CYIL 2014

MILAN LIPOVSKÝ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ overall study results, they have included a more detailed study into the second part of the analysis (as described on page 8). Another aspect of the analysis that is worth mentioning is the relation between the CAH and the Rome Statute. The analysis quantitatively compares the results of studying domestic legislation (and their laws related to CAH) with the States’ relation to the Rome Statute, i.e. whether such States are parties to the Rome Statute or not. Hence the analysis also provides for information about what the influence of the International Criminal Court and its basic document on the international community is. Certainly such analysis has its limits. The authors were aware of these and do not aspire to present their study results as an unshakeable basis. Above all, the overall analysis in part one, based on three secondary sources, provides us with interesting results; however, it does not derive binding conclusions. Part 2 is more focused on chosen countries with CAH legislation and desires to qualitatively evaluate their domestic legislation. The authors have chosen these countries in a logical and understandable way 2 – a combination of secondary sources and the authors’ choice based on their findings. The chosen countries include both developed and developing countries, some of the permanent members of the Security Council as well as others, and countries from all the continents, including the Czech Republic. This way it is likely that the analysis presents representative and relevant data. Moreover the authors have used sources of various kinds and in several languages. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the analysis submits a dense amount of information and data that one might get easily lost in when he/she does not look for particular information. This is not necessarily a detriment of the analysis; however, should its authors want to aspire to make it a more useful guideline for students interested in the topic, 3 one could recommend elaborating on the topic of crimes against humanity itself more widely and interpreting it as a legal instrument in a detailed way. This is not a place to repeat results of the analysis, and so I would finally just like to congratulate the team of authors on the extensive study (that must have without any doubt consumed a vast amount of time and energy) that they have done and transferred into this analysis. Milan Lipovský *

2 When the extent of the analysis is taken into account. 3 However this was probably not the goal of the analysis. * Mgr. Milan Lipovský is a postgraduate student of the Department of International Law in the School of Law of Charles University in Prague.

502