International Criminal Law - All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals by David Scheffer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. x + 533 pp. Paper: $24.95; £16.95. Cloth: $35.00; £24.95.

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 230-231
Author(s):  
Francis Tom Temprosa
2021 ◽  
pp. 88-112
Author(s):  
Gerry Simpson

It was a characteristic of early international criminal law that a search for precedents coexisted alongside obsessive declarations of ‘unprecedentedness’. The ‘unprecedented’ provided a moral and diplomatic basis for the invention of the field and its various novel doctrines. It is unprecedented outrage that engages—perhaps establishes the existence of—a ‘conscience of mankind’ so vital to the spirit behind the original war crimes tribunals. This chapter concerns itself, then, with the relationship between lawful precedents (often disappointing and ahistorical) and unprecedented, sublime violence, and the production of bathos in the exchange between the two.


Author(s):  
Franziska Exeler

This chapter analyses the Soviet Union’s role in the global moment of post-Second World War justice. It examines the extent to which Moscow’s participation at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, its war crimes trials of Axis soldiers, and its treason (or collaboration) trials of Soviet citizens were linked, but also when and why these different-level processes remained separate. Although the Soviet side made productive contributions to the history of international criminal law, its war crimes and treason trials continued to lack basic rule of law. In one crucial respect, though, the Soviet trials of Axis soldiers were distinct from Soviet prewar show trials. The difference lay in fabricated or imagined versus actual and visible acts, and in the extent to which almost everyone in occupied territory had suffered under the Germans. This, in turn, not only affected public perception of the trials, it also accounted for differences within illiberal justice.


Author(s):  
Gregory S. Gordon

If the hate speech–core crime relationship is plagued by internal incoherence with respect to incitement to genocide and instigation and institutional incompatibility as concerns persecution, the problem in reference to war crimes is quite different. In effect, as Chapter 7 demonstrates, the issue is an absence of law. Remarkably, given the inherently violent nature of the battlefield, with the exception of directly ordering grave breaches, international humanitarian law contains no hate speech provisions. The same is true of the relevant international criminal law instruments—neither the ad hoc tribunal statutes nor the Rome Statute contains hate speech provisions in reference to war crimes. Providing an overview of the modern history of hate speech on the battlefield, this chapter explores the deadly implications of this normative vortex and details the relevant legal instruments that evidence it.


2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Tiphaine Dickson ◽  
Mark Hatfield

International war crimes trials are normative pursuits par excellence; they are understandably deeply emotional affairs, as a result of the horrors and injustices that lead to their establishment. Since these trials emerge from political decisions, the fundamental challenge in international criminal law has been to try to conduct judicial proceedings uncontaminated by passion and politics. Contemporary legalism, inspired by democratic peace theory, argues that liberal polities are more likely to establish international war crimes tribunals than illiberal polities, and posits that these liberal courts are more likely to be driven by a commitment to due process. I argue that reliance on legalism (as a political theory) is misplaced: not only have illiberal states participated in the establishment of war crimes courts, but legalist claims obscure the fact that many proceedings have been marred by significant due process deficiencies. The U.S.-as the archetypically liberal legalist state-has not accepted to be held to the norms and institutional constraints emerging from institutions of international criminal justice that it has shaped and promoted. I begin to develop an approach that I call Kantian realism, which holds that states should only establish norms and institutions that they would willingly decree upon themselves.


Author(s):  
Matthew Gillett

This chapter examines the provisions of international criminal law applicable to serious environmental harm, particularly during non-international armed conflicts ('NIAC'). After describing incidents of serious environmental harm arising in armed conflicts, the analysis surveys the provisions of international criminal law applicable to environmental harm during NIACs, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression. It then examines the basis for extending to NIACs the protection against military attacks causing excessive environmental harm (set out in Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), which is currently only applicable in IACs. The examination of this possible amendment of the Rome Statute covers a broad range of instruments and laws forming part of international and national legal codes, all addressing grave environmental harm. Finally, the analysis turns to accountability for environmental harm as a facet of jus post bellum, emphasizing the interconnected nature of environmental harm and cycles of violence and atrocities.


2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 568-704

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Liberia — UN Security Council Resolutions 1343 (2001) and 1408 (2002) — Implementation of arms embargo under Dutch law — Whether sanctions regime violatedInternational criminal law — Difference between perpetrator and accomplice liability — Complicity in war crimes — Requirement that defendant promoted or facilitated the commission of war crimes — Conditional intent — Whether defendant consciously accepted the probability that war crimes would be committed in connection with his material support — Risk of doing business with a government engaged in international criminal activityInternational criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility and weight of witness statements — Factors relevant to assessing witness statements obtained in post-conflict environment — Coercion of witnesses — Whether inconsistencies in witness statements requiring acquittalInternational criminal law — Circumstances excusing unlawful conduct — National emergency — Whether violations of arms embargo and laws and customs of war justified by right to self-defence under international lawJurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — War crimes — Prosecution of a Dutch national for offences committed abroad — Whether conduct of investigation by Dutch authorities making prosecution inadmissible — Whether amnesty scheme in Liberia barrier to prosecution — No violation of fair trial rightsWar and armed conflict — Existence of armed conflict — Whether armed conflict international or internal — Limited gap between norms applicable to international versus non-international armed conflict — Whether violations of laws and customs of war giving rise to individual criminal liability under Dutch law — The law of the Netherlands


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Erkin Humbat Musayev Humbat Musayev ◽  

Key words: international law, international criminal law, genocide, war crimes, transnational crime


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document