Is the ICC Focusing Too Much on Non-State Actors?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Real Issue ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Law And Justice

One of the most significant contributions of Bill Schabas to the study of international criminal law is his critique of the tendency of contemporary international criminal justice to focus on individuals associated with non-state actors as opposed to states. This chapter seeks to first evaluate it as an empirical claim to assess the degree to which the International Criminal Court (ICC) has, if at all, disproportionately focused on non-state actors, beyond the well-known case of state self-referrals. It then addresses the normative case against such an evolution. The real issue is jurisdictional and a matter of prosecutorial policy rather than the substantive one of whether non-state groups can commit international crimes. The conclusion envisages what it is that is common between states and certain armed groups that ought to give a particular character of gravity to their acts and recommend them for special attention from international criminal law and justice.

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.

24. International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commissions

This chapter examines the material and mental aspects of four offences that are directly criminalized by international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The discussions also cover some of the general principles of liability and defences that are of particular relevance to international crimes. Firstly, joint criminal enterprise, co-perpetration, command responsibility, and the defence of obedience to superior orders are considered. The chapter then looks at international and national prosecution of international crimes, including the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court. As prosecution is not the only, or predominant, response to international crimes, the chapter concludes with a discussion of alternatives and complements to prosecution, such as amnesties, and truth and reconciliation commissions.

scholarly journals I. THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: BACKING INTO THE FUTURE?

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

As a precursor to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2001, the respective Parliaments in the UK adopted two Acts to implement the obligations that treaty imposed on the UK, and to implement the international crimes, as defined in that treaty, into the law of the UK. When the International Criminal Court Act (ICC Act) was being debated in 2001, Baroness Scotland, speaking for the Government, explained that part of the raison d'etre of the Act was that the UK ought not to be seen as a safe haven for international criminals. However, in line with article 11 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of UK courts over such offences, insofar as they were not already covered by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969 (the latter of which was repealed by the ICC Act) only applied prospectively.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

International criminal law and the role of non-state actors in preserving open source evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-283
Author(s):  
Róisín A Costello
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
National Level ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Actor ◽  
State Actors

This article analyses the current duties of non-state actors, specifically digital platform providers, to preserve and report content useful in the later prosecution of international criminal offences. The article illustrates the shortcomings of current legal mechanisms both at an international and national level by which such duties to preserve and/or report are imposed and proposes solutions which countenance a more developed role for the International Criminal Court in collecting and preserving open source evidence independent of non-state actor cooperation.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

scholarly journals Office of the Prosecutor: Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1131-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
National Level ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Policy Paper ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Main Challenge

Given the high number of international crimes, it is practically impossible to prosecute all potential perpetrators at the international level. Impunity gaps at the national level aggravate this situation since they practically turn the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the lone or at least most visible enforcer of international criminal law (ICL). Thus, the Court suffers from a situation and case overload that manifests itself at the level of preliminary examinations conducted by its Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) which, in turn, suffers from “overall basic size and capacity constraints.” This situation leaves the Court/the OTP no other choice than to deliver mere distributive (instead of retributive) criminal justice, where the main challenge is not so much the fair or just delivery of sanctions to individual defendants, but the fair distribution of justice to a selected number of suspects/perpetrators. Against this background the rational and transparent selection and prioritization of situations and cases turns out to be of utmost importance for the success and legitimacy of the Court.

Redrawing the Line? Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community beyond the Rome Statute

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 129-183
Author(s):  
SARA WHARTON
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Inductive Approach

AbstractInternational criminal law, like all areas of law, must continue to evolve to reflect contemporary realities. This article demonstrates that the current subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute is very much an artefact of history, and it argues that the historical and reactive line that the statute draws between “core” international crimes and other serious international or transnational crimes is inadequate. In order to ensure that international criminal law continues to evolve in a reasoned and principled manner, states need to better articulate the criteria by which conduct is included within the category of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” Using a primarily inductive approach, the article considers a number of such criteria that have been considered over the years. It concludes that, when assessed in the context of their systematic and organized perpetration, many other serious international and transnational crimes raise some of the same concerns that underpin the current core international crimes, suggesting that it may be time for the international community to consider redrawing the line.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document