scholarly journals International Criminal Law: Over-studied and Underachieving?

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT

In his recent review of Neil Boister's book, An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law, Robert Currie praises the author for shedding light on a field of law that has suffered from inattention. Transnational criminal law (TCL), the ‘other’ branch of what was traditionally called international criminal law, has been overshadowed by international criminal law ‘proper’ (ICL). The establishment of international criminal tribunals after the end of the Cold War, culminating in the establishment of the ‘flagship’ court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), came with a spectacular rise of ICL as a separate legal discipline. As a result, ICL stole the limelight at the expense of TCL. Currie deplores this since TCL presents features and issues that are worthy and in pressing need of in-depth study. Also, in his view the attention to ICL is unjustified: ICL ‘as an academic and legal inquiry or study has become distended by over-study’. While he supports the mission of international criminal justice in general, Currie points out that ICL as an academic discipline is saturated; each article, paragraph and subparagraph of the ICC Statute has been pulled apart and dissected.

Author(s):  
Robert Cryer

This chapter examines the material and mental aspects of four offences that are directly criminalized by international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The discussions also cover some of the general principles of liability and defences that are of particular relevance to international crimes. Firstly, joint criminal enterprise, co-perpetration, command responsibility, and the defence of obedience to superior orders are considered. The chapter then looks at international and national prosecution of international crimes, including the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court. As prosecution is not the only, or predominant, response to international crimes, the chapter concludes with a discussion of alternatives and complements to prosecution, such as amnesties, and truth and reconciliation commissions.


Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams

This chapter addresses the prosecution of crimes in international criminal courts according to international—not national—criminal law. International law has long recognised that certain conduct, for example piracy and slavery, are crimes against international law which may be tried by international bodies or by any State. This principle has been expanded to cover more substantive crimes. International mechanisms for criminal accountability may be established where national courts have failed or are unable to try offenders due to a lack of political will, insufficient resources, deficiencies in national law, and/or ongoing conflict. The establishment and jurisdiction of the existing international criminal tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, are considered.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-814
Author(s):  
Manuel J Ventura

Abstract Historically, international criminal tribunals have not included a specific provision criminalizing the use of starvation within their respective statutes or founding legal documents. In light of this, and after clarifying what material/objective and mental/subjective elements characterize starvation, the present article seeks to explore whether it can be adjudicated as a crime against humanity or as an act of genocide and how this could be accomplished within the existing framework of international criminal law. In this respect, it is submitted that the general absence of an explicit reference to a crime of starvation in the statutes of international criminal tribunals is not a legal bar to the prosecution of the corresponding behaviour. Furthermore, this article briefly considers starvation as a war crime, particularly pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute — which criminalizes starvation in international armed conflicts at the ICC — and the conspicuous absence of a corresponding and parallel provision that would criminalize starvation as a war crime in non-international armed conflicts.


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 269-272
Author(s):  
Makau Mutua

The International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) is an institution born of necessity after a long and arduous process of many false starts. The struggle to establish a permanent international criminal tribunal stretches back to Nuremberg. The dream, which was especially poignant for the international criminal law community, for a permanent international criminal tribunal was realized with the adoption in 1998 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The treaty entered into force in 2002. Those were heady days for advocates and scholars concerned with curtailing impunity. No one was more ecstatic about the realization of the ICC than civil society actors across the globe, and particularly in Africa, where impunity has been an endemic problem. Victims who had never received justice at home saw an opportunity for vindication abroad. This optimism in the ICC was partially driven by the successes, however mixed, of two prior ad hoc international criminal tribunals—the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.


Author(s):  
Patricia Viseur Sellers ◽  
Louise Chappell

Accountability for gender-based crimes has been discussed as an important feature of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda. However, too often there has been a significant gap between the ideal of such accountability and its operation. This has been demonstrated over the past decade or so in the operations of the International Criminal Court and other tribunals such as that for conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone. Interviewing Patricia V. Sellers, leading International Criminal Law Prosecutor and Special Adviser on Gendering the Office of the Prosecutor, ICC this contribution canvasses the challenges of and lessons learned about achieving accountability for gender crimes through international criminal tribunals, the steps forward towards new accountability practices and strategies and for strengthening the relationship between these tribunals and the broader international WPS agenda.


Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska

This article deals with the model for prosecuting Nazi crimes committed in Poland in the light of the model presently used in international criminal law. It tries to answer the question: should the investigation of crimes of international law be handed over to transnational tribunals? Should they be hybrid tribunals involving a national factor, or completely supra-national tribunals like the International Criminal Court? Is it legitimate to transfer jurisdiction over these matters to national courts? The case of unpunished Nazi crimes in Poland may give a partial answer to this question. Certainly, various attempts made after World War II, including procedures brought before Polish courts, have contributed to understanding the function of international criminal law, and finding the answer to the question of the best model for prosecuting crimes of international law. At present, we also have the experience of international criminal tribunals, in particular the ICC, which is an efficient machine for prosecuting crimes of international law. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from its functioning that could improve the work of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) prosecutors, and shed new light on the considerations regarding the prosecution of Nazi crimes in Poland after World War II.


Author(s):  
Tiyanjana Maluwa

The chapter discusses the concepts of shared values and value-based norms. It examines two areas of international law that provide illustrative examples of contestation of value-based norms: the fight against impunity under international criminal law and the debates about the responsibility to protect. It argues that the African Union’s (AU) difference of view with the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the indictment of Omar Al-Bashir is not a rejection of the non-impunity norm, but of the context and sequencing of its application. As regards the right of intervention codified in the Constitutive Act of the AU, Africans states responded to the failure of the Security Council to invoke its existing normative powers in the Rwanda situation by establishing a treaty-based norm of intervention, the first time that a regional international instrument had ever done so. Thus, in both cases one cannot speak of a decline of international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document