Coordinating concurrent legal orders in the prosecution of international crimes

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-344
Author(s):  
BEATRICE I. BONAFÉ

AbstractInternational criminal law provides a particularly interesting case study for the proliferation of legal orders as it helps to understand the types of uncertainties their interaction may entail with respect to the position of the individual as well as the solutions that may be adopted in that respect. This article analyses a selected number of substantive and procedural uncertainties that originate in the relationship between international criminal law and domestic legal orders. The purpose of the discussion is to identify the particular legal devices that have been elaborated in order to ensure the coordination between these legal orders, and to suggest areas in which a better coordination is still to be achieved.

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-257
Author(s):  
Kate Leader

This article explores the relationship between performance and legitimacy in international criminal trials through the lens of the International Criminal Court (ICC). I begin by analysing the deployment of theatrical tropes by different legal scholars, such as Hannah Arendt, and David Luban, arguing that such analogies serve as a policing mechanism for the author to distinguish what they perceive to be the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ theatre of the trial. I then move beyond analogy, drawing on legal sociology and performance theory to read the criminal trial as ritual-like, normative performance. Using the ICC as a case study, I will examine how performance is deployed to create, reinforce and naturalize the role of the ICC in international criminal law. Through focusing on issues of performance and community I offer a different way of looking at what may constitute legitimacy in international criminal law from that which is offered by other legal scholars.


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 273-275
Author(s):  
Nina H. B. Jørgensen

Rules of procedure define the relationship between the needs of effective enforcement of international criminal law—grounded in the interest of combating impunity—and the individual rights of those affected by the process. It has been said that criminal procedure is the “most vulnerable part of a liberal legal system.” It is vulnerable in part because it is adaptable. It can be adapted to promote fairness in the interactions between an individual and the state, or it can be manipulated to facilitate abuses by those in power. A fair system charts a course for the discovery of the truth but recognizes that this destination cannot be reached at all costs. For example, confessions obtained under torture are inadmissible under international rules of procedure and evidence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-94
Author(s):  
Muyiwa Adigun

The principle of complementarity is one of the most important concepts in international criminal law as it defines the relationship between international criminal tribunals and domestic courts. Certain claims have been made in respect of this concept thus this study examines the correctness of the claims made. The study finds that the concept is claimed to have originated from the sciences and that its expression in international criminal law has taken a distinctive form different from that in the sciences, that it is traceable to the First World War and that there are at least about four categories of the concept. The study, however, argues that while the concept originated from the sciences, its expression in international criminal law is no different from that in the sciences, that it is traceable to the trial of Peter von Hagenbach in 1474 (the Breisach Trial) and that there are at least five categories of the concept. The study therefore concludes that the claims made are incorrect.


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


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-531
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt

This article traces the development of the foreseeability test in the context of the nullum crimen principle. While the European Court of Human Rights has introduced the ‘accessibility and foreseeability’ criteria long ago in the Sunday Times case, the Court has only recently started to apply this standard with respect to international crimes. In the Kononov case, judges of the European Court of Human Rights exhibited strongly divergent opinions on the question whether the punishment of alleged war crimes that had been committed in 1944 violated the nullum crimen principle. According to this author, the dissension of the judges demonstrates the lack of objective foreseeability, which should have served as a starting point for the assessment of the subjective foreseeability and a – potentially exculpating – mistake of law of the perpetrator. The Court should therefore have concluded that the nullum crimen principle had been violated.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
ATHANASIOS CHOULIARAS

AbstractThe article focuses on one of the most intriguing and, at the same time, controversial issues of international criminal law: whether the state policy requirement should be considered as a constitutive element in core international crimes. Adopting a criminal policy perspective, my intention is to contribute to the ongoing discussion by offering a doctrinal and criminological corroboration of the position that answers in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily promoting a normative choice entailing the amendment of the definition of core international crimes, but I rather call for a policy choice of focusing on cases that presume a state policy component.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 788-821
Author(s):  
Talita de Souza Dias

The principle of fair labelling has informed the creation of international crimes and other concepts of international criminal law since the modern inception of this discipline. In particular, it was the symbolic and condemnatory import of international labels such as genocide and crimes against humanity that partly motivated their introduction as offences separate from domestic ordinary crimes. Paradoxically, fair labelling has received marginal attention in legal scholarship and practice. Moreover, frequent instances of relabelling known as ‘recharacterisation of crimes’ may not be entirely consistent with that principle, inviting further analysis thereof. In this context, the purpose of this article is to provide a more systematic and comprehensive analysis of the principle of fair labelling in international criminal law, particularly in light of the phenomenon of recharacterisation of crimes. Its central claim is that fair labelling is as a fair trial right which precludes recourse to recharacterisation in certain circumstances.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 896-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Fournet ◽  
Nicole Siller

‘We demand dignity for the victims’. Such was the pledge of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs following the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight mh17 in rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine and the looting of the corpses of the 298 victims. Although not an isolated instance, the indecent disposal of the corpses of the victims seems to have escaped legal scrutiny. Drawing from this and other case studies, this article addresses the legal qualification of acts of mistreatment perpetrated against the corpses of victims of international crimes. It analyses all relevant dispositions pertaining to international humanitarian law, international criminal law and the law of trafficking in human beings. While these provisions fail to legally characterize such acts, the judiciary however tends to recognize their criminality; a recognition which, in the authors’ views, could make its way into the text of international (criminal) law.


Author(s):  
Matthew Seet

Abstract This article challenges scholarly claims that a post-national ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ — an expanded and less territorially bounded belonging of ‘humanity’ — has been emerging in the international criminal justice context. In examining the contemporary denationalization of terrorists from the under-explored angle of criminal justice, this article argues that states’ territorial borders prevent denationalized terrorists — deemed enemies of ‘humanity’ — from being brought to justice. Some states strip citizenship from terrorists without holding them accountable for terrorist offences and international crimes, subsequently deporting them to — or leaving them stranded in — states which are, according to international criminal law, ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ to prosecute. As such, states’ territorial borders serve as a ‘shield’ which not only enable denationalized terrorists to avoid accountability for their terrorist offences and international crimes, but which also enable states to avoid their international obligations to bring terrorists to justice. This case study of denationalized terrorists not only demonstrates the enduring relevance of territoriality to international criminal justice but also broadly demonstrates how post-national ‘citizenship’ remains tied to the territorial state in a globalized world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document