scholarly journals The Norm of Justice and the Negotiation of the Rambouillet/Paris Peace Accords

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-217
Author(s):  
Paul R. Williams

With the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the imminent creation of a permanent International Criminal Court, as well as the proliferation of public statements by high government officials endorsing the norm of justice, many commentators are hypothesizing that the long running tension between peace and justice may be undergoing a period of reconciliation. A brief review of the efforts to incorporate the norm of justice in the Rambouillet/Paris Accords and UNSC 1244 indicates that only minimal progress has been made in the reconciliation between the quest for a negotiated peace and the norm of justice. As the most powerful nation committed to the rule of law, we have a responsibility to confront these assaults on humankind. One response mechanism is accountability, namely to help bring the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to justice. If we allow them to act with impunity, then we will only be inviting a perpetuation of these crimes far into the next millennium. Our legacy must demonstrate an unyielding commitment to the pursuit of justice.David SchefferUS Ambassador for War Crimes The search for a juster peace than was obtainable at the negotiating table has inflicted hardship and havoc on innocent civilians within the former Yugoslavia and exacted a heavy price from the already weak economies of the neighboring states.David OwenCo-Chair of the International Conference for the former Yugoslavia

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667

On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals set aside Radovan Karadžić's prior sentence of forty years and imposed a life sentence. Karadžić was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war in March 2016 by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and sentenced to forty years in prison. His crimes relate to war crimes he committed during the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Serbs and the three-year long siege of Sarajevo. The Appeals Chamber reversed part of Karadžić's convictions related to the Overarching JCE and dismissed the rest of his appeal, while also dismissing most of the Prosecution's appeal, aside from the sentence. The Appeals Chamber judges found that the Trial Chamber “committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment,” and consequently imposed a life sentence.


Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

Chapter 8 analyses post-World War II jurisprudence, national jurisprudence, the International Law Commission’s work, and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) jurisprudence regarding what types of non-state entities might be involved in crimes against humanity. It argues that while the Nuremberg Charter and post-World War II jurisprudence, including national jurisprudence, were focused on state crimes, state involvement has rarely been considered a legal element of crimes against humanity. This is also evident in the International Law Commission’s work. This chapter analyses how the three abovementioned international(ized) tribunals addressed the question of non-state entity involvement in crimes against humanity and argues that the ICTY and the SCSL did not limit entities behind crimes against humanity to abstract ‘state-like entities’, but primarily considered whether the group in question had the capacity to commit the crimes.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN GALBRAITH

AbstractInternational criminal tribunals try defendants for horrific acts: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. At sentencing, however, evidence often arises of what I will call defendants’ ‘good deeds’ – humanitarian behaviour by the defendants towards those on the other side of the conflict that is conscientious relative to the culture in which the defendants are operating. This article examines the treatment of good deeds in the sentencing practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. I show that the tribunals’ approaches are both undertheorized and internally inconsistent. I argue that the tribunals should draw upon the goals that underlie international criminal law in developing a coherent approach to considering good deeds for sentencing purposes.


2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 717-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES MEERNIK ◽  
KIMI KING

The pronouncements of punishment for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will be among its most important legacies for international law and international relations. The purpose of our research is to examine the judges' opinions on the determinants of punishment and, most especially, the data on sentences handed down by the trial chambers in order to understand which factors are the most powerful in explaining sentences. We find that there is a fair degree of consistency in the sentences conferred on the guilty. By systematically examining all the sentences both doctrinally and empirically we can see that sentences are premised on those critical factors that the judges are admonished to employ by the ICTY Statute and their own Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM A. SCHABAS

The report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, set up pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, is an important contribution to the evolving law of genocide. The Commission concluded that genocide had not been committed, but that the case should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Commission did not find significant evidence of genocidal intent. It looked essentially for a plan or policy of the Sudanese state and, in its absence, concluded that genocide was not being committed. The Commission endorsed the ‘stable and permanent groups’ approach taken by one trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On this point, it exaggerated the acceptance of this interpretation, which has been ignored by other trial chambers of the international tribunals. However, the Commission found that the better approach to determination of the groups covered by the Convention is subjective, and that the targeted tribes in Darfur meet this criterion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Priyamvada Yarnell

Abstract Despite being found guilty of egregious acts, crimes against humanity and war crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (icty) were granted unconditional early release (uer). This article argues that uer did a disservice to two principal expressive purposes of punishment - moral condemnation of the crimes and the overall norm projected by the icty, the ‘universal repugnance of group-based killing’. Fundamentally, punishment of perpetrators signifies the inherent worth of victims. Interviews with key stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina revealed that the interviewees largely concurred with authors who posit that punitive justice conveys valuable messages to audiences. This article complements expressivist theories by demonstrating the extent to which expressivism was negated as perpetrators were granted uer. Finally, it proposes how early release in future tribunals and courts might be tailored to counter the negation of international criminal justice’s expressive value.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Mary Ann Johnson Navis

<p>This dissertation focuses on the role played by officials of transnational corporations and transnational corporations themselves in the situation in Burma. The main aim of this dissertation is to assess the liability of officials of transnational corporations in Burma and transnational corporations in Burma for crimes against humanity such as slave labour and for war crimes such as plunder under International Criminal Law. However at present transnational corporations cannot be prosecuted under International Criminal Law as the International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction to try natural persons and not legal persons. In doing this analysis the theory of complicity, actus reus of aiding and abetting and the mens rea of aiding and abetting in relation to officials of transnational corporations will be explored and analysed to assess the liability of these officials in Burma. In doing this analysis the jurisprudence of inter alia the Nuremberg cases, the cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) will be used. This dissertation also examines the problems associated with suing or prosecuting transnational corporations due to the legal personality of transnational corporations and the structure of transnational corporations. At the end of the dissertation some recommendations are made so as to enable transnational corporations to be more transparent and accountable under the law.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Mary Ann Johnson Navis

<p>This dissertation focuses on the role played by officials of transnational corporations and transnational corporations themselves in the situation in Burma. The main aim of this dissertation is to assess the liability of officials of transnational corporations in Burma and transnational corporations in Burma for crimes against humanity such as slave labour and for war crimes such as plunder under International Criminal Law. However at present transnational corporations cannot be prosecuted under International Criminal Law as the International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction to try natural persons and not legal persons. In doing this analysis the theory of complicity, actus reus of aiding and abetting and the mens rea of aiding and abetting in relation to officials of transnational corporations will be explored and analysed to assess the liability of these officials in Burma. In doing this analysis the jurisprudence of inter alia the Nuremberg cases, the cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) will be used. This dissertation also examines the problems associated with suing or prosecuting transnational corporations due to the legal personality of transnational corporations and the structure of transnational corporations. At the end of the dissertation some recommendations are made so as to enable transnational corporations to be more transparent and accountable under the law.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document