{"id":153,"date":"2013-12-12T02:58:35","date_gmt":"2013-12-12T01:58:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/?p=153"},"modified":"2014-04-24T07:07:39","modified_gmt":"2014-04-24T11:07:39","slug":"the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/","title":{"rendered":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ASP_2013\"<\/a>Much of the commentary on the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) added provisions to Rules 134 (bis<\/em>, ter<\/em> and quater<\/em>) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), which ease the requirement for an accused to be physically present at trial, has been disdainful. But before we consider potential effects of these new provisions, or lack thereof, let\u2019s first look at the substance.\u00a0 Does the ICC Statute permit the Rules to be amended so accused \u2013 political leaders, no less \u2013 can be excused from attending parts of their trials due to \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d or because of \u201cextraordinary public duties\u201d?\u00a0 Were the amendments necessary?\u00a0 Did the ASP exercise sound judgment?\u00a0 Though the answers to these questions seem to be yes, guarded cynicism is justified.\u00a0 From time to time, trial chambers will no doubt be tempted by the political siren calls for accommodation and realpolitik.\u00a0 Implementing these added provisions to Rule 134 will require prudence, finesse and judiciousness. As they saying goes: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Art. 63(1) of the ICC Statute requires the accused to be present during the trial.\u00a0 However, Art. 63(1) does not include language prohibiting any alternative to actual physical presence.<\/p>\n

Art. 63(2) permits a trial chamber to banish disruptive accused from the courtroom and afford them the opportunity to follow the proceedings \u201cthrough the use of communications technology.\u201d\u00a0 Accused effectively waive their physical presence in court by purposely misbehaving.\u00a0 Providing video linkage to these accused ensures their right to follow the proceedings, if so desired.\u00a0 Fair enough.<\/p>\n

Relying on Art. 63(2), however, to suggest that \u201cpresence\u201d in Art. 63(1) exclusively means physical presence, is an ambitious stretch. (see e.g.<\/em> Kevin Jon Heller\u2019s thoughtful prognosis: Will the New PRE 134 Provisions Survive Judicial Review? (Probably Not.), Opinio Juris, 28 Nov. 2013<\/a>).\u00a0 And, while the added provisions seemingly dilute the objective for holding public trials where the accused \u2013 especially political leaders \u2013 are accused of orchestrating mass atrocities, the recalibration of the RPE, in this instance, was necessary and reasonable.\u00a0 In reconciling the presumption of innocence accorded to the accused, with the need to prosecute and punish based on fair and public trials, Rule 134 bis<\/em>, ter<\/em> and quater<\/em> enhanced the raison d\u2019etre<\/em> of the ICC.<\/p>\n

Some preliminary remarks may help.\u00a0 Video conferencing is widely used at the international tribunals.\u00a0 It is used when accused do not wish to be physically present in trial, either because they are boycotting the proceedings or are too sick to physically attend, or are just simply disinterested.\u00a0 A simple waiver does the trick.\u00a0 An accused\u2019s refusal to leave his cell to attend the proceedings constitutes a waiver.\u00a0 Witnesses, even highly critical witnesses, routinely testify through videoconferencing. The interests of justice are the usual justification. An accused\u2019s right of confrontation, no matter how critical, is routinely, if not dismissively, balanced with the need to accommodate the prosecution in adducing its evidence.\u00a0 So, if there is no material difference in the use of videoconferencing when necessary to accommodate witnesses or disruptive or ailing accused, is it rational to claim that \u201cpresence\u201d in the context of Art. 63(1) excludes presence through videoconferencing?\u00a0 Hardly.\u00a0 And, what about when accused in the middle of trial proceedings require medical treatment?\u00a0 Through a simple written waiver, the accused is effectively present through his counsel.<\/p>\n

Presence, comes in many different forms; something widely accepted in both national and internationals courts.\u00a0 So why the drama?<\/p>\n

Some argue that the added provisions , especially Rule 134quater<\/em>, came about because of mounting pressure from some African States through the African Union<\/a>, which see the ICC as unfairly targeting only Africans.\u00a0 No doubt.\u00a0 Finding an accommodation for the two \"Uhuru-Kenyatta-and-Deputy-President-William-Ruto1-350x176\"<\/a>highest elected officials of Kenya (President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Samoei Ruto), had much to do with this proposal, though, in the grand scheme of things, the added provisions to Rule 134 were an essential tweaking of the RPE.<\/p>\n

The ICC was set up as the court of last resort to try, among others, political leaders, including sitting ones.\u00a0 Obviously, the ICC\u2019s viability rests on State and individual acceptance of and cooperation with the ICC.<\/p>\n

There is currency to be gained by accused who fully abide by and engage with the ICC. For instance, they may be out of custody during the pre-trial stage, and even run for political office.\u00a0 While it may seem odd to accord an accused such privileges, it bears remembering that accused are cloaked with the presumption of innocence during the pre-trial and trial stage, and up until such time as they may be convicted.\u00a0 And, what of a duly democratically elected president on trial: is he or she not entitled to this presumption of innocence?\u00a0 Is he or she impervious from a total acquittal, should the prosecution fail, and fail they occasionally do, to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt?\u00a0 Should not reasonable and necessary allowances be made to fully cooperating political leaders when critical State matters are at stake and no alternative means in addressing such matters exist?\u00a0 Do the chambers at the ICC not have discretionary authority to make allowances to accused for good cause and exceptional circumstances?\u00a0 If so, does the use of this discretionary authority not in some fashion result in disparate treatment of the accused?\u00a0 Of course it does.\u00a0 However, when incidental disparity results from the use of authorized judicial discretion based on necessity and not privilege or selectivity, Art. 27(1) of the ICC Statute, which mandates that all accused be treated equally and no distinction be made based on official capacity, is not violated.<\/p>\n

While it may seem unfair to make certain allowances for certain accused, such as political leaders, the ICC cannot operate in a vacuum.\u00a0 Extraordinary circumstances require flexibility in balancing the various rights at stake.\u00a0 Victims do need to see the accused in the dock during the trial proceedings, but this right, if it is a right, must be counterbalanced against other relevant factors.\u00a0 Finding the right balance, therein lies the rub.<\/p>\n

More to the point, Rule 134quater<\/em> is by no means a carte blanche<\/em> for the likes of President Kenyatta and Vice President Ruto.\u00a0 It is not as if they have an automatic right to be absent from their proceedings so they can pursue more desirous activities, whether professional or personal. Rule 134quater<\/em> places significant restrictions on a trial chamber\u2019s use of its discretionary authority in excusing an accused to be present during the trial proceedings.\u00a0 Let\u2019s examine.<\/p>\n

Rule 134quater<\/em> reads:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0An accused subject to a summons to appear who is mandated to fulfill extraordinary public duties at the highest national level may submit a written request to the Trial Chamber to be allowed to be excused and to be represented by counsel only; the request must specify that the accused specifically waives the right to be present at the trial.
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0The Trial Chamber shall consider the request expeditiously and, if alternative measures are inadequate, shall grant the request where it determines that it is in the interest of justice and provided that the rights of the accused are fully ensured. The decision shall be taken with due regard to the subject matter of the specific hearings in question and is subject to review at any time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the onus is on the accused to satisfy the trial chamber that:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0the relevant public duties are \u201cextraordinary\u201d;
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0the relevant public duties are at the highest national level;
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0no alternative measures are adequate;
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0it is in the interest of justice;
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0his or her rights are fully ensured; and
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0he or she waives in writing the right to be present at trial.<\/p>\n

The trial chamber also:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0must consider the subject matter of the hearing to which the accused will be absent; and
\n–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0can review at any time its decision.<\/p>\n

Any decision granted by a trial chamber is subject to appellate review.\u00a0 And, one need not read the proverbial tea leaves to guess how the Appeals Chamber is likely to review Rule 134quater<\/em> decisions granting an accused\u2019s request to be absent from trial proceedings to fulfill extraordinary public duties.\u00a0 Read its decision in Ruto<\/em>.\u00a0 Edifying.<\/p>\n

It is a bit early to see the effects of these added provisions to the RPE.\u00a0 Faced with the real threat of having droves of countries remove themselves from the ASP, thus weakening, if not fatally injuring, the ICC, the ASP opted for pragmatism over idealism.\u00a0 But does this set a bad precedent?\u00a0 Has the ICC exposed its Achilles heel?\u00a0 Will the ASP be rushing for compromise (or appeasement, as some see this set of events), whenever a State or set of States threaten to walk away from the ICC?\u00a0 Let\u2019s hope not, though international criminal justice is inexorably entwined with politics and diplomacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Much of the commentary on the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) added provisions to Rules 134 (bis, ter and quater) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), which ease the requirement for an accused to be physically present at trial, has been disdainful. But before we consider potential effects of these new provisions, … Continue reading “The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,9,1],"tags":[4,7],"class_list":["post-153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-international-criminal-law","category-press","category-uncategorized","tag-icc","tag-international-criminal-law"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Much of the commentary on the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) added provisions to Rules 134 (bis, ter and quater) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), which ease the requirement for an accused to be physically present at trial, has been disdainful. But before we consider potential effects of these new provisions, … Continue reading "The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Michael G. Karnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mgkarnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael G. Karnavas\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"headline\":\"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1464,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"ICC\",\"International Criminal Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"International Criminal Law\",\"Press\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/\",\"name\":\"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/12\\\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas Blog\",\"description\":\"International Criminal Law Blog\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\",\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"width\":365,\"height\":365,\"caption\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\"},\"description\":\"Michael G. Karnavas is an American trained lawyer. He is licensed in Alaska and Massachusetts and is qualified to appear before the various International tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Residing and practicing primarily in The Hague, he is recognized as an expert in international criminal defence, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate advocacy.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/michael-g-karnavas-97494a75\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/https:\\\/\\\/twitter.com\\\/mgkarnavas\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/author\\\/michael-g-karnavas\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","og_description":"Much of the commentary on the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) added provisions to Rules 134 (bis, ter and quater) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), which ease the requirement for an accused to be physically present at trial, has been disdainful. But before we consider potential effects of these new provisions, … Continue reading \"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?\"","og_url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/","og_site_name":"michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","article_published_time":"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Michael G. Karnavas","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas","twitter_site":"@mgkarnavas","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael G. Karnavas","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/"},"author":{"name":"Michael G. Karnavas","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"headline":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?","datePublished":"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/"},"wordCount":1464,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg","keywords":["ICC","International Criminal Law"],"articleSection":["International Criminal Law","Press"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/","url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/","name":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution? - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg","datePublished":"2013-12-12T01:58:35+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-24T11:07:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/ASP_2013-300x141.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2013\/12\/12\/the-new-rpe-134-provisions-cowardly-capitulation-or-pragmatic-resolution\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New RPE 134 Provisions: cowardly capitulation or pragmatic resolution?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/","name":"Michael G. Karnavas Blog","description":"International Criminal Law Blog","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79","name":"Michael G. Karnavas","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","width":365,"height":365,"caption":"Michael G. Karnavas"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1"},"description":"Michael G. Karnavas is an American trained lawyer. He is licensed in Alaska and Massachusetts and is qualified to appear before the various International tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Residing and practicing primarily in The Hague, he is recognized as an expert in international criminal defence, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate advocacy.","sameAs":["http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/michael-g-karnavas-97494a75\/","https:\/\/x.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas"],"url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/author\/michael-g-karnavas\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":610,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions\/610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}