A Menu of Models

2020 ◽  
pp. 211-264
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Political Transition ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Given the limited availability of the International Criminal Court (ICC) when it comes to the crimes being committed in Syria, chapter 6 presents an array of legal theories and practical modalities for exercising international jurisdiction that do not involve the ICC or the U.N. Security Council, including a number of innovative paradigms for creating a dedicated ad hoc international tribunal. These options include the potential for a subset of states to pool their respective jurisdictional competencies to create a tribunal reminiscent of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Other available models include additional action at the U.N. General Assembly; a regional tribunal within the League of Arab States; a tribunal created by way of an international agreement among interested states; trials before specialized chambers in liberated areas within Syria or within neighboring states with varying degrees of international involvement; or the building of a shell of a special chamber that could be eventually inserted into the Syrian judicial system post-transition. Any of these models could incorporate various elements of hybridity. The chapter argues that many of these models offer a better option for the situation in Syria than the ICC given the extent and nature of the international crimes being committed (war crimes in a largely non-international armed conflict) and limitations within the ICC’s subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The chapter closes with a pragmatic discussion of steps that the international community could have taken to lay the groundwork for any of the models discussed, even prior to the end of the conflict or a political transition in Syria.

s.II Spaces, Ch.6 Legitimacy in War and Punishment: The Security Council and the ICC

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dannenbaum Tom
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Core Function ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
And Function

UN Security Council referrals are a legally sufficient basis for International Criminal Court (ICC) action under the Rome Statute and the United Nations (UN) Charter. However, the fact that each permanent member of the Security Council can veto any such referral and that three of those states have declined to ratify the Statute poses a legitimacy problem for the Court. Specifically, it undermines the Court’s moral standing to judge and thus its capacity to deliver on its core function. Because of both the structure and function of the Court, the privileged position of the Council’s permanent members is more undermining of ICC legitimacy than it is of Council-authorized military action in response to atrocity, and even than it was of the ad hoc tribunals created by the Council. One way to remedy this situation would be to vest the ICC with universal jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Court’s legitimacy would be enhanced if Security Council referrals were removed from the Statute. Those, however, are unlikely amendments. More modestly, the Prosecutor should decline all Security Council referrals under the ‘interests of justice’ test.

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.

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 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 960-965
Author(s):  
Scott A. Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Investigative Team

On September 21, 2017, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2379 mandating the establishment of an Investigative Team to collect and preserve evidence for use in national courts of international crimes carried out by the terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Resolution 2379 marks a growing trend in the United Nations’ establishment of investigative mechanisms to support the domestic prosecution of international crimes, in lieu of referrals to the International Criminal Court or creation of ad hoc international or hybrid tribunals.

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.

The Security Council and International Crimes in Syria

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-120
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Reform Effort ◽  
Discursive Practices ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
The Way

Chapter 3 revisits some of the conflict history through the lens of (in)action at the U.N. Security Council, whose discursive practices, pronouncements, operational initiatives, and vetoed resolutions offer a distinctive window into the trajectory of the conflict and the international community’s meager and ineffectual reaction to the atrocities underway. This chapter traces these malfunctions on a number of fronts alongside the few areas of progress. The areas of concern include condemnations of human rights violations and abuses; attempts to impose ceasefires and expand humanitarian access; the use of force and the Responsibility to Protect; inspiring the parties to pursue a political transition; the international community’s preoccupation with counterterrorism and countering violent extremism measures; neutralizing Syria’s chemical weapons; futile efforts to impose U.N. sanctions; and—most relevant to this volume—attempts to promote accountability, including a French-led effort to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. Along the way, the chapter assembles the vetoes deployed by the P-5 during the Syrian conflict and captures the deteriorating dynamics within the Council chamber. The paralysis in the Council sets the scene for the chapters that follow, which recount efforts to promote accountability elsewhere. The chapter concludes with a short discussion of the way in which the Syrian conflict has further stimulated the Security Council reform effort.

سلطات مجلس الأمن تجاه المحكمة الدولية الجنائية

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abd Alghafoor Saleh Mohammed ◽  
Yahya Salih Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Political Group ◽  
The Relationship

The Security Council is one of the main organs of the United Nations, and according to its convention, this organ has been authorized with many main tasks, so as to maintain peace and international security, out of which the establishment of International Private Courts or what is called Temporary Courts to prosecute those accused of committing international crimes. With the absence of international judiciary at that time, and after the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the relationship between the two was under consideration, especially with regard to the role of the Security Council and its authority in the referral of international crimes to the Criminal Courts and the extent to which this condition is mandatory, where a lot of discussion were held among the delegations participating in the Rome Conference that established the International Criminal Courts system in 1998, in supporting the inclusion of the role of a political organ represented by the Security Council in the procedures of an international judicial organ represented by the International Criminal Court, where the court is supposed to be independent in doing its judicial function away from politicization. The study aims to clarify the relationship between these two organs and the extent of the obligation to refer crimes by the Security Counsel to the International Criminal Court. The methodology used in this research are descriptive analysis to extrapolate the texts and legal materials related to the subject of the research, and analyse all that in order to reach results of the research. The results of the study showed that the Security Council - based on chapter VII of the convention- consists of many deterrent sanctions, starting with economic sanctions and ending with military deterrence. Although, the separation between them achieves the independence of the international judiciary and ensures that no foreign political group interferes or controls the court, which is intended to be independent and free to ensure the application of the international law.

Part 12 Financing: Financement, Art.115 Funds of the Court and of the Assembly of States Parties/Ressources financières de la cour et de l’assemblée des états parties

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter comments on Article 115 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 115, in a sense, completes article 114, confirming that the funds of the Court are derived from the States Parties. Specifically, it states that the expenses of the Court and the Assembly of States Parties, including its Bureau and subsidiary bodies, as provided for in the budget decided by the Assembly of States Parties, shall be provided the following sources: assessed contributions made by States Parties; and funds provided by the United Nations, subject to the approval of the General Assembly, in particular in relation to the expenses incurred due to referrals by the Security Council.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document