The Symbolic and Communicative Function of International Criminal Tribunals

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.

Download Full-text

Contemporary International Tribunals

10.1093/oso/9780190848194.003.0011 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade Trindade

Keyword(s):

Ad Hoc ◽

International Criminal ◽

Case Law ◽

Nuclear Disarmament ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Criminal Tribunals ◽

The Icj ◽

The Common ◽

International Human ◽

International Tribunals

In the course of 2016, international human rights tribunals (ECtHR, IACtHR and ACtHPR) kept on making cross-references to each other’s case-law, as well as to that of other international tribunals. The same has taken place on the part of international criminal tribunals (ICC and ICTFY), at a time of special attention to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals (ICTFY and ICTR). One could have expected the same from the ICJ, as to the case-law of other international tribunals, in its recent decisions in the cases concerning the Obligation of Nuclear Disarmament (2016), keeping in mind the common mission (of realization of justice) of contemporary international tribunals from an essentially humanist outlook.

Download Full-text

Contemporary International Tribunals

10.1093/oso/9780190923846.003.0009 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Antônio Augusto ◽

Cançado Trindade

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

International Criminal ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Criminal Tribunals ◽

International Human ◽

International Tribunals ◽

Cross Fertilization

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

Download Full-text