scholarly journals Biden Administration Rescinds Sanctions Against International Criminal Court Officials

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 729-732
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Foreign Assets

On April 1, 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order reversing the Trump administration's sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel. The administration rescinded the sanctions placed upon the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and the head of the Office of the Prosecutor's Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko, and removed the officials from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. The ICC, European Union (EU), and human rights groups welcomed the reversal.

ACCIDENT AND DESIGN: RECOGNISING VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-132
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

AbstractInternational law has not traditionally recognised individuals as victims of the crime of aggression. Recent developments may precipitate a departure from this approach. The activation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression opens the way for the future application of the Court's regime of victim participation and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. The determination by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 that any deprivation of life resulting from an act of aggression violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights serves to recognise a previously overlooked class of victims. This article explores these recent developments, by discussing their background, meaning and implications for international law and the rights of victims.

International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Charles B.A Ubah ◽  
Osy E. Nwebo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
National Governments

The principle of domestic jurisdiction in international law makes national governments responsible for protecting their citizens, investigating alleged abuses of human rights in their countries and bringing the perpetrators to justice. They governments may also extradite those accused of abuse of human rights to any other states prepared to give them a fair trial. Problem arises however, when governments are unable or unwilling to perform this duty or are themselves perpetrators of these crimes. Thus, millions of people have fallen victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian laws. But only very few of these perpetrators have been brought to justice in national courts as many governments claim sanctuary under the principle of domestic jurisdiction. The need therefore arises for the international community to act in order to protect helpless or defenseless citizens from being victims of crimes against humanity and human rights abuses, by bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The thrust of this article therefore, is that the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fills this void by fulfilling a central and pivotal goal in international jurisprudence. This article, therefore, provides insights and lessons into the history and prospects of the International Criminal Court. These are insights and lessons that are too important and too costly to ignore in the 21st century understanding of international criminal justice system.

Translating Rights

Reified Life ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 148-174
Author(s):  
J. Paul Narkunas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Political Aesthetics ◽  
The Creation

This chapter describes how English and French as the de jure languages of human rights at the International Criminal Court. As a result, populations who do not adhere to Western Enlightenment notions of rights can be declared terrorists or “enemies of humankind.” By tracing the workings of translation in the ICC through the Thomas Lubanga trial, the author discusses how translation can deny human status to those brought before the ICC. It also provides, however, the means to challenge the legitimacy of the court as merely another sign of universalizing western justice, solidified by the fact that all people brought before the ICC come from the continent of Africa. By focusing on how language produces reality, the creation of natural rights claims allow for new forms of political protection in the chasm between differing legal orders. Consequently, thinking the role of translation as metaphor and practice for world making and the production of agency is an inchoate form of political aesthetics. Translation may offer, thus, a way to reconceive the human and its attendant rights due to language’s role in world making, subject production, and power relations. This indicates a form of ahuman agency.

Canada, the International Criminal Court, and the intersection of international politics and finances

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-224
Author(s):  
Kirsten J. Fisher ◽  
Laszlo Sarkany
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Financial Resources

In 2018, Prime Minister Trudeau made two announcements regarding the International Criminal Court, both, it seems, aimed at reinforcing Canada’s claim of human rights promotion and multilateralism: Canada declared Myanmar’s actions against the Rohingya people genocide and urged the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court, and it joined a collective referral of the Venezuela situation to the Court. As public measures of support, these are positive developments for the International Criminal Court, which has been suffering poor public relations and challenges to its legitimacy. However, Canada could do more by better supporting the financial viability of the Court. Currently, it aims to increase the Court’s workload without supporting an increased budget, as reflected in Canada’s involvement at the December 2018 Assembly of States Parties meeting. A seemingly sure way to undermine the International Criminal Court would be to add to its workload without ensuring it has the financial resources to do the work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document