Аңдатпа
The principle of complementarity is the main admissibility mechanism by which the International Criminal Court (ICC) connects its jurisdiction to national criminal jurisdictions. This article explores the operation of that principle in law and practice, with specific focus on the distinction between action and inaction, the “same person, substantially the same conduct” test, unwillingness and inability, and the procedural interaction of Articles 17–19 of the Rome Statute. The methodology is doctrinal and comparative, taking as its basis the Rome Statute, the jurisprudence and policy materials of the ICC, domestic implementing legislation in the UK, Canada and Australia and the position of India as a non-State Party. It also applies selected contemporary cases—the Philippines, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Libya, Colombia, and the Central African Republic—to test how complementarity works beyond abstract doctrine. The article proposes that complementarity should be understood as neither automatic national primacy nor ICC primacy. It is a case-specific admissibility regime which privileges genuine domestic proceedings concerning the same person and substantially the same conduct, while preserving ICC intervention in situations of inaction or where domestic proceedings are marred by unwillingness or inability. The analysis further contends that the current “positive complementarity” moves the practical relationship beyond the controversy over admissibility: the 2024 Office of the Prosecutor policy and Assembly of States Parties mechanisms increasingly characterise complementarity as cooperation, information exchange and support for domestic capacity. But the comparative evidence demonstrates that legislative incorporation alone does not generate real accountability. The article’s main contribution is an integrated framework connecting admissibility doctrine, domestic implementation, procedural timing and positive complementarity, while pointing to the limits of considering national investigations as sufficient just because they exist.