English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Both the International Criminal Court ( icc ) and the UN Security Council ( unsc ) are vested with the capacity to request States to freeze individuals’ assets. The two bodies are also bound to cooperate closely under the terms of their relationship agreement ‘with a view to facilitating the effective discharge of their respective responsibilities’. This article examines whether this obligation extends to the  unsc  coordinating its targeted sanctions regime to support the  icc  in respect of the enforcement powers with which the latter is equipped. It does so by analysing eight cases where  unsc  action (could) have coincided with  icc  operations, with a particular focus on the (non-)parallel implementation of the two bodies’ asset freezing procedures. The article demonstrates that, though the activities of the  unsc  and the  icc  in this sphere of their respective operations might have overlapped on a number of occasions, they have rarely been deliberately coordinated. This leads the author to conclude that close cooperation as envisaged in the relationship agreement between the two bodies is unlikely on this front.

Coexistent but Uncoordinated: Asset Freezing Measures at the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council