Arcs of Global Justice

Invoking famous words by Martin Luther King Jr.–‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice’–this volume analyses developments respecting global justice in the decades since the end of World War II. Presented are dozens of essays by eminent scholars, each contributed in recognition of the collection’s honouree, Professor William A. Schabas. Schabas’s work has spanned many topics in international law and has placed him in multiple roles in international courts and organizations. Accordingly, this volume discusses institutions including the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Criminal Court, and instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Fits and starts in global justice are examined with regard to many phenomena: peace and war, international crimes, culture, death penalty, environmental degradation, and not least, education and scholarship.

Author(s):  
Diane Marie Amann ◽  
Margaret M. deGuzman

In this foreword, the volume's co-editors recall the claim of Martin Luther King Jr. that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice’. The foreword summarises this collection's essays by eminent scholars, each contributed in recognition of honouree William A. Schabas. The collection analyses developments respecting global justice in the decades since the end of World War II. The volume discusses institutions such as the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, and instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It examines fits and starts in global justice with regard to many phenomena: peace and war, international crimes, culture, death penalty, environmental degradation, and not least, education and scholarship.


Author(s):  
Joachim J. Savelsberg ◽  
Suzy McElrath

Structural and cultural changes in the modernization process, combined with contingent historical events, gave rise to a human rights regime. It is codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated after World War II and the Holocaust. Yet, only the gravest of human rights violations have been criminalized. First steps were taken beginning in the 19th century with The Hague and Geneva Conventions, constituting the Laws of Armed Conflict. They were followed by the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and eventually the Rome Statute (1998) on which the first permanent International Criminal Court is based. Some scholars even observe a justice cascade. Enforcement of the norms entailed in the above legal documents benefits from opportunities such as increases in international interdependencies, the buildup of international organizations, and the proliferation of nongovernmental organizations in the human rights realm. Challenges arise from partially competing principles such as conflict settlement and survival of suffering populations as cultivated by social fields such as humanitarianism and diplomacy and from a lack of law enforcement. While international institutions play a crucial role, much international law is implemented through domestic courts. International penal law pertaining to human rights has affected domestic policymaking in the human rights realm but also nation-level policies pertaining to the punishment of common crimes. Finally, debates continue to rage regarding the effects of the criminalization of grave human rights violations. Proponents have thus far focused on potential deterrent effects, but a new line of thought has begun to take cultural effects seriously. Its representatives identify a redefinition of those responsible for mass violence as criminal perpetrators and substantial representational power of international criminal law against those who bear responsibility for the gravest of human rights violations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 715-730
Author(s):  
Alessandra Gianelli

Abstract Almost 30 years after acceding to the Convention against Torture, in 2017 Italy introduced the crime of torture into its penal code. There was great debate as to whether the new provisions were in line with the country’s international obligations. The first interpretations of these rules by the highest criminal court draw heavily on international notions, in particular on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The result is that, while the wording of the provisions remains questionable, their application tends to be consistent with (at least some) international rules.


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-531
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt

This article traces the development of the foreseeability test in the context of the nullum crimen principle. While the European Court of Human Rights has introduced the ‘accessibility and foreseeability’ criteria long ago in the Sunday Times case, the Court has only recently started to apply this standard with respect to international crimes. In the Kononov case, judges of the European Court of Human Rights exhibited strongly divergent opinions on the question whether the punishment of alleged war crimes that had been committed in 1944 violated the nullum crimen principle. According to this author, the dissension of the judges demonstrates the lack of objective foreseeability, which should have served as a starting point for the assessment of the subjective foreseeability and a – potentially exculpating – mistake of law of the perpetrator. The Court should therefore have concluded that the nullum crimen principle had been violated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 26-33
Author(s):  
Khrystyna YAMELSKA

The paper reveals the legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "treatment or punishment that degrades human dignity". A distinction between these concepts is made on the examples of court decisions of European courts, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The genesis of the origin of the above concepts is investigated through a prism of the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The paper reveals the absolute nature of the "jus cogens" norm of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author proposes to modernize the Ukrainian criminal legislation on the reception of the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the delimitation of these concepts. In contrast to the European convention regulation of ill-treatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the author notes that the Ukrainian legislation regulates this issue quite succinctly. The Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides a definition only of torture, which in essence coincides with the definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the position of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper notes that the practice of Ukrainian courts shows that a distinction (similar to that provided by the European Court of Human Rights) is not implemented.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-319
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

Although EU states use the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the purpose of surrendering a person who is accused of committing an offence or who has been convicted of an offence, they use extradition when dealing with countries outside the EU. However, they use surrender when dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Thus, extradition is one of the ways in which African and European countries (especially EU members) are cooperating in the fight against crime. Case law from courts in some African and European countries and from the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, shows that extraditions between African and European countries have been delayed or hampered by allegations of human rights violations in the requesting state. These allegations have focused on mainly two rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from torture. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the extradition of a person should not go ahead if his or her trial was or will amount to a flagrant denial of justice or where there is a real risk of being subjected to torture. Although African courts and international human rights bodies have also held that extradition should not go ahead where there is a real risk that the person will be subjected to torture or where his/her trial will be unfair, they have not adopted the ‘flagrant denial of justice’ test. The case law also shows that some people have challenged the legal basis for their extradition. This article highlights this case law and suggests ways in which some of the challenges associated with extradition could be overcome. The article demonstrates that courts in some African and European countries have considered the nature of extradition enquiries. In some countries, such as Kenya, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings of a special type. There is consensus that extradition enquiries are not civil proceedings.


Author(s):  
Ian Loveland

This chapter presents an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights, an International treaty originating in the reconstruction of Europe’s political order following World War II. The chapter is organised as follows. Section I discusses the main procedural and substantive features of the Convention itself, whilst Section II assesses its status and use in English law up until (approximately) the early-1990s. Sections III and IV examine the leading judgments of the European Court on Human Rights in the areas of privacy and freedom of expression.


Author(s):  
Darryl Robinson

SummaryIn the last decade, the human rights accountability movement has made remarkable inroads into the classical law of immunities. The developments strike a new equilibrium between the need to promote accountability and the need to protect international discourse. These developments form a coherent picture if one looks to the underlying rationales of these areas of law. Immunities ratione materiae, enjoyed by current and former officials, protect official functions on behalf of a state. The landmark Pinochet decision affirmed that official functions could not include the commission of international crimes condemned by international law. Conversely, immunity ratione personae flows from a different rationale. This form of immunity protects only certain high officials representing their state and only during office and facilitates official visits by precluding arrest on any grounds. The International Court of Justice Yerodia decision and other developments confirm that this immunity remains absolute, irrespective of the conduct alleged. However, even this absolute immunity may be relinquished through Security Council enforcement action or acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document