The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Is a ‘Tribunal of an International Character’ Equivalent to an ‘International Criminal Court’?

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 513-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM A. SCHABAS
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Character

AbstractThe Special Tribunal for Lebanon is the latest international criminal tribunal to be established by the United Nations. Similar in many respects to the earlier institutions – for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone – it stands alone in the fact that its subject-matter jurisdiction does not contain any international crimes. It is thus international in some respects, but it is arguably not an international criminal tribunal in the sense that was intended by the International Court of Justice in the Yerodia case. The drafting history of the Statute of the Special Tribunal is examined with a view to determining whether the new court should treat sovereign immunity in the same manner as the other three UN criminal tribunals.

scholarly journals INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE INTENT IN THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE HOLODOMOR-GENOCIDE AGAINST THE UKRAINIAN NATION)

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-64
Author(s):  
M. Antonovych
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Racial Group ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Definition Of

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.

scholarly journals Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

Combating Impunity in Sri Lanka

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supanki Kalanadan
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Structural Investigations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Court

Abstract Often referred to as a ‘war without witness’, over a decade has passed since the Sri Lankan armed conflict ended, with no significant progress towards fostering accountability for the alleged international crimes committed in the last phases of the war. Traditionally available legal mechanisms have served to be a barrier to address impunity as Sri Lanka is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations Security Council has not taken any action for accountability. However, the last decade has witnessed a growing number of innovative approaches under ‘universal jurisdiction’, which can be applied to prosecute the alleged international crimes committed in Sri Lanka. This article examines the current options available under universal jurisdiction that can be applied in the Sri Lankan context, including Germany’s structural investigations model, the growing participation of regional organizations in international criminal justice, and the role of the International Court of Justice in addressing state violations of international human rights.

The ICC and the Crime of Aggression: A Need to Reconcile the Prerogatives of the SC, the ICC and the ICJ

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-686
Author(s):  
Vimalen Reddi
Keyword(s):  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Potential Interaction ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Rule

AbstractThis paper proposes a framework under which the ICC should exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, in view of the much anticipated and impending Review Conference of the Rome Statute. In this context, it examines the potential interaction between the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, in an eventual prosecutorial regime for the crime of aggression. The paper's underlying premise rests on the vindication of an international rule of law, so often dismissed in international relations.

The Situation in the People's Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar Decision to Authorize Investigation (I.C.C.) and the Gambia V. Myanmar Order for Provisional Measures (I.C.J.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-693
Author(s):  
Alessandra Spadaro
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Stage ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
First Time

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document