Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, A The Right to Reparation, Principle 33 Publicizing Reparation Procedures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laplante Lisa J
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Not Given ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Specific Practice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Country Specific ◽  
Do So

Principle 33 focuses on the obligation of the State to publicize ‘ad hoc procedures’ for the distribution of reparations. The ‘publicity principle’ assures the right to compensation, restitution, non-material, symbolic reparations and other remedies and places the onus on policymakers to implement outreach campaigns that inform victims of these right and how to access them. Principle 33 emanates from the idea that ‘a reparation mechanism has little practical value if potentially eligible victims are not aware of the opportunity to make claims or are not given timely information on how to do so in a language they can understand’. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 33, this chapter discusses its legal framework and practice, with emphasis on United Nations guidelines and principles; international mass claims processes; international courts, commissions and committees; and country specific practice.

The International Criminal Court's Provisional Authority to Coerce

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Franceschet
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Order ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The World ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Right

The United Nations ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda had primacy over national judicial agents for crimes committed in these countries during the most notorious civil wars and genocide of the 1990s. The UN Charter granted the Security Council the right to establish a tribunal for Yugoslavia in the context of ongoing civil war and against the will of recalcitrant national agents. The Council used that same right to punish individuals responsible for a genocide that it failed earlier to prevent in Rwanda. In both cases the Council delegated a portion of its coercive title to independent tribunal agents, thereby overriding the default locus of punishment in the world order: sovereign states.

Expediting the ICC Criminal Process: Striking the Right Balance between the ICC and States Parties

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-425
Author(s):  
Hirad Abtahi ◽  
Shehzad Charania
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right

When establishing the ICC, the sole permanent international criminal court, States ensured that they would play a legislative role larger and more direct than the ad hoc and hybrid courts and tribunals. States Parties have, however, acknowledged that, given the time they spend interpreting and applying the ICC legal framework, the judges are uniquely placed to identify and propose measures designed to expedite the criminal process. Accordingly, the ICC has followed a dual track. First, it has pursued an amendment track, which requires States Parties’ direct approval of ICC proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Second, it has implemented practices changes that do not require State involvement. This interactive process between the Court and States Parties reflects their common goal to expedite the criminal proceedings. The future of this process will rely on striking the right equilibrium between the respective roles of States Parties and the Court.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 23 Restrictions on Prescription

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right

Principle 23 deals with statutory limitations (prescription, in French) aimed at protecting defendants from stale claims that might be difficult to counter. Statutory limitations refer to legal norms that regulate the effects of the passage of time in domestic systems. In criminal law, they provide for a maximum timeframe, or prescription period, within which criminal proceedings can be instituted or sentences enforced. The passage of time makes the gathering of evidence more difficult and may also reduce the effectiveness of criminal prosecution. Significant delays in criminal action may thus impair the accused’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, criminal proceedings tend to lose legitimacy as time passes. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 23, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the statutory limitations have been applied in practice under multilateral treaties, domestic legislation and case-law. It also examines the practice of United Nations organs.

Part III The Right to Justice, B Distribution of Jurisdiction between National, Foreign, International, and Internationalized Courts, Principle 20 Jurisdiction of International and Internationalized Criminal Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Justice System ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Final Sentence ◽  
The Right

Principle 20 is concerned with the jurisdiction of international and internationalized criminal tribunals regarding the prosecution of war crimes and other atrocities. The word ‘impunity’, defined at the beginning of the United Nations Updated Set of Principles, implies punishment or some similar sanction. It inexorably directs us towards judicial activity of criminal courts or the lack of it. The first sentence of Principle 20 is addressed to the national justice system, while the second sentence focuses on the international and internationalized criminal tribunals and their relationship to national courts. The final sentence of Principle 20 requires States to ‘fully satisfy their legal obligations’ with respect to international and internationalized criminal tribunals. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 20 before discussing its theoretical framework and how it has been observed in practice.

scholarly journals Shaping Indigenous Self-Determination: Promising or Unsatisfactory Solutions?

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Barelli
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Straightforward Manner ◽  
History Of ◽  
United Nations Declaration ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Self Determination ◽  
Do So

AbstractThe right of peoples to self-determination represents one of the most controversial norms of international law. In particular, two questions connected with the meaning and scope of this right have been traditionally contentious: first, who constitutes a ‘people’ for the purposes of self-determination, and, secondly, what does the right of self-determination actually imply for its legitimate holders. Against this unsettled background, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirmed, in a straightforward manner, that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In light of the uncertainties that were mentioned above, it becomes necessary to clarify the actual implications of this important recognition. This article will seek to do so by discussing the drafting history of the provision on self-determination contained in the UNDRIP and positioning it within the broader normative framework of the instrument.

Part II The Right to Know, B Commissions of Inquiry, Principle 13 Publicizing the Commission’s Reports

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harwood Catherine ◽  
Stahn Carsten
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Full Publication ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Commissions Of Inquiry ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wide Dissemination

Principle 13 deals with the publication of the commission’s reports. The principle of publicity is a key component of the United Nations’ Updated Impunity Principles. Through full publication and wide dissemination of a report, the right to the truth is realized. An authoritative account of violations might also promote accountability and reconciliation. A final report should be widely accessible, taking into consideration cultural and technological contexts. However, commissions may receive information confidentially and exclude some information from reports for security reasons and to avoid interference with witnesses and commissioners. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 13 before discussing its theoretical framework and how commissions have adopted confidentiality measures to protect witnesses and victims.

Community Interests in International Adjudication

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Benvenisti
Keyword(s):  
Crucial Role ◽  
Recursive Function ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Do So

The chapter examines the extent to which international courts and tribunals can take community interests into consideration and develop community obligations. It explores the significance of this distinction between the ad hoc dispute-settlement tribunals and standing courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate multiple cases, and argues that the recursive function transforms international courts into global lawmakers that weave together a system of norms with secondary rules of recognition. International tribunals serve a crucial role of coordinating the behavior of state and nonstate actors by creating focal points that define the parties’ legal obligations and stabilize expectations. Moreover, the chapter argues that because of this function international courts are uniquely situated to take community interests into account, and they often, if not always, do so. This implies that if properly insulated from pressures and prejudices, international adjudicators are institutionally inclined to promote community obligations.

Diminishing constitutional law: The first three decades of women’s exclusion adjudication in Israel

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yofi Tirosh
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Past ◽  
Sex Equality ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

Abstract Balancing between sex equality and religious interests has been a challenge for Israel’s constitutional law from the state’s inception. In recent years, however, the expanding repertoire of practices known as women’s exclusion has brought forth this tension with new formulations, intensity, and public sensitivity. This article maps the three decades of Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ or “the Court”) adjudication on women’s exclusion. The modesty requirements and sex-based physical segregation that have become rampant in Israel require re-articulations of the scope and status of the right to equality, as well as other constitutional rights such as dignity and liberty. The thirty-year database compiled for the purpose of this article encompasses all women’s exclusion cases decided by the HCJ. The database was built based on an annotated definition of women’s exclusion cases as a legal field, developed and explained in this article. The database reveals what might be defined as diminishing constitutional adjudication. In the 1990s, the Court labored in elevating sex equality, developing a doctrinal structure that guards it against religion-based demands to legitimize exclusion norms. In contrast, in the past decade, the Court has almost completely refrained from reviewing cases on merit or writing reasoned opinions, adopting ad-hoc problem-solving approaches or taking dispute resolution approaches prompting the parties to find compromise, without delineating the legal framework that should guide the disputes.

scholarly journals State-Church relations and secular principles in the Slovak Republic

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 47-69
Author(s):  
Michaela Moravčíková
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Organizations ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Administrative Framework ◽  
The Right

The paper deals with the State-church relations and secular principles in Slovakia It focuses on historical background, religious-demografical situation, constitutional and administrative framework, legal principles in terms of defining the State in relation to religion as well as guarantying the right to religious freedom. It focuses on the State-Church legal framework in the field of financing of churches and registration of churches and religious societes, activities of religious organizations in public space, contractual relations between state and churches and Importance of State and religion Interaction and others philosophies of life, too.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document