Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger S. Clark

The crime of aggression will be included within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court once agreement is reached on its definition and the conditions for exercising jurisdiction. The author discusses the ultimately unsuccessful efforts of the now concluded Preparatory Commission for the Court to complete the drafting. He suggests how the mental and material elements of the offense might be structured consistently with other offenses in the Statute of the Court. Probably the biggest intellectual hurdle is that of “conditions.” A number of states, notably the Permanent Members of the Security Council, insist that there must be a predetermination of an act of aggression by a state made by the Security Council. Others believe that the predetermination can be made by the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice. Yet others claim that all decisions must be made by the International Criminal Court. The political choice between these positions has still to be made.

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-693
Author(s):  
Alessandra Spadaro

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.


2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 596-611
Author(s):  
Sarah M.H. Nouwen

AbstractThis article argues that it is important for the International Court of Justice to be given an opportunity, for instance through a request for an Advisory Opinion, to explain what exactly it meant when it suggested that the ordinarily applicable international law on immunities need not be an obstacle “before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction”. Two international criminal courts have built a structure of case law on this one obiter comment, which it seems unable to support.


Author(s):  
M. Antonovych

The article deals with the definition of the concept of intent to commit genocide in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in the document “Elements of Crimes” adopted by the International Criminal Court, as well as in decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Court and in practice of the International Court of Justice. The author reveals constitutive elements of the concept of intent to commit genocide: intent to be engaged in the conduct which would cause destructive consequences for a national, ethnic, religious or racial group as such; intent to reach these consequences; or awareness that they will occur as a result of this conduct in the ordinary course of events. The author indicates slightly different approaches of the international criminal tribunals and courts to knowledge of the consequences as a result of destruction of a group. It is stated that the intent should not necessarily be fixed in documents or formulated in public oral speeches, but may also be certified by facts and circumstances of a crime. The author analyzes different circumstances which may evidence the intent to commit genocide. Special attention is paid to differentiation between individual and collective intent to commit genocide. The author examines the intent to commit genocide in the Holodomor organized against the Ukrainian national and ethnic group.


1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
T. M. F.

On February 5, 1991, the terms of five members of the International Court of Justice expired: those of President J. M. Ruda (Argentina) and Judges K. Mbaye (Senegal), Sir Robert Jennings (United Kingdom), G. Guillaume (France) and R. S. Pathak (India). In conformity with Articles 4 and 13 of the Statute of the Court, the General Assembly and the Security Council, on November 15, 1990, elected five persons to nine-year terms of office. Judges Mbaye, Ruda and Pathak did not stand for reelection. Judges Jennings and Guillaume were reelected. The newly elected judges are Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (Venezuela), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) and Christopher Gregory Weeramantry (Sri Lanka).


Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James

This chapter discusses the regular budget of the UN. The UN’s regular budget includes the expenses of its principal organs—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council, and the Secretariat—as well as subsidiary bodies. From tens of millions in the early years of the organization, the regular budget has grown to billions of dollars. It is composed of various parts, sections, and programmes. No funds may be transferred between different appropriation sections without the authorization of the General Assembly. The remainder of the chapter covers the authorization of programmes; formulation and examination of estimates; approval and appropriation; implementation and the Contingency Fund; audit; the Working Capital Fund; financing of peacekeeping; international tribunals; voluntary contributions; self-support; apportionment of expenses of the organization; and administrative and budgetary coordination between the UN and specialized agencies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document