Talita is a DPhil student in the areas of Public International Law and International Criminal Law. Her doctoral research focuses on the principles of legality and fair labeling in general international law and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In particular, she will be looking at certain issues raised by the practice of 'recharacterisation' or 'reclassification' of criminal law, i.e. when a subsequent law is retroactively applied in substitution for the previously applicable one. One of the principal scenarios where this might occur is when the Rome Statute is retroactively applied in situations referred by the UN Security Council or those originating from ad hoc declarations by non-states parties.
In 2015, she obtained her Magister Juris (MJur) degree from Oxford with Distinction. She was also awarded the Clifford Chance Prize for Best Overall Performance in the MJur, the Law Faculty Prize for Best Exam Paper in International Law and Armed Conflict, the Principal’s Prize and Archibald Jackson Prize for Academic Excellence, the latter two awarded by Somerville College, Oxford. Her MJur Dissertation has led to the article “‘Interests of justice’: Defining the scope of Prosecutorial discretion in Article 53 (1)(c) and 2(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”, which was published in April 2017 by the Leiden Journal of International Law (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/interests-of-justice-defining-the-scope-of-prosecutorial-discretion-in-article-531c-and-2c-of-the-rome-statute-of-the-international-criminal-court/0A03F86DF8A7579F7936D06E43F122EF)
In 2015/2016, Talita worked as a legal intern for Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia at the International Criminal Court, under the sponsorship of the Oxford Global Justice Internship Program and the Planethood Foundation. In 2016, she also worked as a Case Reporter for the Oxford Reports on International Law (ORIL), and as a Research Assistant for Professors Dapo Akande and Miles Jackson.
Talita has previously worked as a Law Clerk in Criminal Law for a High Court Judge in the Courts of Justice of Pernambuco, Brazil, and as a legal intern for a Federal Prosecutor in Brazil. She did her undergraduate studies in Law (Bachelor of Laws) at the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) and a one-year academic exchange program in Public International Law at Sciences Po-Lille (Lille, France) and at the Law Faculty of Université Pierre-Mendès (Grenoble, France).
Talita’s doctoral research is supervised by Professor Dapo Akande and funded by the Law Faculty’s Roy Goode Scholarship, the Graduate Assistance Fund Scholarship, and the Planethood Foundation. She is presently the Student Chairperson for the Oxford Transitional Justice Research group (OTJR), the co-convenor of the Public International Law (PIL) Discussion Group and a Tutor in International Criminal Law.
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215651700022XThe International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with the aim of prosecuting individuals for the gravest crimes of concern to the international community. Yet some provisions of its Statute (the Rome Statute) recognize the need for temporarily setting aside criminal investigations or prosecutions in favour of different considerations. Two of these provisions are Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Statute. They allow the Prosecutor of the Court to use his or her discretion in deciding not to initiate an investigation or a prosecution in the ‘interests of justice’. Nonetheless, the ambiguity of this phrase, coupled with an absent definition, have given rise to a polarized debate about its meaning and the Prosecutor’s ensuing margin of discretion: some consider matters of peace and security and alternative justice mechanisms as possible ‘interests of justice’, while others exclude them. Among those adopting the latter view is the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), as can be inferred from a 2007 Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice and a 2013 Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, which continue to be upheld by the Office. Against this backdrop and amid new developments at the ICC which call into question the OTP’s position, the purpose of this article is to develop a comprehensive interpretation of Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Rome Statute, using all the interpretative tools provided by Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Public International Law, International Criminal Law, Criminal Law, Private International Law