Fighting impunity for crimes is paramount for any criminal justice system that is resolute in rendering effective justice for crimes committed and deterring future crimes. The pursuit of prevention of impunity should not be limited to the acts that are criminalized under national laws but should encompass acts that constitute international crimes. Although states will generally be amenable to undertake impunity prevention measures to ensure effective exercise of their respective national criminal jurisdiction, similar enthusiasm could dwindle when the same is sought by other states or international criminal courts or tribunals. Concerns of any international obligations impinging upon national sovereignty and the consequential reluctance of many states to accede to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court are classic examples. Although, a significant international initiative has sought to address the void in the global fight against impunity with the recent introduction of the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on 26 May 2023, the subsequent lukewarm response of states subscribing to the new regime raises the question whether the reluctance of the states could be attributed to the same conundrum states face in acceding to the Rome Statue. With an aim to investigate this apprehension, the present paper systematically reviews the fundamental provisions of the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention to determine the extent to which they may add to the conventional concerns of states that are not parties to the ICC. The paper closely examines the core obligations arising from the Convention to demonstrate how a balance is sought to be achieved between enhancing international cooperation and conserving national sovereignty in criminal administration. The paper argues that this pioneering multilateral regime in reinforcing international cooperation in criminal matters in three distinct fundamental elements of mutual legal assistance, extradition and transfer of sentence persons should be seen by non-subscribing states as fundamental tool in enhancing the reach and effectiveness of their national criminal jurisdiction more than as a platform to facilitate international courts or tribunals. The specific findings of the paper evaluates the validity of this argument to reach relevant conclusions and propose some future course of action.
Muruga Perumal Ramaswamy (Thu,) studied this question.