Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime
Abstract
This 2005 book discusses the legitimacy of the international criminal law regime. It explains the development of the system of international criminal law enforcement in historical context, from antiquity through the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, to modern-day prosecutions of atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. The modern regime of prosecution of international crimes is evaluated with regard to international relations theory. The book then subjects that regime to critique on the basis of legitimacy and the rule of law, in particular selective enforcement, not only in relation to who is prosecuted, but also the definitions of crimes and principles of liability used when people are prosecuted. It concludes that although selective enforcement is not as powerful as a critique of international criminal law as it was previously, the creation of the International Criminal Court may also have narrowed the substantive rules of international criminal law.
... Ou seja, argumenta-se que há na prática dos tribunais internacionais um viés que resulta na aplicação seletiva do direito internacional (Cf. BIANCHI, 2017;CRYER, 2005;KIYANI, 2016;KOTECHA, 2020). Para argumentar que há uma seletividade na prática dos tribunais internacionais, as leituras pós-e decoloniais apontam como muitas vezes os mecanismos jurídicos internacionais evitam julgar casos que poderiam questionar o status quo global. ...
As abordagens pós-coloniais e decoloniais provaram ser altamente pertinentes e valiosas na análise dos tribunais internacionais. Eles fornecem uma perspectiva crítica e um quadro teórico que enfatizam questões relacionadas ao poder, à dominação, à desigualdade e à justiça nas diferentes dinâmicas da prática jurídica internacional. Este artigo pretende fornecer uma avaliação sobre a forma como os princípios fundamentais das abordagens pós-coloniais e decoloniais podem ser aplicados na leitura dos tribunais internacionais, de modo a proporcionar uma compreensão mais profunda sobre as suas estruturas e práticas, identificando questões subjacentes de poder, desigualdade e dominação. Para isso, este artigo está estruturado em duas partes: a primeira explora os principais conceitos das teorias pós-coloniais e decoloniais e suas contribuições para a nossa compreensão do direito internacional; a segunda parte liga os argumentos destas teorias à prática dos tribunais internacionais, de modo a destacar os caminhos possíveis para analisar criticamente as relações coloniais incorporadas na prática dos tribunais internacionais.
... Аналіз останніх досліджень і публікацій. Спроби осягнення суті заявленої проблематики у найбільш загальному її ракурсі знаходять своє відображення у фундаментальних роботах Ш. Бассіуні [22], Ґ. Верле [38], Н. А. Зелінської [1], А. Кассезе [7], Р. Краєра [12] та надалі деталізуються у низці спорадичних наукових праць окремих фахівців, серед яких особливу увагу сьогодні заслуговує доробок Б. Бановича [29], С. Ф. де Гурменді [14], К. Б. Карлсон [6], Є. Д. Оліна [27], В. Ранджеловича [29], С. Сокович [29] та ін. Формулювання мети статті. ...
Стаття присвячена дослідженню проблематики концептуалізації поняття покарання у міжнародному кримінальному праві та віднаходженню викликів, які наразі існують на шляху до відповідного результату. Визначено роль та місце феномену «міжнародного злочину» в означеному процесі, як такого, який не тільки пронизує переважну більшість аспектів міжнародного кримінального права, а й одночасно знаходиться в тісному взаємозв’язку із «покаранням», суттєво впливаючи на нього, видозмінюючи його внутрішні змістовні характеристики й параметри. Виявлено та систематизовано дві групи сучасних викликів на шляху до концептуалізації покарання у міжнародному кримінальному праві, серед яких чільне місце, з одного боку посідає проблематика «авторитету» та «легітимності» міжнародного кримінального права, «легальності» й «легітимації» міжнародних кримінальних судів і трибуналів, а також «законності» покарання у міжнародному кримінальному праві («зовнішні виклики»), а з іншого – широке коло проблем, пов’язаних із визначенням покарання, його мети, цілей, структури системи покарань, конкретних їх видів, а також інших специфічних нюансів, зосереджених довкола цієї категорії («внутрішні виклики»). Наголошено на перспективності досліджуємої тематики і обґрунтовано доцільність подальшої її наукової розробки з огляду на виявлені тенденції, що формуються («похідний характер», «селективність», «конфронтація»).
... Therefore, news coverage might increase the degree of punishment for an offense, as it signifies a greater public deterrent impact. However, desert-based distribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation principles remain indifferent to such considerations, as they are irrelevant to blameworthiness and dangerousness (Cryer, 2005;Farley & Kelly, 2000;McLeod, 2015). ...
This research paper delves into the intricate aspects of criminal law, exploring the distinctions between substantive and procedural criminal law and the standards of evidence employed in each domain. It emphasizes the principle of the burden of proof as a cornerstone of the rule of law, underlining the presumption of innocence until an individual’s guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The paper introduces a novel approach to justifying the practices of the criminal justice system, termed the ‘public law account’ of criminal justice. This perspective shifts the focus from moral considerations to the legitimacy of state power usage, aligning with the constitutional order and roles stipulated within it. It refrains from reshaping the criminal justice system into a mirror of private moral practices and upholds the necessity of coercive state power to maintain liberal principles of individual freedom. The paper also delves into different distributive principles for criminal liability and punishment, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and empirical desert. It highlights the varying criteria, factors, and implications associated with these principles, emphasizing that they often collide in their allocation of criminal liability and punishment. Additionally, it discusses the significance of community-shared intuitions of justice in determining blameworthiness and punishment, drawing from social science research to understand ordinary individuals’ perceptions. Furthermore, the paper scrutinizes the grading of offenses, the secondary prohibitions within the criminal code, and the general exceptions provided by justifications. It acknowledges the complexity of ascribing degrees of seriousness to different crimes and the potential lack of consensus on these gradations, navigating the multifaceted landscape of criminal law and justice, offering a comprehensive analysis of substantive and procedural aspects, distributive principles, and the burden of proof. It advances a new perspective for justifying the operations of the criminal justice system while acknowledging the intricate interplay of different distributive principles and the complexities inherent in grading offenses and establishing degrees of seriousness.
... Вбачається, це пов'язано з тим, що «норми міжнародного кримінального права не виступають як результат розробок фахівців у галузі кримінального права, а, навпаки, створюються в процесі узгодження позицій суверенних держав» [3, с. 201]. При цьому, як підкреслює Р. Крієр, імплементація відповідних норм з вужчим визначенням, ніж у міжнародному праві, є порушенням зобов'язання держави, оскільки це може призвести «до виправдань, що не будуть схвалюватися міжнародним правом» [17]. ...
... Further, while the relative merits of accountability and equality are frequently debated in selectivity literature, we do not have to choose between these values. 118 The reality is that if we refuse to support justice initiatives when they are available unless justice everywhere is possible, we would effectively have to give up on the international criminal justice project. This will not help victims in places like Syria or Yemen. ...
As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, we are sitting at a crossroads where one path further weakens the prohibition of the use of force and another helps restore its integrity. In this context, this article argues it is imperative that we take all available steps to reinforce the prohibition, and that holding President Putin to account for the crime of aggression holds the key in this regard. The article explains why it is necessary to establish an ad hoc international tribunal to prosecute crimes of aggression committed against Ukraine given the International Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction over any crime of aggression involving a State not party to the Rome Statute, the impossibility of amending the Statute in this instance, and the impediments that will stand in the way of a successful domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression, including immunities enjoyed by those most responsible. Finally, the article addresses the principal objections to the proposed tribunal including its cost (which is overstated and pales in comparison to the mounting cost of the ongoing conflict); its supposed redundancy given efforts to prosecute other serious international crimes committed in Ukraine (which undersells the challenge of holding leaders to account and discounts the value of separately prosecuting aggression); and the concern that the tribunal would represent selective justice (which overlooks the fact that a prosecution of the leaders of one of the world’s most powerful States would help end, rather than exacerbate, international criminal justice’s selectivity problem).
... Article 227 was least-satisfactory aspect of the Versailles Treaty, as the offence being a 'moral' one, it was not a truly criminal proceeding; and the provision promised the Kaiser a defence the article itself. Article 228 of the treaty, recognized the power 23 of the Allies for prosecution of German nationals accused of having committed war crimes. ...
This chapter addresses the legal challenges posed by introducing the contextual element in the structure of the crime of genocide through the Elements of Crimes (EOC) and examines the relationship between the collective context of perpetration and the structure of the crime of genocide. Genocide is analyzed as an endangerment crime, exploring the various nuances that the structure of endangerment acquires when incorporated into inchoate genocidal offenses, specifically focusing on direct and public incitement and conspiracy as outlined in Article III(b)–(c) of the Genocide Convention. These inchoate offenses are chosen as the starting point due to their role in the preventive function of the Convention. They identify the existential risks that the law seeks to address and suppress criminal conduct that threatens the protected legal interest, even when such conduct falls short of genocide proper. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how these offenses reflect the broader preventive logic of the Genocide Convention and the challenges of aligning the legal framework with the realities of perpetrations, namely the collective and contextual nature of genocide.
This chapter explores the trajectory of genocide (iter criminis) within international legal scholarship. The previous chapters presented doctrinal and practical arguments against a purely subjective perpetrator-based interpretation of genocide, particularly concerning the definition of protected groups. While it is undeniable that the perpetrator plays a crucial role in shaping the criminal trajectory, an exclusive focus on the perpetrator’s perspective can lead to unreasonable or even absurd legal outcomes. By analysing a classic example from the law of attempts (inverted mistake of fact, impossible attempts), this chapter demonstrates the limitations of a perpetrator-centred approach in applying genocide law. An alternative exegesis is then proposed, which incorporates not only the subjective dimension of perpetration but also considers the trans-subjective nature of the protected legal values, offering a more balanced and comprehensive framework for understanding the crime of genocide.
This chapter explores the complex terrain of group rights within international legal discourse, focusing on the conceptualization of groups as rights-holders under the law on genocide. It critically examines the traditional notions of group rights and the inherent challenges posed by different theoretical frameworks, including the rights to exist as recognized for national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups. The discussion navigates through the semantics and practical implications of collective rights, addressing the legal status of groups and the controversies surrounding the interpretation of group rights in a legal context. By dissecting various philosophical and legal theories, the chapter aims to illuminate the fundamental characteristics of groups that justify their recognition as bearers of collective rights, particularly in the context of preventing genocide. The analysis underscores the necessity of a nuanced understanding that aligns with both contemporary legal standards and the evolving nature of international human rights discourse.
In the previous chapter, I explored the status of groups as right-holders and the philosophical understanding of collective rights. I also briefly addressed the challenges related to criminal law and third-party beneficiaries. In this chapter, I will expand on these concepts to examine the major criticisms directed at the Convention and develop an alternative interpretation based on acoustic separation, selective transmission, and the dichotomy between conduct/primary and decision/secondary rules. The chapter will conclude with an analysis of early jurisprudence on genocide to test my hypothesis and critically assess contemporary approaches to the dynamic interpretation of the concept of genocide.
El principio de complementariedad preserva la soberanía y la primacía de la jurisdicción nacional, y garantiza la autodeterminación procesal de los Estados; su respeto reconoce el carácter cultural de los problemas penales, incluso de los más complejos, permitiendo a los distintos Estados encontrar los procedimientos más adecuados y con valor identitario. Las formas tradicionales de resolución de conflictos son una alternativa histórica. No obstante, deben alinearse con requisitos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos por medio de procesos de hibridación jurídica; este estándar internacional de protección exige que los procedimientos garanticen la imparcialidad y la independencia.
By delving into the past and present, this article’s objective is to critically assess the selectivity of International Criminal Law (ICL) in light of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s response to the conflict in Ukraine. This research seeks to provide insight into selectivity, politics and international criminal lawmaking and enforcement, attempting to pave a future where the ICC may engage in international affairs in a meaningful and adequate way. This is a case study of the ICC’s response to the Ukraine situation that, by adopting bibliographic, documental, jurisprudential and legislative research methods as its working methodology, provides an overarching vision of the selectivity critique in the international criminal realm and dives into the inherently political element of ICL. As a result, this research appraises the political dimension of the ICC, stating the need for the Court to embrace it as a way of achieving its ending impunity goal while advocating for transparent criteria for case prosecution and trial. The suggestion that the ICC fully engages with its political element as a way to promote transitional, conflict-settling justice and to find its renewed inner voice in a post-Western world is brought forth as a concluding remark.
The aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine is not only a global threat to the broadly understood regional and global security, but also raises legitimate questions regarding the consequences in the sphere of international criminal law and human rights. The reaction of international organisations, including primarily the UN, but also those of a regional scale, such as theCouncil of Europe and the European Union, clearly aims at condemning Russia’s illegal aggression and the application of sanctions, mainly economic, as well as military support, but there is a legitimate question about the legal possibility of carrying out a humanitarian intervention in the territories of Ukraine occupied by the armed forces of the Russian Federation in order to preventfurther flagrant violations of humanitarian law and human rights, primarily mass war crimes. The aim of this paper is to critically review international and applicable legal documents which discuss a possibility of undertaking humanitarian interventions in Ukraine. This methodological approach was based mainly on the analysis of the achievements of the doctrine, but also on thecurrent jurisprudence of international courts, teleological interpretation of international treaties and customary law regarding humanitarian law and the institution of humanitarian intervention in the context of its legitimacy, legality and legitimacy.StreszczenieAgresja Federacji Rosyjskiej na Ukrainę stanowi nie tylko globalne zagrożenie szeroko rozumianego bezpieczeństwa regionalnego i światowego, ale także implikuje zasadne pytania dotyczące skutków w sferze prawa międzynarodowego karnego i praw człowieka. Reakcja organizacji międzynarodowych, w tym przede wszystkim ONZ, ale także tych o zasięgu regionalnym, jak Rada Europy i Unia Europejska, jednoznacznie zmierza ku potępieniu nielegalnej agresji Rosji i zastosowania sankcji, głównie ekonomicznych, jak również wsparcia militarnego. Pojawia się jednak zasadne pytanie o prawną możliwość przeprowadzenia na terytoriach Ukrainy okupowanych przez siły zbrojne Federacji Rosyjskiej, interwencji humanitarnej w celu przeciwdziałania alszym rażącym naruszeniom prawa humanitarnego i praw człowieka, przede wszystkim masowym zbrodniom wojennym. Celem artykułu jest przede wszystkim prawno-międzynarodowa analiza możliwości podjęcia interwencji humanitarnej w Ukrainie w świetle obowiązujących standardów prawnych. Metodologia oparta została głównie na analizie dorobku doktryny, ale także na aktualnym orzecznictwie sądów międzynarodowych, wykładni celowościowej traktatów międzynarodowych oraz prawie zwyczajowym dotyczącym prawa humanitarnego i instytucji interwencji humanitarnej w kontekście jej zasadności, legalności i legitymizacji.ResumenLa agresión de la Federación Rusa contra Ucrania no sólo supone una amenaza global para la seguridad regional y mundial, sino que también plantea cuestiones legítimas sobre las consecuencias en el ámbito del derecho penal internacional y los derechos humanos. La reacción de las organizaciones internacionales, incluidas en primer lugar las Naciones Unidas, pero también las de alcance regional, como el Consejo de Europa y la Unión Europea, está claramente dirigida a condenar la agresión ilegal de Rusia y aplicar sanciones, principalmente económicas, así como apoyo militar, pero la cuestión de la posibilidad legal de una intervención humanitaria en los territorios de Ucrania ocupados por las fuerzas armadas de la Federación de Rusia con el fin de prevenir nuevas violaciones graves del derecho humanitario y los derechos humanos, sobre todo crímenes de guerra masivos, es legítima. El objetivo de este artículo es realizar un examen crítico de los vigentes documentos jurídicos internacionales que analizan la posibilidad de una intervención humanitaria en Ucrania. El enfoque metodológico se ha basado principalmente en el análisis del cuerpo doctrinal, pero también en la jurisprudencia actual de los tribunales internacionales, la interpretación teleológica de los tratados internacionales y del derecho consuetudinario en materia de derecho humanitario, y la institución de la intervención humanitaria en el contexto de su validez, legalidad y legitimidadZusammenfassungDie Aggression der Russischen Föderation gegen die Ukraine stellt nicht nur eine globale Bedrohung für die allgemeine regionale und globale Sicherheit dar, sondern wirft auch begründete Fragen nach den Folgen im Bereich des internationalen Strafrechts und der Menschenrechte auf. Die Reaktion internationaler Organisationen, darunter in erster Linie der Vereinten Nationen, aber auch regional abgegrenzter Organisationen wie der Europarat und die Europäische Union, zielt eindeutig auf die Verurteilung der rechtswidrigen Aggression Russlands und die Verhängung von Sanktionen, hauptsächlich Wirtschaftssanktionen, sowie auf militärische Unterstützung hin. Jedoch ist die Frage nach der rechtlichen Möglichkeit einer humanitären Intervention in den von den Streitkräften der Russischen Föderation besetzten Gebieten der Ukraine zur Verhinderung weiterer grober Verletzungen des humanitären Völkerrechts und der Menschenrechte, insbesondere von Massenkriegsverbrechen, gerechtfertigt. Das Ziel dieses Artikels ist der kritische Überblick über internationale und geltende Rechtsdokumente, in denen die Möglichkeit einer humanitären Intervention in der Ukraine veranschaulicht wird. Der methodische Ansatz stützt sich vor allem auf eine Analyse der Rechtslehre, sowie auf die aktuelle Rechtsprechung internationaler Gerichte, eine teleologische Auslegung internationaler Verträge und des Gewohnheitsrechts zum humanitären Recht, und ebenso auf die Institution der humanitären Intervention im Kontext ihrer Rechtmäβigkeit, Legalität und Rechtskraft.РезюмеАгрессия Российской Федерации против Украины является не только глобальной угрозой для широко понимаемой региональной и всемирной безопасности, но и ставит закономерные вопросы о последствиях в сфере международного уголовного права и прав человека. Реакция международных организаций, включая в первую очередь ООН, а также региональные организации, такие как Совет Европы и Европейский Союз, явно направлена на осуждение незаконной агрессии России и применение санкций, в основном экономических, а также военной поддержки. Однако вполне правомерен вопрос о юридической возможности гуманитарной интервенции на оккупированные вооружен- ными силами Российской Федерации территории Украины с целью предотвращения дальнейших серьезных нарушений гуманитарного права и прав человека, прежде всего массовых военных преступлений. Целью данной статьи является критический обзор международных и действующих правовых документов, в которых рассматривается возможность гуманитарной интервенции в Украину. Методологический подход основывается главным образом на изучении совокупности имеющихся доктрин, а также действующей судебной практики международных судов, телеологиче- ского толкования международных договоров и обычного гуманитарного права, а также института гуманитарной интервенции в контексте его обоснованности, легитимности и правомочия.
Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin yaygın olarak kullanımına bağlı olarak her geçen gün teknolojik alt yapılarını daha fazla geliştiren devletlerin söz konusu teknoloji bağımlılığı, aynı zamanda kendileri açısından ayrı bir risk alanını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Teknolojiden her alanda yararlanıldığı gibi devletlerin kendilerine en fazla katkıyı savunma ve güvenlik alanlarında elde edebilmeleri, birinci derecede önem arz etmektedir. Zira gerek sıcak çatışmalarda gerekse caydırıcılık gücü bağlamında, her devlet kendi askeri alt yapısını sürekli yenileme ihtiyacı içindedir. Teknoloji ve bilimin gelişimi sürecinde ortaya çıkan en önemli sonuç ise insan varlığının ve katkısının giderek azalmaya başlamış olmasıdır. Savaş ve/veya silahlı çatışmalar alanında insan faktörünün giderek yerini teknolojiye bırakmaktadır. Teknolojik gelişmeler sürecinde devletlerin bahsi geçen alanlarda otonom silah sistemleri kullanımı, her geçen gün artmaktadır. Lakin otonom silahların kullanımı ile ilgili çoğu uluslararası örgüt ve devlet nezdinde uluslararası düzenleme boşlukları doğduğu düşünüldüğü gibi bu boşlukların ne şekilde doldurulacağı da açık değildir. Bu çalışmada, belirtilen hukuki boşlukların doldurulup doldurulamayacağı, hangi tür uluslararası insancıl hukuk kurallarının uygulanacağı ve bu çerçevede ortaya çıkabilecek sorumluluk sorunu ele alınmaktadır.
The black letter methodology is employed in this chapter, which focuses on how and why one should accept and recognise human trafficking as an international crime. The chapter analyses the wording of the Rome Statute’s provisions in relation to trafficking. First, consideration is given to the number of preconditions (chapeau elements) that must be met before a prosecution for this category of offence can proceed and examine how aggravated sex can be cognisable by the International Criminal Court (ICC) under its jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. Second, the doctrinal analysis includes a discussion of the Rome Statute’s enslavement provision, its lack of a trafficking definition, its doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, and its gravity threshold.
This article examines the ethnic conflicts that engulfed post-Cold War Yugoslavia, with a focus on the pivotal Bosnian War and its interaction with international law. It delves into the historical and socio-political factors that fueled ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia after the Cold War, exploring how resurgent nationalism triggered ethnic separatism and violence. The Bosnian War, marked by declarations of independence, manipulative leadership, and a devastating civil conflict, serves as a grim case study of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Srebrenica massacre, in particular, underscores the extent of the tragedy. Despite media attention, international responses to the conflict faced significant delays, raising questions about the effectiveness of the UN Peacekeeping Forces. The Dayton Peace Agreement, while bringing temporary relief, reveals shortcomings, including an ethnocentric governance structure that remains a challenge. The article also examines the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, which was tasked with holding individuals accountable for war crimes. This tribunal's creation underscores the enduring importance of international law in addressing heinous crimes. In conclusion, this article provides historical context and highlights crucial lessons for international law and the timely intervention needed to prevent such catastrophes.
Bu çalışmanın amacı, uluslararası suçlara yönelik kriminolojik yaklaşımları; Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi kapsamına giren uluslararası suçlar özelinde, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Kriminoloji alanlarının etkileşiminde işbirliği ya da dışlamaya neden olan girişim ya da kısıtları değerlendirerek, disiplinerarası bir bakış açısıyla çözümlemektir. Çalışma söz konusu alanların temel özelliklerine, kuramsal altyapılarına ve tarihsel süreçte yaşanan kırılmalara değinerek, literatürde baskın biçimde tartışılan kriminolojinin uluslararası suçları göz ardı ettiği iddiasını incelemiş ve kriminolojik yaklaşımların daha esnek ve eleştirel bakış açıları getiren ve karşılıklı kazanımlara odaklanan seyriyle uluslararası suçların çözümlenmesine yönelik Uluslararası Hukuk araştırmalarına giderek daha yakın konumlandığı görülmüştür. Ceza Hukuku’nun kriminolojik yaklaşımlarla ulusal düzeyde var olan yakın ilişkisi, uluslararası ve ulus-üstü çalışmalarda eksiktir. Bu eksikliğin giderilmesine ilişkin girişimler artarak devam etmektedir. Bu araştırma ulusal literatürdeki eksiği de göz önünde bulunduran, bu konudaki işbirliğine yönelik bir çağrı niteliğindedir. Çalışmada ayrıca, uluslararası suçlara yönelik kriminolojik yaklaşımların uluslararası suçların önlenmesine ilişkin katkıları değerlendirilmiş, her ne kadar mevcut sistem cezalandırma ve kovuşturmalar yönünden ciddi eleştirilere maruz kalsa da uluslararası suçların önlenmesi odağında kriminoloji alanıyla işbirliğinin olumlu sonuçlar vereceği değerlendirilmiştir.
Ordering the commission of crimes as a form of individual criminal responsibility in international criminal law dates back to the trials against former German politicians, military officers and administrative personnel after World War II. Most prominently, the provision on criminal liability in Control Council Law No. 10 encompassed ordering liability. Many former SS and Wehrmacht officers were convicted by the U.S. Military Courts in Nuremberg inter alia based on the allegation of having ordered the commission of crimes. This chapter analyses the pertinent judgments of the Nuremberg subsequent trials, as well as certain other cases of the time, to shed light on the requirements and implications of the first instances of the use of ordering liability in international criminal law. The chapter concludes that both decision makers and architects of crimes could be described as having ordered the commission of crimes as it sufficed to exercise authority or authorship with regards to a criminal order. The chapter rejects the idea that a form of indirect perpetration liability was recognized by the U.S. Military Tribunals. It acknowledges that besides ordering liability, other, broader and more indirect, concepts of attribution of responsibility were also practiced by the courts.KeywordsOrderingU.S. Military CourtsNuremberg subsequent trialsControl Council Law No. 10AuthorityAuthorship
Despite a wealth of literature exploring the issues surrounding it, the legitimacy and authority of international criminal law remain in question. Adopting a perspective informed by legal and political philosophy, Clare Frances Moran considers the authority of international criminal law, why it can be conceived of as more than simply an exercise of power and how that power may be exercised legitimately. Advancing existing scholarship on the subject, Moran explores the roots of the authority of law at the domestic level and tests these ideas in an international context. She examines sovereignty, complementarity and postcolonial issues, and how each impact international criminal law. By developing a theory on the authority of international law, Moran considers how it might be possible to adjudicate more effectively at the international level.
What does it take for international legal rules to change? Key to any serious attempt at accounting for the dynamism of the field – and yet surprisingly understudied – this query constituted the central endeavour of the Paths of International Law project, conducted at the Geneva Graduate Institute from 2018 to 2023. The present compilation lays out the empirical materials used in the project to build a theoretical account of change in international legal rules. These consist of 25 case studies, each zooming into the legal history and politics of individual norm-change attempts and seeking to provide an analytical reconstruction of the elements that facilitated or hindered shifts in each of them. The case studies cover eight issue areas of international law, which provide the structure of this compilation: General International Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, the Law of the Sea, International Environmental Law, International Trade Law, and International Investment Law. This allowed the project to test international rules in different settings and contexts, making for a rich overview of change in international law.
The article deals with the efficiency of international criminal justice. It is proved that the development of the system of international criminal justice took place rather in waves, and the permanent International Criminal Court can hardly be called an effective judicial institution. All international criminal courts encountered the same problems and were effective if there was adequate cooperation between the states. Attention is drawn to the existing armed conflict in Ukraine and the prospects of prosecution of persons who committed international crimes.
Universal jurisdiction has the potential to close the impunity gap for the perpetrators of atrocity crimes around the world. Such potential has reached both its zenith and nadir points as the international community continues to seek ways of balancing victims’ demand for accountability and the importance of safeguarding the fundamental principles governing the international politico-legal system. This chapter analyses the submissions and contributions of African states during debates within the United Nations General Assembly’s Sixth Committee on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. African states, through the African Group, were responsible for putting universal jurisdiction onto the General Assembly. The chapter established that the traumatic history of imperialism and colonial rule continues to influence African diplomacy and its approach to international relations. It argues that by raising the issue of universal jurisdiction at the level of the United Nations General Assembly, the African Group demonstrated that it is continuously seeking to recover and assert its voice lost during colonization, and that it is committed to multilateral dialogue based on sovereign equality, and legal positivism as a means of shaping and developing international law. The majority of African States consider themselves to be vulnerable to the arbitrary application of universal jurisdiction, hence the push for proper definitions of both its scope and application. Their concern is that in its current form its application could lead to disastrous consequences for international relations.KeywordsUniversal jurisdictionImpunityInternational lawAfrican UnionInternational criminal jurisdictionSixth Committee
The obligation of States to incorporate ICC Statute crimes into domestic law has been central in previous debates on implementation. The existence of an obligation to criminalize, however, does not mean that States engage in implementation. Relevant for State compliance is also the level of precision of the norm and mechanisms of enforcement in case of a violation. This chapter assesses potential sources of an obligation by taking into account factors that influence compliance. It starts with domestic constitutional law and continues with international treaty law, such as the ICC Statute and human rights treaties, customary international law and ius cogens. The chapter shows that the lack of an obligation stemming from the principle of complementarity under the ICC Statute is not compensated by the usually available enforcement mechanisms in case States are legally unable to exercise jurisdiction. The restricted aggression jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the few domestic implementations do not push States to proactively criminalize aggression. The chapter argues that it is possible to infer an obligation to criminalize aggression from the constitutional obligation of States to protect fundamental rights. The obligation of States to protect international human rights, the ius cogens nature of the prohibition of aggression or its accepted consequences in the field of State responsibility also support such an inference. However, this requires an extensive interpretative process, which is why the claimed existence of an obligation does not induce compliance.KeywordsObligationState complianceHard law and soft lawConstitutional obligation to protect fundamental rightsICC StatuteCoercive potential of complementarityLegislative Pinochet effectObligation to criminalize serious human rights violationsAggression and the human right to lifeHuman right to peaceExtraterritorial applicability of human rights treatiesCustomary obligation
Ius cogens
Duty of the aggressor State to make reparations
The operationalization of domestic implementationOperationalization of domestic implementation requires States to specify the geographical ambit of domestic criminal jurisdiction. To avoid State responsibilityState responsibility and corrective interpretations by domestic courts, this exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction needs to be based on a “permissive rulePermissive rule”. Such rules rebut the general presumption that international law prohibits States to extend jurisdiction to matters with a foreign element. The chapter discusses whether the principle of territoriality, the nationality principleNationality Principle, the protective principleProtective principle, the passive personality principlePassive personality principle and universal jurisdiction provide a permissive rulePermissive rule regarding the crime of aggression. The chapter clarifies that the nationality of the perpetrator or the nature of the crime cannot challenge the right of States to exercise territorial prescriptive jurisdiction. Due to the transboundary nature of the crime, territoriality enables States to criminalize aggression committed against them or from their territory. The added value of other principles of jurisdiction is primarily limited to criminalize those situations that do not fall under territorial jurisdiction. The protective principleProtective principle may stretch to allied States whose vital interests are threatened. The chapter argues that it is possible to assume a permissive rulePermissive ruleunder customary international lawCustomary international lawfor third StatesThird States to exercise universal jurisdictionUniversal Jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. This can be argued either under an inductive approach by emphasizing the practice of the International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, or with support of deductive reasoningDeductive reasoning based on the nature of aggression as a “crime under international law”.
The ideological function of the postcolonial 'national', 'liberal', and 'developmental' state inflicts various forms of marginalisation on minorities, but simultaneously justifies oppression in the name of national unity, equality and non-discrimination, and economic development. International law plays a central role in the ideological making of the postcolonial state in relation to postcolonial boundaries, the liberal-individualist architecture of rights, and the neoliberal economic vision of development. In this process, international law subjugates minority interests and in turn aggravates the problem of ethno-nationalism. Analysing the geneses of ethno-nationalism in postcolonial states, Mohammad Shahabuddin substantiates these arguments with in-depth case studies on the Rohingya and the hill people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, against the historical backdrop of the minority question in Indian nationalist and constitutional discourse. Shahabuddin also proposes alternative international law frameworks for minorities.
International criminal justice is, at its core, an anti-atrocity project. Yet just what an 'atrocity' is remains undefined and undertheorized. This book examines how associations between atrocity commission and the production of horrific spectacles shape the processes through which international crimes are identified and conceptualized, leading to the foregrounding of certain forms of mass violence and the backgrounding or complete invisibilization of others. In doing so, it identifies various, seemingly banal ways through which international crimes may be committed and demonstrates how the criminality of such forms of violence and abuse tends to be obfuscated. This book suggests that the failure to address these 'invisible atrocities' represents a major flaw in the current international criminal justice system, one that produces a host of problematic repercussions and undermines the legal legitimacy of international criminal law itself.
Over the past two centuries, the concept of human dignity has moved from the fringes to the centre of the international legal system. This book is the first detailed historical, theoretical and legal investigation of human dignity as a normative value, the intellectual sources that shaped its legal recognition, and the main legal instruments used to give it expression in international law. Ginevra Le Moli addresses the broad historical and philosophical developments relating to the legal expression of dignity and the doctrinal geography of human dignity in international law, with a focus on international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. The book fills a major lacuna in the literature by providing a comprehensive account of dignity within international law that draws on an extensive documentary and archival basis and a vast body of decisions of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
Written under the sign of Beckett, this book addresses comparative law's commitment to the deterritorialization of the legal and its attendant claim for the normative relevance of foreign law locally in the fabrication of statutory determinations, judicial opinions, or academic reflections. Wanting to withstand the law's persistent tendency towards nationalist retrenchment and counter comparative law's institutional marginalization, the fifteen essays at hand impart radical and discerning intellectual equipment in order to foster the valorization of the legally foreign and the comparative motion. In particular, the critique informing this manifesto examines pre-eminent topics like culture and difference, understanding and translatability, objectivity and truth, invention and tracing. Harnessing insights from a range of disciplinary discourses, this book contends that comparatists must boldly desist from their field's dominant epistemology and embrace a practice much better attuned to the study of foreignness.
Since rules - legal, ethical or otherwise - cannot determine their own application, they require persons of flesh and blood to interpret and apply them in concrete cases. Presidents and prime ministers, judges, prosecutors, mediators, leaders of international organizations, and even religious leaders and public intellectuals make decisions on how best to understand rules and how best to apply them. It stands to reason that their character traits influence the sort of decisions they take. This book provides the first systematic framework for discussing global governance in terms of the virtues, and illustrates it with a number of detailed examples of concrete decision-making in specific situations. Virtue in Global Governance combines insights from law, ethics, and global governance studies in developing a unique approach to global governance and international law.
The laws of war are facing new challenges from emerging technologies and changing methods of warfare, as well as the growth of human rights and international criminal law. International mechanisms of accountability have increased and international criminal law has greater relevance in the calculations of political and military leaders, yet perpetrators often remain at large and the laws of war raise numerous normative, structural and systemic issues and problems. This edited collection brings together leading academic, military and professional experts to examine the key issues for the continuing role and relevance of the laws of war in the twenty-first century. Marking Professor Peter Rowe's contribution to the subject, this book re-examines the purposes of the laws of war and asks whether existing laws found in treaties and customs work to achieve these purposes and, if not, whether they can be fixed by specific reforms or wholesale revision.
This systematic, contextual and practice-oriented account of complementarity explores the background and historical expectations associated with complementarity, its interpretation in prosecutorial policy and judicial practice, its context (ad hoc tribunals, universal jurisdiction, R2P) and its impact in specific situations (Colombia, Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Sudan and Kenya). Written by leading experts from inside and outside the Court and scholars from multiple disciplines, the essays combine theoretical inquiry with policy recommendations and the first-hand experience of practitioners. It is geared towards academics, lawyers and policy-makers who deal with the impact and application of international criminal justice and its interplay with peace and security, transitional justice and international relations.
This systematic, contextual and practice-oriented account of complementarity explores the background and historical expectations associated with complementarity, its interpretation in prosecutorial policy and judicial practice, its context (ad hoc tribunals, universal jurisdiction, R2P) and its impact in specific situations (Colombia, Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Sudan and Kenya). Written by leading experts from inside and outside the Court and scholars from multiple disciplines, the essays combine theoretical inquiry with policy recommendations and the first-hand experience of practitioners. It is geared towards academics, lawyers and policy-makers who deal with the impact and application of international criminal justice and its interplay with peace and security, transitional justice and international relations.
The laws of war are facing new challenges from emerging technologies and changing methods of warfare, as well as the growth of human rights and international criminal law. International mechanisms of accountability have increased and international criminal law has greater relevance in the calculations of political and military leaders, yet perpetrators often remain at large and the laws of war raise numerous normative, structural and systemic issues and problems. This edited collection brings together leading academic, military and professional experts to examine the key issues for the continuing role and relevance of the laws of war in the twenty-first century. Marking Professor Peter Rowe's contribution to the subject, this book re-examines the purposes of the laws of war and asks whether existing laws found in treaties and customs work to achieve these purposes and, if not, whether they can be fixed by specific reforms or wholesale revision.
This systematic, contextual and practice-oriented account of complementarity explores the background and historical expectations associated with complementarity, its interpretation in prosecutorial policy and judicial practice, its context (ad hoc tribunals, universal jurisdiction, R2P) and its impact in specific situations (Colombia, Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Sudan and Kenya). Written by leading experts from inside and outside the Court and scholars from multiple disciplines, the essays combine theoretical inquiry with policy recommendations and the first-hand experience of practitioners. It is geared towards academics, lawyers and policy-makers who deal with the impact and application of international criminal justice and its interplay with peace and security, transitional justice and international relations.
The issue of international crimes is highly topical in Asia, with still-resonant claims against the Japanese for war crimes, and deep schisms resulting from crimes in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and East Timor. Over the years, the region has hosted a succession of tribunals, from those held in Manila, Singapore and Tokyo after the Asia-Pacific War to those currently running in Dhaka and Phnom Penh. This book draws on extensive new research and offers the first comprehensive legal appraisal of the Asian trials. As well as the famous tribunals, it also considers lesser-known examples, such as the Dutch and Soviet trials of the Japanese, the Cambodian trial of the Khmer Rouge, and the Indonesian trials of their own military personnel. It focuses on their approach to the elements of international crimes, and their contribution to general theories of liability. In the process, this book challenges some orthodoxies about the development of international criminal law.
This examination of the role of the defense in international criminal proceedings highlights its contribution to the development of international criminal law and the fair administration of international criminal justice. Written by leading international practitioners and scholars, it combines the practice and theory of international criminal law in order to provide a first-hand perspective on the significant challenges involved in the administration of international criminal justice. The authors examine, among other issues, the role of the defense during the different stages of international criminal proceedings, the key aspects of defense work which seek to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial, professional ethics, the United Nations Residual Mechanism for International Tribunals, and post-conviction remedies and issues relating to those serving prison sentences.
Zakres przedmiotowy poddawany analizie w kolejnych rozdziałach monografii został oparty na wybranych przez Autorów segmentach badawczych. Mowa tutaj o takich zagadnieniach związanych z dialogiem sądowym jak: prawo do poszanowania życia prywatnego i rodzinnego czy prawo do prywatności w świetle stosowania nowych technologii; media masowe a komunikacja wymiaru sprawiedliwości ze społeczeństwem; sztuczna inteligencja w obliczu ochrony praw człowieka; ochrona danych osobowych; wniosek o powrót dziecka w trybie konwencji haskiej; wolność sumienia i wyznania w ustawodawstwie krajowym oraz orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka; instytucja pytania prejudycjalnego, w tym w kontekście prawa do rzetelnego procesu; postępowanie ekstradycyjne z perspektywy zasady niedyskryminacji; zasada niedyskryminacji ze względu na pochodzenie; prawo cudzoziemców; rola instytucji międzynarodowych na kanwie praw podstawowych człowieka; skarga międzypaństwowa do Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w Strasburgu; wpływ orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka na orzecznictwo sądów polskich; prawo do obrony w procesie karnym złożonym pod względem podmiotowym; wolność wyrażania opinii. Sprecyzowanie powyższych zagadnień umożliwia określenie struktury rozdziałów niniejszej monografii naukowej, które systematyzują przedmiot rozważań na konkretne obszary tematyczne.
In the aftermath of conflict, four key approaches have emerged for responding to past violence and violations of human rights. Together, trials, truth seeking, reparation and reform—the so-called four pillars of transitional justice—are considered to provide post-conflict states with the best possibilities for healing, repair and sustainable peace. In practice, post-conflict landscapes are notoriously complex to operate within and delivering truth, justice, reparation and reform is challenging. This chapter examines the legal foundations and operation of these key mechanisms of post-conflict justice and considers their merits, shortcomings and possibilities going forward.KeywordsPost-conflict justicetransitiontrialstruth commissionsreparationreform
Crimes against humanity represent one of the so-called “core crimes” or crimes under international law. They constitute mass crimes against a civilian population and may be the most commonly known among the different of types international crimes used for labeling mass atrocities almost every time when there is news that such have occurred. The phenomenon of crimes against humanity continues to sparkle lots of debates both scholarly and practical. The modern definition of crimes against humanity is firmly established in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Despite this, many important doctrinal and normative issues (e.g., protective scope, contextual element, policy requirement and civilian population) are actively debated in scholarship and practice. This chapter discusses the key contextual elements of crimes against humanity, as well as the individual criminal acts comprising them but not before briefly describing the historical origins and definitional evolution of crimes against humanity, reviewing their contemporary structure according to the existing treaty definition, and offering a succinct explanation as to what constitutes the truly protected interest of crimes against humanity. The chapter aims at providing the textbook’s readership with a brief but comprehensive account of the main legal, substantive and normative aspects related to crimes against humanity including doctrinal challenges and also some new pertinent developments in the law.Keywordscrimes against humanityHumanityHumannessMartens ClauseLaws of humanityCore crimesCrimes under international lawInternational criminal lawRome Statute
This chapter equips the victim’s advocate with a compilation of comprehensive, practical and easily accessible information on the issues most likely to be encountered by the advocate. The chapter commences with International Criminal Law resources, and moves on to the International Criminal Court’s victims’ jurisprudence, human rights resources and victimology resources. These resources provide both practical information, as well as the theoretical and legal background for victims’ rights and reparations. The chapter then shifts into resources having a largely practical application, such as the sections on Working with Trauma Victims (including specifically with children), Interdisciplinary resources, and Advocacy Skills resources. Finally, the chapter concludes with sections on Best Practices resources, Useful Membership Organizations and recommended websites and scholarship for Further Reading.
El presente trabajo tiene como finalidad contribuir a la reflexión acerca de la función de la CPI. El análisis toma como punto de partida los aportes del economista Amartya Sen acerca de la justicia; en particular su concepción de la justicia global, fundamentada en la defensa de los derechos humanos. Una de las contribuciones más importantes de Sen a la reflexión sobre la justicia ha sido su reivindicación de la inclusión de los derechos económicos entre los derechos humanos fundamentales. La interpretación del concepto de “derechos fundamentales” sirve aquí para incluir los derechos económicos entre aquellos que deben estar protegidos por la legislación internacional, porque las libertades protegidas mediante estos derechos son tan relevantes para desarrollar una vida digna como las libertades asociadas a los derechos civiles y políticos, por lo cual no existe ninguna razón para condenar a los violadores de los derechos fundamentales en un caso y no hacerlo en el otro caso. En este capítulo se estudia la repercusión de esta inclusión sobre el DIP y la función de la CPI, haciendo énfasis en la necesidad de una mayor consideración de las violaciones de los derechos humanos económicos.
This paper brings forward Justice Pal's dissenting opinion at the Tokyo Tribunal to add to Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) literature on international criminal law and the rules of evidence and procedure. It is part of a TWAIL effort to scrutinize the everyday practices of international prosecutions through procedural and evidentiary rules. By locating and situating Justice Pal's reasoning within the broader academic literature on dissents in international criminal law, it is possible to illustrate how and why Justice Pal's views were obscured as a relevant dissent. From this vantage point, this paper pursues Justice Pal's legacy as it relates to the rules of evidence and procedure in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. It traces the evolution of the judicial power to draft and amend these rules, and examines the impact of these decisions on the everyday functions of the tribunals and how truth is determined.
El manuscrito que se presenta en este prólogo tiene como título
La función de la Corte Penal Internacional: visiones plurales desde
una perspectiva interdisciplinar. A ello se une el subtítulo Volumen
Especial por el X Aniversario del Instituto Ibero-Americano de La
Haya para la Paz, los Derechos Humanos y la Jusiticia Internacional.
En consecuencia, dos son los aspectos principales que se abordan en
las siguientes líneas. Por un lado, una breve introducción al trabajo de
investigación coordinado por los profesores Olasolo, Urueña-Sánchez
y Sánchez Sarmiento, a través del análisis de sus objetivos principales.
Por otro lado, la presentación del Instituto Ibero-Americano de La
Haya para la Paz, los Derechos Humanos y la Justicia Internacional (IIH o Instituto) y de sus principales actividades en los diez años
transcurridos desde su fundación el 1 de junio de 2011.
Con respecto a la primera cuestión, se puede identificar tres objetivos principales a los que se dirige el manuscrito objeto de la presente
publicación. En primer lugar, busca proporcionar una visión interdisciplinaria más amplia sobre la función de la CPI a través del diálogo
entre las aproximaciones filosóficas y teológicas por una parte, y los
enfoques desde el DI y las RI por otra. En este sentido, conviene tener
en cuenta que, si bien hasta el momento la doctrina se ha limitado en
gran medida a estudiar la CPI desde perspectivas de análisis tradicionales basadas en el positivismo jurídico, no es menos cierto que una
comprensión holística de las condiciones que han favorecido la constitución y la consolidación de la CPI como institución requiere ir más
allá del análisis del ECPI y de los instrumentos internacionales que
lo complementan, para promover el diálogo con aquellas otras disciplinas que explican ciertas variables de su funcionamiento. De esta
manera, tanto la filosofía como la teología tienen mucho que aportar
en relación al tratamiento de las atrocidades masivas en las sociedades humanas y en la sociedad internacional, y por lo tanto son ciertamente relevantes a la hora de interpretar la función del único tribunal
internacional penal permanente (la CPI) que ha sido establecido hasta
el momento para investigar y enjuiciar a sus máximos responsables.
INTRODUCTION. The legal saga of the prosecution of Adolf Eichmann, one of the most wanted war criminals and chief “architect” of the Holocaust, raises many ethical, political and legal problems. The Eichmann trial is unprecedented in the long history of international criminal law for many reasons. Although many leaders of Nazi regime were put on trial at Nuremberg before International Military Tribunal, mass killings and other outrageous crimes against Jews was not the main object of the trial. Thereby prosecution and punishment one of the most important organizers of the genocide of Jewish people, creator of new type of evil and new type of crime, become the great task of the State of Israel. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical basis of the study consists of the works of leading international lawyers specializing in international criminal law, as well as the international extradition of criminals; the analytical base comprises of the decisions of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, as well as the national courts of the State of Israel, in particular the cult decision the Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, as well as the decisions of the national courts of the United States, cited in the article for the purpose of comparative analysis. The methodological basis of the research comprises historical method, methods of formal logic, including analysis, synthesis and analogy, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods and method of interpretation. RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the study of international legal instruments and international judicial practice, as well as the national legislation of the State of Israel, the author made conclusions related to the abduction of accused from the territory of a foreign state, in particular its consequences in the form of violation of the sovereignty of the state. At the same time, the article contains a statement that the unlawfulness of the arrest does not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction over the person. In the context of the administration of justice by the State of Israel, the author analyzes the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of December 14, 1951, paying special attention to the problem of the possible immunity of the accused based on the refugee status granted by the state. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the course of the study, the author analyzed a significant amount of materials, summarized the doctrinal positions put forward by a number of prominent international scholars, and also formed the conclusion that the trial of Eichmann marked not only the administration of justice over the international criminal, but also provided another opportunity for a broad international publicity of the horrors of the Nazi regime and the need to unite collective efforts of states to save future generations from such international crimes.
This book analyses all relevant questions of State responsibility and attribution arising from the conduct of rebels and governments in the context of civil wars and rebellions aiming at the establishment of a new government or the creation of a new State. Based on a comprehensive analysis of both old and recent State practice, and case law, including investment awards, as well as the works of scholars and the International Law Commission, the book identifies ten basic rules which can be used by States and international tribunals. It explains the history, content and scope of application of the specific solutions adopted in Article 10 of the International Law Commission Articles on State responsibility to address particular problems. The book also critically revisits some of the solutions that have been put forward by tribunals and scholars, and examines a number of questions which have never been addressed by them before.
On June 30, 2000, at the conclusion of its fifth session, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (Preparatory Commission or commission) completed the first phase of its work with the adoption of draft Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rules). The first five sessions took place from February 16 to 26, July 26 to August 13, and November 29 to December 17,1999, and from March 13 to 31, and J u n e 12 to 30, 2000.
On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court (Diplomatic Conference) had adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Statute). At the same time, it decided “to take all possible measures to ensure the coming into operation of the International Criminal Court without undue delay and to make the necessary arrangements for the commencement of its functions,” purposes for which it established the Preparatory Commission.
On 29 November 1996 Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“the ICTY”) handed down its sentence in the case of Dražen Erdemović. This was a decision of historie significance for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being that it was the first sentence passed by an international war crimes tribunals, applying international law, since the International Military Tribunals which sat at Nuremberg and Tokyo between 1945 and 1948; it was also the first time a truly international tribunal bas concluded the trial of a minor war criminal, as opposed to a senior military commander or political leader. In addition, it was the first sentence handed down by the ICTY, which has been plagued sincc its first days of operation by problems in securing evidence and witnesses, not to mention the presence of the accused. Now the ICTY has shown, in the face of widespread criticism and accusations of impotence, that it can actually perform the task assigned to it. The doubt about such a judgment is that the
Erdemović
case is not perhaps the best basis on which to assess the ICTY's performance, so singular were the accused's conduct and, indeed, the circumstances in which he found himself before the Tribunal. Essentially, had it not been for the accused's voluntary surrender and his extensive co-operation with the Office of the Prosecutor, and the co-operation of the judirial authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in transferring Erdemović to The Hague, the case would probably never have happened at all.
International criminal courts will be judged by their fairness
to defendants as well as to victims. In a very practical way, such
claims will hinge, inter alia, on the ability of prosecutors
and defendants to have reasonable access to probative evidence. But
international criminal courts depend on states to provide them with
evidence or access to evidence. The obligation of states to cooperate
with international criminal tribunals in the production of evidence
was at issue in the recent decision of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Blaskic case
(1997). That judgment and the provisions of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (1998) that address judicial assistance
deserve investigation. Do the rules propounded in Blaskic
and in the Rome Statute create the right conditions for the institution
of fair trials in international criminal courts in our world today? Are
such rules possible? The author argues that the diplomats in Rome failed
to establish a procedure for the production of evidence that will lead
to the goal of a fair and effective trial. This is cause for concern if
and when an International Criminal Court comes into being.
Dražen Erdemović, a lance corporal in the Bosnian Serb Army, admitted to killing ‘from 10 to 100’ Bosnian Muslim men by firing squad in July 1995, in and around the area of Srebrenica, during which process approximately 1,200 unarmed civilians were killed. He expressed a willingness to surrender to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and was duly transferred to The Hague from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). © 1998, T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors. All rights reserved.
The first person to be sentenced by the United Nations ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal) was Dražen Erdemović, a member of the Bosnian Serb Army who had pleaded guilty to one count of a crime against humanity – murder – and another of violations of the laws and customs of war – murder. Erdemović was a soldier in the 10th Sabotage Detachment of the Bosnian Serb army and the charges against him arose in connection with the slaughter of Bosnian Muslim civilians in the United Nations ‘safe areas’ of Srebrenica and Potocari.
Article 27 ICC Statute has proven to cause compatibility problems with regard to immunity provisions in national constitutions. States have, however, indicated readiness to overcome these problems. On the other hand, Article 98 forms the pivot of the latest attempt of the United States, a non-signatory state, to ensure a de
facto immunity from ICC jurisdiction for US nationals. This editorial sets out the contrasting approach of states to the ICC and concludes that the US Proposal for a Rule to 98(2) would have had the effect that the rule encompassed in Article 27 ICC Statute would in practice not apply to nationals of non-state parties.
International law is a projection of the imagination and professional identity of the practitioners in the field. Take a diligent, somewhat idealistic Delegate X who participates in a major event in international law: the negotiations on the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), starting with the Ad Hoc Committee in 1995, continuing in the Preparatory Committee and culminating at the Diplomatic Conference in Rome in 1998. What takes place when the ambitious ‘world public opinion’ expectations for international law are supposed to be made everyday life by the delegates? How does X, a single committed person, play his or her role as a tiny part of the global reform machinery? What is the anatomy of the engagement: professionalism and a comfortable exit from the intolerable world of human suffering and injustice? What kind of mechanisms govern the vertiginous scenes of genocide, champagne and flirt? Do the everyday worlds of violence and of welfare touch each other only slightly, in the name of international law, just in order to disappear again in their own, irresistible orbits?
In a previous issue of this Quarterly Colin Warbrick gave an exposition of the British Order in Council (The United Nations (International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) Order 1996) which implements Security Council Resolution 827. This note gives an alternative view of the scope and legality of that Order.
Why. it may be said, should anyone want to raise objection to the Order in Council implementing Resolution 827 when it merely introduced a procedure which ensures war criminals (whether Serb, Croat, or Bosnian) seeking refuge in Britain are promptly handed over to face justice?
The answer is that, whilst the immediate purpose of the Order in Council may be unobjectionable, the means by which it has been achieved are out of proportion to that purpose, and open the door to further unconsidered transfers of national powers.
A plea of superior orders in response to charges founded upon violations of the international laws of armed conflict has since 1945 been treated as a plea in mitigation of sentence rather than as a defence, a position founded upon article 8 of the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1998 the draft Statute of the proposed permanent International Criminal Court appeared, by article 33, to “restore” superior orders as a defence, a move deprecated by some as an apparent softening of the international legal approach to war crimes in an age in which such violations are all too prominently before the world's scrutiny. In fact both the formerly received “Nuremberg” doctrine and the appearance of a radical change, or reversion, in the 1998 Statute can be argued to be erroneous. It is the contention of this paper that far from advancing a new and stricter doctrine, the Charter of the IMT at Nuremberg correctly applied pre-existing doctrine in extreme and unusual circumstances but was mistakenly taken to have developed a new approach which was then applied with potentially distorting effect for the generality of circumstances. In this view the 1998 Statute has merely recognised the essential doctrine of superior orders as it existed prior to 1945 and which, properly understood, should not have been thought essentially to have been changed even in 1945.
In the absence of police powers, the International Criminal Court, like the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, will depend on the co-operation of states in order to fulfil its mandate. Discussing the jurisprudence of the ad
hoc Tribunals and the travaux
préparatoires of the Rome treaty, the author compares the mandatory powers conferred on the respective institutions to this end. He concludes that the Security Council endowed the Tribunals with unequivocally binding powers, while under the Rome treaty regime, which resembles traditional inter-state co-operation in criminal matters, the ICC's powers are more limited and state obligations less stringent.
The article critically examines the use of the doctrine of command responsibility by the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in two of its judgements, Kayishema & Ruzindana and Musema. It argues that in assessing superior-subordinate relationships the ICTR applied the wrong standard in both cases. If civilian superiors are to be liable for prosecution for command responsibility, the doctrine will be properly operative only in cases where the superior's control of subordinates strongly resembles that customarily enjoyed by military commanders; i.e., where there is an international legal duty imposed on the civilian superior to exercise relevant control over the civilian subordinates. The article builds upon the arguments of the ICTY's Celebici judgment on this point, and emphasizes the difficulty in holding lower-ranking Rwandan civilians responsible as superiors for genocide committed by supposed subordinates.
The scale of what happened under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 is difficult to deal with (over one million Cambodians lost their lives), but efforts are now underway to bring at least some of the surviving leaders of the regime to justice. This essay explores the reasons for delay of the trials, citing:
The absence of international precedents prior to the 1990s;
The show trial of two Khmer Rouge leaders in 1979; and
The obstacles to a trial arising from geopolitical considerations in the 1980s (in which some powers now calling for a trial, including the United States, were effectively allied with the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese-imposed regime in Phnom Penh).
In the 1990s, following the Paris Peace Accords and the brief UN protectorate over Cambodia, demands for a trial came from overseas and from Cambodian human rights groups. The Cambodian regime considered the show trials of 1979 sufficient, however, and in 1998 Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen urged his compatriots to “dig a hole and bury the past.” Eager to regain foreign support for his regime after several brutal incidents in which political opponents were killed, Hun Sen has more recently agreed to limited international participation in a trial. A procedure targeting a few Khmer Rouge leaders seems likely in 2000, but Cambodian government control of the proceedings means that nothing like a truth commission or a wide-ranging inquiry will result.
Rwanda's judicial system, however, is not capable of responding to the challenge. Given the number of judges, prosecutors, and courthouses, most suspects now in custody may die of old age before they ever get to court. Rwanda's National Assembly adopted legislation in August 1996 to deal with genocide and crimes against humanity committed between October 1990 and December 1994. The country began to try genocide suspects in late December 1996. Some of the first trials were marred by the absence of defense counsel and impetuous refusals by trial judges to grant adjournments so the accused could find lawyers or otherwise prepare their cases. In cases where defense counsel was present, hearings were more acceptable from a human rights standpoint and provided Rwanda's judicial system with a model on which to base future prosecutions. Some observers from the international media and the diplomatic corps were initially critical of the trials, but much of this dissatisfaction actually resulted from unfamiliarity with the inquisitorial system. Conditions of detention in Rwandan prisons and the International Criminal Tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council for Rwanda are discussed.
The following paper is based on a legal brief requested by the Office of the Prosecutor General, Serious Crimes Investigation Unit, of the United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET), in April 2001. The Office of the Prosecutor General required that the brief analysis the applicable law of crimes against humanity under UNTAET Regulation 15/20001 with regard to the crimes committed in East Timor between 1 January and 25 October 1999. This period is covered by the temporal jurisdiction of the Serious Crimes Panel of the District Court of Dili (s. 2.3 of Reg. 15/2000). The exact scope of the brief was to cover the following crimes against humanity, which are deemed to be the most important ones with regard to the situation in East Timor: murder; deportation and forcible transfer of persons; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty; torture; persecution; inhumane acts. The sexual crimes defined in section 5.1(g) of Regulation 15/2000 are not included as they were dealt with in a separate brief.