Modalities of Criminal Liability in the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals

2013 ◽  
pp. 159-252
Author(s):  
Iryna Marchuk
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Courts

Challenges to Criminalizing State Responsibility for Genocide

Postgenocide ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-62
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

This chapter shows that although often states are parties in a genocide enterprise, the centrality—and responsibility—of states for genocide does not receive attention commensurate with the severity of the problem. Indeed, genocidal states are not held criminally responsibility for genocide. Underscoring difficulties at proving state criminal responsibility for genocide, the analysis compares and contrasts individual criminal responsibility and state criminal responsible for genocide. Whereas in the former case the matter has been dealt with by domestic and international criminal courts and tribunals, in the latter case there is no international judicial authority which can try states for criminal responsibility. However, non-state corporate criminal liability, and evolution of this institute in international law, may provide some transferable lessons for state responsibility for genocide. The chapter highlights the nexus between individual responsibility and state responsibility, and the failures of international genocide law in establishing state responsibility for genocide.

19. The Repression of International Crimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 427-453
Author(s):  
Paola Gaeta ◽  
Jorge E. Viñuales ◽  
Salvatore Zappalà
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes

This chapter begins with an overview of international crimes, namely, offences entailing the personal criminal liability of the individuals concerned (as opposed to the responsibility of the State) under international law. International crimes include war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, aggression, and terrorism. The discussion then turns to the prosecution and punishment by State courts, focusing on the grounds of criminal jurisdiction and in particular universal criminal jurisdiction. It ends with an overview of the prosecution and punishment by international criminal courts and tribunals, with an emphasis on the International Criminal Court, and with an assessment of the main problems besetting international criminal proceedings.

Introductory Remarks by Erika de Wet

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
The Relationship

In June 2014, the African Union adopted a treaty (referred to as the Malabo Protocol) that would establish the first regional court with jurisdiction over human rights, general matters, and criminal matters. Its substantive jurisdiction included international and transnational crimes, as well as corporate criminal liability. This development sparked a debate as to whether other regions (notably Latin America) should also adopt a regional criminal court to prosecute transnational organized crime in Latin America. Moreover, the adoption of the Malabo Protocol raised questions concerning the relationship between regional criminal courts, national (domestic) courts, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the enforcement of international criminal law.

International legal immunities and privileges of the Рrosecutor amicus curiae

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
EKATERINA A. KOPYLOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Foreign Science

The article considers the international legal regime of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors of international criminal courts which are intended to ensure independent and unhindered performance of their functions in prosecuting crimes against the administration of justice. Due to the lack of doctrinal research in this field, whether in the domestic or foreign science of international law, the study is characterized by scientific novelty. Its empirical basis is constituted of the provisions of international treaties governing the immunities and privileges of staff of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. It is noted that today the state of international legal regulation of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors is not quite satisfactory as it contains significant gaps. Two possible approaches to determining the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors are identified: the first based on their status and the second – on the functions they perform. Their critical analysis leads to the conclusion that the functional approach is more in line with the principle of equality of arms in international criminal proceedings. As a result of its application, the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors coincides with the scope of the immunities and privileges granted to staff of the Offices of Prosecutors at the international criminal tribunals.

The “Kouwenhoven” Case

2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 568-704
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Arms Embargo ◽  
Witness Statements

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Liberia — UN Security Council Resolutions 1343 (2001) and 1408 (2002) — Implementation of arms embargo under Dutch law — Whether sanctions regime violatedInternational criminal law — Difference between perpetrator and accomplice liability — Complicity in war crimes — Requirement that defendant promoted or facilitated the commission of war crimes — Conditional intent — Whether defendant consciously accepted the probability that war crimes would be committed in connection with his material support — Risk of doing business with a government engaged in international criminal activityInternational criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility and weight of witness statements — Factors relevant to assessing witness statements obtained in post-conflict environment — Coercion of witnesses — Whether inconsistencies in witness statements requiring acquittalInternational criminal law — Circumstances excusing unlawful conduct — National emergency — Whether violations of arms embargo and laws and customs of war justified by right to self-defence under international lawJurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — War crimes — Prosecution of a Dutch national for offences committed abroad — Whether conduct of investigation by Dutch authorities making prosecution inadmissible — Whether amnesty scheme in Liberia barrier to prosecution — No violation of fair trial rightsWar and armed conflict — Existence of armed conflict — Whether armed conflict international or internal — Limited gap between norms applicable to international versus non-international armed conflict — Whether violations of laws and customs of war giving rise to individual criminal liability under Dutch law — The law of the Netherlands

Judicial Lawmaking, Discourse Theory, and the ICTY on Belligerent Reprisals

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1261-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Kuhli ◽  
Klaus Günther
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Discourse Theory ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
Judicial Lawmaking ◽  
The Individual

Without presenting a full definition, it can be said that the notion of judicial lawmaking implies the idea that courts create normative expectations beyond the individual case. That is, our question is whether courts' normative declarations have an effect which is abstract and general. Our purpose here is to ask about judicial lawmaking in this sense with respect to international criminal courts and tribunals. In particular, we will focus on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). No other international criminal court or tribunal has issued so many judgments as the ICTY, so it seems a particularly useful focus for examining the creation of normative expectations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document