A Special Tribunal for Lebanon: The UN Security Council and the Emancipation of International Criminal Justice

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRÉDÉRIC MÉGRET

AbstractDiscussions on the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon have focused on its impact on Lebanese sovereignty and, specifically, the fact that a Chapter VII resolution seems to bypass Lebanese democracy. Simply relying on the idea of a ‘breach of international peace and security’ to overcome these arguments is not helpful. It is more useful to locate the creation of the Tribunal within evolving international criminal justice practices. These practices are increasingly constraining the Security Council's own work rather than the contrary, as international criminal justice gradually emancipates itself from the confines of ‘international peace and security’ and becomes a logic unto itself.

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT CRYER

The UN Security Council has recently referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the International Criminal Court. This has been hailed as a breakthrough in international criminal justice. However, aspects of the referral resolution can be criticized from the point of view of their consistency with both the Rome Statute and the UN Charter. The limitations of the referral with respect to whom the Court may investigate also raise issues with respect to the rule of law. In addition, Sudan has accused the Security Council of acting in a neo-colonial fashion by referring the situation in Darfur to the Court. This article investigates these criticisms against the background of the international system in which international criminal law operates, and concludes that although the referral cannot be considered neo-colonial in nature, the referral can be criticized as selective and as an incomplete reaction to the crisis in Darfur. The referral remains, however, a positive step.


Author(s):  
Verduzco Deborah Ruiz

International criminal justice emerged in the tradition of international peace and security. The relationship between the ICC and the Security Council has been problematic since the inception of the Court. While some delegations argued that the nexus to collective security is helpful because it might make ICC justice more effective in terms of enforcement, other delegations feared that it might render the Court vulnerable to alignment with politics. This chapter examines dilemmas that have emerged in the interaction between the Court and the Council in the first decade. It focuses on several key areas: referrals, deferrals, and institutional interaction, most notably cooperation and funding. It seeks to offer a constructivist vision on the interplay between the ICC and the Council, by offering some targeted recommendations to improve the status quo.


Author(s):  
Pavel V. Shamarov ◽  

The article identifies and reveals objective political and legal correlations between international peacekeeping activities and international criminal justice, which allows positioning the latter as the final phase of the UN peacekeeping practice. The need to take into acco unt such correlation in domestic peacekeeping is substantiated on the basis of lobbying in the world for the perception of such practice of Russia from the angle of reconciliation of the conflicting parties; geopolitical obstacle to the implementation of any form of genocide; ensuring international peace and security. The need is substantiated to increase the international significance of our country using unconventional foreign policy approaches and technologies in the interests of systematically getting ahead of Russia’s geopolitical competitors in the international political, legal, and peacekeeping sphere.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Gabriel M. Lentner

Abstract On February 26 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970 referring the situation concerning Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Th is unprecedented support for and acknowledgment of the ICC did not come without a price: conditio sine qua non for Council members not party to the ICC was the inclusion of operative § 6 into the resolution, which exempts certain categories of nationals of non-parties from ICC jurisdiction. Th e same highly controversial exemption was included in the Security Council’s referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC in 2005. Deviating from the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction regime such practice not just poses challenges to principles of international criminal justice but raises the question whether the Rome Statute is altered by the resolution containing the referral to the effect that the ICC is being bound to the exemptions contained in its exercise of jurisdiction. Addressing these issues, the present paper elaborates firstly on the jurisdictional exemption of § 6 and its effect on the ICC, followed by a discussion of resulting challenges to the principle of legality, the principle of universal jurisdiction for international crimes, the equality of individuals before the law and the principle of independence of the court.


Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was not adopted in a vacuum, but rather can be read with a number of other programs within the Security Council (SC) and UN architecture. These include other thematic resolutions, as well as broader policy initiatives. Taken together, these diverse strands sought to shift the understanding of the SC’s role in the maintenance of international peace and security, away from a classic state-oriented approach to one that places people at its center. The adoption of Resolution 1325, along with these other developments, had implications for the making of international law (the place of civil society and experts within the international legal and institutional framework), for rethinking participation, and the meaning of security/protection. This chapter suggests that 2000 was a pivotal moment when a more human-oriented international law seemed a real possibility and before the turn back toward militarism and national security in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
Boris N. Mamlyuk

Larry Johnson’s timely and important essay challenges both utopian and realist accounts of UN law and practice by reviving the debate over the nature and functions of the UN General Assembly, particularly the General Assembly’s power to deploy certain legal tactics not only to influence collective security deliberations in the UN Security Council, but also, more significantly, to provide some legal justification for multilateral military “collective measures” in the event of Security Council gridlock. One vehicle by which the General Assembly may assert its own right to intervene in defense of “international peace and security” is a “Uniting for Peace” (UFP) resolution, authorized by resolution 377(V) (1950). At its core, a “uniting for peace” resolution is an attempt to circumvent a Security Council deadlock by authorizing Member States to take collective action, including the use of force, in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. General Assembly resolution 377(V) does not require resolutions to take specific legal form—language that echoes the preambular “lack of unanimity of the permanent members [that results in the Security Council failing to] exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” is sufficient to render a given resolution a UFP, provided the General Assembly resolution calls for concrete “collective [forceful] measures.” For this reason, experts disagree on precisely how many times a UFP has indeed been invoked or implemented, although informed analysts suggest UFP has been invoked in slightly more than ten instances since 1950.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document