The Kosovo Specialist Chambers from a Political Realism Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Political Process ◽  
National Court ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Main Hypothesis ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Abstract∞ This article complements current legal research on the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office – the ‘Special Court’ – by tracing the political process and the interests which influenced the court’s establishment. A key question is why the Special Court was established at all and why it was established as a national court, despite being under full international control. Political realism provides a useful theoretical framework to discuss these questions since it claims that international criminal tribunals are established to serve the interests of powerful states and not necessarily to provide international justice. The article’s main hypothesis is that the Special Court was created as a national court not only to address war crimes and prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes, but also to protect international actors from possible legal exposure in connection with their involvement in Kosovo during the time when the alleged crimes were committed.

Promises of Peace and Reconciliation: Previewing the Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROSEMARY BYRNE
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
World Order ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Peace And Reconciliation

Predictions of the legacies of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals reflect far greater expectations for the impact of justice than earlier historical war crimes prosecutions. The most ambitious of these is the promise of peace and reconciliation. Its formal inclusion in the Security Council's mandate for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda converged with a modern discourse on war crimes prosecutions that infuses the ideals of Nuremberg with the revolutionary aspirations of the human rights movement in a new world order. Contemporary trends invest international justice with powerful assumptions about its capacity to transform post-conflict societies, as is reflected in the Tribunal's own presentation of its role for the future of Rwanda. Alongside the general assumptions regarding the political powers of international justice, are contesting perspectives that make specific allegations of the effects of its failings. Neither rigorously address causality, highlighting the absence of empirical research on international prosecutions and their impact on national communities. It is argued that ambitious expectations have generated ambiguous-and unrealistic- benchmarks for effectively assessing the record of a nascent international justice system. Viable benchmarks are necessary to ground external expectations, and to strengthen and focus institutional performance. To achieve this, expectations should adjust to the modest realities of delivering international justice.

Remarks by Bert Lockwood

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Bert Lockwood ◽  
Beatrice Brickell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Southern Rhodesia

I would like to address myself to international outlaws and what domestic procedures are available to arrest their activities. While at first glance the nexus between domestic justice and international justice may seem tenuous, I wonder: Is it surprising that the same administration that is so insensate over the deprivation of the human rights of blacks in Southern Rhodesia is the same administration that proclaimed early in its tenure that if you have seen one slum you have pretty much seen them all, and hasn’t visited another since? Is it surprising that the same administration that evidences so little concern over the political rights of the majority in Rhodesia is the same administration that “bugs” and sabotages the political process within the United States?

The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran Sluiter
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article deals with the question of possible effect of the law of international criminal procedure for domestic war crimes trials. With the increasing number of national prosecutions for war crimes this question will gain in relevance.The article starts with an exploration of the origin and development of the law of international criminal procedure, to reach the conclusion that because of the lack of a strong foundation it is difficult to discern firmly established rules in this field. Next, two areas are examined where the law of international criminal procedure is capable of producing effect for national trials: human rights and rules that have developed in the specific context of war crimes prosecutions.Whether rules of international criminal procedure are formally effective in the domestic legal order remains to be seen. There is no clear obligation under international law to do so. Furthermore, the law of international criminal procedure may be difficult to harmonise with domestic inquisitorial systems.In spite of these difficulties, the article concludes that national courts will increasingly face similar procedural problems in complex war crimes trials as international criminal tribunals and will be happy to learn from their experiences.

Early Release of Prisoners Decisions

2021 ◽  
pp. 263-308
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The Political ◽  
Early Release ◽  
Religious Context ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Nation States

This chapter describes the author’s own practice, as Court President, on early release of prisoners serving sentences imposed by the ICTY, ICTR, or the Mechanism, one which followed the practice of his predecessors. Early releases or pardons of prisoners are often delicate and controversial in nation-States. In international criminal tribunals, the political, national, ethnic and religious context makes early releases even more difficult and contentious. Interested States, victims’ organizations, NGOs and media often vent their anger at some releases by harsh attacks against the Presidents that rendered them. In Rwanda, early releases of persons convicted by the ICTR or the Mechanism have not been welcome. In the former Yugoslavia, convicted persons who have been released have often been celebrated upon their return to their own local and national communities. These releases have, however, been criticized by other communities in the former Yugoslavia.

scholarly journals The Problem of Witness Interference before International Criminal Tribunals

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 700-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie de Brouwer
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Protection Orders ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Victims of international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are considered crucial in establishing the evidence in cases before international criminal tribunals. Yet, due to the geographic, political, ethnic or religious circumstances in the country of origin, the nature of the crimes concerned and the nature of the victims’ or accuseds’ involvement in the crimes, international cases also bring with them significant risks for victims/witnesses and challenges for tribunals in protecting them. At times, individuals have disclosed identifying information of victims/witnesses in violation of protection orders of the tribunal, which has led to threats, intimidations and even murders, and ultimately, in a number of cases, the unwillingness of victims/witnesses to testify. Although the tribunals have measures at their disposal to sanction individuals breaching protection orders, the question remains how big the problem of witness interference really is and how to address this issue adequately.

The work of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 435-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
George H. Aldrich
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Rare Event ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
Common Boundary ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Creation

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC) is one of a pair of commissions established by the Peace Agreement of 12 December 2000 that ended a costly war between Ethiopia and Eritrea that had begun in May 1998. That war, which was sparked by disputes over the countries' common border, caused much damage and many thousands of casualties on each side. It also proved terribly expensive, as each party spent large amounts of money and incurred large debts to acquire modern weapons of war and the related munitions. Given the causes and the consequences of the war, it was, perhaps, not surprising that the Peace Agreement created a boundary commission to determine for the parties a common boundary that they would be obliged to accept, and a claims commission to resolve the claims of each party against the other for any acts arising out of the war that injured that party, including injury to its nationals, and that were in violation of international law.However understandable in the context of the war, the creation of an international commission charged with determining which actions of the parties to a war violated the applicable international law is a rare event. While we have seen very recently the establishment of international criminal tribunals for the punishment of war crimes by individuals, we have not seen the creation of any other international tribunal that has the task of deciding the legal responsibility of a state for violations of the laws of war.

Assistance, direction and control: Untangling international judicial opinion on individual and State responsibility for war crimes by non-State actors

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Specific Direction ◽  
Significant Disagreement ◽  
State Actors

AbstractDespite the general consistency in the treatment of international humanitarian law by international courts and tribunals, recent decisions have seen significant disagreement regarding the scope of indirect responsibility for individuals and States for the provision of aid or assistance to non-State actors that perpetrate war crimes. The divisions at the international criminal tribunals with regard to the “specific direction” element of aiding and abetting are reminiscent of the divergence between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the question of State responsibility for supporting or assisting non-State actors that engage in violations of international law. This article analyzes this jurisprudence on individual and State responsibility for the provision of support to non-State actors that breach international humanitarian law, and considers the interaction and interrelationship between these related but distinct forms of responsibility.

Imputed Criminal Liability and the Goals of International Justice

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHANE DARCY
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Superior Responsibility ◽  
Broad Form

This article considers the suitability of employing particular modes of imputed criminal liability in trials before international criminal tribunals. It focuses specifically on the doctrines of joint criminal enterprise and superior responsibility, two forms of liability which are central to many contemporary international criminal proceedings. Both doctrines can involve a broad form of criminal liability which may not be entirely appropriate when one considers the context in which such trials take place and the significance which often attaches to them. Proponents of international justice have contended that the contribution of these trials goes beyond basic accountability and providing justice for victims, extending also to peacemaking, reconciliation, deterrence, and the creation of a historical record. This article queries whether aspects of joint criminal enterprise liability and superior responsibility are appropriate when international justice is viewed in this light.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document