La cour pénale internationale et les juridictions internes des états

ABSTRACT

The world went through atrocities between the 15^th and the 20^th century. The year 1474 indeed marks a considerable projection for international penal justice, in particular with the lawsuit of Peter Von HAGENSBACH, Grand Baillif of Alsace, servant of Charles le Téméraire. Judged for what is called today war crime, this lawsuit caused inspiration for the introduction of a stable international peace justice. Nevertheless, it is at the 20^th century that this right will be concretized or rather will know a remarkable projection. Moreover, shortly after the Second World War, an international penal tribunal (TPIY, TPIR and TSSL) will be established.

However, the problem of stability was not completely solved due to the fact that these institutions were destined to disappear once their missions fulfilled. The creation of a permanent jurisdiction such as the International Criminal Court appeared to be a necessity. It was creditable since it had as purpose to collaborate with the internal jurisdictions of States in its fight against the impunity of the most serious infringements such as the crime against humanity, war crimes, crimes of genocide and the crime of aggression. At the preamble of article 1 of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court is described like complementary to national jurisdictions. This underlines the problem that could exist in the relationship between the two jurisdictions.

The relation which exist between the International Criminal Court and the national jurisdictions appears to be complementary when it comes to competence and collaborative in cases where legal actions are been taking against authors for their offences. Thus, in its relationship with the States internal jurisdictions, the ICC does not have vocation to consider the crimes coming under its responsibility: the States remain the first in charge of the fight against impunity. It will have repression priority if the other institutions do not take care any for some reasons that could be. Nevertheless, for a good complementarity between the International Court and internal jurisdictions, a call to states on one hand with much more cooperation with the court and on the other hand to fully fulfilled their missions which consist in fighting against impunity of the gravious offences , threatening international peace.

SOMMAIRE

AVERTISSEMENT i

DÉDICACE ii

REMERCIEMENTS iii

RÉSUMÉ v

ABSTRACT vi

SOMMAIRE vii

INTRODUCTION GÉNÉRALE 1

Section 2 : Le contenu de la priorité 28

CONCLUSION DU CHAPITRE 38

CHAPITRE II : LA SUBSIDIARITÉ DE COMPÉTENCE DE LA COUR 40

Section 1 : Le refus des États de poursuivre ou de juger les auteurs des crimes graves. 40

Section 2 : L'incapacité de poursuite ou de jugement des États 46

CONCLUSION DU CHAPITRE 53

CONCLUSION DE LA PREMIÈRE PARTIE 55

SECONDE PARTIE : LA COLLABORATION ENTRE LA COUR ET LES JURIDICTIONS NATIONALES EN MATIÈRE DE POURSUITES 56

CHAPITRE I : LES MÉCANISMES D'ENTRAIDE RÉPRESSIVE VERTICALE 58

Section 1 -La participation des États à la procédure devant la Cour : l'assistance judiciaire et policière et l'exécution des sentences 58

Section 2- La spécificité de la participation des États parties au fonctionnement de la Cour 62

CONCLUSION DU CHAPITRE 69

CHAPITRE 2: LES SANCTIONS POSSIBLES DE LA NON COLLABORATION DES ÉTATS AVEC LA COUR 70

Section 1 : Le droit international général et la responsabilité des États 70

Section 2 : Les sanctions collectives possibles 88

CONCLUSION DU CHAPITRE 96

CONCLUSION DE LA SECONDE PARTIE 97

CONCLUSION GÉNÉRALE 98

ANNEXES 101

TABLE DE MATIÈRES 124