The Sentencing Determinants of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: An Empirical and Doctrinal Analysis

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 717-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES MEERNIK ◽  
KIMI KING
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Critical Factors ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Fair Degree

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.

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

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.

Briefly Noted

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Life Sentence

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.

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
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Peace And Justice ◽  
High Government ◽  
Made In

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

The Historical Development of Crimes against Humanity and Jurisprudence of the Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
Post World War Ii

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.

The Good Deeds of International Criminal Defendants

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN GALBRAITH
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Good Deeds

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.

scholarly journals Relativising Atrocity Crimes: The Message of Unconditional Early Release of Perpetrators Convicted by the ICTY (1998 – 2018)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Priyamvada Yarnell
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Moral Condemnation ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

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.

War Crimes and Other International ‘Core’ Crimes

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Gaeta
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
National Level ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Cold War

Under the orthodox approach, war crimes were considered crimes under international law only as a means to enforce international rules of warfare at the national level. This basic principle of international law was challenged and eventually discarded following the trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal. However, the revolutionary precedent established by the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials did not develop into a fully-fledged body of international criminal rules, known as ‘international criminal law’, until the end of the Cold War, when the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were set up by the United Nations Security Council. This chapter focuses on the criminalization of war crimes under international law and compares it with the parallel criminalization of crimes against humanity and genocide.

Trials, Tribulations, and Triumphs: Major Developments in 1997 at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

1998 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 179-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Robinson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law

SummaryNineteen ninety-seven was marked by several important developments at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. A series of arrests and voluntary surrenders have increased the Tribunal's workload and credibility. The landmark Tadic judgment has clarified international humanitarian law, particularly with respect to crimes against humanity. The Erdemovic decision considered the defence of duress with respect to the murder of civilians and the use ofguilty pleas in international criminal law. Finally, the Blaskic decision has considered the use of subpoenas in international law.

scholarly journals Penegakan Hukum Pidana Internasional dalam Kejahatan Perang terhadap Kemanusiaan

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-92
Author(s):  
Fadil Muhammad ◽  
Luh Putu Sudini ◽  
I Nyoman Sujana
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Humanitarian Law

War is a condition in which one party subdues its opponent to fulfill his will, a physical or non-physical act between two or more human groups to dominate. The formulation of the problem of this research is how the role of International Criminal Law on law enforcement in war crimes against humanity and how the state responsibility in war crimes against humanity in International Criminal Law. This research method uses the type of normative legal research by doing the assessment based on legal materials of the literature and is a process to find the rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines to answer the legal issues faced. War crimes and crimes against humanity are two types of international crimes that exist in twenty international criminal types designed by ILC (International Law Commission) to design the establishment of an international criminal tribunal. The conclusion of this study is  the role of International Criminal Law in  war crimes against humanity can be concluded that is contained in conventions contained in International Humanitarian Law contains only command or prohibition only but international criminal law have role in giving criminal sanction against violation of command or prohibition that and the state's responsibility in international criminal law can be an obligation to prosecute international criminal offenders encountered in various instruments of International Law. The form of state responsibility under the Rome Statute is  that States Parties shall have two main obligations:  States  Parties  shall  bring  each  perpetrator  of  genocide,  crimes  against humanity, criminal acts of war and criminal acts of aggression before the courts and the participating States in imposing their jurisdiction in enforcement of International Criminal Law must cooperate fully in the enforcement of International Criminal Law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document