Transitional justice and the International Criminal Court – in “the interests of justice”?

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (867) ◽  
pp. 691-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dražan Đukić
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractTransitional justice encompasses a number of mechanisms that seek to allow post-conflict societies to deal with past atrocities in circumstances of radical change. However, two of these mechanisms – truth commissions and criminal processes – might clash if the former are combined with amnesties. This article examines the possibility of employing the Rome Statute's Article 53 so as to allow these two mechanisms to operate in a complementary manner. It considers three arguments – an interpretation of Article 53 in accordance with the relevant rules on treaty interpretation, states' obligations to prosecute certain crimes and the Rome Statute's approach to prosecutorial discretion – and concludes that Article 53 is ill-suited to accommodate truth commissions in conjunction with amnesties.

The International Criminal Court and its Trust Fund are Coming of Age: Towards a Process Approach for the Reparation of Victims

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidy Rombouts ◽  
Stephan Parmentier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Major Question ◽  
Post Conflict

The last decade has witnessed a rapid development in the field of reparation for victims of serious human rights violations, both at the national and the international level. Both in (post-)conflict situations and in situations of large-scale human rights abuses it has become a major question of transitional justice how to repair the harm inflicted on victims through acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other forms of injustice. As institutions of international criminal justice, the International Criminal Court and the Trust Fund for Victims are also confronted with this question and the many issues involved. They have to address three crucial questions in particular: (a) who are the beneficiaries for reparation; (b) who are the duty-bearers of reparation; and (c) what forms of reparation can be awarded? We argue that the answers to these questions raise very important issues that go beyond a purely legal approach and that require an input from other scientific disciplines and also from other sectors of society, including victims and their organizations. We argue in particular in favour of a concept of reparation that seeks to attain a new balance and that will allow victims to cope with the past and the future alike, and therefore propose a process-oriented approach to reparation based on the work of Barkan and Habermas.

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.

Many Doors to International Criminal Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
John Braithwaite
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Survivor Guilt ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
Complex Sequences

Responsibilities to protect and prevent elite crimes are best energized by enforcement that walks through many doors. Effective deterrence is rarely delivered by the International Criminal Court. Yet deterrence is possible when it patiently cumulates through many doors. Likewise truth, justice, and reconciliation can achieve little through one door and much through many. Opening more doors to the complexly cross-cutting character of survivor guilt with mass atrocities can better open possibilities for future prevention and reconciliation than simply doors to courtrooms that find a criminal on one side of complex sequences of atrocity. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials opened quickly after World War II. They did not prove to hold keys to truth and reconciliation for Germany until the Eichmann trial finished in Jerusalem in 1962. Why? Still today, non-confession by the U.S. to Hiroshima/Nagasaki as war crimes has meant truncated Japanese reconciliation. Different kinds of doors are needed with crimes like the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombing, the rape of Nanjing and the “comfort women” issue. These have included citizens tribunals, truth commissions, and indigenous justice in cases like Bougainville that rejected the truth commission model. When we reflect upon door diversity, transitional justice turns out not to be very focused on justice or international criminal law, and not to be at all transitional, but rather a maze of doors to justice of diverse kinds that open or close across the longue durée (as developed in the work of Susanne Karstedt).1

The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Through Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractState-parties to the International Criminal Court Statute have a general obligation to cooperate with the Court. The duty to cooperate represents the functional cornerstone of the Court's existence. A narrow exception to this duty is contained in Article 98 of the Statute, which provides for limited circumstances in which the Court must refrain from seeking a surrender of an individual to the Court. Following rules of treaty interpretation, as well as an examination of the legislative history of the ICC Statute, the article explores the scope of Article 98, the provision the United States relied on in concluding a series of bilateral agreements that are primarily aimed at preventing the surrender of any U.S. nationals to the ICC. The article considers the issue of what impact, if any, the agreements have in the context of extradition, and the U.S.' legal ability to fulfill the commitments made in the "Article 98" agreements.

Judicial Control over Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 979-1013
Author(s):  
Triestino Mariniello
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Judicial Control

This article places into question the scope of judicial control over the Prosecutor’s decision whether or not to investigate a situation. It addresses the on-going tensions between the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Prosecutor for the control of the procedure which will determine the stage of the initiation of an investigation. It commences with an examination of the Chambers’ approach to the authorisation of the Prosecutor’s request to commence a proprio motu investigation. Then, it critically analyses the lack of judicial mechanisms of control over the Prosecutor’s decision not to commence an investigation under Article 15. The second part investigates the judicial oversight of the Prosecutor’s decision not investigate referred situation. It analyses whether the Pre-Trial Chamber may reassess the factual allegations used by the Prosecutor not to start the investigation, and whether the Prosecutor has to comply with (strict) instructions provided by the judicial review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document