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 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 Defining Hate Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-57
Author(s):  
Audrey Fino
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
International Crime ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
Violent Acts

Abstract This article looks at the international criminal law on hate speech that falls short of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Using the most egregious form of hate speech that has been prosecuted as an international crime — that of direct and public incitement to genocide — as a baseline, the author analyses the legal parameters of hate speech as persecution (a crime against humanity) and hate speech as instigation (a mode of liability). In so doing, the author critically reviews the International Residual Mechanism for the International Criminal Tribunals’ (IRMCT) appeal judgment in the Šešelj case (Šešelj Appeal Judgment) in the light of prior case law of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg (IMT) and the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (ICTR and ICTY respectively). The author submits that a plain reading of the Šešelj Appeal Judgment supports the view that it is only the more extreme form of incitement to violence, incitement to commit crimes, followed by actual violent acts, that may constitute hate speech amounting to the crime of persecution: incitement to discrimination or incitement to hatred as such do not qualify. Whether ‘incitement to violence’ absent the commission of crimes could qualify as persecution (a crime against humanity) remains an unsettled point. With regard to hate speech as instigation, the Šešelj Appeal Judgment’s restatement and application of the law causes less controversy: the substantial causal connection required for instigation was found to be direct in the circumstances of that case — even though directness is not a legal requirement for instigation. The author concludes that both these interpretations of hate speech are consistent with the earlier ad hoc tribunals’ jurisprudence and, more generally, with international human rights law which, with some controversial exceptions, allows criminalization only of the most extreme forms of incitement to violence.

scholarly journals International criminal judiciary as a means to keep and protect peace and international security

2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 31-57
Author(s):  
Dragan Jovasevic
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Narrow Sense ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
The Law ◽  
Theory Of Law

After a long historical development, the second half of the 20th century has inaugurated the new, latest branch of the punitive law - international criminal law. By its legal nature and characteristics it is somewhere between the national criminal law and international public law, maintaining its peculiarity and independence. The basic and most important notion and institute of this branch of law is certainly the international criminal act. In the theory of law (domestic and foreign), there are several views on the notion and contents of the international criminal act. However, it can be concluded that this notion implies a socially dangerous, illegal act committed by the perpetrator and defined as a criminal act whose perpetrator is to be punished as prescribed by the law. Such a defined notion of the international criminal act includes its basic elements, and these are as follows: 1) the act of a man (including the act of an adult person that can be committed in three forms: acting, non-acting, failure to provide proper supervision, effect and casualty; 2) social danger; 3) unlawfulness; 4) definition of an act by rules, and 5) guilt of the perpetrator. There are two kinds of international criminal acts: international criminal acts in a narrow sense and international criminal acts in a broad sense. The most significant are certainly the international criminal acts in a narrow sense that are directed towards violation or endangering of the universal, general civilisation values - international law and humanity - what is actually the subject of protection from these criminal acts. Apart from the international criminal act, the theory of law also includes a foreign criminal act (any criminal act with a foreign element). By all this, these two notions coincide largely, but are also considerably different from each other. Apart from the general notion of the international criminal act, the theory of law also includes a special being or a special notion of the international criminal act by whose characteristics and specific forms and shapes of manifestation some international criminal acts or responsibility of their perpetrators actually differ from each other. As a matter of fact, all international legal documents in this field (and then national criminal legislation as well) deal with the whole system of various incriminations punished by various kinds and sorts of penalties (as basic sorts of criminal sanctions). The following documents deal with some international criminal acts in their specific forms and shapes of manifestation: The Statute of the International Military Tribunal (that served to reach the Nuremberg and then the Tokyo verdicts), the Law No. 10 of the Control Council for Germany, the Statute of the Hague Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as well as the statutes of some other ad hoc tribunals such as: Tribunals for Rwanda, Eastern Timor and Sierra Leone, then the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal and finally the Permanent International Criminal Court Statute (the so-called Rome Statute).

A “Special Court” for Sierra Leone?

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
High Tide ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
International Law Commission

The conflict in Sierra Leone began in 1991 and still continues. It has led to over 50,000 deaths. The fighting has been characterised by the use of child combatants and widespread mutilation of civilians by amputation. When the conflict began, it would have seemed improbable that any UN response would include a forum for the trial of international crimes. After all, even the high tide of international enforcement of international criminal law, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, had begun to be excised from mainstream treatments of international law.1 The possibility of a permanent international criminal court had recently been revived, and sent to the International Law Commission for consideration, but the record of the ILC with controversial projects would not have led to an expectation of quick progress.2 Yet, nearly 10 years on, the UN is now involved in setting up a fourth criminal court,3 the “Special Court” for Sierra Leone. Despite the selectivity inherent in ad hoc reactions, and the continuing opposition to the Rome Statute in some quarters, it is now difficult to deny that progress is being made towards a new form of international criminal order where the improbability of prosecution for international crimes can ne longer be presumed.

International Criminal Law and UN Treaties

2019 ◽  
pp. 450-466
Author(s):  
Salvatore Zappalà
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Social Council ◽  
Historical Developments

The United Nations has been very closely linked to the development of international criminal law (ICL), including in the area of multilateral treaty-making. The UN General Assembly has been the forum for negotiations or preparation of most ICL treaties: from the Genocide Convention to the International Criminal Court Statute, and many other UN bodies (from the Secretariat to the Security Council, as well as the Economic and Social Council and the entire human rights machinery) have significantly contributed to the establishment and evolution of ICL. Moreover, the values protected through ICL enhance and reinforce some of the basic tenets of the UN Charter, including the prohibition of the use of armed force (reflected in the criminalization of aggression), as well as the protection and promotion of human rights (linked to the notion of crimes against humanity and war crimes). This chapter illustrates the historical developments of ICL and emphasizes the pivotal role of the UN in the implementation and further improvement of ICL.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.29 Non-applicability of statute of limitations/Imprescriptibilité

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Military Tribunal ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
International Instruments

This chapter comments on Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 29 declares that crimes within the Court's jurisdiction are not subject to a statute of limitations. None of the preceding international instruments concerned with international prosecution of atrocities, from the Charter of the International Military Tribunal to the statutes of the ad hoc tribunals, have contained anything similar. This is only logical, because in the absence of texts within the instruments creating a time bar, silence was all that was required. There is also ample precedent for States refusing to extradite offenders where crimes are time barred under their own legislation. At the very least article 29 operates as an answer to any argument from a State Party whereby extradition might be refused because of a statutory limitation in its own domestic penal code.

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.

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.

s.VIII Boundaries, Ch.33 The Core Crimes of International Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schwöbel-Patel Christine
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Economic

The ‘core’ crimes set out in the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute - the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression - are overwhelmingly assumed to be the most important international crimes. In this chapter, I unsettle the assumption of their inherent importance by revealing and problematising the civilizational, political-economic, and aesthetical biases behind designating these crimes as ‘core’. This is done by shedding light on discontinuities in the history of the core crimes, and unsettling the progress narrative ‘from Nuremberg to Rome’. More specifically, crimes associated with drug control are placed in conversation with the accepted history of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to exemplify a systematic editing of the dominant narrative of international criminal law.

scholarly journals The Legacy of the ICTY and ICTR in China

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 245-250
Author(s):  
Bing Bing Jia
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Tribunal

Legacy is a matter that may become topical when its creator finally stops producing. Normally, the silent years would be many before the thought of legacy enters into open, formal discourse among lawyers and decision-makers. This comment treats the meaning of the word as relative to the circumstances in which it is invoked. The more closely it is used in relation to the present, the more distant it drifts from its literal meaning, to the extent that it denotes what the word “impact” signifies. This essay questions whether the word “legacy” is apt in describing the footprint of the work of the two ad hoctribunals in China, where its influence has, as a matter of fact, been waning ever since the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 (“Rome Statute” ). The Chinese example suggests that the work of the tribunals is (at least so far) no more significant to international criminal law than the illustrious Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials of the 1940s. The most major impact (a more apposite term than legacy) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) for China may be that China’s policy with regard to the tribunals, manifested mostly in the United Nations, has determined its approach to the International Criminal Court (“ICC” ). For that, the work of the tribunals could be considered as having left China something in the nature of an indirect legacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document