Part VI Impact, ‘Legacy’, and Lessons Learned, 47 The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grono Nick ◽  
Wheeler Anna de Courcy
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

This Chapter examines in which circumstances, and under what conditions, the prospect of prosecution by the ICC may act to curtail the actions of government or rebel leaders by shifting the strategic calculus in favour of avoiding war crimes or crimes against humanity. It studies ICC engagement and its impact in Uganda, the DRC, Colombia, Sudan, Kenya, and Mali. It argues that success or failure of ICC deterrence rests to a large degree on its ability to pursue successful prosecutions. It concludes that potential to deter future atrocity crimes may not exist in all cases, and probably not in the midst of armed conflict, but could exist in those situations where the commission of crimes is one of a series of policy options available to a leader facing a challenge to his or her authority.

Domestic Adjudication of Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Armed Conflict: Considerations for Prosecutors and Judges

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-122
Author(s):  
Evelyn W. Kamau
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Perceived Challenge ◽  
Constituent Elements

AbstractThe increased domestication of international core crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has placed national prosecutors and judges on unfamiliar ground. Specifically, though very welcome, the recognition of acts of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) as constituting core international crimes poses a further challenge. The circumstances surrounding the commission of SGBV as international core crimes, coupled with their unique elements and manner of proof, makes their domestic prosecution seem that much more difficult. An understanding of how acts of SGBV constitute international core crimes, their constituent elements and the manner of proving them, coupled with how to treat victims and witnesses of SGBV, goes a long way in easing the perceived challenge of domestically prosecuting them. This article is geared towards achieving that and is directed at people who are involved in or are considering carrying out domestic prosecutions and adjudications of SGBV as international core crimes.

The Responsibility to Protect as International Crimes Prevention

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Hubert ◽  
Ariela Blätter
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Organizational Policy ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Insufficient Attention

In 2005 the UN’s World Summit endorsed the idea that its members have a responsibility to prevent and halt genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Insufficient attention has been paid to clarifying how the definitions and evolving jurisprudence relating to these international crimes can provide clarity in identifying the unlawful acts that the Responsibility to Protect seeks to prevent and to halt. Specifically, an analysis of the elements of the crimes establishes the following parameters: attacks directed against any civilian population, committed in a widespread or systematic manner, in furtherance of a state or organizational policy, irrespective of the existence of discriminatory intent or an armed conflict. This conclusion makes reference to four ‘crimes’ redundant: crime against humanity alone provides an appropriate framework for conceptualizing and implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Although analysts focused on international crimes tend to prioritize accountability, such an approach need not be reactive. The essence of the Responsibility to Protect is best characterized as international crimes prevention.

7 Crimes Against Humanity and Other International Crimes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mettraux Guénaël
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
Community Or ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Core Features

This concluding chapter provides an overview of crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity are characterized by several core features. First, they are crimes of scale insofar as they must involve and form part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Second, similar to genocide but unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity may be committed in times of peace or in times of war. Third, the possibility of being a victim to a crime against humanity does not depend on the victim's nationality or on the victim's membership in any particular community or faction in an armed conflict. Fourth, crimes against humanity are intrinsically serious criminal offences and reflect some of the most important human interests protected by international law. Lastly, crimes against humanity are not subject to any statutory limitations as a matter of international law. The chapter then looks at the differences between crimes against humanity and other international crimes. These include war crimes, genocide, aggression, and terrorism.

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

2 Crimes Against Humanity Under General International Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mettraux Guénaël
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses crimes against humanity under international law. Crimes against humanity were first introduced at Nuremberg as a means of criminalizing three sorts of criminality that so far had evaded the sanction of international law: atrocities committed outside the context of an armed conflict or independent of it; crimes committed against fellow nationals or nationals of allied nations; and institutionalized discriminatory violence that resulted in individuals being targeted and mistreated by a state because of their identity. Crimes against humanity seek to protect core attributes of all human beings: their dignity; their humanity; and their fundamental human rights. The notion of crimes against humanity reflects the fact that the protection of those interests and the punishment of serious violations of these interests is a matter of universal concern. It also makes it clear that the protection arising from international law does not depend on the nationality of the victim or his membership in a group, nor on his or relationship to the perpetrator. Instead, it is the sheer humanity of the victim that warrants and justifies the criminalization of such acts. And whilst the notion of genocide and crimes against humanity overlap in part in their efforts to protect these core values, unlike genocide, crimes against humanity seek to protect individuals as such, rather than groups of individuals. The chapter then looks at the relationship between crimes against humanity and other international crimes as well as the process of defining crimes against humanity.

Genocide

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Byron
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Crime ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Civilian Population

Genocide has been called the “crime of crimes” and the gravest violation of human rights it is possible to commit. It was developed as an international crime in reaction to the Nazi Holocaust and intended to provide for the prosecution of those who sought to destroy entire human groups. The word “genocide” was coined by a Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944) to provide a legal concept for this unimaginable atrocity. The word is a hybrid of the Greek word genos, meaning race, nation, or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Although genocide is often spoken of in the same breath as war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is not the same thing. War crimes refer to violations of the law of armed conflict, while crimes against humanity, of which genocide is often seen as a more serious subset, require a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Unlike war crimes, the crime of genocide does not have to take place during an armed conflict (although it often does), and unlike crimes against humanity, it may also be perpetrated against soldiers or prisoners of war from the targeted group (if it happens to take place during an armed conflict). Additionally, crimes against humanity do not have to be perpetrated against a specific human group, as is the case with genocide, but simply against a civilian population. While the concept of genocide was developed after World War II, it is unfortunately true that the mass killing of human groups is much older than the legal expression; indeed, the first genocide of the 20th century is widely thought to have been the German genocide of the Herero and Nama in German South West Africa (modern-day Namibia) between 1904 and 1907. The Genocide Convention of 1948 (officially the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) declared that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they, the contracting parties, undertake to prevent and to punish.” Nevertheless, the real development of systematic international trials and punishment for the crime of genocide waited for the end of the 20th century: the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the inclusion of the crime of genocide in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Punishing the Enemies of All Mankind

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 971-993 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALETTE SMEULERS
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Collective Violence ◽  
Mass Violence ◽  
International Crimes

How do we and how should we punish perpetrators of international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? Is it fair to hold individuals responsible for their role in manifestations of this type of collective violence? Do the punishments issued by international criminal institutions support the usual penological rationales? Do they actually attain their goals? Is the Westernized international criminal justice system the most appropriate means of dealing with mass violence, especially in non-Western countries which might have a different perception of justice? What are the alternatives? These are just some of the questions which Mark Drumbl addresses in this book.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document