I teach international criminal law as permanent and visiting faculty in various jurisdictions and universities (Southeast Asia, France, UK), and have used this as part of my course materials since its online publication.
The first few chapters provide a comprehensive introduction to the notion of complementarity and jurisdictional principles. More importantly, the chapters challenge commonly accepted international criminal law concepts of complementarity and jurisdiction. They go beyond critical analysis of what the law is to exploring what the law should be. For example, some authors question whether there should be priority given to territorial states over those exercising universal jurisdiction, and, if so, on what basis such decisions should be made.
The ideas in each of these chapters are clearly expressed and represent a variety of views. The book is excellent teaching material as it pushes students to critically challenge conventions and imaginatively consider possibilities. I would very highly recommend it if you are looking for something beyond your usual textbook or commentary which sets out the law, and looking for something that pushes boundaries.
Another two books from this series that I would highly recommend as essential for scholars and practitioners are:
1. Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crime Cases: a rare book that combines scholarly rigour with fundamental practical knowledge. It is unrealistic to prosecute all perpetrators of mass violence, and this book descries and evaluates the criteria used in diverse jurisdictions (e.g. Argentina, Serbia, Croatia, Indonesia, etc.) to organise and prioritise investigations and prosecutions. Highlights invaluable and little-known challenges and lessons for future prosecutions.
2. Importing Core International Crimes into National Law: This is another gem of scholarship that is particularly relevant given contemporary discourse on positive complementarity. It analyse the different approaches taken by States (e.g. Norway, Germany, Canada) towards criminalising core international crimes. It avoids advocating one-size-fits-all approach. Particularly interesting is its reference to how some States have adopted a flexible and creative 'dynamic transcription' of core international crimes that is 'not fully consistent with convention of customary international law' (p. 9). Truly innovative and refreshing.