bitti, G. and El Zeidy, M., ‘The Katanga Trial Chamber Decision – Selected Issues’, LJIL, 23 (2010),319–329;

Blanco Cordero, I., ‘Crisis del principio de jurisdicción universal en el derecho penal internacionalcontemporáneo’, La Ley, 5980 (2004), 1–8;

Blumenstock, T. and Pittman, W., ‘The Transfer of Cases Before the International Criminal Tribunalfor the Former Yugoslavia to Competent National Jurisdictions’, HuV–I, 21 (2008), 106–115;

Bo, M., ‘The Situation in Libya and the ICC’s Understanding of Complementarity in the Context ofUNSC–Referred Cases’, CLF, 25 (2014), 505–540;

Bock, S. ‘Western Sahara and Universal Jurisdiction in Germany’, BelgianRIL, 43 (2010), 43–60;Boister, N., ‘Transnational Criminal Law?’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 953–976;Bock, S. and Preis, L., ‘Strafbarkeit nach Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder Verstoß gegen das Rück-

wirkungsverbot? – Drittstaatsangehörige vor dem IStGH’, HuV–I, 20 (2007), 148–155;Böse, M., ‘Die Ermittlung der “besten” Strafgewalt im Spannungsfeld von Strafanwendungsrecht

und internationaler Zuständigkeit’, in Zöller, M. A., Hilger, H., Küper, W., and Roxin, C., eds,Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension – Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter zum70. Geburtstag am 7. September 2013 (Berlin: Dunckler & Humblot, 2013), 1311–1328;

Böse, M., and Meyer, F., ‘Die Beschränkung nationaler Strafgewalten als Möglichkeit zur Vermei-dung von Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der EU’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 336–344;

Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., ‘Comparative Analysis’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., andSchneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i:National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 411–463;

Böse, M., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu § 3’, in Kindhäuser, Neumann and Paeffgen, Nomos KommentarStGB, i (2013), 296–349;

Bibliography 39

Bothe, M., ‘Complementarity – Ensuring Compliance with International Law though CriminalProsecutions – Whose Responsibility?’, Friedens–Warte, 83 (2008), 59–72;

Bowett, D. W., ‘Jurisdiction – Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’,BYbIL, 53 (1982), 1–26;

Brandt, E., ‘Verfahren der Seepiraterie in Deutschland – Rechtlicher Rahmen und Umsetzung inder Praxis’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer, 2014), 279–303;

Brighton, C., ‘Addressing the Political Pitfalls Inherent in the Complementarity Regime of the ICC’,ICLR, 12 (2012), 629–664;

Broomhall, B., ‘An Effective System of Universal Jurisdiction for Crimes under International Law’,NewEngLR, 35 (2001), 399–420;

Broomhall, B., ‘Article 22 – Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 949–966;

Brunger, Y. M., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’, in Klamberg, OnlineCommentary ICC, 214, accessed 18 December 2015;

Brunner, M. and Frau, R., ‘Die Maßnahmen des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen in Bezugauf Libyen 2011’, HuV–I, 24 (2011), 192–201;

Buchan, R., ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 25 (2014),465–503;

Büchler, H., and Kreuzer, R., ‘Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender organisierter Kri-minalität – Fallbeispiele aus der Praxis’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzübers-chreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & RUnipress, 2012), 123–139;

Bungenberg, M., ‘Extraterritoriale Strafrechtsanwendung bei Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeitund Völkermord – Zugleich Anmerkung zum Völkermord–Urteil des BGH vom 30. April 1999’,AVR, 39 (2001), 170–201;

Burchards, W., Die Verfolgung von Völkerrechtsverbrechen durch Drittstaaten (Berlin: BerlinerWissenschafts–Verlag, 2005);

Burke–White, W., ‘Complementarity in Practice – The ICC as Part of a System of Multi–LevelGlobal Governance in the DRC’, LJIL, 18 (2005), 559–90;

Burke–White, W., ‘Implementing a Policy of Positive Complementarity in the Rome System ofJustice’, CLF, 19 (2008), 59–85;

Burke–White, W., ‘Proactive Complementarity – The International Criminal Court and NationalCourts in the Rome System of International Justice’, HarvILJ, 49 (2008), 53–108;

Burke–White, W. and Kaplan, S., ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice – The InternationalCriminal Court and an Admissibility Challenge in the Uganda Situation’, in Stahn and Sluiter,Emerging Practice (2009), 79–114;

Burke–White, W. and Kaplan, S., ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice – The InternationalCriminal Court and an Admissibility Challenge in the Uganda Situation’, JICJ, 7 (2009),257–279;

Burke–White, W. W., ‘Reframing Positive Complementarity – Reflections on the First Decade andInsights from the US Federal Criminal Justice System’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i(2011), 341–360;

Caeiro, P., Fundamento, conteúdo e limites da jurisdiçăo penal do estado (Coimbra: Wolters Kluwer,2010);

Caeiro, P., ‘Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the EU – Negative and Positive Conflicts, andbeyond’, KritV, 4 (2010), 366–379;

Caeiro, P., ‘A jurisdição penal da União Europeia como meta–jurisdição – Em especial, a compe-tência para legislar sobre as bases de jurisdição nacionais’, in Correia, F. A., Machado, J. E. M.,Loureiro, J. C., eds, Estudos em Homenagem ao Prof. Doutor José Joaquim Gomes Canotilho, iii(Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2012), 179–210;

Calvo–Goller, K. N., La procédure et la jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Pars:Lextenso Éditions, 2012);

40 Bibliography

Cameron, I., The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (Aldershot: Dartmouth,1994);

Cameron, I., International Criminal Law from a Swedish Perspective (Cambridge: Intersentia,2011);

Cárdenas, C., Die Zulässigkeitsprüfung vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Berlin: BerlinerWissenschafts–Verlag, 2005);

Cárdenas, C., ‘The Admissibility Test before the ICC under Special Considerations of Amnestiesand Truth Commissions’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds, Complementary Views on Comple-mentarity – Proceedings of the International Roundtable on the Complementary Nature of theInternational Criminal Court, Amsterdam 25/26 June 2004 (La Haya: TMC Asser Press, 2006),115–139;

Cárdenas, C., ‘The Admissibility Test before the ICC’, in Werle, G., ed, Justice in Transition –Prosecution and Amnesty in Germany and South Africa (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag,2006), 239–255;

Cárdenas, C., ‘Wann darf der Internationale Strafgerichtshof ermitteln oder verfolgen?’, in Hankel,G., ed, Die Macht und das Recht – Beiträge zum Völkerrecht und Völkerstrafrecht am Beginn des21. Jahrhunderts (Hamburg: Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung, 2008), 127–156;

Carnero Rojo, E., ‘The Role of Fair Trial Considerations in the Complementarity Regime of theInternational Criminal Court: from “No Peace Without Justice” to “No peace Without Victor’sJustice”?’, LJIL, 18 (2005), 829–869;

Carnero Rojo, E., ‘National Legislation Providing for the Prosecution and Punishment of Inter-national Crimes in Spain’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 699–728;

Carter, A. S., ‘ “For These Reasons, the Chamber Denies the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral” –The False Hope of Rule 11bis Note’, FordhamILJ, 32 (2009), 1614–1656;

Carter, L. E., ‘The International Criminal Court in 2021’, SouthwesternJIL, 18 (2011), 199–212;Cassese, A., ‘Is the ICC Still Having Teething Problems?’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 434–441;Chappell, L., Grey, R. and Waller, E., ‘The Gender Justice Shadow of Complementarity – Lessons

from the ICC’s Preliminary Examinations in Guinea and Colombia’, ICTJ, 7 (2013), 455–75;Chatzinikolaou, N., Papakyriakou, T, Zachariadis, A., and Kaiafa–Gbandi, M., ‘Country Report

“Greece” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in CriminalMatters in the European Union, i: National Reports and Comparative Analysis (Baden–Baden:Nomos, 2013), 187–257;

Chehtman, A., The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment (Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press, 2010);

Clark, R. S., ‘Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complemen-tarity, ii (2011), 721–744;

Commission of the European Communities, ‘Commission Staff Working Document – Annex tothe Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in idem in CriminalProceedings’ (23 December 2005), http://eur–lex.europa.eu/legal–content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52005SC1767&from=EN>, accessed 1 April 2016;

Condorelli, L. and Ciampi, A., ‘Comments on the Security Council Referral of the Situation inDarfur to the ICC’, JICJ 3 (2005), 590–599;

Cosnard, M., ‘La compétence universelle en matière pénale’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin,J. M., eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order – Jus Cogens and ObligationsErga Omnes (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), 355–372;

Council of Europe, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction (Strasbourg: European Committee onCrime Problems, 1990);

Council of the EU, ‘The AU–EU Technical Ad hoc Expert Group on the Principle of UniversalJurisdiction Report, 16 April 2009’, <http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208672%202009%20INIT>, accessed 1 April 2016;

Conway, G, ‘Article 20 –Ne Bis In Idem’, in Klamberg,Online Commentary ICC, 243–248, accessed18 December 2015;

Conway, G., ‘Ne Bis in Idem and the International Criminal Tribunals’, CLF, 14 (2003), 351–383;

Bibliography 41

Cryer, R., ‘Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 195–222;Cryer, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014), 49–69;Cryer, R., ‘The ICC and its Relationship to Non–States Parties’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the

ICC (2015), 260–280;Dahm, G., Zur Problematik des Völkerstrafrechts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956);d’Aspremont, J., ‘Multilateral versus Unilateral Exercises of Universal Criminal Jurisdiction’, IsLR,

43 (2010), 301–329;Damaška, M., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL

& ForAff, 14 (2009), 19–35;Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008),

329–365;Danilenko, G., M., ‘ICC Statute and Third States’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),

1871–1897;David, E., Éléments de droit pénal international et européen (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009);deGuzman, M. M., ‘Gravity and the Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’, FordhamILJ,

32 (2008), 1400–1465;deGuzman, M. M., ‘How Serious are International Crimes? – The Gravity Problem in International

Criminal Law’, ColJTransnat’lL, 51 (2012/13), 18–68;deGuzman, M. M. and Schabas, W., ‘Initiation of Investigations and Selection of Cases’, in Sluiter et

al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–170;De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.:

Intersentia, 2015);Deprez, C., ‘Extent of Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Proceedings before the ICC –On

Possible Reductive Factors’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 721–741;De Vos, C., ‘Investigating from Afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024;Deumeland, K., ‘Seeschiffe als Inland des Flaggenstaates’, VR, 50 (2004), 93–94;Dicker, R., ‘The International Criminal Court (ICC) and Double Standards of International Justice’,

in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 3–12;Doehring, K., Völkerrecht – Ein Lehrbuch (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2nd edn, 2004);Domestici–Met, M.–J., ‘Protecting in Libya on Behalf of the International Community’, GoJIL, 3

(2011), 861–889;Donlon, F., ‘The Role of the Judges in the Definition and Implementation of the Completion Strategies

of the International Criminal Tribunals’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J., eds., Judicial Creativity at theInternational Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2010), 353–383;

Donnedieu de–Vabres, H., ‘La portée extraterritoriale des sentences répressives étrangères’, An-nuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 43, 2 (1950), 257–264;

Donnedieu de–Vabres, H., ‘The System of Universal Jurisdiction – Historical Origins and Con-temporary Forms’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 905–930;

Drumbl, M. A., ‘Policy Through Complementarity – The Attrocity Trial as Justice’, in Stahn and ElZeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 197–232;

du Plessis, M., ‘A Case of Negative Regional Complementarity? Giving the African Court of Justiceand Human Rights Jurisdiction over International Crimes’, EJILTalk! (27 August 2012), <http://www.ejiltalk.org/–case–of–negative–regional–complementarity–giving–the–african–court–of–justice–and–human–rights–jurisdiction–over–international–crimes/>, accessed 1 April 2016;

Dugard, J., ‘Palestine and the International Criminal Court – Institutional Failure or Bias?’, JICJ, 11(2013), 563–570;

Dürr, A., and von Maltitz, N., ‘Die Staatlichkeit Palästinas und ihre Bedeutung für die Gerichts-barkeit des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 907–930;

Easterday, J. S., ‘Deciding the Fate of Complementarity – A Colombian Case Study,’ArizJICompL,26 (2009), 50–111;

Eberechi, I., ‘Who will Save These Endangered Species? Evaluating the Implications of the Principleof Complementarity on the Traditional African Conflict Resolution Mechanisms’, AfrJICompL,20 (2012), 22–41;

42 Bibliography

Einarsen, T., The Concept of Universal Crimes in International Law (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl AcademicEPublisher, 2012);

Eisele, J., ‘Jurisdiktionskonflikte in der EU – Vom nationalen Strafanwendungsrecht zum Euro-päischen Kollisionsrecht?’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 1–33;

Eisele, J. and Majer, C. F., ‘Strafbarkeit der Zwangsheirat nach § 237 StGB im Lichte des Inter-nationalen Straf– und Privatrechts’, NStZ, 31 (2011), 546–552;

ElDeeb, H., ‘An Attempt to Prosecute – The Muslim Brotherhood’s Communication to the ICCRelating to Alleged Crimes in Egypt’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 733–762;

Ellis, M. S., ‘The International Criminal Court and Its Implication for Domestic Law and NationalCapacity Building’, FloridaJIL, 15 (2002), 215–242;

Ellis, M., ‘The ICC and Complementarity – Support for National Courts and the Rule of Law’, inMuller, S. and Zouridis, S., eds, Law and Justice – A Strategy Perspective (The Hague: TorkelOpsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 177–197;

Ellis, M. S., Sovereignty and Justice – Balancing the Principle of Complementarity between Inter-national and Domestic War Crimes Tribunals (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing,2014);

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Principle of Complementarity – A New Machinery to Implement InternationalCriminal Law’, MichJIL, 23 (2002), 869–975;

El Zeidy, M., ‘The United States Dropped the Atomic Bomb of Article 16 of the ICC Statute –Security Council Power of Deferrals and Resolution 1422’, 35 VanderbiltJTL, 35 (2002),1503–1544;

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Test of the Complementarity Principle– An Assessment of the First State’s Party Referral to the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005), 83–119;

El Zeidy, M., ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest WarrantProceedings before the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 741–752;

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the ICC’, CLF, 19 (2008), 35–57;El Zeidy, M., The Principle of Complementarity in the International Criminal Law – Origin,

Development and Practice (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008);El Zeidy, M., ‘From Primacy to Complementarity and Backwards: Revisiting Rule 11bis of the ad

hoc Tribunals’, ICLQ, 57 (2008), 403–415;El Zeidy, M., ‘The Legitimacy of Withdrawing State Party Referrals and Ad Hoc Declarations under

the Statute of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 55–78;El Zeidy, M., ‘Admissibility in International Criminal Law’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge

Handbook ICL (2011), 211–230;El Zeidy, M., ‘The Genesis of Complementarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, The ICC and Complemen-

tarity, i (2011), 71–141;El Zeidy, M., ‘Ad Hoc Declarations of Acceptance of Jurisdiction – The Palestinian Situation under

Scrutiny’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 179–209;Eser, A., ‘Völkermord und deutsche Strafgewalt – Zum Spannungsverhältnis vonWeltrechtsprinzip

und legitimierendem Inlandsbezug’, in Eser, A., Goydke, J., and Maatz, K. R., eds, Strafverfah-rensrecht in Theorie und Praxis – Festschrift für Meyer–Goßner zum 65. Geburtstag (Munich:Beck, 2001), 3–31;

Eser, A., ‘For Universal Jurisdiction –Against Fletcher’s Antagonism’, TulsaLR, 39 (2004), 955–978;Eser, A., ‘Kritische Würdigung der Modellentwürfe eines Regelungsmechanismus zur Vermeidung

von Jurisdiktionskonflikten’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitenderKriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress,2012), 557–572;

Eser, A., ‘§7 – Geltung für Auslandstaten in anderen Fällen’, in Schönke and Schröder, Strafge-setzbuch (2014), 101–105;

Eser, A., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 3–9 – Territoriales und Transnationales Strafanwendungs-recht (sog. Internationales Strafrecht)’, in Schönke and Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch (2014), 68–90;

Esser, R. and Fischer, S., ‘Strafvereitelung durch Überstellung von Piraterieverdächtigen an Dritt-staaten?’, JZ, 65 (2010), 217–226;

Bibliography 43

European Criminal Policy Initiative, ‘A Manifesto on European Criminal Procedure Law’, ZIS, 8(2013), 430–446;

Evans, R. D.,’Amnesties, Pardons and Complementarity – Does the ICC have the Tools to EndImpunity?’, HRLC, 1 (2005), 1–10;

Evenson, E. and Smith, A., ‘Completion, Legacy, and Complementarity at the ICC’, in Stahn, Lawand Practice of the ICC (2015), 1259–1276;

Fairlie, M. A. and Powderly, J., ‘Complementarity and Burden Allocation’, in Stahn and El Zeidy,Complementarity, i (2011), 642–682;

Fakhouri Gómez, Y. ‘La competencia de la CPI – Competencia material, personal y temporal y suscondiciones de ejercicio y de control’, in Bacigalupo, S. and Cancio Meliá, M., eds, Derecho penaly política transnacional (Barcelona: Atelier, 2005), 85–123;

Feeley, M. M., The Process Is the Punishment – Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court (NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992);

Feller, S. Z., ‘Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction in the International Sphere’, IsLR, 16 (1981), 40–74;Ferdinandusse, W., ‘On the Question of Dutch Courts’ Universal Jurisdiction – A Response to

Mettraux’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 881–883;Fernández–Pacheco Estrada, C., ‘La jurisprudencia Española en aplicación del principio de jur-

isdicción universal – El caso de la represión en Argentina’, JpD, 61 (2008) 101–117;Ferstman, C., and Schurr, J., ‘The Practice and Politics of Universal Jurisdiction Cases Relating to

Crimes Committed in Africa’, in Letschert, R., Haveman, R., de Bouwer, A.–M., Pemberton, A.,Victimological Approaches to International Crimes – Africa (Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland:Intersentia Publishers, 2011), 439–462;

Fikarova, D., ‘Prospects of the Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009on Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings’, inSinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleichzum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 103–107;

Fink, U., ‘Der Bürgerkrieg in Libyen im UN–Sicherheitsrat’, in Meng, W., Ress, G. and Stein, T.,eds, Europaische Integration und Globalisierung – Festschrift zum 60–ja hrigen Bestehen desEuropa–Instituts (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2011), 137–151;

Fixson, O., ‘Der IStGH – Seine Entstehung und seine Stellung im Völkerrecht’, in Kirsch, Inter-nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 207–229;

Fleck, D., ‘Shortcomings of the Grave Breaches Regime’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 833–854;Fletcher, G. P., ‘The Right and the Reasonable’, HarvLR, 98 (1985), 949–982;Fletcher, G. P., ‘Against Universal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 580–584;Fletcher, G. P., ‘Parochial versus Universal Criminal Law’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 20–34;Fletcher, G. P., ‘Reasonableness im amerikanischen und Völkerstrafrecht’, in Arnold J., et al., eds,

Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich:C. H. Beck, 2005), 739–749;

Fletcher, G. P., and Ohlin, ‘The ICC – Two Courts in One?’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 428–433;Fletcher, G. P., and Sheppard, S., American Law in a Global Context – The Basics (New York:

Oxford University Press, 2005);Foffani, L., Orlandi, R. and Ruggeri, S., ‘Italien’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzü-

berschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen:V & R Unipress, 2012), 307–325;

Ford, S., ‘How Much Money Does the ICC Need?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),84–104;

Fouladvand, S., ‘Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity – Decision–making by the ICC Pros-ecutor in the Darfur Situation’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 1028–66;

Frände, D. and Helenius, D., ‘Country Report “Finland” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A.,eds, Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports andComparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 63–106;

Frau, R., ‘Das Völkerstrafrecht in der jüngsten Praxis des VN–Sicherheitsrates’, ZIS, 6 (2011),784–794;

44 Bibliography

Frau, R., ‘Die Überweisung der Lage in Libyen an den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof durch denSicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen – Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Völkerstrafrechtspraxis desSicherheitsrates’, AVR, 49 (2011), 276–309;

Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481;

Fry, E., ‘Between Show Trials and Sham Prosecutions – The Rome Statute’s Potential Effect onDomestic Due Process Protections’, CLF, 23 (2012), 35–62;

Fry, E., The Contours of International Prosecutions (Amsterdam: Academisch Proefschrift, 2015);Frimpong, K., ‘Punishing Offences Committed Abroad – Practical (National) Relevance or The-

oretical Claim’, in Eser, A. and Lagodny, O., eds, Principles and Procedures for a New Trans-national Criminal Law (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max–Planck–Institut f. ausländ. u. inter.Strafrecht, 1992), 29–47;

Gaeta, P., ‘Il diritto internazionale e la competenza giurisdizionale degli Stati per crimini inter-nazionali’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 497–511;

Galand, A. S., ‘The Situation Concerning the Islamic State – Carte Blanche for the ICC if theSecurity Council Refers?’ EJILTalk 27 May 2015, <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the–situation–concerning–isis–carte–blanche–for–the–icc–if–the–security–council–refers/>, accessed 2 June2015;

Gallavin, C., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion within the ICC – Under the Pressure of Justice’, CLF, 17(2006), 43–58;

García Arán, M., ‘El principio de justicia universal’, in García Arán, M. and López Garrido, D., eds,Crimen internacional y jurisdicción universal – El caso Pinochet (Valencia: Tirant lo blanch,2000), 63–87;

Gardner, M., ‘Piracy Prosecutions in National Courts’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 797–821;Garrod, M., ‘The Protective Principle of Jurisdiction over War Crimes and the Hollow Concept of

Universality’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 763–826;Gavron, J., ‘Amnesties in the Light of Developments in International Law and the Establishment of

the ICC’, ICLQ, 51 (2002), 91–117;Geneuss, J., ‘Fostering a Better Understanding of Universal Jurisdiction – A Comment on the AU–

EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 945–962;Geneuss, J., Völkerrechtsverbrechen und Verfolgungsermessen – § 153f StPO im System völkerrech-

tlicher Strafrechtspflege (Baden–Baden, Bern: Nomos, Stämpfli Verlag, 2013);Gierhake, K., ‘Das Prinzip der Weltrechtspflege nach § 1 Völkerstrafgesetzbuch und seine prozes-

suale Umsetzung in §153f der Strafprozessordnung’, ZStW, 120 (2008), 375–402;Gil Gil, A., ‘The Flaws of the Scilingo Judgment’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 1082–1091;Gilbert, G., ‘Crimes sans frontières – Jurisdictional problems in English law’, BYbIL, 63 (1992), p;Gioia, F., ‘State Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and “Modern” International Law – The Principle of

Complementarity in the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 1095–1123;Gioia, F., ‘Complementarity and “Reverse Cooperation” ’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,

ii (2011), 807–829;Gómez Colomer, J. L., ‘La investigación del crimen den el proceso penal ante la Corte Penal

Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., Corte Penal Internacional (2003), 227–324;Gómez Pardo, J. E., ‘The Content of Colombian Justice and Peace Law Accomplishes the ICC

Standards’, Revista Debate Interamericano (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores), (2009), 123–54;Gordon, G. S., ‘Complementarity and Alternative Justice’, OregonLR, 88 (2009), 621–702;Gordon, G. S., ‘Complementarity and Alternative Forms of Justice – A New Test for ICC

Admissibility’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 745–806;Grant, P., ‘National Prosecution of International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction’, in Kolb and

Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 579–604;Greenawalt, A. K. A., ‘Complementarity in Crisis – Uganda, Alternative Justice, and the Inter-

national Criminal Court’, VirgJIL, 50 (2009), 107–162;Greppi, E., ‘Inability to Investigate and Prosecute under Article 17’, in Politi, M. and Gioia, F., eds,

The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008), 63–70;

Bibliography 45

Gropengießer, H. and Meißner, J., ‘Amnesties and the Rome Statute of the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005),267–300;

Gropp, W., ‘Kollision nationaler Strafgewalten –Nulla prosecutio transnationalis sine lege’, in Sinn,A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zumInternationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 41–61;

Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–218;

Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn,Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364;

Hafner, G., ‘An Attempt to Explain the Position of the USA towards the ICC’, JICJ, 3 (2005),323–332;

Hall, C. K., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – New Uses for an Old Tool’, in Lattimer, M. and Sands, P., ed,Justice for Crimes against Humanity (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2003), 47–?;

Hall, C. K., ‘Suggestions Concerning International Criminal Court Prosecutorial Policy andStrategy and External Relations. Contribution to an Expert Consultation Process on GeneralIssues Relevant to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’ (28 March 2003), <http://www.icc–cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/library/organs/otp/hall.pdf>, accessed 30 June 2015;

Hall, C. K., ‘Developing and Implementing an Effective Positive Complementarity ProsecutionStrategy’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 219–228;

Hall, C. K., ‘The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court Complemen-tarity System’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction forCore International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 201–232;

Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D. and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction ofthe Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 849–898;

Hansen, T. O., ‘A Critical Review of the ICC’s Recent Practice concerning Admissibility Challengesand Complementarity’, MelbJIL, 13 (2012), 217–234;

Hecker, B., ‘Statement – Jurisdiktionskonflikte in der EU’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 60–63;Hecker, B., ‘Die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten der Europäischen Union zur Lösung von Kompetenz-

konflikten’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – EinRechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 85–102;

Hehir, A. and Lang, A., ‘The Impact of the Security Council on the Efficacy of the ICC and theResponsibility to Protect’, CLF, 26 (2015), 153–179;

Heinecke, G., ‘Piraten–Recht?’, in Strafverteidigervereinigungen, ed, Alternativen zur Freiheitsstrafe– 36. Strafverteidigertag Hannover, 16.–18. März 2012, Texte und Ergebnisse (Berlin: Strafvertei-digervereinigungen, 2013), 151–153;

Heinrich, A., Das passive Personalitätsprinzip im deutschen Strafrecht (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max–Planck–Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Strafrecht, 1994);

Heintschel von Heinegg, W., ‘9. Kapitel – Internationales öffentliches Seerecht (Seevölkerrecht)’, inIpsen, K. et al., ed, Völkerrecht (Munich: C. H. Beck, 6th edn, 2014), 860–928;

Heintschel von Heinegg, W., ‘Vom ius ad bellum zum ius contra bellum (Kriegsverbot, Gewalt-verbot und Interventionsverbot)’, in Ipsen, K., et al., ed, Völkerrecht (Munich: C. H. Beck, 6thedn, 2014), 1055–1077;

Heller, K. J., ‘The Shadow Side of Complementarity – The Effect of Article 17 of the Rome Statuteon National Due Process’, CLF, 17 (2006), 255–280;

Heller, K. J., ‘Situational Gravity under the Rome Statute’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Perspectives(2010), 227–253;

Heller, K. J., ‘Why the Failure to Provide Saif with Due Process is Relevant to Libya’s AdmissibilityChallenge’, Opinio Juris (2 August 2012) <http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/02/why–the–failure–to–provide–saif–with–due–process–is–relevant–to–libyas–admissibility–challenge/>, accessed 3April 2016;

Heller, K. J., ‘A Sentence–Based Theory of Complementarity’, HarvILJ, 53 (2012), 85–133;Henckaerts, J. M., ‘The Grave Breaches Regime as Customary International Law’, JICJ, 7 (2009),

683–701;

46 Bibliography

Henzelin, M., Le principe de l’universalité en droit pénal international (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000);Henzelin, M., ‘ “Ne bis in idem”, un principe à géométrie variable’, ZStR, 123 (2005), 345–382;Herdegen, M., ‘Die Achtung fremder Hoheitsrechte als Schranke nationaler Strafgewalt’, ZaöRV, 47

(1987), 221–242;Hirst, M., Jurisdiction and the Ambit of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);Hirst, M., ‘Country Report “England and Wales” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds,

Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports andComparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 27–61;

Hobbs, H. O., ‘The Security Council and the Complementarity Regime of the ICC – Lessons fromLibya’, Eyes on the ICC, 9 (2012/13), 19–51;

Hoffman, J., ‘IGH vom 14.2.2002 – Demokratische Republik Kongo – Belgien Völkerstrafrecht undImmunität vor dem IGH – eine vertane Möglichkeit?’, in Menzel, J., Pierlings, T. and Hoffmann,J., eds, Völkerrechtsprechung – Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 439–446;

Hoffmeister, F. und Knoke, S., ‘Das Vorermittlungsverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafger-ichtshof – Prüfstein für die Effektivität der neuen Gerichtsbarkeit im Völkerstrafrecht, ZaöRV, 59(1999), 785–808;

Holmes, J. T., ‘The Principle of Complementarity’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 41–78;Holmes, J. T., ‘Complementarity –National Courts versus the ICC’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, i

(2002), 667–686;Höpfel, F., ‘Der Beitrag des Internationalen Gerichtshofs zur Strafrechtsentwicklung’, in Arnold J.,

et al., eds,Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich:C. H. Beck, 2005), 765–776;

Hoven, E., ‘Frieden versus Gerechtigkeit? Zur Aussetzung der Ermittlungen gegen Omar Hassanal–Bashir nach Art. 16 IStGH–Statut’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 230–239;

Hoven, E., ‘Der Tatbestand der Aggression – Wege zur Implementierung der Ergebnisse vonKampala in das VStGB’, in Safferling, C. and Kirsch, S., eds, Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Berlin,Heidelberg: Springer, 2014), 339–372;

Hoyer, A., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 3–7’, in Rudolphi, et al., Systematischer Kommentar StGB(2014), I 1;

Human Rights Watch, ‘Benchmarks for Assessing Possible National Alternatives to InternationalCriminal Court Cases against LRA Leaders’ (May 2007), 1–10, <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/icc0507web%5B1%5D.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

HRW, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe – The State of the Art (June 2006), <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ij0606web.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, First Public Hearing of the Office of the Prosecutor (17 and 18 June 2003), <http://www.icc–cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/office%20of%20the%20prosecutor/network%20with%20partners/public%20hearings/first%20public%20hearing/Pages/first%20public%20hearing%20of%20the%20office%20of%20the%20prosecutor%20%20%20session%206.aspx>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Statement by Luis Moreno–Ocampo – Informal Meeting of Legal Advisors of Ministries ofForeign Affairs (24 October 2005) <http://www.icc–cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/9D70039E–4BEC–4F32–9D4A–CEA8B6799E37/143836/LMO_20051024_English.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC (10February 2006) <http://www.icc–cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/office%20of%20the%20prosecutor/reports%20and%20statements/statement/Pages/update%20on%20communications%20received%20by%20the%20prosecutor.aspx> accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Third Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the UN SecurityCouncil pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005) (14 June 2006), <http://www.icc–cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/E61D7F34–7D21–44B9–8840–53B254172AF7/0/OTP_ReportUNSC_3Darfur_English.pdf>,accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Second Public Hearing of the Office of the Prosecutor (The Hague, 25/26 September 2006and New York 17/18 October 2006) <http://www.icc–cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%

Bibliography 47

20the%20court/office%20of%20the%20prosecutor/network%20with%20partners/public%20hearings/second%20public%20hearing/Pages/second%20public%20hearing.aspx> accessed 3April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Eighth Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the UN SecurityCouncil pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005) (3 December 2008), <http://www.icc–cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/DCBF2658–4DBA–43EE–BCBC–FB2330FF7AD8/279075/8thUNSCreportsenttoUNENG1.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Situation in Mali – Article 53 (1) Report (16 January 2013) <http://www.icc–cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/icc0112/Documents/SASMaliArticle53_1PublicReportENG16Jan2013.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Situation in the Central African Republic II – Article 53 (1) Report (24 September 2014),<http://www.icc–cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/office%20of%20the%20prosecutor/reports%20and%20statements/statement/Documents/Art_53_1_Report_CAR_II_24Sep14.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

ICC–OTP, Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia – Article 53 (1) Report(6 November 2014) <https://www.icc–cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP–COM–Article_53%281%29–Report–06Nov2014Eng.pdf >, accessed 3 April 2016;

ILC, 2332nd Meeting, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 1, (46th Session,1954), 20–29;

ILC, Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, in Yearbook of theInternational Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 1 (46th Session, 1954), 21–96;

ILC, The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut iudicare), Final Report of the ILC,2014;

Janssen–Holldiek, K., ‘Verhaften oder verhandeln – Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und seineAuswirkungen auf die politischen Handlungsoptionen im Fall Libyen’, DGAPanalyse, 4 (Okto-ber 2011), <https://dgap.org/de/article/getFullPDF/19604>, accessed 3 April 2016;

Jegede, S., ‘Prohibition against Subsequent Prosecution – Periscoping the Non bis in idem Principle’in Decaux, E., Dieng, A. and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to International Criminal Law(Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 485–518;

Jennings, R. and Watts, A., Oppenheim’s International Law, i: Peace (Harlow: Longham, 9th edn,1992);

Jensen, R., ‘Complementarity, “Genuinely” and Article 17 – Assessing the Boundaries of anEffective ICC’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds, Complementary Views on Complementarity –Proceedings of the International Roundtable on the Complementary Nature of the InternationalCriminal Court, Amsterdam 25/26 June 2004 (La Haya: TMC Asser Press, 2006), 147–170;

Jescheck, H. H., ‘Zur Reform der Vorschriften des StGB über das internationale Strafrecht’, IRuD, 1(1956), 75–95;

Jeßberger, F., ‘International v. National Prosecution of International Crimes’, in Cassese, Compan-ion (2009), 208–215;

Jeßberger, F., Der transnationale Geltungsbereich des deutschen Strafrechts – Grundlagen undGrenzen der Geltung des deutschen Strafrechts für Taten mit Auslandsberührung (Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2011);

Jeßberger, F., Kaleck, W., and Schueller, A., ‘Concurring Criminal Jurisdictions under InternationalLaw’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for CoreInternational Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 233–245;

Joyner, C. C., ‘Arresting Impunity – The Case for Universal Jurisdiction in Bringing War Criminalsto Accountability’, LCP, 64 (1996), 153–172;

Jurdi, N. N., ‘Some Lessons on Complementarity for the ICC Review Conference’, SAYbIL, 34(2009), 28–56;

Jurdi, N. N., The International Criminal Court and National Courts – A Contentious Relationship(Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate, 2011);

Kaleck, W., ‘Universelle Strafjustiz?’, A–PuZ, 25/26 (2013), 37–42;

48 Bibliography

Kaul, H. P., ‘Special Note – The Struggle for the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction‘,EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 364–376;

Kearney, M. and Reynolds, J., ‘Palestine and the Politics of International Criminal Justice’, inSchabas, W., McDermott, Y., and Hayes, N., eds, The Ashgate Research Companion to Inter-national Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 407–433;

Kendall, S., ‘Commodifying Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 113–134;Keller, R., ‘Abhandlungen – Grenzen, Unabhängigkeit und Subsidiarität der Weltrechtspflege’, GA,

146 (2006), 25–37;Kimpimäki, M., ‘Genocide in Rwanda – Is It Really Finland’s Concern?’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 155–176;Kindt, A., Menschenrechte und Souveränität – Diskutiert anhand der internationalen Strafrechtsp-

flege (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009);King, E. B. L., ‘Amnesties in A Time of Transition’, GeoWashILR, 41 (2010), 577–618;Kirsch, P. and Holmes, J. T., ‘The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court – The

Negotiating Process’, AJIL, 93 (1999), 2–12;Klamberg, M., ‘Article 11 – Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

173–174, accessed 18 December 2015;Klamberg, M., ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

181–183, accessed 18 December 2015;Klamberg, M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 217,

221, accessed 18 December 2015;Klamberg, M., ‘Unification or Fragmentation? Structural Tendencies in International Criminal

Procedure’, in van den Herik, L. and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation ofInternational Criminal Law (Leiden: Martin Nijhoff, 2012), 591–631;

Kleffner, J. K., ‘The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of SubstantiveInternational Criminal Law’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 86–113;

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Complementarity as a Catalyst for Compliance’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor, G., eds,Complementary Views on Complementarity (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006), 79–104;

Kleffner, J. K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2008);

Kleffner, J. K., ‘The Law and Policy of Complementarity in Relation to “Criminal Proceedings”Carried Out by Non–State Organized Armed Groups’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,ii (2011), 707–720;

Klip, A., European Criminal Law – An Integrative Approach (Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Inter-sentia, 2nd edn, 2012);

Knoops, G.–J. A. and Zwart, T., ‘The Flotilla Case before the ICC – The Need to Do Justice WhileKeeping Heaven Intact’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 1069–1097;

Kolb, A. S., Neumann, T. and Salomon, T. R., ‘Die Entführung deutscher Seeschiffe – Flaggenrecht,Strafanwendungsrecht und diplomatischer Schutz’, ZaöRV, 71 (2011), 191–246;

Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 1–294;Kontorovich, E., ‘When Gravity Fails – Israeli Settlements and Admissibility at the ICC’, IsLR, 47

(2014), 379–399;Kourula, E., ‘Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y.,

eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPubl-isher, 2012), 129–148;

Kravik, A. M., ‘The Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court Decides to DeleteArticle 124 of the Rome Statute’, EJILTalk, 12 April 2016, available at <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the–assembly–of–state–parties–to–the–international–criminal–court–decides–to–delete–article–124–of–the–rome–statute–2/>, accessed 13 April 2016;

Kreicker, H., ‘Völkerstrafrecht im Ländervergleich’, in Eser, A., Sieber, U., and Kreicker, H., eds,Nationale Strafverfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen, vii: Völkerstrafrecht im Ländervergleich(Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006);

Kreß, C., ‘Völkerstrafrecht in Deutschland’, NStZ, 20 (2000), 617–626;

Bibliography 49

Kreß, C., Völkerstrafrecht und Weltrechtspflegeprinzip im Blickfeld des Internationalen Gericht-shofs – ZumVotenstreit der Richter des IGH imHaftbefehlsfall (Demokratische Republik Kongogegen Belgien)’, ZStW, 114 (2002), 818–849;

Kreß, C., ‘ “Self–Referrals” and “Waivers of Complementarity” – Some Considerations in Law andPolicy’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 944–948;

Kreß, C., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen’,Kempf, E., Jansen, G., Müller, E., eds, Festschrift für Christian Richter II – Verstehen undWiderstehen (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2006), 319–330;

Kreß, C., ‘ “Staateneigenüberweisung” an den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und die Rolle desChefanklägers – Kursorische Anmerkungen zur ersten Verfahrenspraxis des InternationalenStrafgerichtshofs’, in Neubacher, F. und Klein, A., eds, Vom Recht der Macht zur Macht desRechts? Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Zukunft internationaler Strafgerichte (Berlin: Duncker &Humblot, 2006), 103–110;

Kreß, C., ‘Nationale Umsetzung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches – Öffentliche Anhörung imAusschuss für Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe des Deutschen Bundestages – Kurzstel-lungnahme’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 515–525;

Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1;

Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad–Hoc–Tribunalen zum IStGH’, in Kirsch, Inter-nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259;

Krings, B. L., ‘The Principles of “Complementarity” and Universal Jurisdiction in InternationalCriminal Law – Antagonists or Perfect Match?’, GoJIL, 4 (2012), 737–763;

Kuhli, M., ‘Rezension – Laurent Lafleur, Der Grundsatz der Komplementarität’, GA, 152 (2012),763–766;

Kunig, P. and Uerpmann, R., ‘Die klassische Entscheidung – Der Fall des Postschiffes Lotus –StIGH – Urt. v. 7.9.1927 = PCIJ Series A No. 10’, Jura, 4 (1994), 186–194;

Kurth, M. E., Das Verhältnis des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs zum UN–Sicherheitsrat – Unterbesonderer Berücksichtigung von Sicherheitsratsresolution (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2006);

Labuda, P., ‘Complementarity Compromised? The ICC Gives Congo the Green Light to Re–TryKatanga’, Opinio Juris, (13 April 2016), <http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/11/complementarity–compromised–the–icc–gives–congo–the–green–light–to–re–try–katanga/>, accessed 13 April2016;

Ladiges, M., ‘Festnahme und Strafverfolgung von Piraten’, NZWehrr, 52 (2012), 56–63;Lafleur, L., Der Grundsatz der Komplementarität – Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof im Span-

nungsfeld zwischen Effektivität und Staatensouveränität (Baden–Baden: Nomos);Lafontaine, F., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – The Realistic Utopia’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 1277–1302;Lagodny, O., Empfiehlt es sich, eine europäische Gerichtskompetenz für Strafgewaltskonflikte vorzu-

sehen? – Gutachten für das Bundesministerium des Inneren, Berlin (March 2001), <http://www.bib.uni–mannheim.de/fileadmin/pdf/fachinfo/jura/strafgewaltskonflikte–von–lagodny.pdf>,accessed 25 May 2015;

Lagodny, O., ‘Überlegungen zu einem menschengerechten transnationalen Straf– und Strafverfah-rensrecht’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 777–786;

Lagodny, O., ‘Viele Strafgewalten und nur ein transnationales ne–bis–in–idem?’, in Donatsch, A.,Forster, M. and Schwarzenegger, C., eds, Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Menschenrechte –Festschrift für Stefan Trechsel zum 65. Geburtstag (Zürich: Schulthess, 2002), 253–268;

Langer, M., ‘The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction – The Political Branches and the Trans-national Prosecution of International Crimes, AJIL, 105 (2011), 1–101;

Langer, M., ‘Das VStGB und die Prinzipien der Beteiligung und Rechenschaft gegenüber derinternationalen Gemeinschaft’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafge-setzbuch – Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts’ (Baden–Baden: Nomos,2013), 253–282;

50 Bibliography

Langer, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction as Janus–Faced – The Dual Nature of the German InternationalCriminal Code’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 737–762;

Langer, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction is Not Disappearing – The Shift from “Global Enforcer” to “NoSafe Haven” ’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 245–256;

Laursen, A., ‘A Danish Paradox? A Brief Review of the Status of International Crimes in DanishLaw’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 997–1016;

Lee, W., ‘International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction’, in May and Hoskins, ICL and Philoso-phy (2010), 15–38;

Lelieur, J., ‘Country Report “France” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts ofJurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports and ComparativeAnalysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 107–140;

Lelieur, J., ‘L’Union européenne face aux conflits de compétences pénales’, in Brach–Thiel, D. andFourment, F., eds, Questions de droit pénal international, européen et comparé – Mélanges enl’honneur du Professeur Alain Fournier (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 2013), 257–293;

Lind, C., ‘Article 22 – Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 255–258,accessed 18 December 2015;

Lindemann, L., Referral of Cases from International to National Criminal Jurisdictions – Transfer-ring Cases from the ICTY and the ICTR to National Jurisdictions (Baden–Baden: Nomos, StämpfliVerlag, 2013);

Linke, R., ‘Zwischenstaatliche Kompetenzkonflikte auf dem Gebiet des Strafrechts’, in Oehler, D.,Pötz, P. G. and Grützner, H., eds, Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zurGestaltung des internationalen und eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner zum65. Geburtstag (Hamburg: R. v. Decker, 1970), 85–91;

Lønseth, P., ‘Between Territoriality and Universality – Reflections by a Core International CrimesProsecutor’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction forCore International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 161–164;

Ma, C., ‘The Connotation of Universal Jurisdiction and its Application in the Criminal Law ofChina’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law(Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 149–189;

Maged, A., ‘Withdrawal of Referrals – A Serious Challenge to the Function of the ICC’, ICLR, 6(2006), 419–446;

Mangiaracina, A., ‘Verso l’affermazione del ne bis in idem nello “spazio giudiziario europeo” ’, LP, 2(2006), 631–651;

Majzub, D., ‘Peace and Justice? Amnesties and the ICC’, MelbJIL, 3 (2002), 247–279;Mann, F. A. ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’, Recueil des Cours, 111 (1964), 1,

1–162;Marauhn, T., and Simon, S., ‘Die völkerrechtlichen Voraussetzungen der Strafgewalt in internatio-

nalen Fallgestaltungen’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Krimi-nalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012),21–39;

Marchesi, A. and Chaitidou, E., ‘Article 14 – Referral of a Situation by a State Party’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 703–724;

Marong, A., ‘Unlocking the Mysteriousness of Complementarity – In Search of a Forum Con-veniens for Trial of the Leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army’, GeorgiaJI&CompL, 40 (2011/12),67–103;

Maunganidze, O. A. and du Plessis, A., ‘The ICC and the AU’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC(2015), 65–83;

Mayer, H., ‘Völkerrecht und internationales Strafrecht’, JZ, 7 (1952), 609–611;Mayer, M., Ne–bis–in–idem–Wirkung europäischer Strafentscheidungen (Frankfurt: Peter Lang,

1992);McCarthy, C., ‘The Rome Statute’s Regime of Victim Redress – Challenges and Prospects’, in Stahn,

Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1203–1221;

Bibliography 51

Mégret, F., ‘Too Much of a Good Thing? – Implementation and the Uses of Complementarity’, inStahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 361–390;

Mégret, F., ‘Between R2P and the ICC – “Robust Peacekeeping” and the Quest for CivilianProtection’, CLF, 26 (2015), 101–151;

Mégret, F. and Giles Samson, M., ‘Holding the Line on Complementarity in Libya – The Case forTolerating Flawed Domestic Trials’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 571–589;

Meißner, J., Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem römischenStatut (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2003);

Mendes, E. P., Peace and Justice at the International Criminal Court – A Court of Last Resort(Northampton/Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2010);

Méndez, J. E., ‘Justice and Prevention’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 33–51;Meng, W., ‘Regeln über die Jurisdiktion der Staaten im amerikanischen Restatement (Third) of

Foreign Relations Law’, AVR, 27 (1989), 156–194;Merkel, R., ‘Universale Jurisdiktion bei völkerrechtlichen Verbrechen’, in Lüderssen, K., ed, Auf-

geklärte Kriminalpolitik oder Kampf gegen das Böse?, iii: Makrodelinquenz (Baden–Baden:Nomos, 1998), 237–271;

Merkel, R., ‘Legitimation der Weltrechtspflege’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn JahreVölkerstrafgesetzbuch – Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts’ (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 45–63;

Mettraux, G., ‘Dutch Courts’ Universal Jurisdiction over Violations of Common Article 3 qua WarCrimes’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 362–371;

Meyer, F., ‘Completing Complementarity’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 549–583;Meyer, F.,‘Country Report “Germany” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts of

Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports and ComparativeAnalysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 141–180;

Mezei, P., ‘Double Jeopardy in a Global Context – A Comparative Analysis of the Right not to beTried or Punished Twice for the Same Criminal Offense’ (November 1, 2012), in Badó, A., ed,Studies in the Fields of Comparative Law and Comparative Constitutional Law (Szeged: ProTalentis Universitatis Foundations, 2012), 109–129;

Mezei, P., ‘ “Not Twice for the Same” – Double Jeopardy Protections against Multiple Punishments– A Comparative Analysis of the Origins, Historical Development and Modern Application ofthe Ne Bis In Idem Principle’, in Badó, A., ed, Fair Trial and Judicial Independence – HungarianPerspectives (Szeged: Springer, 2014), 197–219;

Miller, D. and Rackow, P., ‘Transnationale Täterschaft und Teilnahme – Beteiligungsdogmatik undStrafanwendungsrecht’, ZStW, 117 (2005), 379–417;

Mills, A., ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’, BYbIL, 84 (2014), 187–239;Mills, K., ‘R2P and the ICC – At Odds or in Sync?’, CLF, 26 (2015), 73–99;Ministry of Justice of Israel, ‘Israel – Commissions of Inquiry Law and Amendments’, ILM, 22

(1983), 658–666;Moffett, L., ‘Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court – Beyond Rhetoric

and The Hague’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 281–311;Mokhtar, A., ‘The Fine Art of Arm –Twisting: The US Resolution 1422 and Security Council

Deferral Power under the Rome Statute’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 295–344;Morel, S., La mise en œuvre du principe de complémentarité par la cour pénale internationale – Le

case particulier des amnisties (Lausanne: Editions Bis et Ter, 2005);Moreno–Ocampo, L., ‘A Positive Approach to Complementarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Comple-

mentarity, i (2011), 21–32;Müller, A. T. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Self–Referrals on Trial – From Panacea to Patient’, JICJ, 8 (2010),

1267–1294;Munivrana Vajda, M., ‘The 2009 AIDP’s Resolution on Universal Jurisdiction – An Epitaph or a

Revival Call?!’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 325–344;Murphy, R., ‘Gravity Issues and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 17 (2006), 281–315;

52 Bibliography

Murphy, R., ‘Establishing a Precedent in Uganda – The Legitimacy of National Amnesties underthe ICC’, Eyes on the ICC, 3 (2006), 33–56;

Murungu, C. B., ‘Towards a Criminal Chamber in the African Court of Justice and Human Rights’,JICJ, 9 (2011), 1067–1088;

Nemane, V. V. and Gunjal, I. D., ‘Art. 124 of the Rome Statute of the ICC – “TransitionalProvision” or “The Right to (Convenient) Opt–Out” ’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 949–969;

Neubacher, F., Kriminologische Grundlagen einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit – PolitischeIdeen– und Dogmengeschichte, kriminalwissenschaftliche Legitimation, strafrechtliche Perspekti-ven (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005);

Newton, M., ‘Comparative Complementarity – Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the RomeStatute of the ICC’, MilLR, 167 (2001), 20–73;

Nmehielle, V. O., ‘ “Saddling” the New African Regional Human Rights Court with InternationalCriminal Jurisdiction – Innovative, Obstructive, Expedient?’, AfrJLS, 7 (2014), 7–42;

Nolte, G., ‘Universal Jurisdiction in the Area of Private Law � The Alien Tort Claims Act’, inTomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J. M., eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International LegalOrder – Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006),373–383;

Nouwen, S., ‘Fine–tuning Complementarity’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 206–231;Nouwen, S., ‘Complementarity in Uganda – Domestic Diversity or International Imposition?’, in

Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 1120–1154;Nouwen, S. and Lewis, D., ‘Jurisdictional Arrangements and International Criminal Procedure’, in

Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 116–129;Nouwen, S. and Werner, W., ‘Monopolizing Global Justice’, JICJ, 13 (2015) 157–176;Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and the

United Nations Security Council’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 500–506;Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘The ICC and Complementarity in Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 427–447;Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Article 18 – Preliminary Rulings Regarding Admissibility’, in Triffterer/

Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 832–848;O’Donohue, J., ‘The ICC and the ASP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 105–138;Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice

(2009), 185–208;O’Keefe, R., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – Clarifying the Basic Concept’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 735–760;O’Keefe, R., ‘The Grave Breaches Regime and Universal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 811–831;O’Keefe, R., ‘Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of the International Law of Jurisdiction’,

LJIL, 26 (2013), 541–558;Oehler, D., Internationales Strafrecht – Geltungsbereich des Strafrechts, internationales Rechtshilfer-

echt – Recht der Gemeinschaften, Völkerstrafrecht (Cologne: Heymanns, 2nd edn, 1983);Oehler, D., ‘Neuer Wandel in den Bestimmungen über den Strafrechtlichen Geltungsbereich in den

völkerrechtlichen Verträgen’, in Börner, B., Jahrreiß, H. and Carstens, K., eds, Einigkeit undRecht und Freiheit – Festschrift für Karl Carstens zum 70. Geburtstag am 14. Dezember 1984, i:Europarecht – Völkerrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns, 1984), 435–448;

Oehler, D., ‘Theorie des Strafanwendungsrechts’, in Oehler, D., Pötz, P. G. and Grützner, H., eds,Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zur Gestaltung des internationalenund eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner zum 65. Geburtstag (Hamburg: R. v.Decker, 1970), 110–126;

Oeter, S., ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Stra-frecht’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Bilanz undPerspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts’ (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 101–122;

Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice(2009), 185–208;

Olásolo, H., Corte penal internacional ¿dónde investigar? – Especial referencia a la fiscalía en elproceso de activación (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2003);

Bibliography 53

Olásolo, H., ‘The Prosecutor of the ICC before the Initiation of Investigations – A Quasi Judicial orPolitical Body?’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 87–150;

Olásolo, H., The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff, 2005);

Olásolo, H., ‘Reflections on the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdictional Reach’, CLF, 16(2005), 279–301;

Olásolo, H., ‘The Lack of Attention to the Distinction between Situation and Cases in NationalLaws on Co–operation with the International Criminal Court with Particular Reference to theSpanish Case’, LJIL, 20 (2007), 193–261;

Olásolo, H., ‘Admissibilidad de Situaciones y Casos Objeto de Procesos de Justicia de Transiciónante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Almqvist, J. and Espósito, C., eds, Justicia transicional enIberoamérica (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2009), 255–289;

Olásolo, H. and Carnero–Rojo, E., ‘The Application of the Principle of Complementarity to theDecision of Where to Open an Investigation – The Admissibility of “Situations” ’, in Stahn and ElZeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 393–420;

Orentlicher, D., ‘Owning Justice and Reckoning with its Complexity’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 517–526;O’Shea, A., Amnesty for Crime in International Law and Practice (London, New York, The Hague:

Kluwer, 2002);Osiel, M., ‘How Should the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Choose its Cases? The Multiple Meanings

of “Situational Gravity” ’, The Hague Justice Portal, 5 March 2009, 1–7 <http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=10344>, accessed 30 June 2015;

Osiel, M., ‘When Law “Expresses” More than it Cares to Admit – Comments on Heller’, in Stahnand van den Herik, Perspectives (2010), 254–258;

Oxman, B. H., ‘Jurisdiction of States’, in Wolfrum, R., ed, Max Planck Encyclopedia of PublicInternational Law, vi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 546–557;

Pampalk, M. and Knust, N., ‘Transitional Justice und Positive Komplementarität’, ZIS, 5 (2010),669–675;

Pappas, C., Stellvertretende Strafrechtspflege – Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Ausdehnung deutscherStrafgewalt nach § 7 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 StGB (Freiburg: Max–Planck–Institut f. ausländ. u. inter.Strafrecht, 1996);

Paust, J. J., ‘The Reach of ICC Jurisdiction over Non–Signatory Nationals’, VanderbiltJTL, 11(2000), 1–15;

Pawlik, M., ‘Strafe oder Gefahrenbekämpfung? Die Prinzipien des deutschen InternationalenStrafrechts vor dem Forum der Straftheorie’, ZIS, 1 (2006), 274–292;

Peschke, K., ‘The ICC Investigation into the Conflict in Northern Uganda – Beyond the Dichotomyof Peace versus Justice’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 178–205;

Peters, S., ‘§ 154 StPO im Hinblick auf ausländische Strafverfahren und Verurteilungen’, NStZ, 32(2012), 76–79;

Petrig, A., ‘Der XVIII. Internationale Strafrechtskongress der AIDP – Bericht über die Verhandlun-gen der IV. Sektion – Internationales Strafrecht – Weltrechtsprinzip’, ZStW, 122 (2010),467–472;

Philips, R., ‘The ICC Statute – Jurisdiction and Admissibility’, CLF, 10 (1999), 61–85;Pichon, J., ‘The Principle of Complementarity in the Cases of the Sudanese Nationals Ahmad

Harun and Ali Kushayb before the International Criminal Court’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 185–228;Pinto Soares, P., ‘Tangling Human Rights and International Criminal Law – The Practice of

International Tribunals and the Call for Rationalized Legal Pluralism’, CLF, 23 (2012), 161–191;Pinto Soares, P., ‘Positive Complementarity and the Law Enforcement Network – Drawing Lessons

from the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ Completion Strategy’, IsLR, 46 (2013), 319–338;Pinzauti, G., ‘An Instance of Reasonable Universality – The Scilingo Case’, JICJ, 3 (2005),

1092–1105;Plutte, A., Zum Umfang der nach §7 StGB erforderlichen Prüfung ausländischen Strafrechts (Trier:

Universität Trier, 1982);

54 Bibliography

Pocar, F., and Maystre, M., ‘The Principle of Complementarity – A Means Towards a MorePragmatic Enforcement of the Goal Pursued by Universal Jurisdiction’, in Bergsmo, M., ed,Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo:Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 247–303;

Podgor, E. S., ‘Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction – Replacing “Objective Territoriality” With“Defensive Territoriality” ’, in Sarat, A., and Etwick, P., eds, Studies in Law, Politics, and Society(Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2003), 117–135;

Politi, M., ‘Reflections on Complementarity at the Rome Conference and Beyond’, in Stahn and ElZeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 142–149;

Quattrocolo, S., ‘La fase preliminare al giudizio davanti alla C.P.I. – I soggetti coinvolti e ilmeccanismo de esercizio dell’azione penale’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemiattuali (2005), 275–322;

Quesada–Alcalá, C., ‘The Obstacles to the International Criminal Court – impediments to the enforce-ment of International Humanitarian Law’, in Fernández–Sánchez, P. A., ed, The New Challenges ofHumanitarian Law in Armed Conflict (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), 295–314;

Radosavljevic, D., ‘Scope and Limits of Psychiatric Evidence in International Criminal Law’, ICLR,13 (2013), 1013–1035;

Ralph, J., ‘Introduction – The Responsibility to Protect and Prosecute’, CLF, 26 (2015), 1–12;Randall, K. C., ‘Book Review –Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction – International and Municipal

Legal Perspectives’, AJIL, 98, (2004), 627–631;Rastan, R., ‘What is a “Case” for the Purpose of the Rome Statute?’, CLF, 19 (2008), 435–448;Rastan, R., ‘Complementarity – Contest or Collaboration?’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity

and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel OpsahlAcademic EPublisher, 2010), 83–132;

Rastan, R., ‘Situation and Case –Defining the Parameters’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,i (2011), 421–459;

Rastan, R., ‘The Jurisdictional Scope of Situations before the ICC’, CLF, 23 (2012), 1–34;Rastan, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 141–178;Rastan, R. and Badar M., ‘Article 11 – Jurisdiction ratione temporis’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 657–671;Rau, K., ‘Jurisprudential Innovation or Accountability Avoidance? The ICC and Proposed Expan-

sion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights’, MinnesotaLR, 97 (2012), 669–708;Rau, M., ‘Das Ende der Weltrechtspflege? Zur Abschaffung des belgischen Gesetzes über die

universelle Verfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen’, HuV–I, 16 (2003), 212–216;Razesberger, F., The Principle of Complementarity (Pieterlen, Swizerland: Peter Lang, 2006);Reisman, W. M. and Arsanjani, M., ‘The Law–in–Action of the ICC’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403;Reydams, L., Universal Jurisdiction – International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (New York:

Oxford University Press, 2003);Rikhof, J., ‘Fewer Places to Hide? The Impact of Domestic War Crimes Prosecutions on Inter-

national Impunity’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdic-tion for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 7–81;

Roach, S. C., ‘Multilayered Justice in Northern Uganda – ICC Intervention and Local Procedures ofAccountability’, ICLR, 13 (2013), 249–268;

Robinson, D., ‘Serving the Interests of Justice – Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the ICC’, EJIL,14 (2003), 481–505;

Robinson, D., ‘The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity’, CLF, 21 (2010), 67–102;Robinson, D., ‘The Inaction Controversy –Neglected Words and New Opportunities’, in Stahn and

El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 460–502;Robinson, D., ‘The Controversy over Territorial State Referrals and Reflections on ICL Discourse’,

JICJ, 9 (2011), 355–384;Robinson, D., ‘Three Theories of Complementarity –Charge, Sentence, or Process? Responding to Kevin

Jon Heller, A Sentence–Based Theory of Complementarity’, HarvILJOnline, 53 (2012), 165–182;

Bibliography 55

Robinson, D., ‘Three Theories of Complementarity – Charge, Sentence or Process? A Comment onKevin Heller’s Sentence–Based Theory of Complementarity’, in Schabas, W. A., McDermott, Y.,and Hayes, N., eds, The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law – CriticalPerspectives (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), 369–384;

Rodman, K., ‘Is Peace in the Interest of Justice? The Case for Broad Prosecutorial Discretion at theInternational Criminal Court’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 99–126;

Rodrigues, A. M., ‘Princípio da jurisdiçao penal universal e Tribunal Penal Internacional – Exclusãoou complementaridade?’, in Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra and Goethe–Institut Lisboa, Direito penal internacional para a protecção dos direitos humanos (Lisbon: Fimde Século, 2003), 57–75;

Rohrer, S., Legalitäts– oder Opportunitätsprinzip beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Cologne:Carl Heymanns, 2011);

Roht–Arriaza, N., ‘The Pinochet Effect and the Spanish Contribution to Universal Jurisdiction’, inKaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., and Weiss, P., eds, International Prosecution of HumanRights Crimes (Berlin: Springer, 2007), 113–123;

Roht–Arriaza, N. and Fernando, M., ‘Universal Jurisdiction’, in Brown, Handbook ICL (2011),359–372;

Ronen, Y., ‘Israel, Palestine and the ICC – Territory Uncharted but not Unknown’, JICJ, 12 (2014),7–25;

Rosswog, E., Das Problem der Vereinbarkeit des aktiven und passiven Personalgrundsatzes mit demVölkerrecht (Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1965);

Rudolf, W., ‘Anwendungsbereich und Auslegung von §5 StGB’, NJW, 6 (1954), 219–220;Ruiz Verduzco, D., ‘The Relationship between the ICC and the United Nations Security Council’, in

Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 30–64;Ryngaert, C., ‘Universal Jurisdiction in an ICC Era – A Role to Play for EU Member States with the

Support of the European Union’, EJCCLCJ, 14 (2006), 46–80;Ryngaert, C., ‘Applying the Rome Statute’s Complementarity Principle –Drawing Lessons from the

Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle’, CLF, 19 (2008),153–180;

Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction over Antitrust Violations in International Law (Antwerpen: Intersentia,

2008);Ryngaert, C., ‘Complementarity in Universality Cases – Legal–Systemic and Legal Policy Consid-

erations’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for CoreInternational Crimes (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010), 165–200;

Sácouto, S. and Cleary, K., ‘The Katanga Complementarity Decisions – Sound Law but FlawedPolicy’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 363–374;

Sadat, L. N., ‘Unpacking the Complexities of International Criminal Tribunal Jurisdiction’, inSchabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 197–209;

Safferling, C., Internationales Strafrecht – Strafanwendungsrecht, Völkerstrafrecht, EuropäischesStrafrecht (Heidelberg: Springer, 2011);

Sainati, T. E., ‘Divided We Fall: How the International Criminal Court Can Promote Compliancewith International Law by Working with Regional Courts’, VanderbiltJTL, 49 (2016), 191–243;

Samir Hassanein, A., ‘Physical and Legal Inability under Article 17 (3) of the Rome Statute’, ICLR,15 (2015), 101–123;

Sánchez Legido, A., Jurisdicción universal penal y derecho internacional (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch,2004);

Satzger, H., Die Europäisierung des Strafrechts – Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluß des EuropäischenGemeinschaftsrechts auf das deutsche Strafrecht (Cologne: Heymann, 2001);

Satzger, H., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu §§ 3–7’, in Satzger, Schluckebier und Widmaier, StGB Kommen-tar (2014), 32–36;

Sautenet, V., ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – Activities in 2004’,ChinJIL, 4 (2005), 515–564;

56 Bibliography

Schabas, W. A., ‘First Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court’, HRLJ, 27 (2006), 25–40;Schabas, W. A., ‘ “Complementarity Practice” – Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’, CLF, 19

(2008), 5–33;Schabas, W. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the ICC’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 731–761;Schabas, W. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion and Gravity’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice

(2009), 229–246;Schabas, W. A., ‘National Amnesties, Truth Commissions and International Criminal Tribunals’, in

Brown, Handbook ICL (2011), 373–390;Schabas, W. A., ‘The Rise and Fall of Complemenarity’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i

(2011), 150–164;Schabas, W. A., Kein Frieden ohne Gerechtigkeit? – Die Rolle der internationalen Strafjustiz

(Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2013);Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Situations and Cases’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),

365–381;Schabas, W. A. and El Zeidy, M., M., ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 781–831;Schabas, W. A. and Pecorella, G., ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’, in

Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 672–689;Schabas, W. A. and Pecorella, G., ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 690–702;Scharf, M., ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’,

CornILJ, 32 (1999), 507–527;Scharf, M. P., ‘The ICC’s Jurisdiction over the Nationals of Non–party States – A Critique of the U.

S. Position’, LCP, 64 (2001), 67–118;Scheffer, D. J., ‘How to Turn the Tide Using the Rome Statute’s Temporal Jurisdiction’, JICJ, 2

(2004), 26–34;Schiff, B. N., Building the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2008);Schmitz, A., Das aktive Personalitätsprinzip im internationalen Strafrecht – Zugleich ein kritischer

Beitrag zur Legitimation der Ausdehnung der Strafgewalt auf Auslandstaten Deutscher (Frank-furt: Peter Lang, 2002);

Schomburg, W. and Nemitz, C., ‘Hauptteil VI – Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit’, in Schomburg,W., Lagodny, O., Gleß, S., and Hackner, T., eds, Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen(Munich: C. H. Beck, 4th edn, 2006), 1719–1730;

Schönke, A., ‘Gegenwartsfragen des internationalen Strafrechts’, in Englisch, K. and Maurach, R., eds,Festschrift für Edmund Mezger zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich, Berlin: C. H. Beck, 1954), 105–116;

Schröder, H., ‘Grundlagen und Grenzen des Personalitätsprinzips im internationalen Strafrecht’,JZ, 23 (1968), 241–244;

Schüller, A., ‘Gravity under the Rome Statute – Procedural Filter or Instrument of ShapingCriminal Policy?’, HuV–I, 21 (2008), 73–81;

Sedman, D., ‘Should the Prosecution of Ordinary Crimes in Domestic Jurisdictions Satisfy theComplementarity Principle?’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Perspectives (2010), 259–266;

Seibert–Fohr, A., ‘The Relevance of the Rome Staute of the ICC for Amnesties and TruthCommissions’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 553–90;

Seils, P., ‘The Selection and Prioritization of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC’, inBergsmo, Criteria for Prioritizing (2009), 55–60;

Seils, P., ‘Making Complementarity Work – Maximizing the Limited Role of the Prosecutor’, inStahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 989–1013;

Seils, P., ‘Putting Complementarity in its Place’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),305–327;

Seils, P. and Wierda, M., ‘The International Criminal Court and Comflict Mediation’ ICTJ, (June2005) <https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ–Global–ICC–Mediation–2005–English.pdf>,accessed 3 April 2016;

Bibliography 57

Shany, Y., ‘How can International Criminal Courts Have a Greater Impact on National CriminalProceedings? – Lessons from the First Two Decades of International Criminal Justice inOperation’, IsLR, 46 (2013), 431–453;

Shaw, M. N., ‘The Article 12(3) Declaration of the Palestinian Authority, the International CriminalCourt and International Law’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 301–324;

Sheng, A. Y., ‘Analysing the International Criminal Court Complementarity Principle through aFederal Courts Lens’, ILSAJICL, 13 (2006/2007), 413–452;

Shraga, D., ‘Politics and Justice – The Role of the Security Council’, in Cassese, Companion (2009),168–174;

Sieber, U., ‘Straftaten und Strafverfolgung im Internet’, in Ständige Deputation des DeutschenJuristentages, ed, Verhandlungen des 69. Deutschen Juristentages, i/3: Gutachten C (Munich:C. H. Beck, 2012);

Sinn, A., ‘Jurisdictional Law as the Key to Resolving Conflicts – Comparative–Law Observations’, inSinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleichzum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2012), 531–554;

Sinn, A., ‘Draft Models of a Regulatory Mechanism for the Avoidance of Jurisdictional Conflicts’, inSinn, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität (2012), 597–615;

Sinn, A., ‘Die Vermeidung von strafrechtlichen Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der EU’, ZIS, 8 (2013),1–9;

Smeulers, A., Weerdesteijn, M. and Hola, B., ‘The Selection of Situations by the ICC – AnEmpirically Based Evalutation of the OTP’s Performance’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 1–39;

Smith, S. E. ‘Inventing the Laws of Gravity – The ICC’s Initial Lubanga Decision and Its RegressiveConsequences’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 331–352;

Sriram, C. L. and Brown, S., ‘Kenya in the Shadow of the ICC – Complementarity, Gravity andImpact’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 219–244;

Stahn, C., ‘The Ambiguities of Security Council Resolution 1422’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 85–104;Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice – Some Interpretative

Guidelines for the ICC’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 695–720;Stahn, C., ‘The Geometry of Transitional Justice – Choices of Institutional Design’, LJIL, 18 (2005),

425–466;Stahn, C., Stahn, C., El Zeidy, M. and Olásolo, H., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Ad Hoc

Jurisdiction Revisited’, AJIL, 99 (2005), 421–431;‘Complementarity – A Tale of Two Notions’, CLF, 19 (2008), 87–113;Stahn, C., ‘Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion – Five Years on’, in Stahn and Sluiter,

Emerging Practice (2009), 247–280;Stahn, C., ‘Perspectives on Katanga – An Introduction’, LJIL, 23 (2010), 311–318;Stahn, C., ‘How Is the Water? Light and Shadow in the First Years of the ICC’, CLF, 22 (2011),

175–197;Stahn, C., ‘Introduction – Bridge over TroubledWaters?’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i

(2011), 1–18;Stahn, C., ‘Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity – A Test for “Shared

Responsibility” ’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 325–349;Stahn, C., ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? – Second Thoughts on a ’”Sentence–Based” Theory

of Complementarity’, HarvILJ, 53 (2012), 183–196;Stahn, C., ‘Why the ICC Should be Cautious to Use the Islamic State to Get Out of Africa – Part 1’,

EJILTalk 3 December 2014 <http://www.ejiltalk.org/why–the–icc–should–be–cautious–to–use–the–islamic–state–to–get–out–of–africa–part–1/> accessed 3 April 2016;

Stahn, C., ‘Admissibility Challenges before the ICC – From Quasi–Primacy to Qualified Defer-ence?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 228–259;

Stahn, C., ‘Admissibility Challenges before the ICC – From Quasi–Primacy to Qualified Defer-ence?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 228–259;

Stahn, C., ‘Marital Stress or Grounds For Divorce? Re–Thinking the Relationship between R2P andInternational Criminal Justice’, CLF, 26 (2015), 13–50;

58 Bibliography

Stegmiller, I., ‘Articles 14–15’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 184–196, accessed 18December 2015;

Stegmiller, I., ‘The Gravity Threshold Under the ICC Statute – Gravity Back and Forth in Lubangaand Ntaganda’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 547–565;

Stegmiller, I., ‘Complementary Thoughts’, CLF, 20 (2010), 159–74;Stegmiller, I., ‘Interpretative Gravity under the Rome Statute – Identifying Common Gravity

Criteria’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011), 603–641;Stegmiller, I., ‘The ICC and Mali – Towards more Transparency in International Criminal Law

Investigations’, CLF, 24 (2013), 475–499;Stephen, C., ‘International Criminal Law – Wielding the Sword of Universal Criminal Justice?’,

ICLQ, 61 (2012), 55–90;Stewart, J. G., ‘The Future of the Grave Breaches Regime – Segregate, Assimilate or Abandon?’, JICJ,

7 (2009), 855–877;Stigen, J., ‘The Relationship between the Principle of Complementarity and the Exercise of

Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, Complementarityand the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes (Oslo: Torkel OpsahlAcademic EPublisher, 2010), 133–159;

Stigen, J., The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions –The Principle of Complementarity (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2008);

Stigen, J., ‘The Admissibility Procedures’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity, i (2011),503–557;

Sulzer, J., ‘Implementing the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in France’, in Kaleck, W., Ratner,M., Singelnstein, T., and Weiss, P., eds, International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes(Berlin: Springer, 2007), 125–137;

Švedas, G., ‘Country Report “Lithuania” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds, Conflicts ofJurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports and ComparativeAnalysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 295–327;

Swart, B., ‘La place des critères traditionnels de compétence dans la poursuite des crimes inter-nationaux’, in Cassese, A. and Delmas–Marty, M., eds, Juridictions nationales et crimes inter-nationaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002), 567–587;

Takemura, H., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in International Criminal Justice – Between Fragmentationand Unification’, in van den Herik, L. and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentationof International Criminal Law (Leiden: Martin Nijhoff, 2012), 633–656;

Taylor, M., ‘Article 18 – Preliminary Rulings Regarding Admissibility’, in Klamberg, OnlineCommentary ICC, 225–232, accessed 18 December 2015;

Terracino, J. B., ‘National Implementation of ICC Crimes – Impact on National Jurisdictions andthe ICC’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 421–440;

Tharakan, S., Konkretisierung des Komplementaritätsprinzips des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs(Zurich, St. Gallen: Dike Verlag, 2009);

Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’,ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591;

Tomuschat, C., ‘The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes Committed by Individuals’, inCremer, H. J., Giegerich, T., Richter, D., and Zimmermann, A., eds, Tradition und Weltoffenheitdes Rechts – Festschrift für Helmut Steinberger (Berlin et al.: Springer Verlag, 2002), 315–329;

Tomuschat, C., ‘Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 1074–1081;Tomuschat, C. and Currie, D. P., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin: German

Bundestag, 2012), available at <https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law–data.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

Trahan, J., ‘The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and the U.N. SecurityCouncil – Parameters and Best Practices’, CLF, 24 (2013), 417–473;

Trahan, J., ‘Is Complementarity the Right Approach for the ICC’s Crime of Aggression? –Considering the Problem of “Overzealous” National Court Prosecutions’, CornILJ, 45 (2013),569–601;

Bibliography 59

Triffterer, O., Bergsmo, M. and Ambos, K., ‘Preamble’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1–13;

Triggs, G., ‘Challenges for the International Criminal Court – Terrorism, Immunity Agreementsand National Trials’, in Dolgopol, U., and Gardam, J., eds, The Challenge of Conflict – Inter-national Law Responds (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2005), 315–330;

Trouille, H. L., ‘France, Universal Jurisdiction and Rwandan génocidaires’, JICJ 14 (2016), 195–217;Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer

opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85;Vagias, M. and Ferencz, J., ‘Burden and Standard of Proof in Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction

of the ICC’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 133–155;Vaid, K., ‘What Counts as “State Action” under Article 17 of the Rome Statute? Applying the ICC’s

Complementarity Test to Non–Criminal Investigations by the United States into War Crimes inAfghanistan’, NYUJIL&Pol’y, 44 (2011/12), 573–628;

Valiñas, M., ‘Interpreting Complementarity and Interests of Justice in the Presence of Restorative–Based Alternative Forms of Justice’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Perspectives (2010), 267–288;

van denWyngaert, C. and Ongena, T., ‘Ne bis in idem Principle, Including the Issue of Amnesty’, inCassese et al., Rome Statute, i (2002), 705–729;

van der Beken, T., Vermeulen, G. and Lagodny, O., ‘Kriterien für die jeweils “beste” Strafgewalt inEuropa – Zur Lösung von Strafgewaltskonflikten jenseits eines transnationalen Ne–bis–in–idem’, NStZ, 22 (2002), 624–628;

van der Merwe, H. J., ‘The Show Must not Go On – Complementarity, the Due Process Thesis andOverzealous Domestic Prosecutions’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 40–75;

van der Wilt, H. and Lyngdorf, S., ‘Procedural Obligations under the European Convention onHuman Rights – Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of “Unwillingness” and “Ability” in theContext of the Complementarity Principle’ ICLR, 9 (2009), 39–75;

van der Wilt, H., ‘Universal Jurisdiction under Attack – An Assessment of African Misgivingstowards International Criminal Justice as Administered by Western States’, JICJ, 9 (2011),1043–1066;

van der Wilt, H., ‘State’s Obligations to Investigate and Prosecute Perpetrators of InternationalCrimes – The Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights’, in Stahn and El Zeidy,Complementarity, ii (2011), 685–706;

van der Wilt, H., ‘Self–Referrals as an Indication of the Inability of States to Cope with Non–StateActors’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 210–227;

van Schaak, B., ‘Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet – Complementarity and the Crime ofAggression’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 133–164;

van Steenberghe, R., ‘The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute – Clarifying its Nature’, JICJ, 9(2011), 1089–1116;

Vandermeersch, D., ‘La compétence universelle’, in Cassese, A. and Delmas–Marty, M., eds,Juridictions nationales et crimes internationaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002),589–661;

Vinjamuri, L., ‘The ICC and the Politics of Peace and Justice’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC(2015), 13–29;

Vinjamuri, L., ‘The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of Authority’, LCP, 79 (2016),275–87;

Vogler, T., ‘Entwicklungstendenzen im internationalen Strafrecht unter Berücksichtigung derKonvention des Europarats’, in Schroeder, F. C. and Zipf, H., eds, Festschrift für ReinhartMaurach zum 70. Geburtstag (Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972), 595–614;

Vogler, T., ‘Geltungsanspruch und Geltungsbereich der Strafgesetze’, in Oehler, D., Pötz, P. G. andGrützner, H., eds, Aktuelle Probleme des internationalen Strafrechts – Beiträge zur Gestaltung desinternationalen und eines supranationalen Strafrechts – Heinrich Grutzner zum 65. Geburtstag(Hamburg: R. v. Decker, 1970), 149–159;

von Weber, H., ‘Das interlokale Strafrecht’, DStR, 7 (1940), 182–192;Walter, T., ‘Einführung in das internationale Strafrecht’, JuS, 10 (2006), 870–873;

60 Bibliography

Walther, S., ‘Terra Incognita – Wird staatliche internationale Strafgewalt den Menschen gerecht?’,in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70.Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 925–954;

Wamser, I. K., ‘Der Geltungsbereich des deutschen StGB auf See auf der Grundlage des § 3 StGB’,StraFo, 7 (2010), 279–281;

Wang, H. W., Der universale Strafanspruch des nationalen Staates – Eine Untersuchung über dasWeltrechtsprinzip im Internationalen Strafrecht (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005);

Waugaman, A., ‘Five Minutes with Luis Moreno–Ocampo – An Interview with the ICC Prosecu-tor’, IAR, 15 (2006), 2;

WCRO, The Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court (Washington D. C.: AmericanUniversity, 2008) <http://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/WCROReportonGravityMarch2008.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2016;

WCRO, The Relevance of ‘a Situation’ to the Admissibility and Selection of Cases before theInternational Criminal Court (Washington D. C.: American University, 2009) <http://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/WCRO_Report_on_Situation_October2009.pdf>,accessed 3 April 2016;

Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt a. M., PeterLang, 2007);

Weigend, T., ‘Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – nationale Kodifikation internationalen Rechts’, inTriffterer, O., ed, Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2004), 197–212;

Weigend, T., ‘Völkerstrafrecht – Grundsatzfragen und aktuelle Probleme’, in Kohlmann, et al., eds,Entwicklungen und Probleme des Strafrechts an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert (Berlin:Duncker & Humblot, 2004), 11–27;

Weigend, T., ‘Grund und Grenzen universaler Gerichtsbarkeit’, in Arnold J., et al., eds, Menschen-gerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005),955–976;;

Weiss, P., ‘The Future of Universal Jurisdiction’, in Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., andWeiss, P., eds, International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Berlin: Springer, 2007), 29–36;

Weißer, B., ‘Das Prinzip der Weltrechtspflege in Theorie und Praxis’, GA, 152 (2012), 416–433;Weißer, B., ‘Weltrechtspflege’, in Jeßberger, F., and Geneuss, J., eds, Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetz-

buch – Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen Völkerstrafrechts (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013),65–73;

Wendt, W., Das passive Personalitätsprinzip (Munich: Bauknecht, 1965);Werle, G., ‘Transitional Justice – Der juristische Rahmen’, in Müller, H. E., Sander, G. M., and

Válková, H., eds, Festschrift für Ulrich Eisenberg zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2009),791–806;

Werle, G. and Jeßberger, F., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 3 ff.’, in Laufhütte, Rissing van Saan, andTiedemann, Leipziger Kommentar StGB, i (2007), 389–489;

Wierda, M. and Otim, M., ‘Courts, Conflict and Complementarity in Uganda’, in Stahn and ElZeidy, Complementarity, ii (2011), 1155–1179;

Wills, A., ‘Old Crimes, New States and the Temporal Jurisdiction of the ICC’, JICJ, 12 (2014),407–435;

Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014),146–180;

Wilson, R. J., ‘Spanish Supreme Court Affirms Conviction of Argentine Former Naval Officer forCrimes Against Humanity’, ASIL Insight, 12 (2008), <http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/12/issue/1/spanish–supreme–court–affirms–conviction–argentine–former–naval–officer>, accessed3 April 2016;

Wolfrum, R, ‘Internationale Verbrechen vor internationalen und nationalen Gerichten – DieVerfolgungskompetenzen des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs ein Fortschritt oder ein Rücks-chritt in der Entwicklung?’, in Arnold J., et al., eds,Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift fürAlbin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005), 977–990;

Wolswijk, H. D., ‘Locus Delicti and Criminal Jurisdiction’, NILR, 66 (1999), 361–382;

Bibliography 61

Wolswijk, H., ‘Country Report “the Netherlands” ’, in Böse, M., Meyer, F., and Schneider, A., eds,Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union, i: National Reports andComparative Analysis (Baden–Baden: Nomos, 2013), 329–367;

Wong, C., Criminal Act, Criminal Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice (Krakow: Polpress, 2004);Wörner, L., and Wörner, M., ‘Deutschland’, in Sinn, A., ed, Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzübers-

chreitender Kriminalität – Ein Rechtsvergleich zum Internationalen Strafrecht (Göttingen: V & RUnipress, 2012), 203–261;

Wouters, J. and Verhoeven, S., ‘Cases Identified for Investigation and Prosecution by the ICC’, inAnkumah, E. A. and Kwakwa, E. K., eds, African Perspectives on International Criminal Justice(Accra, Maastricht: Africa Legal Aid, 2005), 133–160;

Yee, S., ‘Universal Jurisdiction – Concept, Logic, and Reality’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 503–530;Zappalá, S., ‘L’universalità della giurisdizione e la Corte Penale Internazionale’, in Cassese, Chia-

vario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 549–559;Zhou, L., ‘Brief Analysis of a Few Controversial Issues in Contemporary International Criminal

Law’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law(Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 21–53;

Zhu, L., ‘Universal Jurisdiction before the United Nations General Assembly – Seeking CommonUnderstanding under International Law’, in Bergsmo, M., and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty andInternational Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 191–222;

Ziegenhain, H. J., Exterritoriale Rechtsanwendung und die Bedeutung des Genuine–Link Erforder-nisses – eine Darstellung der deutschen und amerikanischen Staatenpraxis, (Munich: Beck, 1992);

Zieher, W., Das sog. Internationale Strafrecht nach der Reform – Der Rechtsgrund bei Straftaten imAusland nach §§ 5 und 6 StGB (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997);

Zimmermann, A., ‘Die Schaffung eines ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes’, ZaöRV, 58(1998), 47–108;

Zimmermann, A., ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Backwards? Security Council Resolution 1593(2005) and the Council’s Power to Refer Situations to the International Criminal Court’, inDupuy, P.–M., Fassbender, B., Shaw, M N. and Sommermann, K.–P., eds, Völkerrecht alsWertordnung – Festschrift für Christian Tomuschat (Kehl: N. P. Engel, 2006), 681–700;

Zimmermann, A., ‘Violations of Fundamental Norms of International Law and the Exercise ofUniversal Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J. M., eds, TheFundamental Rules of the International Legal Order – Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes(Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), 335–353;

Zimmermann, A., ‘Palestine and the ICC Quo Vadis?’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 303–329;Zimmermann, A., and Freiburg, E., ‘Article 15bis – Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime of

Aggression (State Referral, Proprio Motu)’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),741–764;

Zimmermann, A., and Freiburg, E., ‘Article 15ter – Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime ofAggression (Security Council Referral)’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 765–769;

Zimmerman, D. and Klamberg, M., ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’, inKlamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 175–180, accessed 18 December 2015;

Zöller, M. A., ‘Die transnationale Geltung des Grundsatzes “ne bis in idem” nach dem Vertrag vonLissabon’, in Amelung, K., Günther, H. L. and Kühne, H. H., eds, Festschrift für Volker Krey zumGeburtstag am 9. Juli 2010 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 501–522.

CHAPTER 4

Acquaviva, G., ‘Single and Bifurcated Trials’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure(2013), 534–543;

Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘AModel of International Judicial Administration? The Evolutionof Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP, 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161;

Ambach, P., ‘A Look towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt” ’, in Stahn, Law andPractice of the ICC (2015), 1277–1295;

62 Bibliography

Ambos, K., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor of an International Criminal Court from a ComparativePerspective’, The Review (IntComJur), 58/59 (1997), 45–56;

Ambos, K., ‘The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt – A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports’, EJCCLCJ, 8 (2000),89–118;

Ambos, K., ‘Die Rolle des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, APuZ, 42 (2006), 10–17;Ambos, K., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the National and International Level – Between

Justice and Realpolitik’, in Kaleck, W. et al., eds, International Prosecution of Human RightsCrimes (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2006), 55–68;

Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure – “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” orMixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503;

Ambos, K., ‘Confidential Investigations (Article 54 (3)(e) ICC Statute) vs. Disclosure Obligations –The Lubanga Case and National Law’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 543–568;

Ambos, K., ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice – A Systematic Study with a Special Focuson the Role of the ICC’, in Ambos, Large and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 19–103;

Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsrLR, 42 (2009), 362–397;Ambos, K., ‘The First Confirmation Decision of the International Criminal Court – Prosecutor v.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Kotsalis, L., Courakis, N. and Mylonopoulos, C., eds, Essays inHonour of Argyrios Karras (Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2010), 979–1003;

Ambos, K., ‘Das erste Urteil des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Prosecutor v. Lubanga) – Einekritische Analyse der Rechtsfragen’, ZIS, 7 (2012), 313–337;

Ambos, K., ‘Thematic Investigations and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes – Some CriticalComments from a Theoretical and Comparative Perspective’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, ThematicProsecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012),291–315;

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Procedural Regimes’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, InternationalProsecutors (2012), 488–541;

Ambos, K. and Miller, D., ‘Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICCfrom a Comparative Perspective’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 335–360;

Ambos, K. and Stegmiller, I., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court– Is There a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?’, Crime Law Soc Change, 59(2013), 415–437;

Arsanjani, M. H., ‘The International Criminal Court and National Amnesty Laws’, in ASIL,Proceedings of the Ninety-Third Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law(Washigton DC: ASIL, 1999), 65–68;

Arsanjani, M. H. and Reisman, W. M., ‘The Law-in-Action of the International Criminal Court’,AJIL, 99 (2005), 385–403;

Arzt, G., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die formelle Wahrheit’, in Arnold, J., et al., eds,Menschengerechtes Strafrecht – Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck,2005), 691–704;

Bassiouni, M. C. and Manikas, P., The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1996);

Behrens, H. J., ‘The Trial Proceedings’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 238–246;Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘El enjuicamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al.,

CPI (2003), 351–382;Bensouda, F., ‘The ICC-Statute – An Insider’s Perspective on a Sui Generis System for Global

Justice’, NCJIL&ComReg, 36 (2010–2011), 277–285;Bensouda, F., ‘The Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes Policy Paper of the Office of the Prosecutor of

the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015),327–354;

Bergsmo, M. and Bekou O., ‘Article 53 – Initiation of an Investigation’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1365–1380;

Bibliography 63

Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J and Zhu, D., ‘Article 15 – Prosecutor’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 725–740;

Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J and Zhu, D., ‘Article 16 – Deferral of Investigation or Prosecution’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 770–780;

Bergsmo, M., Cissé, C. and Staker, C., ‘The Prosecutors of the International Tribunals – The Casesof the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the ICTY and ICTR, and the ICC Compared’, in Arbouret al., The Prosecutor of a Permanent ICC (2000), 121–154;

Bernaz, N., ‘Sentencing and Penalties’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011),289–303;

Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin:Duncker & Humblot 2015);

Bitti, G., ‘Two Bones of Contention between Civil and Common Law – The Record of theProceedings and the Treatment of a Concursus Delictorum’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution(2001), 273–288;

Bitti, G., ‘Article 21 and the Hierarchy of Sources of Law before the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practiceof the ICC (2015), 411–443;

Bitti, G., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1588–1620;

Bock, S., ‘Wiedergutmachung im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshofnach Lubanga’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 297–321;

Bohlander, M., ‘Radbruch Redux – The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Commonand Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 24 (2011),393–410;

Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 348–359;Brady, H. J., ‘Setting the Record Straight: A Short Note on Disclosure and the Record of the

Proceedings’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 261–72;Broomhall, B., ‘Article 51 – Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen-

tary (2016), 1332–1351;Brubacher, M. R., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion within the International Criminal Court’ JICJ, 2 (2004),

71–95;Buchan, R., ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 25 (2014),

465–503;Burens, L., ‘Plea Bargaining in International Criminal Tribunals’, ZIS, 8 (2013), 322–333;Burnham, M., ‘Fragmentation in International Criminal Law and the Rights of Victims’, in van den

Herik, L., and Stahn, C., eds, The Diversification and Fragmentation of International CriminalLaw (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), 657–679;

Byrne, R., ‘Drawing the Missing Map –What Socio-legal Research Can Offer to InternationalCriminal Trial Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 991–1007;

Carmichael Keen, P., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in Inter-national Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814;

Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Standard of Proof Required to Issue an Arrest Warrant for Genocide’,Merkour-ios UJIEL, 27 (2011), 61–64;

Carnero Rojo, E., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the charges before trial, The Rome Statute’, inKlamberg, Online Commentary ICC, accessed 7 January 2016;

Cissé, A., ‘Article 51 – Règlement de procédure et de preuve’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut deRome, i (2012), 1139–1148;

Coalition for the ICC, ‘Active Period for Pre-Trial Chamber on Congo Case’, Insight ICC, 5 (2005),10;

Combs, N. A., ‘Procuring Guilty Pleas for International Crimes – The Limited Influence of SentenceDiscounts’, VanderbiltLR, 59 (2006), 67–151;

Combs, N. A., Guilty Pleas in International Criminal Law – Constructing a Restorative JusticeApproach (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007);

64 Bibliography

Combs, N.A., Fact-Finding without Facts: the Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of InternationalCriminal Convictions (Cambridge: CUP, 2010);

Combs, N. A., ‘Evidence’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 323–334;Combs, N. A., ‘Structure of Uncontested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure

(2013), 682–88;Combs, N. A., ‘Control over the Sequence of Case Presentation’, in Sluiter et al., International

Criminal Procedure (2013), 734–743;Creta, V. M., ‘Search for Justice in the Former Yugoslavia and Beyond – Analyzing the Rights of the

Accused under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, HoustonJIL, 20 (1998), 381–418;

Cummings, L. P., ‘Can an Ethical Person be an Ethical Prosecutor? A Social Cognitive Approach toSystematic Reform’, CardozoLR, 31 (2009–2010), 2139–2159;

Damaška, M. R., ‘Free Proof and its Detractors’, AJCompL, 43 (1995), 343–357;Damaška, M. R., Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997);Damaška, M. R., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008),

329–365;Damaška, M. R., ‘Problematic Features of International Criminal Procedure’, in Cassese, Compan-

ion (2009), 175–186;Damaška, M. R., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA

JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009) 19–35;Damaška, M. R., ‘Unacknowledged Presences in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012)

1239–56;Davies, M., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice – An Introduction to the Criminal Justice

System in England and Wales (Harlow: Longman, 3rd edn, 2005);Davis, C., ‘Political Considerations in Prosecutorial Discretion at the ICC’, ICLR, 15 (2015),

170–189;De Beco, G., ‘The Confirmation of Charges before the International Criminal Court – Evaluation

and First Application’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 469–481;De Hemptinne, J., ‘The Creation of Investigating Chambers at the International Criminal Court –

An Option Worth Pursuing?’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 402–18;De Hemptinne, J., and Rindi, F., ‘ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Allows Victims to Participate in the

Investigation Phase of Proceedings’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 342–350;DeMeester, K., Pitcher, K., Rastan, R. and Sluiter, G., ‘Investigation, Coercive Measures, Arrest, and

Surrender’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 171–379;De Meester, K., ‘Aricle 53 – Initiation of an Investigation’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

accessed 7 January 2016;De Meester, K., The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure (Cambridge et al.:

Intersentia, 2015).De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Fact-finding Process

of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440;De Smet, S., ‘The International Criminal Standard of Proof at the ICC – Beyond Reasonable Doubt

or Beyond Reason?, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 861–890;De Vos, C. M., ‘Investigating from afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024;Deal, D., ‘Der strafprozessuale Vergleich’, StV, 2 (1982), 545–552;deGuzman, M., and Schabas, W. A., ‘Initiation of Investigation and Selection of Cases’, in Sluiter

et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 131–169;Delmas-Marty, M., ‘La CPI et les interactions entre droit international penal et droit penal interne à

la phase d’ouverture du process pénal’, RSC, 3 (2005), 473–482;Diggelmann, O., ‘Staatsverbrechen und international Justiz – Zur Einlösbarkeit der Erwartungen an

internationale Straftribunale’, AVR, 45 (2007), 382–399;Doherty, T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and

International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945;

Bibliography 65

Donat-Cattin, D., ‘Article 75 – Reparations to Victims’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1853–1870;

Dugard, J., ‘Possible Conflicts of Jurisdiction with Truth Commissions’, in Cassese et al., RomeStatute, i (2002), 693–704;

Dugard, J., ‘Dealing with Crimes of a Past Regime – Is Amnesty Still an Option?’, LJIL, 12 (1999),1001–1015;

Dumbryte, A., ‘The Roads to Freedom – Interim Release in the Practice of the ICC’, in Stahn, Lawand Practice of the ICC (2015), 1063–1083;

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Test of the ComplementarityPrinciple – An Assessment of the First State’s Party Referral to the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005),83–120;

El Zeidy, M., ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest WarrantProceedings before the ICC’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 741–751;

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the ICC’, CLF, 19 (2008), 35–57;Eser, A., ‘Vorzugswürdigkeit des adversatorischen Prozesssystems in der internationalen Strafjus-

tiz? Reflektionen eines Richters’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung – Zum65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 167–188;

Fairlie, M. A., ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and its Progeny, DueProcess Deficit’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 243–319;

Fairlie, M. A., ‘Alternate Judges as Sine Qua Nons for International Criminal Trials’, VanderbiltJTL,48 (2015), 67–122;

Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘The Process of Negotiations’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 217–226;Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘Elaboration of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Lee, The

ICC (2001), 235–257;FIDH, ‘Justice at Risk – States Parties to the ICC Statute Concede to Political Pressure’, 28

November 2013, <http://www.fidh.org/en/international-justice/international-criminal-court-icc/14308-justice-at-risk-states-parties-to-the-icc-statute-concede-to-political>, accessed 30August 2015;

Fourmy, O., ‘Powers of the Pre-Trial Chambers’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),1207–1230;

‘Freiburg Declaration on the Position of the Prosecutor of a Permanent International CriminalCourt’, in Arbour et al., The Prosecutor of a Permanent ICC (2000), 667–678;

Friman, H., ‘Investigation and Prosecution’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 493–538;Friman, H., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence in the Investigative Stage’, in Fischer et al.,

Prosecution (2001), 191–217;Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481;Friman, H., Brady, H., Costi, M., Guariglia, F. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Charges’, in Sluiter et al.,

International Criminal Procedure (2013), 381–488;Friman, H., ‘Trial Procedures – With a Particular Focus on the Relationship between the Proceed-

ings of the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 909–931;Frisch, W., ‘Freie Beweiswürdigung und Beweismaßstab. Historische und erkenntnistheoretische

Grundlagen’, in A. Bruns et al., Festschrift für Rolf Stürner. Vol. I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2013), 849–874;

Fry, E., The Contours of International Prosecutions (Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing2015);

Gallagher, K., ‘The Second Srebrenica Trial – Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic,LJIL, 18 (2005), 523–540;

Gallavin, C., ‘Article 53 of the Rome Statute of the ICC – In the Interests of Justice?’, KCLJ, 14(2003), 179–198;

Gallmetzer, R., ‘The Trial Chamber’s Discretionary Power to Devise the Proceedings before it andits Exercise in the Trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice(2009), 501–524;

66 Bibliography

Gavron, J., ‘Amnesties in the Light of Developments in International Law and the Establishment ofthe International Criminal Court’, ICLQ, 51 (2002), 91–117;

Gibson, K. and Rudy, D., ‘ANewModel of International Criminal Procedure? – The Progress of theDuch Trial at the ECCC’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 1005–1022;

Goldston, J. A., ‘More Candour about Criteria – The Exercise of Discretion by the Prosecutor of theInternational Criminal Court’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 383–406;

Goldstone, R. J. and Fritz, N., ‘In the Interests of Justice and Independent Referral – The ICCProsecutor’s Unprecedented Powers’, LJIL, 13 (2000), 655–667;

Gómez Colomer, J. L., ‘La investigación del crimen den el proceso penal ante la Corte PenalInternacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI (2003), 227–324;

Gordon, G. S., ‘Toward an International Criminal Procedure – Due Process Aspirations andLimitations’, ColJTransnat’lL, 45 (2007), 635–710;

Gropengießer, H. and Meißner, J., ‘Amnesties and the Rome Statute of the ICC’, ICLR, 5 (2005),267–300;

Guariglia, F., ‘Investigation and Prosecution’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 227–238;Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court – A New

Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Casseseet al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133;

Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 209–218;

Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the PTC in Relation to a Unique InvestigativeOpportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420;

Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 57 – Functions and Powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1421–1436;

Guarglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 65 – Proceedings on an Admission of Guilt’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1621–1634;

Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn,Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364;

Hager, G., Rechtsmethoden in Europa (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009);Hall, C. K. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 58 – Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a Warrant of Arrest

or a Summons to Appear’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1437–1457;Hall, C. K. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Article 59 – Arrest Proceedings in the Custodial State’, in Triffterer/

Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1458–1471;Harmon, M. B., ‘The Pre-trial Process at the ICTY as a Means of Ensuring Expeditious Trials –

A Potential Unrealized’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 377–393;Harmon, M., ‘Plea-Bargaining - The Uninvited Guest at the International Criminal Tribunal for the

Former Yugoslavia’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of theInternational Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2009), 163–182;

Harmon, M. B. and Gaynor, F., ‘Editor’s Choice – Ordinary Sentences for Extraordinary Crimes’,JICJ, 5 (2007), 683–712;

Hayes, N., ‘La Lutte Continue – Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Violence at the ICC’, in Stahn,Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 801–839;

Heller, K. J., ‘Will the New RPE 134 Provisions Survive Judicial Review? (Probably Not.)’, OpinioJuris, 28 November 2013 (http://opiniojuris.org/2013/11/28/will-new-rpe-134-provisions-survive-judicial-review/, accessed 26 August 2015);

Heller, K. J., ‘ “A Stick to Hit the Accused With” – The Legal Recharacterizaton of Facts underRegulation 55’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 981–1006;

Heller, K.J., ‘The Ruto Trial Chamber invents the mistrial without prejudice’, Opinio Juris, 28 April2016 (http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/08/the-icc-invents-the-possibility-of-a-mistrial/, accessed11 April 2016);

Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre-trial Proceedings – The Future of International CriminalTrials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401;

Bibliography 67

Hoffmeister, F. and Knoke, S., ‘Das Vorermittlungsverfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafger-ichtshof Prüfstein für die Effektivität der neuen Gerichtsbarkeit im Völkerstrafrecht, ZaöRV, 59(1999), 785–808;

Human Rights Watch, Policy Paper – The Meaning of the ‘Interests of Justice’ in Article 53 of theRome Statute (June 2005) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/06/01/meaning-interests-justice-article-53-rome-statute> accessed 27 August 2015;

Hunt, D., ‘The Meaning of a “Prima Facie Case” for the Purposes of Confirmation’, in May, R. et al,eds, Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence – In Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (TheHague: Kluwer International, 2001), 137–149;

ICC-OTP, Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, onopening a new Preliminary Examination in Central African Republic (7 February 2014), <http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-07–02-2014.aspx>, accessed 27 August 2015;

ICTJ, UN Guidelines Meeting, 9–10 June 2005;Jackson, J., ‘Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for International Criminal Tribunals - Beyond the

Adversarial–Inquisitorial Dichotomy’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 17–39;Jackson, J. and M’Boge, Y., ‘The Effect of Legal Culture on the Development of International

Evidentiary Practice – From the “Robing Room” to the “Melting Pot” ’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 947–970;Jacobs, D., ‘A Shifting Scale of Power – Who is in Charge of the Charges at the ICC?’, in Schabas

et al., Research Companion ICL (2013), 205–222;Jacobs, D., ‘Standard of Proof and Burden of Proof ’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal

Procedure (2013), 1128–1149;Jehle, J.-M. and Wade, M., Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems – The Rise of

Prosecutorial Power across Europe (Berlin: Springer, 2006);Jones, J. R. W. D. and Powles, S., International Criminal Practice (New York: Transnational

Publishers, 3rd edn, 2003);Jorda, C. and Saracco, M., ‘The Raison d’Être of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International

Criminal Court’, in Decaux, E., Dieng, A., and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to InternationalCriminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama (Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 419–435;

Jørgensen, N. H. B., and Zahar, A., ‘Deliberation, Dissent, Judgment’, in Sluiter et al., InternationalCriminal Procedure (2013), 1151–1201;

Juy-Birmann, R., ‘The German System’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Pro-cedures (2002), 292–347;

Karnavas, M. G., ‘Gathering Evidence in International Criminal Trials – The View of a DefenceLawyer’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 75–152;

Karnavas, M. G., ‘The New RPE 134 Provisions – Cowardly Capitulation or Pragmatic Resolution?’,12 December 2013, <http://michaelgkarnavas.net/blog/2013/12/12/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution/>, accessed 27 August 2015;

Keïta, X. J. et al., ‘Article 67 – Droits de l’accusé’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1497–1543;

Kersten, M., ‘A missed trial or a mistrial? The end of the ICC cases against Ruto and Sang’, 7 April2016 (https://justiceinconflict.org/2016/04/07/a-missed-trial-or-a-mistrial-the-end-of-the-icc-cases-against-ruto-and-sang/, accessed 11 April 2016);

Khan, K. A. A., ‘Article 60 – Initial Proceedings before the Court’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1472–1483;

Kirsch, S., ‘Tätigkeit vor internationalen Strafgerichtshöfen’, in Ahlbrecht et al., InternationalesStrafrecht (2008), 423–558;

Kirsch, S., ‘ “Aufgedrängte” Verteidigung’, in Weigend, T., Walther, S. and Grunewald, B., eds,Strafverteidigung vor neuen Herausforderungen – Denkanstöße aus sieben Rechtsordnungen(Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2008), 85–102;

Klann, H. B., ‘Vagueness of Indictment – Rules to Safeguard the Rights of the Accused’, in Decaux,E., Dieng, A., and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in

68 Bibliography

Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007), 109–124;

Klinkner, M., ‘Is All Fair in Love and War Crimes Trials? Regulation 55 and the Katanga Case’,ICLR, 15 (2015), 396–410;

Kramer, E. A., Juristische Methodenlehre (München, Wien, Bern: C.H. Beck, Manz, Stämpfli, 2013);Kreß, C., ‘Witnesses in Proceedings before the ICC – An Analysis from a Perspective of Compara-

tive Criminal Procedure’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 309–383;Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a

Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617;Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/

Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1;Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum Internatonalen Strafgericht-

shof ’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259;Kwon, O., ‘Editor’s Choice – The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the

Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 360–376;Langbein, J., ‘Land without Plea Bargaining –How the Germans do it’,MichLR, 78 (1979), 204–225;Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in ICL’, AJCompL, 53 (2005), 835–909;Langer, M., and Doherty, J. W., ‘Managerial Judging Goes International, but its Promise Remains

Unfulfilled – An Empirical Assessment of the ICTY Reforms’, YaleJIL, 36 (2011), 241–305;Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: The

Interplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International CriminalLaw’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314;

Lewis, P., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC – Confirmation Hearing to Trial’, inFischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 219–234;

Lewis, P., ‘Trial Procedure’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 539–553;Lindenmann, J., ‘Stärkung der Effizienz der Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’,

ZIS, 10 (2015), 529–531;Linderfalk, U., On the Interpretation of Treaties (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007);Linton, S., ‘Joinder and Severance’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 491–533;Llobet Rodríguez, J., Die Unschuldsvermutung und die materiellen Voraussetzungen der Untersu-

chungshaft – Ein Beitrag zur Strafprozeßreform in Lateinamerika (Freiburg im Breisgau: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, 1995);

Llobet Rodríguez, J., La prisión preventiva – Límites constitucionales (San José: Editorial JurídicaContinental, 2010, 3rd edn, 2010);

Lorenz, S., ‘Die Beweisaufnahme in Internationalen Strafgerichten’, in Kühne, Esser, and Gerding,Völkerstrafrecht (2007), 319–340;

Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en œvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Courpénale internationale’, in Kolb, Droit international pénal (2008), 267–309;

Mochochoko, P., ‘The Experience of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda Concerning Arrest Strategies and Lessons Learnt for the Office of theProsecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh and Marong, Promoting Accountability(2015), 71–89;

Maffei, S., ‘Negotiations “on Evidence” and Negotiations “on Sentence” – Adversarial Experimentsin Italian Criminal Procedure’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 1050–1069;

Majola, B. C., ‘Cumulative Charges under International Criminal Law’, in Jalloh and Marong,Promoting Accountability (2015), 201–221;

Manirabona, A., M., and Wemmers, J.-A., ‘Specific Reparation for Specific Victimization – A Casefor Suitable Reparation Strategies for War Crimes Victims in the DRC’, ICLR, 13 (2013),977–1012;

Marchesiello, M., ‘Proceedings Before the Pre-Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii(2002), 1231–1246;

Mariniello, T., ‘Questioning the Standard of Proof – The Purpose of the ICC Confirmation ofCharges’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 579–599;

Bibliography 69

Marsh, I., Criminal Justice – An Introduction to Philosophies, Theories and Practice (London, NewYork: Routledge, 2004);

Mathias, E., ‘The Balance of Power between the Police and the Public Prosecutor’, in Delmas-Martyand Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002), 459–487;

May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Trends in International Criminal Evidence – Nuremberg, Tokyo, TheHague, and Arusha’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37 (1999), 725–765;

McCarthy, C., ‘Victim Redress and International Criminal Justice – Competing Paradigms, orCompatible Forms of Justice?’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 351–372;

Meernik, J., ‘What Kind of Bargain is a Plea?’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 200–217;Mégret, F., ‘Beyond “Fairness” – Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal

Procedure’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 69–76;Mégret, F., ‘What Sort of Global Justice is ‘International Criminal Justice?’, JICJ, 13 (2015),

77–96;Mégret, F., ‘The Anxieties of International Criminal Justice’, LJIL, 29 (2016), 197–221;Meyer, F., ‘Complementing Complementarity’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 549–583;Miraglia, M., ‘Admissibility of Evidence, Standard of Proof, and Nature of the Decision in the ICC

Confirmation of Charges in Lubanga’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 489–503;Mouthaan, S., ‘The Prosecution of Gender-based Crimes at the ICC – Challenges and Opportun-

ities’, ICLR, 11 (2011), 775–802;Möller, C., ‘Das Vorverfahren im Strafprozess vor dem Internationalen Straftribunal für das

ehemalige Jugoslawien’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 19–52;Nemitz, J. C., ‘Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts’, in

Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 53–73;Nerlich, V., ‘The Confirmation of Charges Procedure at the International Criminal Court –

Advance or Failure?’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 1339–1356;Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion before National Courts and International Tribu-

nals’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 124–144;Nyawo, J., ‘International Justice in Africa – Recent Developments at the Assembly of States Parties

(ASP), African Union (AU) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)’, NewsletterSupraCrim, 8 (2013), 7–8 (<http://www.supranationalcriminology.org/Vol.%20%208-2%20(2013).pdf>, accessed 27 August 2015);

OHCHR, Human Rights in the Administration of Justice – A Manual on Human Rights for Judges,Prosecutors and Lawyers (Geneva, New York: UN, 2003);

Ohlin, J. D., ‘Peace, Security, and Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice(2009), 185–208;

Olásolo, H., Corte Penal Internacional ¿donde investigar? – Especial referencia a la Fiscalia en elproceso de activacion (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2003);

Olásolo, H., ‘The Prosecutor of the ICC before the Initiation of Investigations – A Quasi-Judicial ora Political Body?’, ICLR, 3 (2003), 87–150;

Olásolo, H., ‘The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatmentof the Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of Office of the Prosecutor’, ICLR, 5 (2005),121–146;

Orie, A., ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings – Prior tothe Establishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings before the ICC’, in Cassese et al., RomeStatute, ii (2002), 1439–1495;

Othman, M. C., Accountability for International Humanitarian Law Violations – The Case ofRwanda and East Timor (Berlin: Springer, 2005);

Öberg, M. D., ‘Processing Evidence and Drafting Judgments in International Criminal TrialChambers’, CLF, 24 (2013), 113–144;

Orlandi, R., ‘Die preventive Wirkung strafverfahrensrechtlicher Zwangsmaßnahmen – ItalienischeErfahrungen im Vergleich mit dem deutschen Recht’, ZStW, 127 (2015), 459–473;

Pittmann, T. W., ‘Making a Case for Binding Plea Agreements at the ICTY’, HuV-I, 20 (2007),155–159;

70 Bibliography

Planchadell Gargallo, A., ‘El Fiscal ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., CPI(2003), 163–188;

Quattrocolo, S., ‘La fase preliminare al giudizio davanti alla C.P.I. – I soggetti coinvolti e ilmeccanismo di esercizio dell’azione penale’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemiattuali (2005), 275–322;

Ramsden, M. and Chung, C., ‘ “Reasonable Grounds to Believe” – An Unreasonably UnclearEvidentiary Threshold in the ICC Statute’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 555–577;

Rastan, R., ‘Testing Co-operation – The International Criminal Court and National Authorities’,LJIL, 21 (2008), 431–456;

Rastan, R., ‘The Jurisdictional Scope of Situations before the International Criminal Court’, CLF, 23(2012), 1–34;

Rauxloh, R. E., ‘Negotiated History – The Historical Record in International Criminal Law and PleaBargaining’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 739–770;

Razesberger, F., The International Criminal Court – The Principle of Complementarity (Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006);

Reisert, G., ‘Der Beginn der Ermittlungen am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, StV, 25 (2005),637–639;

Roberts, P., ‘The priority of procedure and the neglect of evidence and proof ’, JICJ, 13 (2015),479–506;

Robinson, D., ‘Serving the Interests of Justice – Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the Inter-national Criminal Court’, EJIL, 14 (2003), 481–505;

Robinson, D., ‘Comments on Chapter 4 of Claudia Cárdenas Aravena’, in Kleffner, J. K. and Kor,G., eds, Complementary Views on Complementarity – Proceedings of the International Round-table on the Complementary Nature of the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam 25/26 June2004 (The Hague: Asser Press, 2006), 141–146;

Robinson, D., ‘Inescapable Dyads – Why the ICC Cannot Win’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 323–347;Rodman, K., ‘Is Peace in the Interest of Justice? The Case for Broad Prosecutorial Discretion at the

International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 99–126;Guariglia, F. and Rogier, E., ‘The Selection of Situations and Cases by the OTP of the ICC’, in Stahn,

Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 350–364;Rohrer, S., Legalitäts- oder Opportunitätsprinzip beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Köln:

Heymann, 2010);SáCouto, S. and Cleary Thompson, K., ‘Investigative Management, Strategies, and Techniques of

the ICC’s OTP’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 328–349;Sadat, L. N. and Carden, S. R., ‘The New International Criminal Court – An Uneasy Revolution’,

GeoLJ, 88 (2000), 381–459;Safferling, C. J. M., and Hartwig, A., ‘Das Recht zu schweigen und seine Konsequenzen –

Entwicklung in nationalen und internationalen Strafverfahren’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 784–794;Safferling, C. J. M., ‘The Rights and Interests of the Defence in the Pre-Trial Phase’, JICJ, 9 (2011),

651–667;Sainati, T. E., ‘Divided We Fall: How the International Criminal Court Can Promote Compliance

with International Law by Working with Regional Courts’, VanderbiltJTL, 49 (2016), 191–243;Schabas, W. A., ‘Complementarity in Practice – Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’, CLF, 19

(2008), 5–33;Schabas, W. A., ‘Victor’s Justice – Selecting “Situations” at the International Criminal Court’,

JMarshallLR, 43 (2010), 535–552;Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Situations and Cases’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),

365–381;Schabas, W. A., ‘Selecting Cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, in Jalloh and

Marong, Promoting Accountability (2015), 58–70;Schabas, W.A., ‘The mistrial, an innovation in international criminal law’, 8 April 2016, (http://

humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-mistrial-innovation-in.html, accessed 10April 2016);

Bibliography 71

Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos,ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649;

Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1650–1680;

Schabas, W. A., Chaitidou, E. and El Zeidy, M., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the Charges beforeTrial’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1484–1549;

Scharf, M., ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’,CornILJ, 32 (1999), 507–527;

Scharf, M. P., ‘Trading Justice for Efficiency – Plea-Bargaining and International Tribunals’, JICJ, 2(2004), 1070–1081;

Scheffer, D., ‘A Review of the Experiences of the Pre-Trial and Appeals Chambers of the Inter-national Criminal Court Regarding the Disclosure of Evidence’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 151–164;

Schehr, R., ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes: Intellectual Dishonesty and the Unconstitutionality ofPlea-Bargaining’, Tex. A&M L. R., 2 (2015), 385–432;

Seibert-Fohr, A., ‘The Relevance of the Rome Statute of the ICC for Amnesties and TruthCommissions’, MPYbUNL, 7 (2003), 553–590;

Seils, P. and Wierda, M., The International Criminal Court and Conflict Mediation (New York:International Center for Transitional Justice, 2005);

Sluiter, G., ‘The Laws of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Criminal Trials’,ICLR, 6 (2006), 605–635;

Sluiter, G., ‘Human Rights Protection in the ICC Pre-Trial Phase’, in Stahn and Sluiter, EmergingPractice (2009), 459–475;

Sluiter, G., ‘Trends in the Development of a Unified Law of International Criminal Procedure’, inStahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 585–599;

Spencer, J. R., ‘Introduction’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures (2002),1–75;

Spencer, J. R., ‘The English System’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures(2002), 142–217;

Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice – Some InterpretativeGuidelines for the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 3 (2005), 695–720;

Stahn, C., ‘Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System – A Portrayal ofRegulation 55’, CLF, 16 (2005), 1–31;

Stahn, C., ‘Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion – Five Years on’, in Stahn and Sluiter,Emerging Practice (2009), 247–279;

Stahn, C., ‘Justice Delivered or Justice Denied? – The Legacy of the Katanga Judgment’, JICJ, 12(2014), 809–834;

Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1963–1983;

Staker, C. and Jacobs, D., ‘Article 52 – Regulations of the Court’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1356–1368;

Stegmiller, I., ‘The ICC and Mali – Towards more Transparency in International Criminal LawInvestigations’, CLF, 24 (2013), 475–499;

Stegmiller, I., ‘Confirmation of Charges’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 891–908;Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Cumulative Charges and Cumulative Convictions’, in Stahn, Law and Practice

of the ICC (2015), 840–858;Swart, B., ‘Damaška and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114;Tallgren, I., ‘The Voice of the International – Who is Speaking?’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 135–155;Terrier, F., ‘The Procedure before the Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),

1277–1318;Terrill, R. J., World Criminal Justice Systems – A Comparative Survey (New Providence, NJ:

Matthew Bender & Company, 7th edn 2009);Thalmann, V., ‘The Role of the Judge and the Parties in Pre-Trial Proceedings’, in Kolb and Scalia,

Droit international pénal (2012), 455–481;

72 Bibliography

Tieger, A. and Shin, M., ‘Plea Agreements in the ICTY – Purpose, Effects and Propriety’, JICJ, 3(2005), 666–679;

Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’,ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591;

Tochilovsky, V., ‘International Criminal Justice – Strangers in the Foreign System’, CLF, 15 (2004),319–344;

Trendafilova, E., ‘Fairness and Expeditiousness in the International Criminal Court’s Pre-TrialProceedings’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 441–457;

Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1820–1845;

Trüg, G., ‘Erkenntnisse aus der Untersuchung des US-amerikanischen plea bargaining-Systems fürden deutschen Absprachendiskurs’, ZStW, 120 (2008), 331–374;

Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu eineropferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85;

Tuinstra, J. T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press,2009);

Tulkens, F., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, European Criminal Procedures(2002), 641–687;

Turner, J. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure(2013), 1375–1413;

Turone, G., ‘Powers and Duties of the Prosecutor’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),1137–1180;

Uertz-Retzlaff, H., ‘Zwanzig Jahre in Den Haag – Erfahrungen einer Staatsanwältin’, ZIS, 10 (2015),532–536;

Valiñas, M., ‘Interpreting Complementarity and Interests of Justice in the Presence of Restorative-based Alternative Forms of Justice’, in Stahn and van den Herik, Future Perspectives (2010),267–288;

van der Voort, K. and Zwanenburg, M., ‘From ‘Raison d’État’ to ‘État de Droit International’ –Amnesties and the French Implementation of the Rome Statute’, ICLR, 1 (2001), 315–342;

van Heeck, S., Die Weiterentwicklung des formellen Völkerstrafrechts – Von den ad hoc Tribunalender Vereinten Nationen zum ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof unter besonderer Ber-ücksichtigung des Ermittlungsverfahrens (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006);

van Kessel, G., ‘Adversary Excesses in the American Trial’, NotreDameLR, 67 (1991–1992),403–551;

Vasiliev, S., ‘Trial’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, International Prosecutors (2012), 700–796;Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),

543–682;Vinjamuri, L., ‘The ICC and the Politics of Peace and Justice’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC

(2015), 13–29;Vohrah, L. C., ‘Pre-Trial Procedures and Practices’, in McDonald and Swaak-Goldman, Substantive

and Procedural Aspects (2000), 485–545;Wasef, M., ‘Procedural Rules in International Litigation – Admissibility of Transcript of Interview

of Accused against Co-accused’, CLF, 20 (2009), 447–469;WCRO, Regulation 55 and the Rights of the Accused at the ICC (Washington D. C.: American

University, 2013) https://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/Report17.pdfaccessed 27 August 2015;

WCRO, The Confirmation of Charges Process at the International Criminal Court – A CriticalAssessment and Recommendations for Change (Washington D. C.: American University, 2015)https://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/TheConfirmationofChargesProcessattheInternationalCriminalCourt-ACriticalAssessmentandRecomme.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016;

Weigend, T. and Turner, J., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’,GermanLJ, 15 (2014), 81–105;

Bibliography 73

Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Office of theProsecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability’, ICLR, 8 (2008), 273–318;

Wouters, J., Verhoeven, S. and Demeyere, B., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Office of theProsecutor – Navigating between Independence and Accountability?’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P.and Bassiouni M. C., The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour ofProfessor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 345–386;

Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang, 2007);

Whiting, A, ‘Dynamic Investigative Practice at the ICC’, LCP, 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 163–189;Zakerhossein, M. H. and de Brouwer, A.-M., ‘Diverse Approaches to Total and Partial in Absentia

Trials by International Criminal Tribunals’, CLF, 26 (2015), 181–224;Zappalà, S., ‘Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint in International Criminal Justice’, in Cassese,

Companion (2009), 216–223;Zawati, H. M., Fair Labelling and the Dilemma of Prosecuting Gender-Based Crimes at the

International Criminal Tribunals (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

CHAPTER 5

Abrahamson, W., Dwyer, J. B. and Fitzpatrick, A., Discovery and Disclosure (Dublin: ThomsonReuters, 2nd edn, 2013)

Acquaviva, G. and Heikkilä, M., ‘Protective and Special Measures for Witnesses’, in Sluiter, et al.,International Criminal Procedure (2013), 818–859

Acquaviva, G. et al., ‘Trial Process’, in Sluiter, G. et al., eds., International Criminal Procedure- Rulesand Principles (2013), 489–878

AIDP, ‘Resolutionen des XIX. Internationalen Strafrechtskongresses der AIDP 2014’, ZStW, 127(2015), 479–495

Alexis, A., ‘The Convergence of the Common Law and Inquisitorial Systems’, in Decaux, E., Dieng,A. and Sow, M., eds., From Human Rights to International Criminal Law – Studies in Honour ofan African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), 461–481

Ambach, P., ‘A Look towards the Future – The ICC and “Lessons Learnt” ’, in Stahn, Law andPractice of the ICC (2015), 1277–1295

Ambos, K., ‘The Right of Non-Self-Incrimination of Witnesses before the ICC’, LJIL, 15 (2002),155–177

Ambos, K., ‘Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und die Verfahrensrechte – Waf-fengleichheit, partizipatorisches Vorverfahren und Art.6 EMRK’, ZStW, 115 (2003), 583–637

Ambos, K., ‘International Criminal Procedure – “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’, ICLR, 3(2003), 1–37

Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure – Adversarial, Inquisitorial orMixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–504

Ambos, K. and Miller, D., ‘Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICCfrom a Comparative Perspective’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 335–360

Ambos, K., ‘The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence’, IsLR, 42 (2009), 362–397Ambos, K., ’Confidential Investigations (Article 54(3)(E) ICC Statute) v. Disclosure Obligations:

The Lubanga Case and National Law’, NCLR, 12 (2009), 543–568Ambos, K., ‘ “Witness Proofing” before the ICC – Neither Legally Admissible nor Necessary’, in

Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 599–614Ambos, K., Beweisverwertungsverbote – Grundlagen und Kasuistik – Internationale Bezüge –

Ausgewählte Probleme (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2010)Ambos, K., ‘The First Confirmation Decision of the International Criminal Court – Prosecutor v

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Kotsalis, L., Courakis, N. and Mylonopoulos, C., eds, Essays inHonour of Argyrios Karras (Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2010), 979–1003

Ambos, K., ‘Witness Proofing’ before the International Criminal Court – A Reply to Karemaker,Taylor, and Pittman’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 911–916

74 Bibliography

Ambos, K., ‘International Courts and Their Judges – Reviewing R. Mackenzie/K. Malleson/P. Martin/P. Sands, Selecting International Judges – Principle, Process and Politics’, CLF 23(2012), 223–228

Ambos, K., ‘The First Judgment of the ICC (Prosecutor v Lubanga) – A Comprehensive Analysis ofthe Legal Issues’, ICLR, 12 (2012), 115–153

Ambos, K., ‘Das erste Urteil des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Prosecutor v. Lubanga)’, ZIS, 7(2012), 313–337

Ambos, K., ‘Thematic Investigations and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes – Some CriticalComments from a Theoretical and Comparative Perspective’, in Bergsmo, M., ed, ThematicProsecution of International Sex Crimes (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012),291–315

Ambos, K., ‘Karadzic’s Genocidal Intent as the “Only Reasonable Inference”?’, EJIL: Talk, 1 April2016, available at <http://www.ejiltalk.org/karadzics-genocidal-intent-as-the-only-reasonable-inference/>, last visited 14 April 2016

Anderson, T., Schum, D., and Twining, W., Analysis of Evidence (Cambridge et al., CambridgeUniversity Press, 2nd ed 2005)

Anderson, T. and Twining, W., ‘Evidential reasoning in the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda: A case study of Tharcisse Muvunyi’, CLF, 26 (2015), 373–385

Armenta Deu, T., Lecciones de derecho procesal penal (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 7th edn, 2013)Bachmaier Winter, L., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im spanischen Strafverfahren’, ZStW, 126

(2014), 194–213Badar, M. E. and Karsten, N., ‘Current Developments at the International Criminal Tribunals’,

ICLR, 7 (2007), 163–186Behrens, H.-J., ‘The Trial Proceedings’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 238–246Bekou, O. and Bergsmo, M., ‘The In-Depth Evidence Analysis Chart at the International Crimes

Court’, in Bergsmo, M., ed., Active Complementarity: Legal Information Transfer (Oslo: TorkelOpsahl Academic EPublisher 2011), 313–347

Bergsmo, M., Kruger, P. and Bekou, O., ‘Article 54 – Duties and powers of the Prosecutor withrespect to investigations’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1381–1393

Bibas, S. and Burke-White, W. W., ‘International Idealism Meets Domestic-Criminal-ProcedureRealism’, DukeLJ, 59 (2010), 637–704

Billis, E., Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Berlin:Duncker & Humblot 2015)

Bilsky, L., ‘The Eichmann Trial – Towards a Jurisprudence of Eyewitness Testimony of Atrocities’,JICJ, 12 (2014), 27–57

Bitti, G., ‘Article 64 – Functions and Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1588–1620;

Bock, S., Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009)Bock, S., ‘Commentary (Witnesses)’, in Klip, A. and Sluiter, G. K., eds, Annotated Leading Cases of

International Criminal Tribunals – The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugo-slavia 2006–2007, XXXIII (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2013), 86–95

Bohlander, M., ‚’Evidence before the International Criminal Court – Basic Principles’, ERA Forum,4 (2005), 543–554

Bohlander, M., ‘Article 36 – Qualifications, Nomination and Election of Judges’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1216–1225

Bonomy, I., ‘The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial’, JICJ, 5 (2007) 348–359Brady, H. J., ‘Disclosure of Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 403Brady, H. J., ‘Setting the Record Straight – A Short Note on Disclosure and ‘The Record of

Proceedings’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 261–272Broomhall, B., ‘Article 51 – Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen-

tary (2016), 1332–1351Brandl, S. G., Criminal Investigations (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 3rd edn., 2014)

Bibliography 75

Brown, D. K., ‘The Decline of Defense Counsel and the Rise of Accuracy in Criminal Adjudication’,CalLR, 93 (2005), 1585–1646

Broun, K. S, McCormick on Evidence (St. Paul: West Academic, 7th edn, 2014)Burkoff, J. M., ‘Exclusionary Rules’, in Kadish, S. H., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, ii (New

York: Free Press, MacMillan, 1983), 715–724Byrne, R., ‘Drawing the Missing Map – What Socio-Legal Research Can Offer to International

Criminal Trial Practice’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 991–1007Caianiello, M., ‘Indeterminatezza delle fattispecie e ruolo creativo del giudice in tema di ammis-

sione ed acquisizione della prova nel processo penale davanti alla Corte penale internazionale’, inDelmas-Marty, M., Fronza, E. and Lambert-Abdelgawad, É., eds, Les sources du droit inter-national pénal – L’expérience des Tribunaux Pénaux Internationaux et le Statut de la Cour PénaleInternationale (Paris: Société de Législation Comparée, 2004), 339–352

Caianiello, M., ‘Disclosure before the ICC: The Emergence of a new Form of Policies Implemen-tation System in International Criminal Justice?’, ICLR, 10 (2010), 23–42

Caianiello, M., ‘First Decisions on Admission of Evidence at ICC Trials – A Blending of Accusa-torial and Inquisitorial Models?’, JICJ, 9 (2011), 385–410

Capra, D. J., ‘Access to Exculpatory Evidence – Avoiding the Agurs Problems of ProsecutorialDiscretion and Retrospective Review’, FordhamLR, 53 (1984–1985), 391–448

Combs, N. A., Fact-Finding without Facts – The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of InternationalCriminal Convictions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Combs, N. A., ‘Evidence’, in Schabas and Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 323–334Combs, N. A., ‘Control over the Sequence of Case Presentation’, in Sluiter et al., International

Criminal Procedure (2013), 734–743Combs, N. A., ‘Fact-Finding Powers’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),

698–733Combs, N. A., ‘A new look at fact-finding at the ICTR: Advances in judicial acknowledgement’,

CLF, 26 (2015), 387–401Creta, V. M., ‘Search for Justice in the Former Yugoslavia and Beyond: Analyzing the Rights of the

Accused under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Hous. J. Int’l L., 20 (1998), 381–418

Croquet, N., ‘Implied External Limitations on the Right to Cross-Examine Prosecution Witnesses’,Melbourne JIL, 11 (2010), 27–67

Cryer, R., ‘Witness Tampering and International Criminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 27 (2014), 191–203Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice (New Haven: YUP 1986)Damaška, M. R., ‘The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants – Anglo-American and Contin-

ental Experiments’, AJCL, 45 (1997), 839–852Damaška, M. R., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice’, ChicKentLR, 83 (2008),

329–368Damaška, M. R., ‘Problematic Features of International Criminal Procedures’, in Cassese, Com-

panion (2009), 175–186Damaška, M. R., ‘Reflections on Fairness in International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 10 (2012),

611–620de Brouwer, A.-M., ‘The Problem of Witness Interference before International Criminal Tribunals’,

ICLR, 15 (2015), 700–732De Smet, S., ‘A Structural Analysis of the Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Factfinding Process

of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 405–440De Smet, S., ‘The International Criminal Standard of Proof at the ICC – Beyond Reasonable Doubt

or Beyond Reason?’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 861–890Defrancia, C., ‘Due Process in International Criminal Courts – Why Procedure Matters’, Virgi-

niaLRev, 87 (2001), 1381–1440De Guzman, M. M., ‘Article 21 – Applicable law’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),

932–948

76 Bibliography

Del Carpio, J., ‘Los testigos anónimos en la jurisprudencia des Tribunal Europeo de DerechosHumanos y en la de los Tribunales Penales Internationales ad-hoc’, RP, 19 (2007), 35–51

Dennis, I. H., ‘Witness anonymity in the criminal process’, in Chalmers, J. et al., eds., Essays inCriminal Law in Honour of Sir Gerald Gordon (2010), 241–263

Dennis, I. H., The Law of Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 2010)De Vos, C. M., ‘Investigating from afar – The ICC’s Evidence Problem’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 1009–1024Dixon, R., ‘Developing International Rules of Evidence for the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals’,

Transnat’lLCP, 7 (1997), 81–102Doherty, J. T. A., ‘Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals – Contrast between Domestic and

International Trials’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 937–945Donat-Cattin, D., ‘Article 68 – Protection of victims and witnesses and their participation in the

proceedings’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1681–1711Dubuisson, M., Betrand, A.-A. and Schauder, N., ‘Contribution of the Registry to Greater Respect

for the Principles of Fairness and Expeditious Proceedings before the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter,Emerging Practice (2009), 565–584

Emson, R., Evidence, 5th ed (New York et al.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)Ernst, A., The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence (Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2015)Eser, A., ‘Vorzugswürdigkeit des adversatorischen Prozesssystems in der internationalen Strafjus-

tiz? Reflektion eines Richters’, in Müller-Dietz, H. et al., eds, Festschrift für Heike Jung – Zum 65.Geburtstag am 23. April 2007 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 167–187

Eser, A., ‘The “Adversarial” Procedure – A Model Superior to Other Trial Systems in InternationalCriminal Justice?’, in Kruessmann, T., ed, ICTY – Towards a Fair Trial? (Mortsel, Wien.:Intersentia, Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2008), 207–227

Fairlie, M., ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and its Progeny, DueProcess Deficit’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 243–319

Fedorova, M., The Principle of Equality of Arms in International Criminal Proceedings (Cambridge,Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia 2012)

Fernández, S. and Friman, H., ‘The Rules of Procedure and the Regulations of the Court’, in Doria,J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court –Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009),797–824

Fidalgo Gallardo, C., Las ‘pruebas ilegales’ – De la exclusionary rule estadounidense al artículo11.1LOPJ (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2003)

Freedman, M. H., ‘Our Constitutionalized Adversary System’, ChapmanLR, 1 (1998), 57–90Friman, H., ‘International Criminal Procedures – Trial and Appeal Procedures’, in Schabas and

Bernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 271–288Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481Friman, H., ‘Trial Procedures – With a Particular Focus on the Relationship between the Proceed-

ings of the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 909–931Frisch, W., ‘Freie Beweiswürdigung und Beweismaßstab – Historische und erkenntnistheoretische

Grundlagen’, in Bruns, A. et al., eds, Festschrift für Rolf Stürner zum 70. Geburtstag, i: DeutschesRecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 849–874

Gallmetzer, R., ‘The TC’s Discretionary Power to Devise the Proceedings before It and Its Exercisein the Trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in Stahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 501–524

Gaynor, F., ‘Admissibility of Documentary Evidence’, in Sluiter et al., International CriminalProcedure (2013), 1044–1083

Gaynor, F., ‘Judicial Notice and Agreed Facts’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure(2013), 1107–1128

Gibson, K. and Rudy, D., ‘ANewModel of International Criminal Procedure? – The Progress of theDuch Trial at the ECCC’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 1005–1022

Gibson, B. and Cavadino, P., The Criminal Justice System (Hampshire: Waterside Press, 3rd ed 2008)

Bibliography 77

Gleß, S. Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung (Baden-Baden:Nomos, 2006)

Glover, R., Murphy on Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13th edn, 2013)Gómez Colomer, J. L. and Beltrán, A., ‘La regulación de la prueba en el proceso penal ante la CPI‘,

in Gómez Colomer, J. L. et al., La CPI (2002), 325–350Goodpaster, G., ‘On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial’, JCL&Crim, 78

(1987–1988), 118–154Groenhuijsen, M. S. and Selçuk, H., ‘The Principle of Immediacy in Dutch Criminal Procedure in

the Perspective of European Human Rights Law’, ZStW, 126 (2014), 248–276Guariglia, F., ‘The Admission of Documentary Evidence and of Alternative Means to Witness

Testimony etc.’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 665–680Guariglia, F., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court: A New

Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Casseseet al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1111–1133

Guariglia, F. and Hochmayr, G., ‘Article 56 – Role of the PTC in Relation to a Unique InvestigativeOpportunity’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1411–1420

Harmon, M. B. and Karagiannakis, M., ‘The Disclosure of Exculpatory Material by the Prosecutionto the Defence under Rule 68 of the ICTY Rules‘, in May, R., et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedureand Evidence (2001), 315–328

Harmon, M. B., ‘The Pre-Trial Process at the ICTY as a Means of Ensuring Expeditious Trials –A Potential Unrealized’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 377–393

Haslam, E. and Edmunds, R., ‘Managing a New “Partnership”‘, CLF, 24 (2013), 49–85Heinsch, R., ‘How to Achieve Fair and Expeditious Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, in Stahn and

Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 479–500Heinze, A., ‘Tor zu einer anderen Welt. Die systematische Auslegungsmethode im internationalen

Strafprozessrecht’, in Bock, S., Harrendorf, S. and Ladiges, M., eds., Strafrecht als interdisziplinäreWissenschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2015), 193–214

Henham, R., ‘Towards Restorative Sentencing in International Criminal Trials’, ICLR, 9 (2009),809–832

Higgins, G., ‘Fair and Expeditious Pre-trial Proceedings: The Future of International CriminalTrials’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 394–401

Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und CivilLaw (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005)

ICRC, ‘The ICRC’s privilege of non-disclosure of confidential information’, IRRC, 97 (2015),433–444

Jackson, J., ‘Faces of Transnational Justice – Two Attempts to Build Common Standards BeyondNational Boundaries’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P., eds, Crime, Procedure andEvidence in a Comparative and International Context – Essays in Honour of Professor MirjanDamaška (Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2008), 221–250

Jackson, J., ‘Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for the International Criminal Tribunals – Beyond theAdversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 17–39

Jackson, J. and Brunger, Y. M., ‘Witness Preparation in the ICC’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 601–624Jackson, J. and M’Boge, Y., ‘The Effect of Legal Culture on the Development of International

Evidentiary Practice – From the “Robing Room” to the “Melting Pot” ’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 947–970Jacobs, D., ‘Standard of Proof and Burden of Proof ’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal

Procedure (2013), 1128–1149Jalloh, C. C. and DiBella, A., ‘Equality of Arms in International Criminal Law: Continuing

Challenges‘, in Schabas, W., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N., eds., ICL: Critical Perspectives(2013), 251–288

James, G. F., ‘Relevancy, Probability and the Law’, CalLR, 29 (1941), 689–705Johnson, L. D., ‘The Lubanga Case and Cooperation between the UN and the ICC – Disclosure

Obligation v. Confidentiality Obligation’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 887–904Jones, J.R.W.D. and Powles, S., International Criminal Practice (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2003)

78 Bibliography

Jordash, W., ‘The Practice of “Witness Proofing” in International Criminal Tribunals – Why theInternational Criminal Court Should Prohibit the Practice’, LJIL, 22 (2009), 501–523

Karemaker, R., Taylor, B. D. and Pittman, T. W., ‘Witness Proofing in International CriminalTribunals – A Critical Analysis of Widening Procedural Divergence’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 683–698

Karemaker, R., Taylor, B. D. and Pittman, T. W., ‘Witness Proofing in International CriminalTribunals: Response to Ambos’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 917–923

Katzman, R., ‘The Non-Disclosure of Confidential Exculpatory Evidence and the Lubanga Pro-ceedings: How the ICC Defense System Affects the Accused’s Right to a Fair Trial’, NWUJIHR, 8(2009), 77–101

Keen, P. C., ‘Tempered Adversariality – The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the InternationalCriminal Tribunals’, LJIL, 17 (2004), 767–814

Keita, X.-J. et al., ‘Article 67 – Droits de l’accusé’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1497–1543

Khan, K. A. A. and Buisman, C., ‘Sitting on Evidence? Systemic Failings in the ICC DisclosureRegime – Time for Reform’, in Stahn, ed., Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 1029–1062

Kirsch, S., ‘Verteidigung in Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemaligeJugoslawien’, StV, 23 (2003), 636–640

Kirsch, S., ‘The Trial Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 6 (2006), 275–292Klamberg, M., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, accessed at https://

www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome-statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-6/#c2147

Klamberg, M., ‘General Requirements for the Admission of Evidence’, in Sluiter et al., InternationalCriminal Procedure (2013), 1016–1043

Klamberg, ‘The Alternative Hypothesis Approach, Robustness and International Criminal Justice’,JICJ, 13 (2015), 535–553

Klip, A., ‘Confidentiality Restrictions’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 645–660Kochhar, S. and Hieramente, M., ‘Of Fallen Demons: Reflections on the International Criminal

Court’s Defendant’, LJIL, 29 (2016), 223–44Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a

Unique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum IStGH’, in Kirsch, Inter-

nationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–260Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Article 93 – Other forms of cooperation’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 2078–2102Kurth, M. E., ‘Anonymous witnesses before the ICC‘, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G., The Emerging

Practice of the ICC (2009), 615–634Kuschnik, B., ‘International Criminal Due Process in the Making: New Tendencies in the Law of

Non-Disclosure in the Proceedings before the ICC’, ICLR, 9 (2009), 157–185Kwon, O.-G, ‘Editor’s Choice – The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the

Bench’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 360–376Lachowska, A., ‘The Support Work of the Court’s Registry’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni

M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court – Essays in Honour of ProfessorIgor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 387–400

Langer, M., ‘El Sistema del Tribunal Gerencial en el Tribunal Penal Internacional para la ex-Yugoslavia’, in Baigún, D. et al., eds, Estudios sobre la Justicia Penal – Homenaje al Profesor JulioB. J. Maier (Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2005), 671–698

Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, AJCompL, 53 (2005),835–910

Langer, M., and Doherty, J. W., ‘Managerial Judging Goes International, but Its Promise RemainsUnfulfilled – An Empirical Assessment of the ICTY Reforms’, YaleJIL, 36 (2011), 241–305

Leblois-Happe, J., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im französischen Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 126(2014), 185–193

Leigh, M., ‘Editorial Comments’, AJIL, 91 (1997), 60–84

Bibliography 79

Levi, R., Hagan, J. and Dezalay, S., ‘International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: TheInterplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International CriminalLaw’, LCP, 79 (2016), 289–314

Lewis, P., ‘Trial Procedure’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 539–554Lindenmann, J., ‘Stärkung der Effizienz der Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’,

ZIS, 10 (2015), 529–531Linton, S., ‘Testimony of Expert Witnesses, Journalists, ICRC, and UN staff ’, in Sluiter et al.,

International Criminal Procedure (2013), 878–938Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en oeuvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Cour

pénale internationale‘, in Kolb, R., Droit international pénal (2007), 267–309Luban, D., The Good Lawyer – Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman &

Allanheld, 1983)Lusty, D., ‘Anonymous Accusers: An Historical & Comparative Analysis of Secret Witnesses in

Criminal Trials’, Syd LR, 24 (2002), 361–426Marchesiello, M., in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1231–1246May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Trends in International Criminal Evidence – Nuremberg, Tokyo, The

Hague, and Arusha – Essays on the Laws of War and War Crimes Tribunals in Honor ofTeleford Taylor’, ColJTransnat’lL, 37 (1999), 725–766

May, R. and Wierda, M., ‘Evidence before the ICTY’, in May, R., et al., eds, Essays on ICTYProcedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague London, Boston:Kluwer Law International, 2001), 249–262

May, R. andWierda, M., International Criminal Evidence (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2002)McCord, J. W. and McCord, S. L., Criminal Law and Procedure for the Paralegal – A System’s

Approach (Clifton Park/New York: Cengage Learning, 3rd edn, 2006)McDermott, Y., ‘Regular Witness Testimony’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure

(2013), 859–878McDermott, Y., ‘The Admissibility and Weight of Written Witness Testimony in International

Criminal Law – A Socio-Legal Analysis’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 971–989McDermott, Y., ‘Inferential Reasoning and Proof in International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 13 (2015),

507–533McDermott, Y., ‘The ICTR’s fact-finding legacy: Lessons for the future of proof in international

criminal trials’, CLF, 26 (2015), 351–372McIntyre, G., ‘Equality of Arms – Defining Human Rights in the Jurisprudence of the International

Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, LJIL, 16 (2003), 269–320Mégret, F., ‘Beyond Fairness – Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Proced-

ure’, UCLA JIL & ForAff, 14 (2009), 37–76Mégret, F., ‘Accountability and Ethics’, in Reydams, L., Wouters, J. and Ryngaert, C., eds.,

International Prosecutors (2012), 416–487Möller, C., ‘Das Vorverfahren im Strafprozess vor dem Internationalen Straftribunal für das

ehemalige Jugoslawien‘, in Kirsch, S., Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 19–52Moranchek, L., ‘Protecting National Security Evidence While Prosecuting War Crimes – Problems

and lessons for the International Justice from the ICTY’, YaleJIL, 31 (2006), 477–502Morrissey, P., ‘Applied Rights in International Criminal Law: Defence Counsel and the Right to

Disclosure’, in Boas, G., Schabas, W. and Scharf, M., eds., ICJ (2012), 68–104Mosteller R. P., ‘Discovery’, in Dressler, J., ed, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (New York et al.:

MacMillan, 2nd ed 2002), 531–540Mumba, F., ‘Ensuring a Fair Trial while Protecting Victims andWitnesses - Balancing of Interests?‘,

in May, R. et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence (2001), 359–372Murphy, P., ‘Excluding Justice or Facilitating Justice? – ICLWould Benefit from Rules of Evidence’,

IJEP, 12 (2008), 1–31Murphy, P., ‘No Free Lunch, No Free Proof – The Indiscriminate Admission of Evidence is a

Serious Flaw in International Criminal Trials’, JICJ, 8 (2010) 539–573Nahamya, E. and Diarra, R., ’Disclosure of Evidence before the ICTR’, CLF, 13 (2002), 339–363

80 Bibliography

Negri, D., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip in der italienischen Strafprozessordnung – KulturelleHintergründe, Umwege der Rechtsprechung, verfassungsrechtliche Ergebnisse’, ZStW, 126(2014), 214 -238

Nemitz, J. C., ‘Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts’, inKirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 53–74

Nerlich, V., ‘The Confirmation of Charges Procedure at the International Criminal Court’, JICJ, 10(2012), 1339–1356

Nerlich, V., ‘Daring Diversity – Why There Is Nothing Wrong with “Fragmentation” in Inter-national Criminal Procedure’, LJIL, 26 (2013), 777–781

Nice, C. and Vallières-Roland, P., ‘Procedural Innovations in War Crimes Trials’, in Abtahi, H. andBoas, G., eds, The Dynamics of International Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir RichardMay (Leiden, Bioston: Mrtinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 141–168

Nice, C. and Vallières-Roland, P., ‘Procedural Innovations in War Crimes Trials’, JICJ, 3 (2005),354–380

Ntanda Nsereko, D. D., ‘Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia’, CLF, 5 (1994), 507–555

O’Sullivan, E. and Montgomery, D., ‘The Erosion of the Right to Confrontation under the Cloak ofFairness at the ICTY’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 511–538

Öberg, M. D., ‘Processing Evidence and Drafting Judgments in International Criminal TrialChambers’, CLF, 24 (2013), 113–144

Olásolo, H. et al., Assessing the Role of the Independent Oversight Mechanism in Enhancing theEfficiency and the Economy of the ICC (2011)

Orie, A. M., ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings’, inCassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1439–1495

Pipes, D. and Gagen, W. E., California Criminal Discovery (Newark: LexisNexis, 2008)Piragoff, D. K., ‘Evidence’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 349–401Piragoff, D. K. and Clarke, P., ‘Article 69 – Evidence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary

(2016), 1712–1750Pieroth, B., et al., Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (Mu nchen: Beck, 8th ed. 2014)Pruitt, R., ‘Discovery: Mutual Disclosure, Unilateral Disclosure and Non-disclosure under the Rules

of Procedure and Evidence‘, in May, R. et al., eds., Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence(2001), 305–314

Radosavljevic, D., ‘Scope and Limits of Psychiatric Evidence in International Criminal Law’, ICLR,13 (2013), 1013–1035

Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of national security information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1775–1815

Riklin, F., ‘Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im schweizerischen Strafverfahrensrecht’, ZStW, 126(2014), 173–184

Roberts, R. C., ‘The Lubanga Trial Chamber’s Assessment of Evidence in Light of the Accused’sRight to the Presumption of Innocence’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 923–944

Roberts, P., ‘The Priority of Procedure and the Neglect of Evidence and Proof ’, JICJ, 13 (2015),479–506

Robinson, P. L., ‘Ensuring Fair and Expeditious Trials at the International Criminal Tribunal forthe Former Yugoslavia’, EJIL, 11 (2000), 569–589

Robinson, P. L., ‘So You want to be an International Criminal Lawyer? Getting and Defending aCase at the War Crimes Tribunals‘, in Kirsch, S., Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005),113–128

Robinson, P. L., ‘Fair but Expeditious Trial’, in Abtahi, H. and Boas, G., eds, The Dynamics ofInternational Criminal Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Richard May (Leiden, Bioston: MrtinusNijhoff Publishers, 2006), 169–192

Rodrigues, A. and Tournaye, C., ‘Hearsay Evidence’, in May, R., et al., eds, Essays on ICTYProcedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague London, Boston:Kluwer Law International, 2001), 291–304

Bibliography 81

Rohan, C., ‘Protecting the Rights of the Accused in International Criminal Proceedings: Lip Serviceor Affirmative Action?’, in Schabas, W. A., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N., eds., InternationalCriminal Law: Critical Perspectives (2013), 289–306

Rothe, D. L. and Overthon, A., ‘The International Criminal Court and the External Non-WitnessExpert(s), Problematic Concerns: An Exploratory Endeavour’, ICLR 10 (2010), 345–364

Ryngeart, C., ‘The Doctrine of Abuse of Process: A Comment on the Cambodia Tribunal’s Decisionin the Case against Duch’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 719–737

Safferling, C., ‘International Criminal Procedure and its Participants – An Examination of theInteraction of Judges, Prosecutors and Defence at the Yugoslav Tribunal’, YbIHL, 5 (2002),219–254

Schabas, W. A., Chaitidou, E. and El Zeidy, M., ‘Article 61 – Confirmation of the Charges beforeTrial’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1484–1549

Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 66 – Presumption of Innocence’, in Triffterer/Ambos,ICC Commentary (2016), 1635–1649

Schabas, W. A. and McDermott, Y., ‘Article 67 – Rights of the Accused’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1650–1680

Scheffer, D., ‘A review of the experiences of the Pre-Trial and AppC of the ICC regarding thedisclosure of evidence‘, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G., eds., The Emerging Practice of the ICC (2009),585–598

Schuon, C., ‘The Appeals Decision in the ICC’s Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the TrialChamber’s “Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecu-tion’s List of Evidence” ’, LJIL, 25 (2012), 511–520

Schenke, W.-R., Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (Heidelberg: Muller, 8th ed. 2013)Sharpe, S., ‘Disclosure, Immunity and Fair Trials’, JCL, 63 (1999), 67–82Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein’s Monster – Creating a New International Procedure’, JICJ, 8 (2010),

451–462Sluiter, G. K., International Criminal Adjudication and the Collection of Evidence – Obligations of

States (Antwerp et al.: Intersentia, 2002)Sluiter, G. K., ‘The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes’, ICLR, 6

(2006), 605–635Sluiter, G. K., ‘Trends in the Development of a Unified Law of International Criminal Procedure’, in

Stahn and van Herik, Future Perspectives (2010), 585–599Spencer, Evidence of Bad Character (Oxford et al.: Hart, 2nd ed 2009)Spencer, J. R., Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford et al.: Hart, 2008)Stahn, C., ‘Justice Delivered or Justice Denied? – The Legacy of the Katanga Judgment’, JICJ, 12

(2014), 809–834Stapleton, S., ‘Ensuring a Fair Trial in the International Criminal Court: Statutory Interpretation

and the Impermissibility of Derogation’, NYUJILP, 31 (1999), 535–610Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Swart, B., ‘Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 87–114Swoboda, S. ‘The ICC Disclosure Regime – A Defence Perspective’, CLF, 19 (2008), 449–472Terrier, F., ‘Powers of the Trial Chamber’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1259–1276Tochilovsky, V., ‘International Criminal Justice: “Strangers in the Foreign System”, CLF, 15 (2004),

319–344id., ‘Legal systems and cultures in the ICC etc.‘, in Fischer, H., Kreß, C. and Lüder, R., eds.,

International and National Prosecution of Crimes under International Law (2001), 627–644Tochilovsky, V., ‘Prosecution Disclosure Obligations in the ICC and Relevant Jurisprudence of the

Ad Hoc Tribunals‘, in Doria, J., Gasser, H.-P. and Bassiouni, M. C., eds., The Legal Regime of theICC (2009), 843–862

Tonellato, M., ‘The Victims’ Participation at a Crossroads: How the ICC Could Devise a MeaningfulVictims’ Participation while Respecting the Rights of the Defendant’, Eur. J. Cr., 20 (2012), 315–359

Trendafilova, E., ‘Fairness and expeditiousness in the ICC’s pre-trial proceedings‘, in Stahn, C. andSluiter, G., eds., The Emerging Practice of the ICC (2009), 441–458

82 Bibliography

Triffterer, O. and Burchard, C., ‘Article 71 – Sanctions for misconduct before the Court’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1760–1774

Triffterer, O. and Heinze, A., ‘Article 10’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 644–656Triffterer, O. and Kiss, A., ‘Article 74 – Requirements for the Decision’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 1826–1852Trüg, G., Lösungskonvergenzen trotz Systemdivergenzen im deutschen und US-amerikanischen

Verfahren (Tu bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003)Trüg, G., ‘Erkenntnisse aus der Untersuchung des US-amerikanischen plea bargaining-Systems für

den deutschen Absprachendiskurs’, ZStW, 120 (2008), 331–374Trüg, G., ‘Die Position des Opfers im Völkerstrafverfahren vor dem IStGH – Ein Beitrag zu einer

opferbezogenen verfahrenstheoretischen Bestandsaufnahme’, ZStW, 125 (2013), 34–85Tuinstra, J. T.,Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (The Hague: TMCAsser Press, 2009)Tuinstra, J. T., ‘Defending the Defenders: The Role of Defence Counsel in International Criminal

Tribunals’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 463–486Turner, J. I., ‘Defense Perspectives on Law and Politics in International Criminal Trials’, VirgJIL, 48

(2008), 529–594Turner, J. I., ‘Policing International Prosecutors’, NYUJILP, 45 (2012), 175–258Uertz-Retzlaff, U., ‘Zwanzig Jahre in Den Haag – Erfahrungen einer Staatsanwältin’, ZIS, 10 (2015),

532–536van der Vyver, J. D., ‘Time is of the Essence: The In-Depth Analysis Chart in Proceedings Before the

International Criminal Court, CrimLBull, 48 No. 4 (2012), 1–35Vasiliev, S., ‘Proofing the Ban on “Witness Proofing” – Did the ICC Get it Right?’, CLF, 20 (2009),

193–261Vasiliev, S., ‘Structure of Contested Trial’, in Sluiter et al., International Criminal Procedure (2013),

543–682Velten, P., ‘Fehlentscheidungen im Strafverfahren’, GA, 162 (2015), 387–409Vogler, R., ‘The Principle of Immediacy in English Criminal Procedural Law’, ZStW, 126 (2014),

239–247Vohrah, L. C., ‘Pre-Trial Procedures and Practices’, in McDonald, G. K. and Swaak-Goldman, O.,

eds, Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law – The Experience ofInternational and National Courts, i: Commentary (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2000),479–546

Volk, K., Wahrheit und materielles Recht im Strafprozess (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 1980)Volk, K. and Engländer, A. Grundkurs StPO (Munich: Beck, 8th edn, 2013)von Braun, L., ‘Die Strafverfolgung von Menschenrechtsverbrechen aus der Praxis: Entwicklung,

Struktur und Leistungsfähigkeit des Sondergerichts in Osttimor‘, HuV-I, 18 (2005), 93–105Wald, P. M., ‘To Establish Incredible Events by Incredible Evidence – The Use of Affidavit

Testimony in Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Proceedings’, HarvILJ, 42 (2001), 548Ward, R. and Akhtar, A., Walker and Walker’s English Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 10th ed 2008)WCRO, The Confirmation of Charges Process at the ICC: A critical assessment and recommenda-

tions for change (Washington D.C.: American University, 2015) https://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/TheConfirmationofChargesProcessattheInternationalCriminalCourt-ACriticalAssessmentandRecomme.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016

Wei, Wu, Die Rolle des Anklägers eines Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang,2007)

Weigend, T., ‘Rechtsvergleichende Bemerkungen zur Wahrheitssuche im Strafverfahren’, in Berns-mann, K. and Fischer, T., eds, Festschrift für Ruth Rissing-van Saan zum 65. Geburtstag am 25.Januar 2011 (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2011), 749–766

Whiting, A., ‘Lead Evidence and Discovery Before the International Criminal Court: The LubangaCase’, UCLA JIL & ForAff 14 (2009), 207–233

Whiting, A., ‘In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered?’HarvILJ, 50 (2009), 323–364

Bibliography 83

Whiting, A., ‘Disclosure Challenges at the ICC’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),1007–1028

Wigmore, J. H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, i(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 3rd edn, 1940)

Windridge, O. ‘Assessing circumstantial evidence and inference at the ICTR’, CLF, 26 (2015),403–418

Worrall, J. L., Criminal Procedure (Boston: Pearson, 2nd ed 2007)Zappalà, S., ‘The Rights of the Accused’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, Vol. II (2002), 1319–1354Zappalà, S., ‘The Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Materials and the Recent Amendment

to Rule 68 ICTY RPE’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 620–630Zemach, A., ‘National Security Evidence: Enhancing Fairness in View of the Non-Disclosure

Regime of the Rome Statute’, IsLR 47 (2014), 331–359.

CHAPTER 6

Abdou, M., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’,in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 233–242, accessed 20 November 2015;

Abtahi, H. and Young, R., ‘Article 38 – The Presidency’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1236–1246;

Ambach, P. and Rackwitz, K. U., ‘AModel of International Judicial Administration? The Evolutionof Managerial Practices at the ICC’, LCP 76 no. 3 & 4 (2013), 119–161;

Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure: ‘ “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” orMixed?’, in Bohlander, International Criminal Justice (2007), 429–503;

Bachmaier Winter, L. and del Moral García, A., ‘Spain’, in Verbruggen and Franssen, InternationalEncyclopaedia of Laws: Criminal Law, v (Alphen aan den Rijn 2012);

Batros, B., ‘The Judgement on the Katanga Admissibility Appeal: Judicial Restraint at the ICC’,LJIL, 23 (2010), 343–362;

Beltrán, A., ‘El enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., La CortePenal Internacional (2003), 351–382;

Boas, G., ‘Appelate Procedure’, in Sluiter, G. and Vasiliev, S., International Criminal Procedure(2009) 417–455;

Boas, G., Jackson, J., Roche B. and Taylor III, D., ‘Appeals, Reviews, and Reconsideration’, in Sluiteret al., International Criminal Procedure (2013), 939–1014;

Brady, H., ‘Appeal’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 575–596;Brady, H. and Jennings, M., ‘Appeal and Revision’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 294–304;Butler, A., ‘Limiting Rights’, in Carter, D., and Palmer, M., eds, Roles and Perspectives in the Law:

Essays in Honour of Sir Ivor Richardson (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2002), 113–54;Calvo-Goller, K. N., La Procédure et la Jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Paris:

Lextenso, 2012);Darbyshire, P., ‘Criminal Procedure in England and Wales’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal

Procedure in Europe (2008), 40–169;de Hoyos, M., ‘La apelación de resoluciones interlocutorias en el proceso ante la Corte Penal

Internacional – Especial consideración de los criterios empleados para la concesión de laautorización para apelar’, in Ambos, K. and de Hoyos, M., eds, Cuestiones esenciales en lajurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional (Granada: Comares, 2008), 23–54;

Del Carmen, R. V., Criminal Procedure (Belmont: Thomson, 7th ed 2007);Deschênes, J. and Staker, C., ‘Article 38 – The Presidency’, in Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008),

951–956;Doria, J., ‘Standards of Appeal and Standards of Revision’, in Doria, J., Gasser, H. P. and Bassiouni

M. C., eds, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of ProfessorIgor Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 945–972;

Dreyssé, D., ‘Article 85 – Indemnisation des personnes arrêtées ou condamnées’, in Fernandez andPacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1783–1788;

84 Bibliography

Eckelmans, F. C., ‘The First Jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber of the ICC’, in Stahn and Sluiter,Emerging Practice (2009), 527–552;

‘El Abdallah, F., ‘Article 82 –Appel d’autres décisions’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1741–1757;

Elberling, B., ‘Article 85 – Compensation to an Arrested or Convicted Person’, in Klamberg, OnlineCommentary ICC, 672–675, accessed 20 November 2015;

Friman, H., ‘Interlocutory Appeals in the Early Practice of the International Criminal Court’, inStahn and Sluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 553–562;

Friman, H., ‘International Criminal Procedures – Trial and Appeal Procedures’, in Schabas andBernaz, Routledge Handbook ICL (2011), 271–87;

Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481;

Friman, H., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,656–662, accessed 20 November 2015;

Galbraith, J., ‘ “New Facts” in ICTY and ICTR Review Proceedings’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 131–150;Gascón Inchausti, F. and Villamarín López, M. L.,‘Criminal Procedure in Spain’, in Vogler and

Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe (2008), 542–653;Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D. and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 - Challenges to the Jurisdiction of

the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 849–898;Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011);Heller, K.J., ‘The Ruto Trial Chamber invents the mistrial without prejudice’, Opinio Juris, 10 April

2016 (http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/08/the-icc-invents-the-possibility-of-a-mistrial/, accessed11 April 2016);

Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und CivilLaw (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005);

Huber, B.,‘Criminal Procedure in Germany’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe(2008), 269–371;

Kirsch, S., ‘Verteidigung in Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemaligeJugoslawien’, StV, 23 (2003), 636–640;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 81 – Appeal against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction or againstSentence’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 651–655, accessed 20 November 2015;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,663–668, accessed 20 November 2015;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 84 – Revision of Conviction or Sentence’, in Klamberg, Online CommentaryICC, 669–671, accessed 20 November 2015;

Knoops, G.-J. A., Redressing Miscarriages of Justice – Practice and Procedure in (International)Criminal Cases (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2nd edn, 2013);

Kreß, C., ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of aUnique Compromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617;

Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner,Pötz and Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1;

Lounici, D., ‘La procédure préliminaire mise en œuvre par les Chambres préliminaires de la Courpénale internationale’, in Kolb, Droit international pénal (2008), 267–309;

Lundqvist, U. S., ‘Admitting and Evaluating Evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia Appeals Chamber Proceedings – A Few Remarks’, LJIL, 15 (2002), 641–665;

Maia, C., ‘Article 84 – Révision d’une décision sur la culpabilité ou la peine’, in Fernandez andPacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1770–1781;

Maystre, M., ‘Right to Appeal’, in Carter and Pocar, International Criminal Procedure (2013),192–240;

McDermott, H., ‘Seeking a Stay of Proceedings for Irregular Apprehension before InternationalCourts – Fighting a Losing Battle against the Pursuit of International Criminal Justice’, JICJ, 14(2016), 145–169;

Bibliography 85

Meernik, J., ‘The Evolving Application of International Law – Insights from the Appeals Chamberof the Ad Hoc International Tribunals’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 117–132;

Michels, J. D., ‘Compensating Acquitted Defendants for Detention before International CriminalCourts’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 407–424;

Nagel, M., ‘§ 337 – Revisionsgründe’, in Radtke and Hohmann, StPO Kommentar (2011),1729–1740;

Nerlich, V., ‘The Role of the Appeals Chamber’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015),963–980;

Nerlich, V., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary(2016), 1954–1964;

O’Neill, L. and Sluiter, G., ‘The Right to Appeal a Judgment of the Extraordinary Chambers in theCourts of Cambodia’, MelbJIL, 10 (2009), 596–630;

Paulussen, C.,Male captus bene detentus? – Surrending Supsects to the International Criminal Court(Antwerp et al.: Intersentia, 2010);

Re, D., ‘Appeal’, in Reydams, Wouters and Ryngaert, International Prosecutors (2012), 797–885;Roth, R., and Henzelin, M., ‘The Appeal Procedure of the ICC’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii

(2002), 1535–1558;Schabas, W. A., ‘The Mistrial, an Innovation in International Criminal Law’, PhD Studies In

Human Rights, 8 April 2016, (http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-mistrial-innovation-in.html, accessed 10 April 2016);

Shahabuddeen, M., ‘Teething Phase of the ECCC’, ChinJIL, 10 (2011), 469–502;Southey, H. and Fulford, A., Judicial Review – A Practical Guide (Bristol: Jordans, 2004);Spencer, J. R., ‘International Law, People Trafficking and the Power to Stay Criminal Proceedings

for Abuse of Process’, CambLJ, 73 (2014), 11–14;Staker, C., ‘Article 81 – Appeals against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction of Sentence’, in

Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008), 1449–1474;Staker, C., ‘Article 82 – Appeal against Other Decisions’, in Triffterer, Commentary ICC (2008),

1475–1480;Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 81 – Appeals against Decision of Acquittal or Conviction of

Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1915–1953;Staker, C. and Eckelmans, F., ‘Article 83 – Proceedings on Appeal’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 1965–1985;Staker, C. and Nerlich, V., ‘Article 84 – Revision of Conviction or Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos,

ICC Commentary (2016), 1986–1997;Staker, C. and Nerlich, V., ‘Article 85 – Compensation to an Arrested or Convicted Person’, in

Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1998–2002;Stuckenberg, C.-F., Double Jeopardy – Das Verbot doppelter Bestrafung und Strafverfolgung im US-

amerikanischen Recht (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2001);Šugman Stubbs, K., ‘Criminal Procedure in Slovenia’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in

Europe (2008), 483–539;Terrill, R. J., World Criminal Justice Systems – A Survey (Newark: Lexis Nexis, 2007);Trigeaud, L., ‘Article 81 – Appel d’une décision sur la culpabilité ou la peine’, in Fernandez and

Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1725–1740;Trigeaud, L., ‘Article 83 – Procédure d’appel’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012),

1759–1770;Thomas III, G. C., Double Jeopardy – The History, The Law (New York, London: New York

University Press, 1998);Tracol, X., ‘The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunals’, CLF, 12 (2001),

137–165;Vogler, R., ‘Criminal Procedure in France’, in Vogler and Huber, Criminal Procedure in Europe

(2008), 171–268;WCRO, Interlocutory Appellate Review of Early Decisions by the International Criminal Court

(Washington D.C.: American University Washington College of Law, 2008);

86 Bibliography

Wei, W., Die Rolle des Anklägers eines internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang GmbH, 2007);

Wirth, S., ‘Das Appeal Verfahren’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 75–88;Zappalá, S., ‘Appeal’, in Cassese, Companion (2009), 246–247.

CHAPTER 7

Abels, D., Prisoners of the International Community (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2012);Akande, D., ‘International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court’, AJIL, 98 (2004),

407–433;Akande, D., ‘Legal Nature of Security Council Referrals to the ICC and Its Impact on Al Bashir’s

Immunities’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 333–352;Akande, D., ‘Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations

to Cooperate with the ICC’, JICJ, 10 (2012), 299–324;Akande, D., ‘The Bashir Case – Has the South African Supreme Court Abolished Immunity for all

Heads of States?’ EJILTalk, 29 March 2016, <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-bashir-case-has-the-south-african-supreme-court-abolished-immunity-for-all-heads-of-states/>, accessed 2 April2016;

Akande, D., ‘An International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the ICC Head of StateImmunity Issue’, EJILTalk, 31 March 2016, <http://www.ejiltalk.org/an-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion-on-the-icc-head-of-state-immunity-issue/>, accessed 2 April 2016;

Ali, N., ‘Bringing the Guilty fo Justice – Can the ICC be Self-Enforcing?’, ChicJIL, 14 (2014),408–452;

Ambos, K., ‘The International Criminal Court and the Traditional Principles of InternationalCooperation in Criminal Matters’, FYbIL, 9 (1998), 413–426;

Ambos, K., ‘Zur Rechtsgrundlage des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs – Eine Analyse des Rom-Statuts’, ZStW, 111 (1999), 175–211;

Ambos, K., ‘ “Verbrechenselemente” sowie Verfahrens- und Beweisregeln des InternationalenStrafgerichtshofs’, NJW, 54 (2001), 405–409;

Ambos, K., ‘The Right of Non-Self-Incrimination of Witnesses before the ICC’, LJIL, 15 (2002),155–177;

Ambos, K., ‘Inmunidades en derecho (penal) nacional e internacional’, RDP, 15 (2005), 87–117;Ambos, K., Malarino, E., and Elsner, G., eds, Cooperación y asistencia judicial con la

CPI. Contributiones de América Latina, Alemania, Espana e Italia (Montevideo: FundaciónKonrad Adenauer, 2007);

Ambos, K. and Poschadel, A., ‘Grundlagen’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2014), pp. 57–95;Antoniadis, A. and Bekou, O., ‘The European Union and the International Criminal Court – An

Awkward Symbiosis in Interesting Times’, ICLR, 7 (2007), 621–656;Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘El enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer

et al., La Corte Penal Internacional (2003), 351–382;Benoit-Landale, B. P., ‘Das Komplementaritätsprinzip des Römer Statuts und seine Auswirkungen

auf die Schweiz’, in Ziegler, A. R., Wehrenberg, S., and Weber, R., eds, Kriegsverbrecherprozessein der Schweiz (Brussels: Bruylant, Baden-Baden: Nomos, Zurich: Schulthess, 2009), 243–262;

Benzing, M., ‘Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect in International Criminal Law’, inKönig, D., Stoll, P.-T., Röben, V., and Matz-Lück, N., eds, International Law Today – NewChallenges and the Need for Reform? (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2008), 17–50;

Bergsmo, M., Kruger, P. and Bekou, O., ‘Article 54 – Duties and Powers of the Prosecutor withRespect to Investigations’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1381–1393;

Bitti, G.,‘France’, in Kreß, C., Broomhall, B., Lattanzi, F. and Santori V., eds, The Rome Statute andDomestic Legal Orders, ii: Constitutional Issues, Cooperation and Enforcement (Baden-Baden,Ripa di Fagnano Alto: Nomos, Il Sirente, 2005), 90–106;

Blommestijn, M. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Exploring the Obligations for States to Act upon the ICC’sArrest Warrant for Omar Al-Bashir – A Legal Conflict between the Duty to Arrest and theCustomary Status of Head of State Immunity’, ZIS, 5 (2010), 428–444;

Bibliography 87

Boschiero, N., ‘The ICC Judicial Finding on Non-cooperation Against the DRC and No Immunityfor Al-Bashir Based on UNSC Resolution 1593’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 625–623;

Burchards, W., Die Verfolgung von Völkerrechtsverbrechen durch Drittstaaten (Berlin: BerlinerWissenschafts-Verlag, 2005);

Burghardt, B. and Geneuss, J., ‘Der Präsident und sein Gericht – Die Entscheidung des Interna-tionalen Strafgerichtshofs über den Erlass eines Haftbefehls gegen Al Bashir’, ZIS, 4 (2009),126–142;

Burke-White, W. W., ‘Bargaining for Arrests at the International Criminal Court – A Response toRoper and Barria’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 477–482;

Caeiro, P., ‘O procedimento de entrega previsto no Estatuto de Roma e a sua incorporação noDireito Português’, in Caeiro, P. and Moreira, V., eds, O Tribunal Penal Internacional e a ordemjurídica portuguesa (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2004), 69–157;

Caeiro, P. and Lemos, M. A., ‘Commentary’, in Klip, A. and Freeland, S., eds, Annotated LeadingCases of International Criminal Tribunals – The International Criminal Court 2008–2009(Cambridge: Intersentia, 2013), 611–614;

Calvo-Goller, K. N., La Procédure et la Jurisprudence de la Cour Pénale Internationale (Paris:Lextenso, 2012);

Cassese, A., ‘On the Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of Breaches ofInternational Humanitarian Law’, EJIL, 9 (1998), 2–17;

Cazala, J., ‘Article 89 – Remise de certaines personnes à la Cour’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statutde Rome, ii (2012), 1835–1847;

Cazala, J., ‘Article 90 – Demandes concurrentes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1849–1861;

Cazala, J., ‘Article 91 – Contenu de la demande d’arrestation et de remise’, in Fernandez andPacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1863–1871;

Cazala, J., ‘Article 92 – Arrestation provisoire’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012),1873–1880;

Chaumette, A. L., ‘The ICTY’s Power to Subpoena Individuals, to Issue Binding Orders toInternational Organisations and to Subpoena Their Agents’, ICLR, 4 (2004), 357–430;

Chimimba, T. P., ‘Establishing an Enforcement Regime’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 345–356;Ciampi, A., ‘Other Forms of Cooperation’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1705–1747;Ciampi, A., ‘The Obligation to Cooperate’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1607–1638;Ciampi, A., ‘Article 87 – Demandes de cooperation – Dispositions générales’, in Fernandez and

Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1805–1821;Ciavola, A., ‘Arresto e consegna nel sistema della Corte Penale Internazionale’, in Cassese, Chia-

vario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 431–457;Crawford, J., Sands, P., and Wilde, R., In the Matter of the Statute of the International Criminal

Court and in the Matter of Bilateral Agreements Sought by the United States under Article 98 (2) ofthe Statute, Joint Opinion, 5 June 2003 (<www.iccnow.org/documents/SandsCrawfordBIA14June03.pdf>, accessed 14 April 2016);

Cryer, R., ‘The International Criminal Court and its Relationship to Non-Party States’, in Stahn andSluiter, Emerging Practice (2009), 115–133;

Cryer, R., ‘The ICC and its Relationship to Non-States Parties’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of theICC (2015), 260–280;

Currie, R. J., ‘Abducted Fugitives before The International Criminal Court – Problems andProspects’, CLF, 18 (2007), 349–393;

Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’ ChicKentLR, 83 (2008),329–365;

Damaška, M., ‘The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’, UCLA JIL& ForAff, 14 (2009), 19–35;

De Cesari, P., ‘Taking of Evidence and Other Forms of Cooperation’, in Malaguti, M. C., ed, ICCand International Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute – Proceedings of the WorkshopHeld in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 55–74;

88 Bibliography

de los Reyes, C., ‘State Cooperation and its Challenges for the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda’, in Decaux, E., Dieng, A. and Sow, M., eds, From Human Rights to InternationalCriminal Law – Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the late Laïty Kama (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff, 2007), 55–88;

de Meester, K., ‘Article 54 – Duties and Powers of the Prosecutor with respect to Investigations’, inKlamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 432–443, accessed 25 November 2015;

de Wet, E., ‘The Implications of President Al-Bashir’s Visit to South Africa for International andDomestic Law’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 1049–1071;

Deen-Racsmány, Z., ‘Lessons of the European Arrest Warrant for Domestic Implementation of theObligation to Surrender Nationals to the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 20 (2007),167–191;

Détais, J., ‘Article 93 – Autres formes de cooperation’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1881–1891;

Détais, J., ‘Article 96 – Contenu d’une demande portant sur d’autres formes de cooperation visées àl’article 93’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1903–1907;

Duffy, H., Hall, C. K., and Rastan, R., ‘Article 73 – Third-Party Information or Documents’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 1816–1825;

Du Plessis, M., ‘Complementarity - A Working Relationship between African States and theInternational Criminal Court’, in Du Plessis, M., ed, African Guide to International CriminalJustice (Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2008)(available at https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/AGFULL.PDF, accessed 14 April 2016), 123–142;

Du Plessis, M., ‘South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute’, in Ambos, K. and Maunga-nidze, O. A., eds, Power and Prosecution – Challenges and Opportunities for InternationalCriminal Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2013), 23–38;

El Zeidy, M. M., ‘Critical Thoughts on Article 59 (2) of the ICC Statute’, JICJ, 4 (2006), 448–465;Fixson, O., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof – Seine Entstehung und seine Stellung im Völk-

errecht’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 207–229;Fleck, D., ‘Are Foreign Military Personnel Exempt from International Criminal Jurisdiction under

Status of Forces Agreements’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 651–670;Fouladvand, S., ‘Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity – Decision-making by the ICC Pros-

ecutor in the Darfur Situation’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 1028–1066;Frau, R., Das Verhältnis zwischen dem ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und dem Sicher-

heitsrat der Vereinten Nationen – Article 13 lit.b) IStGH-Statut und der Darfur-Konflikt vor demGerichtshof (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2010);

Gaeta, P., ‘Does President Al Bashir Enjoy Immunity from Arrest?’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 315–332;Friman, H., ‘Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 423–481;Friman, H., ‘State Cooperation with the International Courts and Tribunals’, in Cryer et al.,

Introduction ICL (2014), 509–530;Gargiulo, P., ‘The Controversial Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and the

Security Council’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i (2000), 67–103;Gartner, I., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence on Co-operation and Enforcement’, in Fischer

et al., Prosecution (2001), 423–445;Gevers, C., ‘Immunity and the Implementation Legislation in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda’, in

Ambos, K. and Maunganidze, O. A., eds, Power and Prosecution – Challenges and Opportunitiesfor International Criminal Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttin-gen, 2013), 85–117;

Giannone, D. A., ‘Die Kooperation mit internationalen Strafgerichten’, in Kuhne, Esser andGerding, Völkerstrafrecht (2007), 293–318;

Gioia, F., ‘State Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and “Modern” International Law – The Principle ofComplementarity in the International Criminal Court’, LJIL, 19 (2006), 1095–1123;

Gioia, F., ‘ “Reverse Cooperation” and the Architecture of the Rome Statute – A Vital Part of theRelationship Between States and the ICC?’, in Malaguti, M. C., ed., ICC and International

Bibliography 89

Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute – Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Lecce onOctober 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 75–101;

Gioia, F., ‘Complementarity and “Reverse Cooperation” ’, in Stahn and El Zeidy, Complementarity,ii (2011), 807–29;

Godinho, J. A. F., ‘Surrender Agreements between the US and the ICTY and ICTR – A CriticalView’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 502–516;

Gómez Colomer, J. L., and Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘La regulación de la prueba en el proceso penalante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomer et al., La Corte Penal Internacional (2003),325–350;

Grützner, H., ‘International Judicial Assistance and Co-operation in Criminal Matters’, in Bas-siouni and Nanda, A Treatise on International Criminal Law, ii (1973), 189–249;

Hall, C. K., Ntanda Nsereko, D. D. and Ventura, M. J., ‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction ofthe Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),849–898;

Hamann, H., ‘Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und Vereinte Nationen in der DemokratischenRepublik Kongo’, ZStW, 118 (2006), 799–822;

Harhoff, F. and Mochochoko, P., ‘International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance’, in Lee, TheICC (2001), 637–671;

Heller, J. K., ‘Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute – Bizarre and Possibly Counterproductive’, OpinioJuris (9 March 2016), http://opiniojuris.org/2016/03/08/article-875-of-the-rome-statute-bizarre-and-counterproductive/, accessed 14 April 2016;

Herencia Carrasco, S. M., La implementación del Estatuto de Roma en la Region Andina – Los casosde Chile, Ecuador y Venezuela (Lima: Comisión Andina de Juristas, 2009);

Hofstetter, E., Das Verfahrensrecht internationaler Strafgerichte zwischen Common Law und CivilLaw (Bern: Stämpfli, 2005);

ICC-OTP, ‘Informal Expert Paper – Fact-Finding and Investigative Functions of the Office of theProsecutor, Including International Co-Operation’ (2003), <http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494–70F9–4698-8E30–907F631453ED/281983/state_cooperation.pdf>,accessed 14 April 2016;

Jacobs, D., ‘The Frog That Wanted to Be an Ox – The ICC’s Approach to Immunities andCooperation’, in Stahn, Law and Practice of the ICC (2015), 281–302;

Jia, B. B., ‘The International Criminal Court and Third States’, in Cassese, Companion (2009),160–167;

Kaul, H. P., ‘Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof nach fünf Jahren – Ein Erfahrungsbericht ausrichterlicher Sicht’, ZIS, 2 (2007), 494–499;

Kaye, D., The Council and the Court – Improving Security Council Support of the InternationalCriminal Court (Irvine: University of California, 2013);

Keitner, C., ‘Crafting the International Criminal Court – Trials and Tribulations in Article 98 (2)’,UCLA JIL & ForAff, 6 (2001), 215–264;

Keller, R., ‘Erläuterung des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafger-ichtshof ’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2014), 1055–1099;

Kern, E., Gerichtsverfassungsrecht – Ein Studienbuch (Munich: Beck, 4th edn, 1965);Kirsch, S., ‘Die Uberstellung an den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, in Beulke, W. and Müller, E.,

eds, Festschrift zu Ehren des Strafrechtsausschusses der Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer – Anlässlichdes Ausscheidens seines Vorsitzenden Gunter Widmaier und der Mitglieder Egon Müller, Eber-hard Wahle und Matthias Weihrauch sowie der ständigen Gäste Herbert Bölter, Herbert Landau,Georg Linden und Lothar Senge bei der 196. Tagung vom 13.-15.10.2006 in Münster (Münster:Luchterhand, 2006), 271–292;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 101 – Rule of Speciality’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 771–773,accessed 25 November 2015;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 57 – Functions and Powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber’, in Klamberg, OnlineCommentary ICC, 453–460, accessed 25 November 2015;

90 Bibliography

Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 86–92’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 676–710, accessed 25November 2015;

Klamberg, M., ‘Articles 94–95’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 733–736, accessed 25November 2015;

Knoops, G. J. A., An Introduction to the Law of International Criminal Tribunals – A ComparativeStudy (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2nd edn, 2014);

Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb and Scalia, Droit international pénal (2012), 1- 294;Korecki, L., ‘Procedural Tools for Ensuring Cooperation of States with the Special Tribunal for

Lebanon’, JICJ, 7 (2009), 927–944;Kreicker, H., Völkerrechtliche Exemtionen – Grundlagen und Grenzen völkerrechtlicher Immunitä-

ten und ihre Wirkung im Strafrecht, i (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007);Kreicker, H., ‘Der Präsident des Sudan vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof – EinVerstoß

gegen dasVölkerrecht? Überlegungen zur völkerrechtlichen Immunität von Staatsoberhäupternanlässlich des Haftbefehlsantrages gegen Omar al-Bashir’, HuV-I, 21 (2008), 157–164;

Kreicker, H., ‘Immunität und IStGH – Zur Bedeutung völkerrechtlicher Exemtionen für denInternationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, ZIS, 4 (2009), 350–367;

Kreicker, H., ‘Vorbemerkungen’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr inStrafsachen (2003), Part III E;

Kreß, C., ‘Penalties, Enforcement and Cooperation in the International Criminal Court Statute(Parts VII, IX, X)’, EJCCLCJ, 6 (1998), 442–460;

Kreß, C., ‘Witnesses in Proceedings before the International Criminal Court – An Analysis in theLight of Comparative Criminal Procedure’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 309–384;

Kreß, C., ‘Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline – Anatomy of a UniqueCompromise’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 603–617;

Kreß, C., ‘The International Criminal Court and Immunities under International Law for StatesNot Party to the Court’s Statute’, in Bergsmo, M. and Ling, Y., eds, State Sovereignty andInternational Criminal Law (Beijing: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), 223–266;

Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), Part IV A1;

Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Part 9 – International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance – PreliminaryRemarks’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2003–2013;

Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Articles 86–100’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2014–2157;Kreß, C. and Prost, K., ‘Article 102’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2170–2171;Kreß, C. and Sluiter, G., ‘Enforcement’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1751–1838;Kreß, C. and Wannek, F., ‘Von den beiden internationalen Ad-Hoc-Tribunalen zum Internatio-

nalen Strafgerichtshof – Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Entwicklung der Völkerstrafgerichtsbar-keit’, in Kirsch, Internationale Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 231–259;

Kushen, R., ‘Surrender Agreements between the US and the ICTY and ICTR – The AmericanView’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 517–519;

Kwast, P. J. ‘Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute – It’s Complicated…But Not Bizarre’, Opinio Juris(16 March 2016), http://opiniojuris.org/2016/03/16/article-875-of-the-rome-statute-its-complicatedbut-not-bizarre/, accessed 14 April 2016;

Lind, C., ‘Article 98 – Cooperation with Respect to Waiver of Immunity and Consent to Surrender’,in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 752–755, accessed 25 November 2015;

Lindemann, J., ‘Völkerrechtliche Anforderungen an die Schweiz für die Zusammenarbeit mit deninternationalen Strafgerichten’, in Ziegler, A. R., Wehrenberg, S. and Weber, R., eds, Kriegsver-brecherprozesse in der Schweiz (Brussels: Bruylant, Baden-Baden: Nomos, Zurich: Schulthess,2009), 215–241;

MacLean, J., ‘Gesetzentwurf über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof‘,ZRP, 35 (2002), 260–264;

Maikowski, T., Staatliche Kooperationspflichten gegenüber dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof(Berlin: BWV, 2002);

Bibliography 91

Malaguti, M. C., ‘Article 88 of the Rome Statute – “Horizontal” versus “Vertical” Cooperation’, inMalaguti, M. C., ed, ICC and International Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute –Proceedings of the Workshop held in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 103–129;

Mbaye, A. A., and Shoamanesh, S. S., ‘Article 86 – Obligation générale de coopérer’, in Fernandezand Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1791–1804;

McDermott, H., ‘The Structure of International Cooperation in the Transfer of Suspects – Extraditeor Abduct?’, ICLR, 15 (2015), 254–297;

Meernik, J., ‘Why Do Individuals Surrender to the International Criminal Tribunals?’, ICLR, 15(2015), 926–948;

Meißner, J., Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem RömischenStatut (München: Beck, 2003);

Melillo, M., ‘Cooperation between the UN Peacekeeping Operation and the ICC in the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo’, JICJ, 11 (2013), 763–782;

Mochochoko, P., ‘International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance’, in Lee, The ICC (1999),305–317;

Mochochoko, P., ‘The Experience of the OTP of the ICTR Concerning Arrest Strategies andLessons Learnt for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Jalloh,C. C. and Alhagi, B. M. M., eds, Promoting Accountability under International Law for GrossHuman Rights Violations in Africa – Essays in Honour of Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow(Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), 71–89;

Moranchek, L., ‘Protecting National Security Evidence While Prosecuting War Crimes – Problemsand Lessons for International Justice from the ICTY’, YaleJIL, 31 (2006), 477–501;

Moschetta, T. M., ‘Cooperation between the European Union and the International Criminal Court– Legal Bases and Opportunities for Implementation’, in Politi, M. and Gioia, eds, The Inter-national Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions (Farnham, Burlington: Aschgate, 2008),123–130;

Nagel, K. F., Beweisaufnahme im Ausland – Rechtsgrundlagen und Praxis der internationalenRechtshilfe für deutsche Strafverfahren (Freiburg im Breisgau: Eigenverlag Max-Planck-Institutfür Ausländisches und Internationales Strafrecht, 1988);

Nemitz, J. C. and Schomburg, W., ‘Einführung in die deutschsprachigen Zusammenarbeitsgesetzemit dem IStGH’, in Schomburg et al., Internationale Rechtshilfe (2012), 2292–2331;

Ntoubandi, F., ‘Towards Ending Impunity in Darfur – The ICC Arrest Warrant of 27 April 2007’,ZaöRV, 69 (2009), 123–154;

Ohlin, J. D., ‘More Thoughts on al-Bashir, Sudan, and South Africa’, Opinio Juris (17 June 2015),http://opiniojuris.org/2015/06/17/more-thoughts-on-al-bashir-sudan-and-south-africa/,accessed 9 July 2015;

Palma, R., ‘Implementation Duties under Chapter IX of the Rome Statute and “Droit desirable” ’, inMalaguti, M. C., ed, ICC and International Cooperation in the Light of the Rome Statute –Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Lecce on October 21–22, 2005 (Lecce: Argo, 2007), 203–258;

Palmisano, G., ‘The ICC and Third States’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i(2000), 391–425;

Papillon, S., ‘Has the United Nations Security Council Implicitly Removed Al Bashir’s Immunity?’,ICLR, 10 (2010), 275–288;

Paulussen, C. Y. M., Male captus bene detentus? – Surrendering Suspects to the InternationalCriminal Court (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2010);

Påle-Bartes, K., ‘Article 102 – Use of Terms’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 774, accessed25 November 2015;

Påle-Bartes, K., ‘Article 93 – Other Forms of Cooperation’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,711–732, accessed 25 November 2015;

Pedretti, R., Immunity of Heads of State and State Officials for International Crimes (Leiden: Brill,Nijhoff, 2015);

Plachta, M., ‘ “Surrender”, in the Context of the International Criminal Court and the EuropeanUnion’, in Association International de Droit Pénal (AIDP), International Criminal Law – Quo

92 Bibliography

Vadis? – Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Siracusa, Italy, 28 November - 3December 2002, on the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the ISISC (Ramonville Saint-Agne:Erès, 2004), 465–504;

Quesada-Alcalá, C., ‘The Obstacles to the International Criminal Court – Impediments to theEnforcement of International Humanitarian Law’, in Fernández-Sánchez, P. A., ed, The NewChallenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – In Honour of Professor Juan AntonioCarrillo-Salcedo (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 295–314;

Quirico, O., ‘Article 101 – Règle de la spécialité’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii(2012), 1943–1949;

Quirico, O., ‘Article 102 – Emploi des termes’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012),1951–1955;

Rackow, ‘Allgemeine Struktur des Rechtshilfeverfahrens’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2014),95–115;

Ralph, J., ‘Article 98 – Coopération en relation avec la renunciation à l’immunité et consentement àla remise’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1913–1927;

Raspail, H., ‘Article 88 – Procédures disponibles selon la législation nationale’, in Fernandez andPacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012), 1823–1833;

Rastan, R., ‘Testing Co-Operation – The International Criminal Court and National Authorities’,LJIL, 21 (2008), 431–456;

Rastan, R., ‘The Responsibility to Enforce – Connecting Justice with Unity’, in Stahn and Sluiter,Emerging Practice (2009), 163–182;

Rastan, R., ‘Article 72 – Protection of national security information’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICCCommentary (2016), 1775–1815;

Reisert, G., ‘Der Beginn der Ermittlungen am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’, StV, 11 (2005),637–640;

Rinoldi, D. and Parisi, N., ‘International Co-operation and Judicial Assistance between StatesParties and the International Criminal Court’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the RomeStatute, i (2000), 339–390;

Robinson, D., ‘Inescapable Dyads – Why the ICC Cannot Win’, LJIL, 28 (2015), 323–347;Roper, S. D. and Barria, L. A., ‘State Co-operation and International Criminal Court Bargaining

Influence in the Arrest and the Surrender of Suspects’, LJIL, 21 (2008), 457–476;Rosenfeld, E., ‘Application of U.S. Status of Forces Agreements to Article 98 of the Rome Statute’,

WashUGlSLR, 2 (2003), 273–293;Scharf, M. P., ‘The Tools for Enforcing International Criminal Justice in the New Millennium –

Lessons from the Yugoslavia Tribunal’, DePaulLR, 49 (2000), 925–979;Scheffer, D. J., ‘Article 98 (2) of the Rome Statute – America’s Original Intent’, JICJ, 3 (2005),

333–353;Schomburg, W., ‘Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit – Eine Einführung’, in Kirsch, Internationale

Strafgerichtshöfe (2005), 9–17;Schrotz, J. O., Individualrechtsverletzungen bei der Überstellung an die internationale Strafgerichts-

barkeit – Zu den Rechtsfolgen individualrechtswidrigen Vorfeldverhaltens im internationalenStrafverfahren (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006);

Sendel, B., ‘Bilaterale Nichtüberstellungsabkommen der Vereinigten Staaten und Article 98 Abs. 2des Römischen Statuts zur Errichtung eines ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’, ZIS, 2(2007), 118–128;

Senn, S., Immunitäten vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Köln: Heymann, 2010);Sluiter, G. K., ‘Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia

and Rwanda’, in Fischer et al., Prosecution (2001), 681–725;Sluiter, G. K., International Criminal Adjudication and the Collection of Evidence – Obligations of

States (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002);Sluiter, G. K., ‘Book Review – Jörg Meissner, Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen

Strafgerichtshof nach dem Römischen Statut, Verlag C. H. Beck: Munich, 2003, 307 pp’, CLF,14 (2003), 449–454;

Bibliography 93

Sluiter, G. K., ‘Obtaining Cooperation from Sudan – Where is the Law?’, JICJ, 6 (2008), 871–884;Sluiter, G. K., ‘Cooperation of States with International Criminal Tribunals’, in Cassese, Companion

(2009), 187–200;Sluiter, G. K., ‘Procedural Lawmaking at the International Criminal Tribunals’, in Darcy and

Powderly, Judicial Creativity (2010), 315–331;Sluiter, G., ‘Using the Genocide Convention to Strengthen Cooperation with the ICC in the Al

Bashir Case’, JICJ, 8 (2010), 365–382;Slye, R., ‘United States Cooperation with the ICC – Support and Arrest’, in Gore, R., ed, Beyond

Kampala – Next Steps for U.S. Principled Engagement with the International Criminal Court(Washington D. C.: The American Society of International Law, 2010), 17–26;

Souza, A. B. G., ‘Reservas ao Estatuto de Roma – Uma Análise do Direito de Reservas aos TratadosMultilaterais e seus Reflexos no Estatuto do Tribunal Penal Internacional’, in Ambos, K. andJapiassú, C. E. A., eds, Tribunal Penal Internacional – Possibilidades e Desafios (Rio de Janeiro:Editora Lumen Juris, 2005), 89–119;

Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity – A Tale of Two Notions’, CLF, 19 (2008), 87–113;Stein, T., ‘Die Bilateral Immunity Agreements der USA und Article 98 des Rom-Statuts’, in

Bröhmer, J. et al., eds, Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte – Festschrift für GeorgRess zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 2005 (Köln: Heymann, 2005), 295–306;

Steinberger-Fraunhofer, T., Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und Drittstaaten – Eine Untersuchungunter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Position der USA (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2008);

Swart, B., ‘Arrest and Surrender’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1639–1703;Swart, B., ‘Arrest Proceedings in the Custodial State’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002),

1247–1255;Swart, B., ‘General Problems’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1589–1605;Swart, B., ‘Cooperation Challenges for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, JICJ, 5 (2007), 1153–1163;Swoboda, S., ‘Voraussetzungen der Außervollzugsetzung eines Haftbefehls vor dem Jugoslawien-

tribunal’, GA, 153 (2006), 629–643;Talmon, ‘Immunität von Staatsbediensteten’, in Paulus, A. et al., Internationales, nationales und

privates Recht – Hybridisierung der Rechtsordnungen? Immunität (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller,2014), 313–376;

Tillier, J., ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity – Strengthening the Rule of Law?’,ICLR, 13 (2013), 507–591;

Tladi, D., ‘The ICC Decisions on Chad and Malawi –On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98’,JICJ, 11 (2013), 199–222;

Tladi, D., ‘The Duty on South Africa to Arrest and Surrender President Al-Bashir under SouthAfrican and International Law – A Perspective from International Law’, JICJ, 13 (2015),1027–1047;

Tladi, D., ‘The International Criminal Court and the Duty to Arrest and Surrender The Case ofOmar Al-Bashir in South Africa’, ZIS, 10 (2015), 493–500;

Tomuschat, C. and Currie, D. P., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin: GermanBundestag, 2012), available at <https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf>, accessed 24 November 2015;

Triggs, G. D., ‘Challenges for the International Criminal Court – Terrorism, Immunity Agreementsand National Trials’, in Dolgopol, U. and Gardam, J., eds, The Challenges of Conflict – Inter-national Law Responds (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 315–330;

Unger, T. and Wierda, M., ‘Pursuing Justice in Ongoing Conflict – A Discussion of CurrentPractice’, in Ambos, Large, and Wierda, Building a Future (2009), 263–302;

van Alebeek, R., The Immunity of States and Their Officials in International Criminal Law andInternational Human Rights Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009);

van der Wilt, H., ‘Bilateral Agreements between the United States and States Parties to the RomeStatute – Are They Compatible with the Object and Purpose of the Statute?’, LJIL, 18 (2005),93–111;

94 Bibliography

Veneziano, D., ‘II principio di specialita ’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Francesco, Problemi attuali(2005), 459–466;

Ventura, M. J., ‘Escape from Johannesburg? Sudanese President Al-Bashir Visits South Africa, andthe Implicit Removal of Head of State Immunity by the UN Security Council in Light of Al-Jedda’, JICJ, 13 (2015), 995–1025;

Vervaele, J. A. E. and Klip, A. H., European Cooperation between Tax, Customs and JudicialAuthorities (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002);

Vest, H., Gerechtigkeit fur Humanitätsverbrechen? (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006);Wartanian, A., ‘The ICC Prosecutor’s Battlefield – Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States’

Cooperation – Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda’, GeoJIL, 36(2005), 1289–1316;

Wenqui, Z., ‘On Co-operation by States not Party to the International Criminal Court’, IRRC, 88(2006), 87–110;

Whiting, A, ‘Dynamic Investigative Practice at the International Criminal Court’, LCP, 76, nos. 3 &4 (2013), 163–189;

Wilkitzki, P., ‘The German Law on Co-Operation with the ICC’, ICLR, 2 (2002), 195–212;Wilkitzki, P., ‘Article 101 – Rule of Speciality’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016),

2158–2169;Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2007),

119–148;Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2010),

144–180;Wilmshurst, E., ‘The International Criminal Court’, in Cryer et al., Introduction ICL (2014),

146–180;Wuerth, I. B., ‘Pinochet’s Legacy Reassessed’, AJIL, 106 (2012), 731–768;Zappalà, S., ‘The Reaction of the US to the Entry into Force of the ICC Statute – Comments on UN

SC Resolution 1422 (2002) and Article 98 Agreements’, JICJ, 1 (2003), 114–134;Zhang, B., ‘Articles 99–100’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 756–770, accessed 25 Novem-

ber 2015;Zhang, Y., ‘Articles 96–97’, in Klamberg,Online Commentary ICC, 737–751, accessed 25 November

2015.

CHAPTER 8

Alldridge, P.,Money Laundering Law – Forfeiture, Confiscation, Civil Recovery, Criminal Launder-ing and Taxation of the Proceeds of the Crime (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2003);

Ambach, P., ‘The ICC Reparations Scheme – Promise for Victims or Recipe for Failure? –A CriticalDiscussion of Joakim Dungel’s Unpublished Article “Reparations and the ICC – Is the CourtReady for the Job?” ’, in Ambach P. et al., eds, The Protection of Non-Combatants During ArmedConflict and Safeguarding the Rights of Victims in Post-Conflict Society – Essays in Honour of theLife and Work of Joakim Dungel (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2015), 455–520;

Ambos, K., Malarino, E. and Woischnik, J., eds, Dificultades jurídicas y políticas para la ratificacióno implementación del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (Bogotá: Temis, 2007);

Ambos, K. and Poschadel, A., ‘1. Hauptteil – Grundlagen’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2015),57–95;

Abels, D., Prisoners of the International Community - The Legal Position of Persons Detained atInternational Criminal Tribunals (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2012);

Beltrán Montoliu, A., ‘El enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, in Gómez Colomeret al., CPI (2003), 351–382;

Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2004);Chimimba, T. P., ‘Establishing an Enforcement Regime’, in Lee, The ICC (1999), 345–356;Clark, R. S., ‘Article 105 – Enforcement of the Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary

(2016), 2190–2191;

Bibliography 95

Clark, R. S., ‘Article 106 – Supervision of Enforcement of Sentences and Conditions of Imprison-ment’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2192–2195;

Clark, R. S., ‘Article 107 – Transfer of the Person upon Completion of Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2196–2198;

Doyle, C., Crime and Forfeiture (Congressional Research Service 2015), available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-139.pdf>, accessed 11 April 2016;

Elberling, B., ‘German Practice Regarding Enforcement of Sentences Passed by InternationalCriminal Courts and Tribunals’, GYbIL, 54 (2011), 665–670;

Eser, A., ‘Verfall und Einziehung – Vorbemerkungen’, in Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch -Kommentar (München: C.H. Beck, 29th edn, 2014), 1215–1221;

Friman, H., ‘Sentencing and Penalties’, in Cryer et al., Introduction to ICL (2014), 500–513;Galvis Martínez, M., ‘Forfeiture of Assets at the ICC’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 193–217;Garretson, H. J., ‘Federal Criminal Forfeiture – A Royal Pain in the Assets’, SCaliforniaRL&SocJ, 18

(2008–2009), 45–77;Gartner, I., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence on Co-Operation and Enforcement’, in Fischer

et al., Prosecution (2001), 423–445;Hess, M., Knust, N., and Schuon, C., ‘Implementation of the Rome Statute in Germany’, FYbIL, 16

(2005), 133–161;Hochmayr, G., ‘Neue Kriminalsanktionen im Rechtsvergleich’, ZStW, 124 (2012), 64–86;Hoffmann, K., ‘Some Remarks on the Enforcement of International Sentences in Light of the Galić

Case at the ICTY’, ZIS, 6 (2011), 838–842;Holá, B. and van Wijk, J., ‘Life after Conviction at International Criminal Tribunals – An Empirical

Overview’, JICJ, 12 (2014), 109–132;Holvoet, M. and Yabasun, D., ‘Former ICC Defendant – Ngudjolo – Applies for Asylum in the

Netherlands’, EJIL:Talk!, 28 March 2013, <http://www.ejiltalk.org/former-icc-defendant-ngudjolo-applies-for-asylum-in-the-netherlands/>, accessed 11 April 2016;

Irving, E., ‘ProtectingWitnesses at the International Criminal Court from Refoulement’, JICJ, 12(2014), 1141–1160;

Kelder, J. M., Holá, B. and van Wijk, J., ‘Rehabilitation and Early Release of Perpetrators ofInternational Crimes – A Case Study of the ICTY and ICTR’, ICLR, 14 (2014), 1177–1203;

Keller, R., ‘Erläuterung des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafger-ichtshof ’, in Ambos et al., Rechtshilferecht (2015), 1055–1099;

Klamberg, M., ‘Article 107 – Transfer of the Person upon Completion of Sentence’, in Klamberg,Online Commentary ICC, 793–796, accessed 11 April 2016;

Klip, A., ‘Enforcement of Sanctions Imposed by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwandaand the Former Yugoslavia’, EJCCLCJ, 5 (1997), 144–164;

Kreß, C., ‘Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes vom 17 Juli 1998’, in Grützner/Pötz/Kreß, Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen (2003), IV A1;

Kreß, C. and Sluiter, G., ‘Enforcement’, in Cassese et al., Rome Statute, ii (2002), 1751–1838;Labuda, P., ‘Complementarity Compromised? The ICC Gives Congo the Green Light to Re-Try

Katanga’, Opinio Juris, (13 April 2016), <http://opiniojuris.org/2016/04/11/complementarity-compromised-the-icc-gives-congo-the-green-light-to-re-try-katanga/>, accessed 13 April 2016;

MacLean, J., ‘Gesetzentwurf über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ’,ZRP, 35 (2002), 260–4;

Marchesi, A., ‘The Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Court’, in Lattanzi andSchabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i (2000), 427–445;

Meißner, J., ‘Das Gesetz zur Ausführung des Römischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgericht-shofes’ NJ, 56 (2002), 347–350;

Mulgrew, R., Towards the Development of the International Penal System (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2013);

Nemitz, J. C., ‘Execution of Sanctions Imposed by Supranational Criminal Tribunals’, in Haveman,R. H. and Olusanya, O., eds, Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law(Antwerp: Intersentia, 2006), 125–144;

96 Bibliography

Nemitz, J. C. and Schomburg, W., ‘Einführung in die deutschsprachigen Zusammenarbeitsgesetzemit dem IStGH’, in Schomburg et al., Internationale Rechtshilfe (2012), 2292–2331;

Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Articles 103–109’, in Fernandez and Pacreau, Statut de Rome, ii (2012),1959–1993;

Oehmichen, A., ‘Article 110 – Review by the Court Concerning Reduction of Sentence’, inKlamberg, Online Commentary ICC, 810–818, accessed 11 April 2016;

Palmisano, G., ‘The ICC and Third States’, in Lattanzi and Schabas, Essays on the Rome Statute, i(2000), 391–425;

Piva, D., ‘Le sanzioni nello Statuto della Corte Penale Internazionale’, ZIS, 3 (2008), 141–152;Prost, K., ‘Enforcement’, in Lee, The ICC (2001), 673–702;Pulvirenti, A., ‘L’esecuzione delle pene detentive inflitte dalla Corte penale internazionale – Un

difficile equilibrio tra effettività e garanzie costituzionali’, in Cassese, Chiavario, and De Fran-cesco, Problemi attuali (2005), 467–494;

Puza, R., Res Iudicata – Rechtskraft und Fehlerhaftes Urteil in den Decisionen der römischen Rota(Graz: Leykam Verlag, 1973);

Rochner, J., Strafvollstreckung und Strafvollzug im internationalen Strafrecht: Zu den rechtsstaatli-chen Problemen der Vollstreckung der Strafen der internationalen Strafgerichte (Hamburg: Kovač,2014);

Saltzburg, S. A. and Capra, D. J., American Criminal Procedure – Cases and Commentary (St. Paul,Minnesota: Thomson and West, 9th edn, 2010);

Savadogo, R. O., ‘Non-coupables! Le non-refoulement, les assurances diplomatiques et la réinstal-lation des acquittés des juridictions pénales internationales dans leurs pays d’origine’, ICLR, 15(2015), 785–822;

Schabas, W. A., ‘Article 108 – Limitation on the Prosecution or Punishment of Other Offences’, inTriffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2199–2204;

Schabas, W. A., ‘Article 109 – Enforcement of Fines and Forfeiture Measures’, in Triffterer/Ambos,ICC Commentary (2016), 2205–2209;

Sluiter, G., ‘Implementation of the ICC Statute in the Dutch Legal Order’, JICJ, 2 (2004), 158–178;Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Articles 103–106’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

775–792, accessed 11 April 2016;Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Articles 108–109’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

796–809, accessed 11 April 2016;Stiel, M. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Article 111 – Escape’, in Klamberg, Online Commentary ICC,

819–821 accessed 11 April 2016;Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 3 – Seat of the Court’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC

Commentary (2016), 41–102;Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 103 – Role of States in Enforcement of Sentences of

Imprisonment ’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2173–2186;Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 104 – Change in Designation of State of

Enforcement’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2187–2189;Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 110 – Review by the Court Concerning Reduction of

Sentence’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commentary (2016), 2210–2211;Strijards, G. A. M. and Harmsen, R. O., ‘Article 111 – Escape’, in Triffterer/Ambos, ICC Commen-

tary (2016), 2212–2213;Tolbert, D. ‘The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Enforcement of

Sentences’, LJIL, 11 (1998), 655–669;van Zyl Smit, D., ‘International Imprisonment’, ICLQ, 54 (2005), 357–386;Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht – Theorie und Praxis (Berlin: Duncker &

Humblot, 3rd edn, 1984);Wilkitzki, P.,‘ Deutsche Vollstreckungshilfe für den Internationalen Jugoslawien Gerichtshof oder:

Gedanken zur Lernfähigkeit des Gesetzgebers’, in Triffterer, O., ed, Gedächtnisschrift für TheoVogler (Heidelberg: C. F. Muller, 2004), 263–274.

Bibliography 97