Classifying Cultural and Physical Destruction: Are Modern Historical and Current Human Rights Violations in China Violations of International Criminal Law?

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 533-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations

scholarly journals RATIFIKASI STATUTA ROMA 1998 (ICC ) TERHADAP TEGAKNYA KEADILAN DALAM PERLINDUNGAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA DI INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bambang Purwanto
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Cooperative Relationships ◽  
Strategic Role ◽  
The Relationship

<p>In this globalization era, cooperative relationships spread. The relationship between one country and another is as if no border. Problems arousing are also more complicated as the increas-ing of the people's needs. Law has very important roles in regulating those relationships. International law is crucially needed in maintaining harmonious relationships among people and countries. The Rome Statute is more than an international criminal law instrument, but it plays a strategic role in realizing the fulfillment of human rights. The provisions of the Rome Statute are not retroactive. Because the Rome Statute is more oriented to prevent the occurrence of gross human rights violations in the future. When the Rome Statute is ratified, it will improve and strengthen the national legal and human rights system.</p>

scholarly journals Nullum Crimen and International Criminal Law: The Relevance of the Foreseeability Test

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-531
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point

This article traces the development of the foreseeability test in the context of the nullum crimen principle. While the European Court of Human Rights has introduced the ‘accessibility and foreseeability’ criteria long ago in the Sunday Times case, the Court has only recently started to apply this standard with respect to international crimes. In the Kononov case, judges of the European Court of Human Rights exhibited strongly divergent opinions on the question whether the punishment of alleged war crimes that had been committed in 1944 violated the nullum crimen principle. According to this author, the dissension of the judges demonstrates the lack of objective foreseeability, which should have served as a starting point for the assessment of the subjective foreseeability and a – potentially exculpating – mistake of law of the perpetrator. The Court should therefore have concluded that the nullum crimen principle had been violated.

Just How Ill-treated Were You? An Investigation of Cross-fertilisation in the Interpretative Approaches to Torture at the European Court of Human Rights and in International Criminal Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Definition Of

The prohibition on torture in international human rights law seems a fairly straightforward candidate for productive use in international criminal law. The Convention against Torture contains an elaborate definition of torture and human rights institutions have developed substantial jurisprudence on the prohibition and definition of torture. Indeed, the ad hoc Tribunals and the drafters of the Rome Statute have employed the human rights law approach to torture to varying degrees. But the conception of torture reached by human rights bodies is problematic and unsuitable for usage where individual criminal responsibility is sought. It is unsuitable because the human rights law understanding of torture is subjective and victim-derived. Human rights bodies do not scrutinize intent, purpose and perpetration, central aspects of international criminal legal reasoning. The communication on torture between these bodies of law to date shows that cross-fertilisation, without detailed reasoning, is inappropriate - because rights are different to crimes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document