Ne Bis In Idem Principle: Current Problems of Implementation in International Criminal Law

Introduction. The individual criminal liability is characterized by several principles that clarify its international legal content. In this article, the author focuses on the principle of prohibiting the repeated prosecution of a person for the same crime (ne bis in idem principle). It seems appropriate to consider not only the history of fixing this principle in the international law, but also the features of its content, legal nature, as well as to identify the problems arising along the enforcement practice. The issue of the risk of repeated prosecution of the individual for the same crime gets a great importance considering the international criminal justice institutions operating alongside national judicial systems. Materials and methods. The study is relied on the following general scientific and special methods of knowledge: historical, legal, comparative legal, the method of logical and structural analysis, systemic approach. Research results. The analysis of the international law, academic research and enforcement practice made possible to identify some differences in the ne bis in idem principle as formulated in the acts of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The problems of applying of the ne bis in idem principle in the practice of the ICC in Katanga were identified, specifically in the Court’s interpretation of Art. 108 of the Rome Statute, which allows us to conclude that this principle has been violated. Discussion and conclusion. An analysis of the ne bis in idem principle leads us to conclusion that its sine qua non character is applicable only to the national jurisdiction, but not to the jurisdiction of another state as well as it doesn’t automatically cover the decisions made by foreign judicial authorities. As for international criminal justice, here the principle of ne bis in idem plays a greater role as a regulator (pointsman), determining the choice of the jurisdiction rather than as a guarantee of the rights of the accused.