The "victimized group" concept in the Genocide Convention and the development of international humanitarian law through the practice of ad hoc tribunals 1

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Aksar
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Group Concept

scholarly journals Le tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda - La justice trahie (Note)

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-840
Author(s):  
John Philpot
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Real Issue ◽  
Set Up

On November 8,1994, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 955 creating an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to judge individuals responsible for violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. In its form and structure, the Tribunal does not respect basic legal requirements required of a tribunal set up in international law. Us mandate - limited in time, in scope of potential indictment, and in jurisdiction to violations of international humanitarian law - mil prevent any light from being shed on the real issue raised by the Rwandan conflict, namely that of armed military intervention in Rwanda from Uganda. It will likely lead to the reinforcement of a one-sided view of the crisis in Rwanda and legitimate further unilateral interventionist policies in Africa and elsewhere. The Tribunal will institutionalize the de facto impunity for the members and supporters of the present government of Rwanda who undoubtedly committed many serious crimes between October 1, 1990 and the present.

International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Many ◽  
International Law Commission

For half a century, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and national prosecutions of World War II cases remained the major instances of criminal prosecution of offenders against fundamental norms of international humanitarian law. The heinous activities of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the use of poison gas by Iraq against its Kurdish population are among the many atrocities left unpunished by either international or national courts. Some treaties were adopted that provide for national prosecution of offenses of international concern and, in many cases, for universal jurisdiction; but, with a few exceptions, these treaties were not observed. Notwithstanding the absence of significant prosecutions, an international consensus on the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Principles, the applicability of universal jurisdiction to international crimes, and the need to punish those responsible for egregious violations of international humanitarian law slowly solidified. The International Law Commission, veterans of the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings, individuals such as Rafael Lemkin (who advocated the adoption of the Genocide Convention) and a handful of academics (most notably M. Cherif Bassiouni), among others, helped keep alive the heritage of Nuremberg and the promise of future prosecutions of serious violators of international humanitarian law.

New Mechanisms for the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Torture in International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: The Actor and the Ad Hoc Tribunals

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDESH SIVAKUMARAN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
International Human ◽  
Definition Of

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.

scholarly journals Dolus Eventualis and the Rome Statute Without It?

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Elewa Badar
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
General Definition ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Dolus Eventualis

Article 30 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides a general definition for the mental element required to trigger the criminal responsibility of individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law. At first sight, it appears that the explicit words of Article 30 are sufficient to put an end to a long-lasting debate regarding the mens rea enigma that has confronted the jurisprudence of the two ad hoc Tribunals for the last decade, but this is not true. Recent decisions rendered by the International Criminal Court evidence the discrepancy among the ICC Pre-Trial Chambers in interpreting the exact meaning of Article 30 of the ICC Statute. The paper challenges that dolus eventualis is one of the genuine and independent pillars of criminal responsibility that forms, on its own, the basis of intentional crimes, and suggests its inclusion in the legal standard of Article 30 of the ICC Statute.

Conference of Government Experts: Second Session

1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (172) ◽  
pp. 359-361
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Conventional Weapons

In November 1974, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent governments a provisional mimeographed edition of the report on the work of the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (Lucerne, 24 September-18 October 1974). This report was also sent to the United Nations Secretary-General, who transmitted it to the First Committee of the General Assembly, whose agenda contained the item: “Napalm and other incendiary weapons”. The printed edition was issued in January 1975, in English, French and Spanish, and was consulted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Weapons at the second session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Geneva, 3 February-18 April 1975).

scholarly journals KONSEKUENSI NEGARA INDONESIA MENJADI ANGGOTA ICC (STUDI TENTANG MEKANISME PENEGAKAN HUKUM HUMANITER INTERNASIONAL)

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isplancius Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
The Law

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a set of rules which is based on the 1949 Geneva Law and Hague Law in 1907 and equipped with Additional Protocols I and II of 1977. IHL seeks to provide protection to the victims of war and civilians in armed conflict (law of Geneva 1949) and what methods and tools that may be used in war (Hague Law 1907). The parties involved in armed conflict must respect the principles of limitation, proportionality and distinction. Violations of international humanitarian law called war criminals must be prosecuted as crimes against human rights. Enforcement of international humanitarian law carried out through the mechanism according to the 1949 Geneva Law, by temporary or ad hoc Court, and by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The method used in this research is normative qualitative approach by taking secondary data as a source of information. The results indicate that the consequences of Indonesia as a state to be a member of ICC are having the synergy process national law with Rome Statute covering criminal law, criminal procedural law, extradition, human rights court and the law of human rights itself. The final goals of the synergy are to make Rome Statuta as a follow up system of national judicial, to avoid conflict between ICC and the law of Indonesia, and to make internal law procedure for Indonesia when ICC jurisdiction is active in Indonesia Key words:  humanitarian law, war criminal, court jurisdiction

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document