LÍMITES HERMENÉUTICOS AL PRINCIPIO DE COMPLEMENTARIEDAD EN LA JURISPRUDENCIA DE LA CORTE PENAL INTERNACIONAL: UNA APARENTE APORÍA SOBRE LOS ALCANCES MATERIALES DE LAS JURISDICCIONES NACIONALES

Abstract

Objective: To contrast the scope of the principle of complementarity in terms of the dimension of national jurisdictional sovereignty on the basis of the most relevant cases of the International Criminal Court. Methods: a critical hermeneutic method was used, analyzing the interrelationship between the principle of complementarity and the jurisdictional sovereignty of each State. The methodology is based on a socio-historical analysis of the institutions and jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. Conclusion: It is concluded that there is no inconsistency between the principle of complementarity and the jurisdictional sovereignty of each State. Any contradictions between the two institutions should be understood in terms of exceptional socio-historical circumstances, such as the figure of debellatio or the implications of the relationship between powers within each state. This paper vindicates the need for a heuristic exercise contesting the positions that transform normative presuppositions such as the principle of complementarity and the jurisdictional sovereignty of each State into closed and solipsistic analytical categories, since such a position would not only prevent any possibility of contrasting different legal paradigms, but, to make matters worse, would hinder any possibility of sanctioning serious crimes.