Tempered Adversariality: The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER CARMICHAEL KEEN
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Judicial Role

International criminal procedure (ICP) has fluctuated uncertainly between common- and civil-law procedural principles. Consensus on the principles underlying ICP is needed to ensure consistent standards of justice. The article begins by comparing criminal procedure in common- and civil-law systems, and describes the theories underlying the trial and judicial role in these systems. It then compares ICP to civil- and common-law criminal procedure. This comparison establishes the scope of judicial powers that can be exercised by international criminal judges. These powers differ from those exercised by both common- and civil-law judges. The article concludes by arguing that ICP is based on a new theory of the trial: the theory of ‘tempered adversariality’.

The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran Sluiter
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article deals with the question of possible effect of the law of international criminal procedure for domestic war crimes trials. With the increasing number of national prosecutions for war crimes this question will gain in relevance.The article starts with an exploration of the origin and development of the law of international criminal procedure, to reach the conclusion that because of the lack of a strong foundation it is difficult to discern firmly established rules in this field. Next, two areas are examined where the law of international criminal procedure is capable of producing effect for national trials: human rights and rules that have developed in the specific context of war crimes prosecutions.Whether rules of international criminal procedure are formally effective in the domestic legal order remains to be seen. There is no clear obligation under international law to do so. Furthermore, the law of international criminal procedure may be difficult to harmonise with domestic inquisitorial systems.In spite of these difficulties, the article concludes that national courts will increasingly face similar procedural problems in complex war crimes trials as international criminal tribunals and will be happy to learn from their experiences.

The Creation and Expansion of the International Criminal Court: A Legal Explanation

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Justyna Powell ◽  
Sara McLaughlin Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
State Level ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Creation

International courts have proliferated in the international system in the past century, with one hundred judicial or quasi-judicial bodies currently in existence. While the supply of international courts has increased substantially, state level support for international courts varies across states, across courts, and over time. This paper focuses on the cross-sectional and temporal variation in state level support for a particular court, the International Criminal Court (ICC). The authors argue that domestic legal systems create different predispositions with respect to states’ willingness to join adjudicatory bodies and the design of their commitments to international courts. Negotiators involved in the creation of the ICC pushed for rules and procedures that mimicked those of their domestic legal systems to help reduce uncertainty regarding the court’s future behavior and decision-making processes. This interesting process of legal bargaining led to the creation of a sui generis court, one which represents a mixture of common law and civil law systems. The hybrid nature of the court’s design enhanced the attractiveness of the court to civil and common law states, making them significantly more likely to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. Empirical models demonstrate that common and civil law states were fervent supporters of the ICC in preliminary negotiations and that they have shown higher levels of support for the Court since the ICC’s inception in comparison to Islamic law or mixed law states.

Responsibility for Bystanders in Mass Crimes: Towards a Duty to Rescue in International Criminal Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 879-908
Author(s):  
Auriane Botte-Kerrison
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Attribution Of Responsibility ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collective Dimension

This article examines the viability of integrating the duty to rescue concept in international criminal justice to deal with the responsibility of bystanders. Despite the fact that they often contribute to create the social context in which mass crimes occur, bystanders are almost absent from the scope of international criminal justice, focusing mainly on the perpetrators and the victims. This article explores a possible avenue to fill this gap so that the attribution of responsibility for mass crimes can be more coherent with their collective dimension. It assesses whether the duty to rescue concept, commonly found in the legislation of civil law countries, could provide a ‘ready-made’ solution to deal with bystander responsibility. Following a comparative analysis of the different approaches to the duty to rescue in civil law and common law countries, it examines how the duty to rescue would fit with similar concepts in international criminal law.

The Appeals Decision in the ICC's Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the Trial Chamber's ‘Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecution's List of Evidence’

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 511-520
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE SCHUON
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Common

AbstractWhen, on 3 May 2011, the Appeals Chamber reversed the decision of Trial Chamber III in the Bemba case that had admitted material on a list of the prosecution into evidence, it addressed various central issues related to the admission of evidence under the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (inter alia, the orality principle). The present article critically analyses both decisions. In particular, it views the Trial Chamber's approach that envisages a multi-tiered process of admitting evidence, in light of the approaches of civil law and common law, and expresses concerns about uncertainties and protraction that may result. As the Court's legal framework does not determine that the processing of evidence follow either the civil-law or the common-law model, this is left for the trial chambers to decide in each case. In determining the preferable approach for each respective case, consideration of the procedural context is key. The Appeals Chamber decision allows for the required leeway of the trial chambers in regulating the processing of evidence, to adopt a way that fits the particular circumstances best.

The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court

This handbook examines various aspects of the criminal process, including the role of prosecutors in common law and civil law jurisdictions, the rights and duties of experts, victim rights in civil law jurisdictions, surveillance and investigation, criminal prosecution and its alternatives, evidence discovery and disclosure in common law systems, evidence law as forensic science, common law plea bargaining, appeals and post-conviction review, and procedure in international tribunals. The book is organized into eight parts covering topics ranging from criminal process in the dual penal state to interrogation law and practice in common law jurisdictions, empirical and comparative approaches to criminal procedure, prosecution-led investigations and measures of procedural coercion in the field of corruption, international corporate prosecutions, special procedures for white-collar and corporate wrongdoing in Europe, and trial procedure in response to terrorism. Also discussed are the roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as guardians of fair criminal proceedings in Europe, double jeopardy or ne bis in idem in common law and civil law jurisdictions, plea bargaining vs. abbreviated trial procedures, restorative justice as an alternative to penal sanctions, and the pluralistic nature of international criminal procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document