scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

scholarly journals The African Allegations towards Ignorance of International Criminal Court: Does International Criminal Court unfairly focusing on Africa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. p37
Author(s):  
Lamessa Gudeta Guder
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
African Government ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
And Function ◽  
Ongoing Support

Though, African continent has the highest number of state parties to the Rome Statute, recently several criticisms and allegations have been leveled against ICC interventions in Africa. AU and African higher official apparently call for non-cooperation of ICC. They believed that, ICC is unfairly targeting Africa and Africans, and it is a neo-colonial plaything and that Africa has been a place to experiment with their ideas. Such allegation begs question that is really the ICC unfairly focusing Africa and Africans? Therefore, it needs evaluating these accusations by considering the whole process and function of ICC. Accordingly, when we evaluate the allegations, it seems too far from trues. Because, on one hand, many of allegation and criticism itself is not representative of African peoples rather it is the allegation of some African political leaders of authoritarian nature of power those who fears the prosecution for the commission of mass crime and atrocities in their respective countries. On other hand the composition of the court by itself is Africans. It is a global court with historically strong African support. It would not be the court it is today without the valuable input, involvement and support of the majority of African states. The court seeks justice for victims of grave crimes, including African victims; it needs the ongoing support of African government, civil society and public in order to achieve justice. It was intended to be a credible, independent judicial body, able to adjudicate the most serious of international crimes fairly and impartially, where National judicial systems have failed and fight against impunity all over the world.

scholarly journals A jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional e o deslocamento forçado do Povo Rohingya: o caso Myanmar v. Bangladesh do TPI

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Regina De Oliveira Magalhães da Silva Loureiro
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Specific Objective ◽  
Deductive Method ◽  
Proper Interpretation ◽  
Principle Of Territoriality

Resumo: O artigo analisa a jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional de acordo com o previsto no Estatuto de Roma de 1998, bem como em consonância com os princípios da territorialidade, complementaridade e cooperação. O objetivo principal do artigo é estudar a incidência da jurisdição do Tribunal e o objetivo específico é analisar como a jurisdição universal do Tribunal pode ser aplicada aos crimes praticados no território de um Estado que não é parte do Estatuto de Roma, utilizando-se como fonte principal o caso do Povo Rohingya, que tem uma relação intrínseca com a tese da jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional, aspecto que representa a originalidade do trabalho. O critério dedutivo foi o método adotado para o desenvolvimento do trabalho, com o estudo do aspecto normativo, doutrinário e jurisprudencial. O trabalho concluirá que a jurisdição universal do TPI deve ser reavaliada para ser aplicada de acordo com a releitura do princípio da soberania estatal e da adequada interpretação dos crimes internacionais de interesse da humanidade, sob a perspectiva interseccional para a consideração dos atos anti-imigração como crimes contra a humanidade.Palavras-chave: Tribunal Penal Internacional; Jurisdição universal; Estatuto de Roma; Deportação; Princípio da territorialidade; Estado que não é parte do Estatuto do Tribunal; Atos anti-imigração. Abstract: The article analyzes the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in accordance with the 1998 Rome Statute, as well as in line with the principles of territoriality, complementarity and cooperation. The main objective of the article is therefore to study the jurisdiction of the Court and the specific objective is to examine how the universal jurisdiction of the Court can be applied to crimes occurring in the territory of States that are not part of the Rome Statute, using as a source the case of the Rohingya People, which is intrinsically linked to the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, what is the original aspect of the paper. The deductive method was the methodology adopted for the development of the work, with the study of the normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential aspect. The work will conclude that the universal jurisdiction of the ICC should be re-evaluated to be applied in accordance with the re-reading of the principle of state sovereignty and the proper interpretation of international crimes of interest to humanity, from the intersectional perspective for the consideration of anti-immigration acts as crimes against humanity.Keywords: International Criminal Court; Universal Jurisdiction; Rome Statute; Deportation; Principle of territoriality; State did not accept the jurisdiction of the Court; Anti-immigration acts.

The Dangers of the Obvious but Often Disregarded Details in the International Criminal Law Demarcation Debate: Norm-Integration and the Triple-Thesis ‘Argument’

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 759-783
Author(s):  
Anja Matwijkiw
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Post Conflict

When responses to international crimes are managed in terms of post-conflict justice, this event may end ‘the demarcation debate’ before it has begun, thereby rendering it superfluous among legal scholars. This is to say that the transition from theory to reality arguably has the effect of cancelling any sharp distinction between international criminal law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as extending international criminal justice into the moral territory. Certainly, this is a premise for the dual-aspect defense of those rights that help to explain the non-separation. However, to the extent that the defense discords with traditional assumptions, relevant aspects of pro-separation reasoning must be considered. These are accommodated under the triple-thesis whereby the unequal status of different (rights-)categories limit norm-integration. The author’s account of the competing programs shows a series of flaws in the case of the triple-thesis doctrine, amounting to a vicious circle ‘argument’.

The Right to be Defended in Person or Through Legal Assistance and the International Criminal Court

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Beresford ◽  
Hafida Lahiouel
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Right

While the Statute of the International Criminal Court guarantees to suspects and accused the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance, it contains little guidance as to the extent to which this most fundamental right will be provided. In order to ascertain how broadly it should be applied, the authors examine the application of the right by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The authors note that the defence-orientated approach taken by the ad hoc Tribunals to the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance not only conforms with international obligations, but also in many respects goes beyond that required by international human rights law. It is, therefore, crucial that the ICC listens to the experience of the ad hoc Tribunals and adopts similar, if not identical, rules and regulations relating to the qualifications, conduct and assignment of counsel.

scholarly journals Intersectionality: Explaining SGBV Interlinked with Terrorism and Other International Crimes

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-161
Author(s):  
Ana Martin
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
And Gender

Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) is often intertwined with and nested within other violations of international criminal law (ICL) as part of a broader attack against a group. However, ICL is not giving enough visibility to this nexus of crimes rooted in the intersection of identities and discrimination that underpins SGBV during conflict. Intersectionality is a concept originated in feminism and progressively recognized by international human rights law (IHRL). It posits that SGBV is caused by gender 'inextricably linked' with other identities and factors that result in compounded discrimination and unique aggravated harms. Based on case studies, this paper argues that ICL should integrate an intersectional approach based on identity and discrimination to address the nexus between SGBV and broader international crimes. Intersectionality enables a better understanding of the causes, harms, and gravity of SGBV, and it provides consistency with an IHRL interpretation. The article begins setting out the foundations of intersectionality in feminism and IHRL, and its applicability to ICL. It then applies intersectionality to two case studies that demonstrate the interlink of SGBV with broader violations of ICL: The Revolutionary United Front Case (RUF) trial judgment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) concerning SGBV and the war crime committing acts of terrorism, and Al Hassan, prosecuted at the International Criminal Court (ICC), concerning SGBV and the crime against humanity of persecution. It concludes with final remarks on why and how ICL would benefit from integrating an intersectional approach to SGBV.

Limitations of the Ordinary-Crimes Approach to the International Crime of Rape: the Case of Uganda

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-297
Author(s):  
Emma Charlene Lubaale
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Not many states have effective national laws on prosecution of international crimes. Presently, of the 124 states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), less than half have specific national legislation incorporating international crimes. Some faith has been placed in the ordinary-crimes approach; the assumption being that states without effective laws on international crimes can prosecute on the basis of ordinary crimes. This article assesses the practicality of this approach with regard to the crime of rape in Uganda. Based on this assessment, the author draws a number of conclusions. First, that there are glaring gaps in the Ugandan definition of rape, making it impossible for it to be relied on. Secondly, although national courts have the option to interpret national laws with a view to aligning them with international law, the gaps salient in the definition of ordinary rape are too glaring; they cannot be remedied by way of interpretation without undermining the principle of legality. Thirdly, prosecuting the international crime of rape as an ordinary crime suggests that approaches applicable to the prosecution of ordinary rape will be invoked. Because these approaches were never intended to capture the reality of the international crime of rape, the ordinary-crimes approach remains illusory.

scholarly journals FORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
Станислав Тимошков ◽  
Stanislav Timoshkov
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
National Interests ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Definition Of

This research article examines the activities of the international community for inclusion in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court a number of amendments, concerning the fixation of the definition of the crime of aggression and the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction over the international wrongful act. In a view of disputes between the states in the adoption of the Rome Statute concerning the definition of this international crime, set up a special working group whose objective was the development of a project for amendments in the Statute. After a long work at the international conference in the Ugandan capital – Kampala, the Member States of the Rome Statute were considered the amendments to be made to the Statute of the International Criminal Court for its greater efficiency. In considering these amendments were also taken into account the fact that not all states ratified the Rome Statute, respectively, for their adoption it was necessary to consider the national interests of these states. Despite the fact that the introduction of the amendments regarding the crime of aggression was deferred for a certain period, their adoption will strengthen the system of international justice. However, the article notes that it is important to consider the national interests of the states exercising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression. This aspect concerns the extradition of persons accused of committing serious international crimes, especially the crime of aggression. In a view of the fact that, in accordance with the constitutions of most States, including the Russian Federation, not allowing the extradition of its citizens to the international judicial authorities, as a result, there is a conflict between the provisions of the Rome Statute and national law of several states. Thus, to prevent the crime of aggression and the development of liability rules for it, it is necessary to maintain joint action between states and international judicial organs.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT’S JURISDICTION IN IMPUNITY PREVENTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Belardo Prasetya Mega Jaya ◽  
Ariesta Wibisono Anditya
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Research Results ◽  
International Crimes

This research aims to describe and explain the International Criminal Court’s jurisdictions in an effort to prevent impunity. Additionally, this research provides answer to the question of ICC’s effectiveness in upholding justice over international crimes. This research is a normative law research. The research results shows, under Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, the purpose of a trial is to end impunity over serious crimes. To implement such a purpose, ICC exercise their jurisdictions conform to Rome Statute. However, the exercise of ICC’s jurisdictions are still ineffective, such phenonemon could arise by many factors.

Interpreting International Crimes from a ‘Female Perspective’: Opportunities and Challenges for the International Criminal Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Grey
Keyword(s):  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Gender Discrimination ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Women And Girls

What would it mean for the International Criminal Court (icc) to interpret the crimes within its jurisdiction without “adverse distinction” on the grounds of gender? Would it simply mean recognising that these crimes may be committed against men, women, boys and girls; or would it require a deeper rethinking of, and perhaps a departure from, conventional interpretations of these crimes? This article explores this question, using the crime against humanity of “apartheid” and the war crime of “using children in hostilities” as examples. The article takes into account legal sources, such as relevant treaties and judicial decisions, as well as empirical research that throw the reality of violence against women and girls into sharp relief. It is hoped that this exploration will lead to further discussion about gender discrimination in the interpretation of the Rome Statute crimes, and contribute to the development of a “feminist jurisprudence” in international criminal law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document