s.VII Anxieties, Ch.27 The Crises and Critiques of International Criminal Justice

Author(s):  
Vasiliev Sergey

It is often heard that international criminal justice is in ‘crisis’. Although the language of ‘crisis’ suggests a temporary and exceptional moment, the project of international criminal justice has essentially been in a legitimacy crisis since its emergence. International criminal tribunals have never been able to cleanse their ‘original sin’: despite their aspiration to transcend state power, they remain not just heavily dependent on it but also constrained and directed by it in their pursuit of ‘justice’. The more finessed the doctrine becomes, the more professionalised the practice, and the more sophisticated the institutions, the more evident is the inability of international criminal law to challenge the persisting power inequalities and address structural injustices of the international order. Against this background, this chapter diagnoses the state of the field by appraising the dynamics and quality of communication between its ‘mainstream defenders’ and the ‘radical critics’. It outlines the critics’ objectives and modes of engagement with the project and shows why some of the defensive impulses of the ‘mainstream’ fall short of effective responses to the critiques. The opposing sides to the debate about the legitimacy of international criminal justice seem to seldom think together and converse in earnest, despite having overlapping normative expectations towards the project. The chapter expresses a hope for a genuine, constructive dialogue between them, free of counterproductive tropes and tactics. The critical sensibility trickling into the ‘mainstream’ could help transform the institutional politics of the International Criminal Court and enable the project to realize its emancipatory potential.

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT CRYER

The UN Security Council has recently referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the International Criminal Court. This has been hailed as a breakthrough in international criminal justice. However, aspects of the referral resolution can be criticized from the point of view of their consistency with both the Rome Statute and the UN Charter. The limitations of the referral with respect to whom the Court may investigate also raise issues with respect to the rule of law. In addition, Sudan has accused the Security Council of acting in a neo-colonial fashion by referring the situation in Darfur to the Court. This article investigates these criticisms against the background of the international system in which international criminal law operates, and concludes that although the referral cannot be considered neo-colonial in nature, the referral can be criticized as selective and as an incomplete reaction to the crisis in Darfur. The referral remains, however, a positive step.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO CASSESE

AbstractHaving identified the differences between the concept of legality and the much more complex concept of legitimacy, the author scrutinizes the legality and the legitimacy of the existing international criminal tribunals. Their legality has been put in doubt only concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), but the criticisms have been or could be overcome. Assessing the legitimacy of these tribunals is instead a more difficult task. In fact, misgivings have been voiced essentially concerning the legitimacy of the ICTY and the STL, but not the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the other international criminal courts. The legitimacy of the STL in particular deserves to be discussed: even assuming that the STL initially lacked some forms of legitimacy, it could achieve it – or confirm it – through its ‘performance legitimacy’. The author then suggests what the realistic prospects for international criminal justice are. Convinced as he is that it is destined to flourish even more, he tries to identify the paths it is likely to take in future years.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos D Magliveras

This article examines the reasons and the grounds behind the antiparathesis between the African Union and several of its Member States, on the one hand, and international criminal justice and the International Criminal Court (‘icc’), on the other hand. It also examines the consequences of and responses to this antiparathesis, including the creation of an International Criminal Law Section to the African Court of Justice and Human Rights and questions whether it offers any added value. The article concludes with suggesting the setting up of icc regional/circuit chambers, each dealing with a specific continent/region, as a means to restructure the icc, to make it more relevant to its users, namely the contracting parties to the Rome Statute, and to allay fears of politically motivated prosecutions.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Rothe ◽  
Christopher Mullins

AbstractThis article draws attention to the relevance of criminological insight on issues of international criminal law and criminal justice. In particular, the ideology and theory of deterrence, legitimacy, and international criminal law are drawn from. After all, the deterrent effect has been touted as a solid empirical fact with the progression and development of 'international criminal justice', the international tribunals since the mid 1990s, and the International Criminal Court. Yet, the current rather blind belief in the deterrent impact of international criminal justice remains, regretfully, a bit premature. Additionally, beyond the concepts of deterrence and legitimacy, criminologists have much to contribute to international criminal justice. As noted, there are social, political, cultural, and geographical issues that play a role in not only crime commission, but in the hindrance of and/or facilitation of deterrence. Criminologists are well positioned to show how these connections may facilitate or hinder the broader goals of the legal community.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett

This article, drawing from historical research of the practice and judgements of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, analyses the role of victims within the founding international criminal tribunals of the Second World War. While some commentators have decried the absence of victims at Nuremberg and Tokyo, numerous victim-witnesses testified before these tribunals. However, the outcome of these tribunals has been disappointing to victims who still seek justice over sixty-five years later. This article considers the implications of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals not providing justice to victims and how this has impacted on their legacy. Although these tribunals are neglected in contemporary discussions of victim provisions in modern international criminal justice mechanisms, they can still provide some important lessons for modern international criminal justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, to learn from.


Author(s):  
Cheah WL

This chapter deals with the tension that exists between international criminal law and ‘culture’. Operating in societies where the very meaning of punishment is contested, international criminal justice is often faced with a cultural challenge that endangers its legitimacy. At several levels, it exerts a marginalizing or exclusionary effect on the culturally dissimilar, while constructing certain understandings of cultural difference. The universalism of international criminal justice is hardly ever taken for granted by the actors that confront it, particularly in a context where justice itself appears to be cultural. At the same time, culture is contested, and local forms of justice may be challenged as merely reflecting certain groups’ agendas. Finally, international criminal tribunals’ encounter with audiences coming from a variety of cultures suggests a potential for confusion and misunderstanding.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOANNA KYRIAKAKIS

AbstractThe debate over whether the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over corporations has persisted over the years, despite the failure of the legal persons proposals at Rome. For its part, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon determined that it has jurisdiction over corporations for the purpose of crimes against the administration of the Tribunal, albeit not for the substantive crimes over which it adjudicates. Most recently, the African Union has adopted a Protocol that, should it come into operation, would create a new international criminal law section of the African Court of Justice and Human and People's Rights with jurisdiction over corporations committing or complicit in serious crimes impacting Africa. In light of the enduring nature of the proposal that international criminal institutions should directly engage with the problem of commercial corporations implicated in atrocity, this article explores the possible implications for the international criminal justice project were its institutions empowered to address corporate defendants and prosecutors emboldened to pursue cases against them. Drawing on the expressive goals of international criminal justice and concepts of sociological legitimacy, as well as insights from Third World Approaches to International Law, the article suggests that corporate prosecutions, where appropriate, may have a redeeming effect upon the esteem in which some constituent audiences hold international criminal law, as a system of global justice. The article's thesis is then qualified by cautionary thoughts on the redemptive potential of corporate prosecutions.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 240-244
Author(s):  
Veronika Bílková

After WWII, countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) actively backed the establishment of the military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. In the early 1990s, when the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) were created by the UN Security Council, the CEE countries again lent uniform, albeit largely rhetorical support to these institutions. A quarter of a century later, this uniformity seems to be gone. While the CEE countries continue to express belief in international criminal justice, they no longer agree with each other on whether this justice has actually been served by the ad hoctribunals. The diverging views on the achievements of the ICTY and ICTR might also partly account for the differences in the approach to the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), though the grounds for these differences are more complex.


Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 72-78

The article analyzes the application of jus cogens and erga omnes obligations in international criminal justice. The main ideas that were the basis of the concept of jus cogens norms and the concept of obligations erga omnes are investigated. The modern doctrines of jus cogens and erga omnes are analyzed. Imperative norms, which have a special legal force, is one of the characteristic features of modern international law. These rules are a set that determines the nature of international law, its goals and principles and in general its main content. The norms of jus cogens include the principles and norms of international law prohibiting aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide and other international crimes. These crimes are of concern to the entire international community and oblige states to counter these horrific phenomena. Ensuring mandatory norms in the field of combating international crime requires the introduction of an effective international legal mechanism, an important element of which are the relevant international courts. In case of violation of imperative norms, there are universal legal relations of responsibility. The point is that not only the directly affected state, but also any other state has the right to raise the issue of the offender’s liability, in particular in the case of international crimes. This is similar to the Roman rule «actio popularis», according to which every member of society had a legal right to protect public interests. With this in mind, jus cogens and erga omnes are at the heart of the legal framework of international criminal courts and are an important area of research in international criminal law. Key words: jus cogens norms, erga omnes obligations, international crimes, international criminal court.


Author(s):  
Ambos Kai

This second edition of Volume I of the three-volume Treatise on International Criminal Law addresses the foundations of international criminal law and the emerging general principles. It examines the history of the discipline and the concepts behind it. Starting with the development of international criminal justice, the book proceeds as follows: it attends to the sources of international criminal law, then moves to investigate the general structure of crime in international criminal law, and addresses in detail the concept and forms of individual criminal responsibility; it then turns to the subjective requirements of criminal responsibility, and defences that exclude such responsibility. International criminal justice is a flourishing field, with the birth of new international criminal tribunals and both accountability and investigative mechanisms. Case law increases rapidly, so does the ensuing substantive scholarship. This is also true for international criminal law’s foundations and general principles, treated in this volume. Thus, the previous edition has been completely revised, updated, and rewritten in some parts. The author strived to include both relevant case law and scholarly work up to March 2021.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document