4 Immunities, Amnesties, and Statutes of Limitation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mettraux Guénaël
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Per Se ◽  
International Instruments

This chapter assesses immunities, amnesties, and statutes of limitation in crimes against humanity. The question of whether immunities apply and, if so, to what effect, depend on the circumstances of the case and how the domestic legal regime under consideration orders and ranks its international legal obligations. It is, therefore, not necessarily the case that immunities would prevail in every instance in this sort of scenario regardless of circumstances. Meanwhile, international law does not grant legal force to amnesties; nor does it create enforceable rights for the beneficiaries of an amnesty. Instead, international law provides for a number of basic criteria that national amnesties must satisfy, lest they be regarded as invalid under international law. This means that, aside from amnesties that are per se invalid under international law—i.e., those pertaining to genocide, torture, and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention—the validity of all other categories of amnesties pertaining to international crimes is subject to the discretionary review of the tribunal concerned. Lastly, the 1968 Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations provides that no statutory limitations shall apply to crimes against humanity, as do a number of other international instruments, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute.

The problematic aspects of International core crimes and transnational crimes accordingly to International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (31) ◽  
pp. 376-388
Author(s):  
Nadiia Shulzhenko ◽  
Snizhana Romashkin ◽  
Mykola Rubashchenko ◽  
Hаlyna Tatarenko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Small Range ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Conventions

Today, the boundaries of international crime involving states and transnational organized crime are slowly blurring, and as a result, the number of international crimes is steadily growing. The article analyzes two key groups of crimes: crimes indicated in the Rome Statute and transnational crimes under international conventions. This article is based on the analysis of the main groups of crimes: the first group of international crimes committed with state actors, which includes crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes of genocide; and the second group, crimes committed by criminal groups organized in more than one country with the "international" or "transnational" character of such acts. The authors emphasize the norms of international law, according to which the International Criminal Court, together with international criminal tribunals, have jurisdiction over a small range of key international crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, aggression, committed by state officials. The main objective of this research is to compare the mechanism for investigating crimes in the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, together with the national procedure for investigating transnational crimes, through the ratification of international conventions and the establishment of the International cooperation. The article was made with the following methods: induction, deduction, analogy, as well as historical, dialectical and formal legal methods.

scholarly journals Victim’s Right of Access to International Criminal Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Fazlollah Foroughi ◽  
Zahra Dastan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.

The new International Criminal Court: A preliminary assessment

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (325) ◽  
pp. 671-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Major Step ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
New Institutions

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Magda Olesiuk-Okomska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Far East ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
Massive Scale

Although in international law responsibility traditionally had belonged to states, along with involvement of individuals in conflicts between states and committing by them crimes on a massive scale, a need to criminalize such acts and to bring offenders guilty of the most serious violations of international law to justice - arose. Establishment of international criminal courts resulted from the need to fulfill internationally the idea of justice. Development of international criminal courts reflects differences in inter alia attitude towards ratione materiae of particular courts and tribunals. The purpose of this article is to present and discuss international crimes within the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals. A typology of international criminal courts was indicated and the most important courts and tribunals were presented in detail. The paper discusses subject jurisdiction of International Military Court in Nuremberg and International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokio, the first international courts established to bring war criminals to justice; as well as the subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the only permanent court in international criminal court system, having universal jurisdiction. Four categories of the most serious crimes of international concern were considered, and doubts concerning subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as well as its functioning in general, were signalized.

scholarly journals Is global poverty a crime against humanity?

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwilym David Blunt
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International System ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Global Poverty ◽  
Definition Of

Pogge has repeatedly compared the causes of global poverty with historical crimes against humanity. This claim, however, has been treated as mere rhetoric. This article argues that there are good reasons to take it seriously. It does this by comparing Pogge’s thesis on the causes of global poverty with the baseline definition of crimes against humanity found in international law, especially the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It argues that the causes of global poverty are comparable with the crimes of slavery and apartheid. This has important consequences for cosmopolitan thought, as it makes the need for practical solutions to global poverty more urgent and raises questions about the global poor’s right to resist the international system by violent means.

scholarly journals Universal jurisdiction in the activities of international criminal courts

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Bazov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes

The article presents an analysis of the principle of universal jurisdiction as an important legal institution of international criminal justice. Analyzed the main international legal norms and judicial practice in this area. The directions of further development of universal jurisdiction have been determined. Analyzed the Princeton Principlesof the universal jurisdiction. Investigated the work of the UN International Law Commission and the UN General Assembly on this issue. Proposals for the improvement of international and national legal acts are presented. Universal jurisdiction or the principle of universality in the fight against international crime is an important legal institution in the activities of both national and international criminal courts. As with any international offense, the obligation to stop international crimes such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of international terrorism take the form of an alternative to aut dedere aut judicare or aut prosegue by Hugo Grotius, and under which any State has an obligation to search for and prosecute international criminals for these heinous acts, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and their victims, as well as the place where the crime was committed, or to extradite international criminals to any State that requires their extradition for prosecution and punishment, or to an international criminal tribunal. Thus, a state is obliged to exercise universal criminal jurisdiction over international crimes and international criminals, or to extradite them to another state or to an international criminal court under conditions determined by international law and national law. Key words: universal jurisdiction, International criminal court, international crime, state sovereignty.

Limitations of the Ordinary-Crimes Approach to the International Crime of Rape: the Case of Uganda

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-297
Author(s):  
Emma Charlene Lubaale
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Not many states have effective national laws on prosecution of international crimes. Presently, of the 124 states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), less than half have specific national legislation incorporating international crimes. Some faith has been placed in the ordinary-crimes approach; the assumption being that states without effective laws on international crimes can prosecute on the basis of ordinary crimes. This article assesses the practicality of this approach with regard to the crime of rape in Uganda. Based on this assessment, the author draws a number of conclusions. First, that there are glaring gaps in the Ugandan definition of rape, making it impossible for it to be relied on. Secondly, although national courts have the option to interpret national laws with a view to aligning them with international law, the gaps salient in the definition of ordinary rape are too glaring; they cannot be remedied by way of interpretation without undermining the principle of legality. Thirdly, prosecuting the international crime of rape as an ordinary crime suggests that approaches applicable to the prosecution of ordinary rape will be invoked. Because these approaches were never intended to capture the reality of the international crime of rape, the ordinary-crimes approach remains illusory.

Autocratic Consent to International Law: The Case of the International Criminal Court's Jurisdiction, 1998–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-362
Author(s):  
Barry Hashimoto
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Civil Conflict ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Economic Statecraft

AbstractThis article contributes to an understanding of why autocrats have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Leveraging their ability to obstruct their own prosecution, autocrats have traded off the risk of unwanted prosecutions against the deterrent threat that prosecutions pose to political rivals and patrons of their enemies conspiring to oust them. The risk of unwanted prosecutions and the court's deterrent threat both arise because ICC prosecutions credibly communicate guilt for international crimes to capital-disbursing democracies, which may, insofar as possible, use leader-specific economic statecraft to prevent the administration of foreign states by those whom the court signals are guilty of international crimes. Analysis using fixed effects and matching shows that a greater reliance on capital publicly financed by democracies increased the probability that a state accepted the court's jurisdiction only when it was an autocracy (1998–2017). ICC jurisdiction also lengthened the tenure of autocrats and reduced the severity of civil conflict in autocracies.

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

scholarly journals Torture, Crimes Against Humanity and the Abuse of International Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 116-141
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Rychlak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Catholic Priests ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Church ◽  
Do So

In 2014, United Nations Committee Against Torture raised the possibility that the Vatican’s handling of sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests constituted torture under international law. A victims group even filed a petition with the International Criminal Court accusing Pope Benedict XIV and other Church officials of “crimes against humanity” and urged that they be prosecuted for their alleged role in the crimes. Without defending the perpetrators of the abuse, this paper argues that the identified cases do not meet the legal standards to constitute either torture or crimes against humanity under international law. While those individuals who are guilty of abuse should be punished, neither they nor the Church officials who dealt with them (or failed to do so) are responsible for torture or crimes against humanity. Arguments to the contrary have been advanced in bad faith.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document