During the nineties, he was in private practice in Argentina, helping companies and public institutions control corruption. In he directed a famous Argentine TV show teaching law and conflict resolution. He is part-time in private practice managing cases with transnational challenges.
All rights reserved. Policies Guidelines. His office was involved in twenty of the most serious crises of the 21st century including Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, and Palestine. He conducted investigations in seven different countries including Libya and Sudan. In October , the World Bank appointed Mr.
HILJ: How do you perceive the ICC is taking into account the increasing participation of corporations in armed conflict and atrocity crimes i. LMO: I am not sure it is true that there is increasing corporate participation in atrocity crimes. In my experience, I do not see that. I have no evidence to say that it is true.
HILJ: Given that some transnational corporate activities are conducted in several places simultaneously, where would the OTP consider the relevant conduct as being perpetrated for the purpose of assessing complementarity Would the ICC give preference to any particular state, say the territorial state where crimes were committed or where the financial transactions were approved?
Or would it be necessary that all states involved had failed to prosecute the alleged criminaL? LMO: Suppose you have a corporation with offices in different countries and each office is susceptible to have done the crime. Any country conducting an investigation against such a corporation could prevent the ICC from investigating executives of that corporation. The principle of the ICC is that justice has to be done, and preferably, the nation state should do it.
The ICC would never compete with a national system to conduct an investigation. HILJ: Would you look more closely to the state where the criminal conduct happened or where the corporation is based for complementarity purposes?
Suppose you have a German company committing a crime in the Congo. If the Congo or Germany is conducting proceedings, it is perfect for the ICC, as long as the proceedings are genuine. LMO: Any national authority, including non-state parties, should be considered if they are conducting a proper investigation. You cannot prosecute the same person twice for the same case. That is the ne bis in idem principle. For example, if the US, who is a non-state party, investigates both a company and an individual managing the company and subsequently convicts them for participating in massive atrocities, then the ICC should respect that.
HILJ: In your opinion as a professor, if you were to decide which would be the best way to improve accountability of corporate executives after domestic jurisdiction of states involved have failed, would you rather advocate for universal jurisdiction by domestic courts or for international jurisdiction? LMO: I believe the best way to control corporate misbehavior is to work with corporations and their competitors. We must also ensure that business people understand that their businesses cannot be connected with massive atrocities.
0コメント