Current jurisprudential trends empower the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor to override domestic investigative authorities in a manner that violates the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute. Sovereign states have primary responsibility to document, investigate and prevent atrocity crimes. Yet, current ICC practice subverts domestic enforcement efforts. No provision of the Rome Statute permits the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to substitute its unfettered judgment over the good-faith discretion of domestic prosecutors. ICC judges have created de facto institutional jurisdictional primacy by relying upon mere assertions regarding the insufficiency of domestic efforts. This trend is particularly problematic at the liminal phase from the preliminary examination (PE) to an authorised investigation because OTP policy preferences supersede good-faith domestic investigations and prosecutorial assessments. Juridical templates for assessing admissibility have been extrapolated from later phases of particularised cases into the PE phase. Current practice effectively eliminates sovereign prosecutorial discretion. Good-faith exercises of domestic prosecutorial discretion should not be constrained by post hoc Court-created straitjackets. This article dissects this problematic arc and proffers a model for harmonising domestic investigative efforts within the structure and intent of the Rome Statute. Its conclusions recommend reforms to ameliorate a foreseeable crisis of cooperation that could cripple an unreformed Court.

中文翻译：

---

国际刑事法院的绝对主义可受理性：重新验证真实的国内调查

当前的判例趋势授权国际刑事法院 (ICC) 检察官以违反《罗马规约》的文字和精神的方式凌驾于国内调查当局之上。主权国家对记录、调查和预防暴行罪负有主要责任。然而，目前国际刑事法院的做法颠覆了国内执法工作。《罗马规约》没有任何条款允许检察官办公室（OTP）以其不受约束的判断取代国内检察官的善意酌处权。国际刑事法院法官仅依靠关于国内努力不足的断言，创造了事实上的机构管辖权。这种趋势在从初步审查 (PE) 到授权调查的临界阶段尤其成问题，因为 OTP 政策偏好取代了善意的国内调查和起诉评估。评估可受理性的司法模板已从特定案件的后期阶段外推到 PE 阶段。目前的做法有效地消除了主权起诉裁量权。善意地行使国内起诉裁量权不应受到法院临时设立的紧身衣的限制。本文剖析了这一有问题的弧线，并为在《罗马规约》的结构和意图内协调国内调查工作提供了一个模型。其结论建议进行改革，以缓解可预见的合作危机，这种危机可能会削弱未经改革的法院。