scholarly journals Change of Guard

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan M. Amaya-Castro ◽  
Thomas Skouteris
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The One ◽  
Innovation And Change ◽  
Dramatic Growth

Dr René Lefeber stayed at the helm of the Leiden Journal of International Law as its Editor-in-Chief for more than four important years (1996–2000), marked by innovation and change in practically every aspect of the Journal. Barely two years after a profound re-organization, the Journal's volume was doubled with three issues per year in 1997, and four issues in 1998. Meanwhile, the number of pages, the quality, and the diversity of published material saw dramatic growth. The section on Hague International Tribunals became a standard feature; a sub-section on the International Criminal Court was set up in 1998 to regularly cover ongoing developments in this important institution; an annual specialized bibliography on dispute settlement was introduced; and regular Editorial notes by members of the Board figured in each issue. All in all, a very different Journal than the one handed down four years earlier.

The new International Criminal Court: A preliminary assessment

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (325) ◽  
pp. 671-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Major Step ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
New Institutions

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.

The Settlement of Disputes Concerning States Arising From the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Balancing Sovereignty and the Need for an Effective and Independent ICC

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Ochoa S.
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe tension between State sovereignty and the need of international criminal tribunals to have sufficient powers for functioning effectively and independently permeates the provisions on the settlement of disputes contained within the ICC Statute. In contrast to the Statutes and the case-law of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the ICC Statute gives considerable weight to States Party's sovereignty. In particular, the power of the ICC to settle any dispute concerning its judicial functions under Article 119, paragraph 1, of its Statute is weakened in the area of States Party's cooperation where the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute of that court, in addition to grant those States several possibilities for denying requests for cooperation, remain to a large extent ambiguous as to whether the ICC can scrutinise the grounds for such denials. Yet, it is submitted that the ICC Statute as a whole provides the ICC with sufficient bases to assert such a power. This contribution also casts some light on the relationship between the ICC and States non-party to its Statute from the perspective of the rules on dispute settlement laid down in that international instrument and general international law.

scholarly journals Towards a nemo judex in parte sua Critique of the International Criminal Court?

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-444
Author(s):  
Benedict Abrahamson Chigara
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Principle ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Law

When the relevance or, practice of international tribunals is impugned their tendency often is to resort to ‘vivere-existential reflexes’. This habit can incubate conflict between the particular tribunal and the requirements of General Principles of Law recognized by civilized nations. This risks disunity between international law, supranational law and domestic law. This article examines the International Criminal Court’s (icc) application and interpretation of Article 87 of the Rome Statute (1998) under the light of nemo judex in parte sua – a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations. The article recommends that an observatory for monitoring International Tribunals’ compliance with general principles of law recognized by civilized nations should be established and a database on non-compliance should be developed and maintained. This should check practice of international tribunals for consistency with general principles of law recognized by civilized nations in a manner that promotes the integrity of international law.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Dual Nationality and International Criminal Court Jurisdiction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Wolman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Dual Nationality ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract The International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of states parties. However, it has never been clear whether the Court will automatically recognize a nationality that has been conferred by a state party under its domestic law, nor what criteria it would use to evaluate that nationality should it not be automatically accepted. In December 2019, the Office of the Prosecutor made its first formal pronouncement on the question, finding that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over North Koreans, despite their being South Korean nationals under South Korean law, because North Koreans are not able to exercise their rights as South Koreans until accepted as such by application, and on occasion their applications might be refused. In this article, I reject the Prosecutor’s analysis as misguided. I also reject the other main approaches to nationality recognition suggested by scholars, namely a ‘genuine link’ requirement, a deferral to municipal law, and a deferral to municipal law except where a conferral of nationality violates international law. Instead, I propose a functional approach that would respect municipal conferral of nationality unless that conferral unreasonably interferes with the sovereign interests of a non-state party.

Measuring Performance and Shaping Identity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annika Jones
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Victim Satisfaction ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The One

Abstract Amid pressure to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC), work has progressed on the development of a set of performance indicators for the ICC. This article argues that performance indicators play into tensions that underpin the international criminal justice process at the ICC, in particular between expeditiousness, on the one hand, and fairness and victim satisfaction, on the other. It argues that while the ICC’s performance indicators extend assessment of the ICC beyond the speedy completion of cases and embrace goals of fairness and victim access to justice, they inevitably support the former to the detriment of the latter, with implications for the Court’s identity. While acknowledging the benefits of performance indicators for the ICC, the article outlines several measures to counter the risks that they pose for the balance between these goals.

Law and contestation in international negotiations

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-690
Author(s):  
Kyle Rapp
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Grounds

AbstractWhat is the role of rhetoric and argumentation in international relations? Some argue that it is little more than ‘cheap talk’, while others say that it may play a role in persuasion or coordination. However, why states deploy certain arguments, and why these arguments succeed or fail, is less well understood. I argue that, in international negotiations, certain types of legal frames are particularly useful for creating winning arguments. When a state bases its arguments on constitutive legal claims, opponents are more likely to become trapped by the law: unable to develop sustainable rebuttals or advance their preferred policy. To evaluate this theory, I apply qualitative discourse analysis to the US arguments on the crime of aggression at the Kampala Review Conference of the International Criminal Court – where the US advanced numerous arguments intended to reshape the crime to align with US interests. The analysis supports the theoretical propositions – arguments framed on codified legal grounds had greater success, while arguments framed on more political grounds were less sustainable, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. These findings further develop our understanding of the use of international law in rhetoric, argumentation, and negotiation.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

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.

The Activity of Lawyers in the International Criminal Court: Theoretical and Practical Aspects

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-72
Author(s):  
Daria A. Sedova
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Order ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Status ◽  
Entire History

In the entire history of mankind, a large number of acts of violence and aggression have been committed. Over the past 50 years alone, there have been more than 400 interstate and intrastate conflicts that have claimed the lives of millions of people. Increasingly, there has been an urgent need to protect the violated rights of individuals. The idea of creating a single international body for the protection of human rights has been discussed more than once. For the first time, the idea of creating an international judicial body was expressed in 1948 by the UN General Assembly after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials at the end of World War II, which issue has been discussed at the United Nations ever since. However, efforts to create such a mechanism have not been successful, despite the need for a permanent criminal court to prosecute and punish those who commit the most serious crimes. In 1998, this idea was realized. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has sought ways to establish a world order with a fair resolution of conflicts. It has long been recognized, the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal noted, that international law imposes duties and obligations on specific individuals as well as on the state. [] Crimes against international law are committed by people, not by abstract categories, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be respected. To date, the ICC is successfully coping with the task of punishing those persons or groups of persons who have committed the international crimes listed in the Rome Statute. It would seem that the balance between good and evil has been found. The crime has been committed and the criminal punished. But it is important to note that the procedural issues have not been resolved as well as that of punishing criminals. An urgent matter today is the status of defenders of the accused in international criminal proceedings. This question requires not only a doctrinal, but also a practical understanding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document