Description
Despite critiques from practitioners (Seils, 2016), academics (Robinson, 2010; Megret, 2010), and even the International Criminal Court (ICC) itself (OTP Strategic Plan, 2015), attempts to position the court as an active assistant in promoting and supporting domestic accountability efforts continue. Rather than focusing on these conceptual and normative debates (about what positive complementarity should be), this paper investigates what concrete actions the ICC has taken to further this principle (that is, examining what positive complementarity actually is). Through a detailed examination of ICC positive complementarity actions, the indicators of success the court has placed on itself (KPIs), and statements by the Office of the Prosecutor, this paper assesses the extent to which the ICC has translated its rhetorical commitment to positive complementarity into tangible action. The findings suggest that while the ICC has made a significant effort to reframe itself as a positive complementarity actor, this aspiration has largely failed to materialise in practice with attempts to rebrand as a supportive ‘hub’ for post-atrocity accountability largely concealing a highly hierarchical approach to post-conflict justice.
