The Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity– Progressive or Regressive?

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 859-878
Author(s):  
Olaoluwa Olusanya
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Nuremberg Trials

The global effort to establish an effective system of international justice is at an important phase in its history. After close to 50 years of relative stagnation following the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II, the field of international criminal law has been revitalised. The establishment of the International Criminal Court, the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, “hybrid” or “internationalised” processes such as the Special Court in Sierra Leone, and national criminal justice systems exercising universal jurisdiction, have all lent substance and credibility to the assertion that the most grievous human rights crimes are subject to international scrutiny and legal action.

scholarly journals Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al. (Special Trib. Leb.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-91
Author(s):  
Michael Lysander Fremuth
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Character

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 constitutes a landmark in the development of International Criminal Law (ICL), which gained its first momentum after World War II through the foundation of International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. ICL is, however, not confined to these most prominent courts or their statutes providing for definitions of international crimes under their respective jurisdiction; rather, ad hoc international, or internationalized and hybrid special tribunals and criminal chambers also contribute to the development and shape of ICL and reflect its diverse legal and institutional basis. Perceived as another tribunal of “international character,” on August 18, 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) pronounced its judgment on the merits in the Ayyash case. The long-awaited verdict raises the question of the Tribunal's contribution to the further evolution of ICL.

Crimes Against Humanity in the Modern Age

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Nadya Sadat
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Modern Age ◽  
The World ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Despite the promises made after World War II to eliminate the commission of atrocities, crimes against humanity persist with horrifying ubiquity. Yet the absence of a consistent definition and uniform interpretation of crimes against humanity has made it difficult to establish the theory underlying such crimes and to prosecute them in particular cases. In the 1990s, several ad hoc international criminal tribunals were established to respond to the commission of atrocity crimes,1 including crimes against humanity, in specific regions of the world in conflict. Building on this legacy, in 1998 a new institution—the International Criminal Court(ICC)— was established to take up the task of defining crimes against humanity and other atrocity crimes and preventing and punishing their commission.

scholarly journals Nazi Crimes in Poland. A Never-Ending Search for Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 142-160
Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
World War ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Efficient Machine

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.

The Birth of Atrocity Speech Law Part 1

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory S. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Military Tribunal ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
Comparable Control

Chapter 3 considers the initial choices made by the newly formed body of international criminal law vis-à-vis atrocity speech. The framers of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) recognized that Nazi barbarities were rooted in propaganda. Article 6(c) of the IMT Charter”(and a comparable Control Council Law No. 10 provision) permitted prosecutors to charge “crimes against humanity” against Nazi defendants, including Julius Streicher and Hans Fritzsche (before the IMT) and Otto Dietrich (before an American tribunal). This novel offense criminalized certain heinous acts committed against civilians that were outside the ambit of war crimes, including hate speech as persecution. The chapter then considers the origins of the Genocide Convention and its pioneering formulation of the incitement crime. Finally, it examines the ad hoc tribunal statutes and the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, each of which criminalizes incitement to genocide, persecution as a crime against humanity, instigation, and ordering.

The Historical Development of Crimes against Humanity and Jurisprudence of the Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
Post World War Ii

Chapter 8 analyses post-World War II jurisprudence, national jurisprudence, the International Law Commission’s work, and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) jurisprudence regarding what types of non-state entities might be involved in crimes against humanity. It argues that while the Nuremberg Charter and post-World War II jurisprudence, including national jurisprudence, were focused on state crimes, state involvement has rarely been considered a legal element of crimes against humanity. This is also evident in the International Law Commission’s work. This chapter analyses how the three abovementioned international(ized) tribunals addressed the question of non-state entity involvement in crimes against humanity and argues that the ICTY and the SCSL did not limit entities behind crimes against humanity to abstract ‘state-like entities’, but primarily considered whether the group in question had the capacity to commit the crimes.

Changing the Paradigm of International Criminal Law: Considering the Work of the United Nations War Crimes Commission of 1943–1948

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Plesch ◽  
Shanti Sattler
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract More than 2,000 international criminal trials were conducted at the end of World War II in addition to those held by the International Military Tribunals (IMTs) at Nuremburg and Tokyo. Fifteen national tribunals conducted these trials in conjunction with an international war crimes commission established by these same states in October 1943 under the name, The United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes, that soon became the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). The extensive work of the UNWCC and these tribunals serves as a source of customary international criminal law that relates directly to the current work of the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc tribunals in operation since the 1990s.

International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc Tribunals

2018 ◽  
pp. 566-582
Author(s):  
Richard Goldstone
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
East Timor ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
World War ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Criminals

This chapter traces the growth of international criminal courts since World War II. The trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in 1944 led, after a lapse of almost half a century, to decisions by the UN Security Council to establish two ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and for Rwanda (1994). UN-mandated courts followed in East Timor, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina; and by state-requested courts, so-called ‘mixed’ or ‘hybrid’ criminal tribunals, in partnership with the UN, in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Lebanon. In terms of the Rome Statute of 1998, the International Criminal Court became effective in July 2002 and will likely become the only international criminal court.

The Development of the Responsibility to Protect – From Evolving Norm to Practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Andy Knight
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Level Of Consciousness ◽  
People First ◽  
Treat All

AbstractWhy does the genocidal mentality persist? Is there hope that humankind can curb or end the shocking mass atrocities that have plagued our globe over the last century and during the beginning of this century? These questions are addressed in this essay through an examination of the evolution of the normative narrative that resulted in the eventual emergence of the concept of 'responsibility to protect' (R2P or RtoP). The evolution of this narrative includes the genocide convention, the promulgation and promotion of universal human rights, the recognition that war crimes and other crimes against humanity are the gravest of all crimes and ought to be punished, the utilisation of humanitarian intervention as a means of curbing egregious mass atrocities, the imposition of punitive and smart sanctions to stem genocidal practices, the codification of international criminal law, enforcement measures through Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the introduction of ad hoc criminal tribunals and the establishment of a permanent international criminal court through the Rome Statute to punish individuals who commitment core crimes, the advocacy of norm entrepreneurs, and the conceptual work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that eventually led to the embrace of the R2P norm by the international community. rough that evolving narrative the level of consciousness of people and their state leaders has been raised in regards to the need to see and treat all people on our planet – regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or social standing – with human dignity, and to focus on 'putting people first' when it comes to security. It is argued in this essay that R2P builds upon the foundation of this narrative a new normative architecture designed to address the most egregious of crimes (core crimes) committed against innocent people. Despite efforts to derail its implementation, the R2P norm may eventually turn words into deeds, and promise into practice if it is allowed to become more robust.

scholarly journals Is There any Blood on my Hands? Deportation as a Crime of International Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 917-943
Author(s):  
VINCENT CHETAIL
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Nuremberg Trials ◽  
Second World

AbstractThe present article revisits international criminal law as a tool for sanctioning the most patent abuses against migrants. Although deportation is traditionally considered as an attribute of the state inherent to its territorial sovereignty, this prerogative may degenerate into an international crime. The prohibition of deportation has been a well-established feature of international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War. This prohibition has been further refined over the past 15 years by an extensive jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court.Against such a background, this article demonstrates that, in some circumstances, deportation may amount to a war crime, a crime against humanity or even a crime of genocide, depending on the factual elements of the case and the specific requirements of the relevant crime. This article accordingly reviews the constitutive elements of each crime and transposes them into the context of migration control. It highlights in turn that, although its potential has been neglected by scholars and practitioners, international criminal law has an important role to play for domesticating the state's prerogative of deportation and infusing the rule of law into the field of migration. The article concludes that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that a crime against humanity would have been committed in the Dominican Republic and Australia with regard to their deportation policy.

International Criminal Law by Other Means: The Quasi-criminal Jurisdiction of the Human Rights Courts

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Huneeus
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Justice Systems ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
New Generation

Since the close of the Cold War, the international community has created a variety of legal institutions designed to step in when state justice systems fail to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The ad hoc criminal tribunals, the hybrid tribunals (such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the use of universal jurisdiction by national courts are among a new generation of courtly mechanisms designed to hold wrongdoers criminally accountable, state justice systems notwithstanding. These mechanisms represent an era of international judicial involvement in what used to be a more exclusively sovereign matter—the response to mass crimes against civilian populations. Accordingly, they have engendered a slew of scholarship devoted to analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, individually and as a group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document