The decision of the Office of the Prosecutor to seek a ruling in the “Bangladesh/Myanmar Situation” on jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Rome Statute was lauded for its drafting. The ICC granted the request in a very controversial judgment. This paper focuses on self-invocation and misinterpretation of Article 119(1) of the Statute (paragraph one disputes). The Court thus created and lost a unique chance to explain one of the untouched provisions of the Statute. The two paragraphs of the Article envisage different types of disputes. The Chamber was divided on the meaning of the very term “dispute”. However, what is noteworthy is that nowhere in her request had the Prosecutor accepted that there exists a dispute in this situation. In fact, the term “dispute” was not mentioned even once in her request. Why then did the Court delve into it?

中文翻译：

---

根据《罗马规约》第 119 条第 1 款解决“争端”

检察官办公室根据《罗马规约》第 19 条第 3 款就“孟加拉国/缅甸局势”的管辖权寻求裁决的决定因其起草而受到称赞。国际刑事法院在一项极具争议的判决中批准了该请求。本文侧重于对《规约》第 119 条第 1 款的自我援引和误解（第一款争议）。因此，法院创造并失去了解释《规约》未触及条款之一的独特机会。该条的两段设想了不同类型的争议。分庭对“争议”一词的含义存在分歧。然而，值得注意的是，检察官在她的请求中没有任何地方承认这种情况存在争议。事实上，在她的请求中，“争议”一词甚至都没有提到。那么为什么法院会深入研究呢？