Book Reviews Malekian, Farhad. The Monopolization of International Criminal Law in the United Nations. A Jurisprudential Approach. (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International/Uppsala University, 1995. Pp. xiii, 221. Index. $68; £48. With two ad hoc international criminal tribunals at work and a draft for a permanent international criminal court on the agenda, any publication on international criminal law is bound to attract attention. However, this essay, which claims to present `a jurisprudential approach', does not actually deal with international criminal law. In essence, the author laments the `legal and political defects in the Charter and practice' of the United Nations. The author compiles an impressive number of cases which demonstrate that the Security Council actually adjudicates important cases of international criminal law, despite the fact that as a political organ it is neither competent nor an appropriate body for such a function. The privileged position of the permanent members of the Security Council, which violates the principle of sovereign equality, and the impact of national interests in their decision-making processes is seen as a monopolization of international criminal law. Since all serious violations of international law by states, according to the author, are governed by international criminal law, the author can easily demonstrate that the decisions as well as the inactivities of the Security Council are not determined by legal considerations but are dominated by the political interests of permanent members. There is nothing new in this. But discussing it in a perspective of developing, applying or implementing international criminal law may have the healthy effect of warning states, and in particular governments of smaller states, against the danger of conferring on the Security Council a jurisdictional competence in connection with an international criminal court, which is what happened with the establishment of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.) What is even more dangerous is that the same mistake is imbedded in the ILC draft for a permanent international criminal court. Unfortunately, the author's conceptualization of international criminal law is somewhat dispersive. It seems to cover crimes of individuals, organizations and states alike as well as most parts of international law, in particular the law of state responsibility. His interpretations are quite peculiar at times. Thus, when he concludes that under Chapter VII of the UN Charter `the five permanent members of the Security Council not only have the power of decision on international criminal matters but are also the authoritative "international criminal tribunal" determining the precautionary punitive measures against a guilty party.' (p. 102), he obviously takes the law of collective security as enforcement machinery of the system of international criminal law, complaining only of its political deformation and monopolization. However, he does not make a distinction between the law of state responsibility and collective security, an area of concern which has recently occupied the ILC in connection with determining legal competences in relation to international crimes of states and distinguishing competences of the Security Council from the adjudication of international crimes. The author concedes that for international criminal law to become really effective a modification of the UN Charter would be necessary. Bernhard Graefrath
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:37PM