{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012254901960784314, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.550802139037433, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International criminal law's incongruity in Colombia: why core crime prosecution in national jurisdictions should be included in analyses of transnational criminal law

Using Colombia as a case study, this article tests the merits of the proposed delineation between transnational criminal law and international criminal law. The demarcation is based in part on the existence of the International Criminal Court to repress international core crimes as a direct enforcement scheme. However, most judicial activity relative to this type of criminal conduct takes place in national jurisdictions, subject to immense diversity in practice, and not in the International Criminal Court. The critical use of the transnational lens to monitor and evaluate this activity complements the current focus on international criminal law and provides a methodology that allows consideration of legal and cultural pluralism that is at play in the national repression of core crimes. National practice involves the indirect application of international law, and results in an amalgamation of international criminal law and national criminal law, which, in the end, can impact the content and the form that international law and systems adopt.