Abstract
The campaign of atrocities against Myanmar’s Rohingya minority is among the most pressing human rights challenges of our times. The Prosecutor applied for jurisdiction with “Prosecution’s request for a ruling on ju-risdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statue”, which caused considerable controversy among academical, dip-lomatic circles and even among judges. Judge Brichambaut’s critique of “The Request” covers almost all crit-ical legal thinking. Judge Brichambaut considered that the application of Article 19(3) of the RS in the “Re-quest” was neither appropriate nor in accordance with the principle of fairness, inappropriately expanded the prosecutor’s power, and did harm to the authority of the ICC. Based on the dogmatic theory, the Article 19(3) of the RS pointed out that the purpose of the clause is to limit the Court’s jurisdiction to safeguard national sovereignty. The distinction between “jurisdiction” and “admissibility” essentially is to ensure that the Court earnestly abides by the scope of jurisdiction determined by the RS. The historical interpretation of Article 19(3) of the RS not only clarifies the legality of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the situation in Myanmar, but also verifies that the RS is an “organized whole”