s.VI Narratives, Ch.22 Historical Reasoning and Judicial Historiography in International Criminal Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priemel Kim Christian
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Historical Reasoning ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Day To Day Operations ◽  
Post War ◽  
Nazi Era

This chapter explores the overlaps and differences between historical reasoning and judicial historiography. It takes the reader from Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court to show that judicial proceedings have been a major site for the development of both micro- and macro-level histories, sometimes problematically so. The chapter addresses if, how, and to what extent macro-historical interpretations permeated the high-profile proceedings at Nuremberg and Tokyo and helps explain their dynamics and outcomes. This pattern was repeated in domestic trials of Nazi-era crimes throughout the post-war decades, yet largely overlooked in the creation and day-to-day operations of the ad hoc tribunals that sprang to life in the 1990s and early 2000s. To conclude, the chapter suggests that this unawareness may explain some of the Tribunals’ shortcomings and needs to be reflected by both lawyers and historians if the ICC is to avoid even more criticism than that levelled against it since its inception.

Changing the Paradigm of International Criminal Law: Considering the Work of the United Nations War Crimes Commission of 1943–1948

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Plesch ◽  
Shanti Sattler
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract More than 2,000 international criminal trials were conducted at the end of World War II in addition to those held by the International Military Tribunals (IMTs) at Nuremburg and Tokyo. Fifteen national tribunals conducted these trials in conjunction with an international war crimes commission established by these same states in October 1943 under the name, The United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes, that soon became the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). The extensive work of the UNWCC and these tribunals serves as a source of customary international criminal law that relates directly to the current work of the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc tribunals in operation since the 1990s.

s.V Modalities, Ch.19 Epistemological Controversies and Evaluation of Evidence in International Criminal Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klamberg Mark
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
International Criminal Trials

This chapter deals with the epistemological challenges posed by the evaluation of evidence in international trials. Unlike common-law juries, who are insulated from evidence deemed by a judge to be potentially irrelevant or prejudicial, international judges receive free access to all evidence in order to fulfill their role as fact-finders. This chapter suggests how judges should undertake that fact-finding obligation. It gives reference to an ‘alternative hypothesis’ standard of decision for evaluating the massive amounts of evidence presented at trial. Given the high-profile collapse of several recent cases at the International Criminal Court due to lack of evidence presented at trial, this chapter can help bring back standards of decision and other evidentiary issues to the center of the discussion.

International legal immunities and privileges of the Рrosecutor amicus curiae

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
EKATERINA A. KOPYLOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Foreign Science

The article considers the international legal regime of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors of international criminal courts which are intended to ensure independent and unhindered performance of their functions in prosecuting crimes against the administration of justice. Due to the lack of doctrinal research in this field, whether in the domestic or foreign science of international law, the study is characterized by scientific novelty. Its empirical basis is constituted of the provisions of international treaties governing the immunities and privileges of staff of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. It is noted that today the state of international legal regulation of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors is not quite satisfactory as it contains significant gaps. Two possible approaches to determining the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors are identified: the first based on their status and the second – on the functions they perform. Their critical analysis leads to the conclusion that the functional approach is more in line with the principle of equality of arms in international criminal proceedings. As a result of its application, the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors coincides with the scope of the immunities and privileges granted to staff of the Offices of Prosecutors at the international criminal tribunals.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

scholarly journals Ending Impunity: The Case for War Crimes Trials in Liberia

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhagi Marong ◽  
Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sierra Leonean ◽  
Post Conflict

AbstractThis article argues that Liberia owes a duty under both international humanitarian and human rights law to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes, including torture, rape and extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians, committed in that country by the warring parties in the course of fourteen years of brutal conflict. Assuming that Liberia owes a duty to punish the grave crimes committed on its territory, the article then evaluates the options for prosecution, starting with the possible use of Liberian courts. The authors argue that Liberian courts are unable, even if willing, to render credible justice that protects the due process rights of the accused given the collapse of legal institutions and the paucity of financial, human and material resources in post-conflict Liberia. The authors then examine the possibility of using international accountability mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc international criminal tribunal as well as a hybrid court for Liberia. For various legal and political reasons, the authors conclude that all of these options are not viable. As an alternative, they suggest that because the Special Court for Sierra Leone has already started the accountability process for Liberia with the indictment of Charles Taylor in 2003, and given the close links between the Liberian and Sierra Leonean conflicts, the Special Court would be a more appropriate forum for international prosecutions of those who perpetrated gross humanitarian and human rights law violations in Liberia.

scholarly journals Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations Within the ICC System

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Balta ◽  
Manon Bax ◽  
Rianne Letschert
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
International Criminal Trials

Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC or the Court) was established holding the aim of placing victims at the heart of international criminal justice proceedings and delivering justice to them through, among others, reparations. Article 75 of the Rome Statute lays out the reparations regime, and, in practice, court-ordered reparations are a means of delivering such justice. Focusing on Court decisions on reparations, our analysis takes stock of all developments before the ICC and attempts to highlight the mismatch between characteristics inherent to the objectives of international criminal trials such as providing accountability and punishment of the accused and delivering justice for victims of mass crimes—the so-called procedural challenges. We also submit that the Court is facing conceptual challenges, related to an apparent misunderstanding of the various concepts at stake: reparations as such and the various modalities and channels of enforcing them. We conclude that although the ICC’s reparation regime may not be the best reparative response to provide justice to victims in conflict situations affected by mass victimization, we suggest that improving the ICC’s approach includes, at a minimum, tackling these challenges.

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.

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.

Imagining Justice for Syria

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Face ◽  
Justice Program ◽  
State Of Affairs

This book situates the war in Syria within the actual and imagined system of international criminal justice. It explores the legal impediments and diplomatic challenges that have led to the fatal trinity that is Syria: the massive commission of international crimes that are subject to detailed investigations and documentation but whose perpetrators have enjoyed virtually complete impunity. The book tracks a number of accountability solutions to this tragic state of affairs that are being explored within multilateral gatherings, by states, and by civil society actors, including innovations of institutional design; the reactivation of a range of domestic jurisdictional principles (including universal jurisdiction in Europe); the emergence of creative investigative and documentation techniques, technologies, and organizations; and the rejection of state consent as a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction. Engaging both law and policy around international justice, the text offers a set of justice blueprints, within and without the International Criminal Court. It also considers the utility, propriety, and practicality of establishing an ad hoc tribunal and pursuing a transitional justice program without a genuine political transition. All told, the book attempts to capture the creative energy radiating from members of the international community intent on advancing the accountability norm in Syria even in the face of geopolitical blockages within the U.N. Security Council. In so doing, it presents the range of juridical measures—both criminal and civil—that are available to the international community to respond to the crisis, if only the political will existed.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document