ABSTRACT
Kevin Heller’s chapter on a ‘sentenced-based theory of complementarity’ marks a significant contribution to the growing scholarship on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and complementarity. His proposed re-thinking of the complementarity regime is original and helpful in highlighting existing policy dilemmas of ICC practice. A ‘“sentence-based” heuristic’ is appealing in its clarity and its objective to facilitate effective repression. Nevertheless, I share some hesitation regarding the central claim of this theory. In my view, the argument that the ICC should focus ‘exclusively on sentencing’ when determining whether an ‘ordinary’ crime prosecution is admissible before the ICC is neither desirable nor manageable in all cases. I will focus on three aspects: the assumptions underlying the central claim, the desirability of a new methodology, and its manageability.
