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.

Bad Analogy

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-427
Author(s):  
Padraig McAuliffe
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Beneficial Impact ◽  
Comprehensive Comparison ◽  
Natural Response ◽  
State Of Affairs

The International Criminal Court (‘icc’) lacks the capacity to pursue accountability for all but a handful of alleged perpetrators. Scholars and policy-makers have argued that the natural response to this state of affairs is for the icc to reconstruct, enhance or develop both the ability and the willingness of the national legal system to effectively account for international crimes that lie beyond the reach of the Court, and assume the success of the ad hoc Tribunals’ Rule 11bis process (adopted as a result of their Completion Strategies) in transferring responsibility to the states concerned offers a model for so doing. However, this first comprehensive comparison of the two processes demonstrates that the institutional imperatives of Rule 11bis process ensured it would have a more beneficial impact on the domestic justice sector than the icc, whose imperatives rely far less on the domestic assumption of the responsibility to prosecute. This article traces how the ad hoc tribunals’ institutional Completion Strategy promotes different incentives to those of the icc’s institutional continuation strategy. While the latter has undermined domestic prosecutions by seeking co-operative relationships with self-referring states under burden-sharing (and indeed congratulates itself on such collaboration), the former has been more successful in catalysing domestic trials by adopting a more competitive, transactional approach to jurisdiction that was modified over time in accordance with the emerging institutional capacities of the states in question.

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

Close to Home

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-242
Author(s):  
Kim Thuy Seelinger
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Local Justice ◽  
Forced Prostitution ◽  
Historical Antecedents

Abstract For decades, the ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court have taken the presumptive spotlight in prosecuting international crimes cases, including those involving conflict-related sexual violence. However, recent progress in prosecuting conflict-related sexual violence in national courts has started to both fulfil and complicate the notion of ‘complementarity’ between these two arenas of international criminal justice. This article presents the historical antecedents and current diversity of national courts addressing conflict-related sexual violence. It first casts back to the 1940s, to the little-known efforts of the United War Crimes Commission that guided national authorities in their prosecution of wartime atrocities including rape and forced prostitution. It then focuses on three kinds of national courts addressing conflict-related sexual violence today: military tribunals, hybrid tribunals and ‘purely domestic’ specialized chambers, highlighting key case studies and different ways these courts have engaged international actors. In conclusion, the article confirms the growing importance and diversity of national courts in the prosecution of conflict-related sexual violence, identifying ways the international community can better support survivors’ access to this more local justice.

Cosmopolitan Pluralist Hybrid Tribunals

2020 ◽  
pp. 594-625
Author(s):  
Elena Baylis
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Core Features

This chapter assesses hybrid tribunals as an example of cosmopolitan pluralist engagement. Hybrid tribunals, also known as internationalized criminal tribunals or hybrid courts, are ad hoc courts that incorporate a blend of international and national components and have jurisdiction over atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These tribunals are expected to achieve their transitional justice and rule of law goals in no small part through the mechanism of pluralist engagement among multiple international and national legal communities. This chapter reviews the evolution of hybrid courts’ original core features of mixed staffing, mixed law, domestic location, and close relationship to the national legal system, including the emergence of new elements such as victim participation and domestic outreach. It evaluates their efforts to promote the goals of domestic perceived legitimacy, capacity building, and norm penetration, assesses the inclusivity of their design processes, and considers their influence on norm fragmentation in international criminal law. Overall, as institutions, some hybrid tribunals offer substantial opportunities for cosmopolitan pluralist engagement between international and local actors, while others are significantly constrained by institutional design or operational choices.

The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the otp’s Performance

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alette Smeulers ◽  
Maartje Weerdesteijn ◽  
Barbora Hola
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Explorative Study ◽  
Selection Policy ◽  
Selection Of

The main aim of the International Criminal Court (icc) is to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. One of the most valued features of the icc is the independent position of the Prosecutor in selecting situations and cases to investigate. The Prosecutor, however, has been heavily criticized for his selection policy and countries from the African Union even threatened to withdraw from the icc because of its alleged bias and unfair focus on African political leaders. In this article we present the results of our explorative study in which we empirically evaluate the situations selection policy of the icc Prosecutor. We conclude that given the icc’s limited jurisdictional reach, the Prosecutor is generally focusing on the gravest situations where international crimes are supposedly committed.

New Mechanisms for the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Book V International Disputes and Courts, 26 Prosecutions: The International Criminal Court and other Tribunals

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilmshurst Elizabeth
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up

This chapter concerns the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as well as other courts with international elements. It begins with a discussion of the ICC, and then addresses more briefly the residual mechanism set up to deal with the remaining work of the two ad hoc Tribunals and finally, even more briefly, other courts with international elements. The ICC in particular was borne out of the success of the ad hoc Tribunals, although other courts with international elements have since been created. All these courts and tribunals share the characteristic that they have jurisdiction over individuals, not States, and their purpose is to investigate and prosecute for various international crimes. Of these courts and tribunals, the ICC is the only one with a substantial continuing caseload and is the only permanent international criminal court.

scholarly journals Philosophy of Law and International Criminal Law: Between Peace and Morality

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 738-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Bongiovanni ◽  
Giovanni Sartor ◽  
Chiara Valentini
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Foundation ◽  
Hans Kelsen ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Second World

The legal philosophy of the 20th century has contributed to the development of international criminal law by rethinking fundamental legal concepts and theories concerning the nature of international law, its relation with national laws, the connection between the law and the State, and the very idea of responsibility. This was achieved, in the first place, through the reflection of Hans Kelsen, who put forward the idea of a system of enforceable criminal norms at the international level, directed at individuals and having a positive legal foundation. In the years immediately following the Second World War, a number of legal theorists and, in particular, Gustav Radbruch, argued in favour of a necessary connection between law and morality, on whose basis it could be claimed that the worst atrocities were punishable even when allowed by state norms, and even in the absence of positive international norms. In the last decade, the practice of international criminal law, through ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court, has stimulated theoretical reflections on a variety of further fundamental issues, like impartiality, judicial truth, justification of punishment, side-effects of prosecution and transitional justice.

Victims and the International Criminal Court: Three major issues

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Garkawe
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Protective Measure ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractThe Statute of the permanent International Criminal Court (the "ICC") agreed to in Rome in 1998 contains many provisions that deal with the specific concerns and rights of victims and survivors of the international crimes that the ICC will have jurisdiction over. It consolidates the work of the two ad hoc international criminal Tribunals (the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda) in this area, but also further enhances the role and rights of victims in a number of innovative ways. These three international criminal Tribunals thus collectively represent an important step forward in the recognition of the suffering and the position of victims and survivors of international crimes. This article will examine three main issues in relation to victims and the ICC. First, after identifying the protective measures for victims allowed at the discretion of the international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, it will focus on the most controversial measure (which the ICC can also order) - the non-disclosure to the defence of the identity of witnesses. Does this protective measure violate a defendant's right to a fair trial? The Statute of the ICC also allows, for the first time in international criminal justice, for the right of victims to obtain their own legal representation, subject to the discretion of the ICC. The second issue is how is this going to work in practice in light of the fact that international crimes normally involve hundreds, if not thousands or even tens of thousands, of victims? And finally, while the ICC Statute provides for the possibility of reparations to victims, where will the money come from, and thus what are the chances of victims actually being able to receive compensation?

scholarly journals Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al. (Special Trib. Leb.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-91
Author(s):  
Michael Lysander Fremuth
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Character

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 constitutes a landmark in the development of International Criminal Law (ICL), which gained its first momentum after World War II through the foundation of International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. ICL is, however, not confined to these most prominent courts or their statutes providing for definitions of international crimes under their respective jurisdiction; rather, ad hoc international, or internationalized and hybrid special tribunals and criminal chambers also contribute to the development and shape of ICL and reflect its diverse legal and institutional basis. Perceived as another tribunal of “international character,” on August 18, 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) pronounced its judgment on the merits in the Ayyash case. The long-awaited verdict raises the question of the Tribunal's contribution to the further evolution of ICL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document