The Principle of Legality at the Crossroads of Human Rights and International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ex Post Facto ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This chapter explores the treatment of the principle of legality in international criminal law, in particular the rule against ex post facto application of criminal laws, as enshrined in human rights law. It demonstrates that a broadly liberal interpretation of nullum crimen has facilitated judicial creativity and the development of international criminal law by international courts and tribunals. The chapter begins with a general discussion of the principle of legality under international law, before turning to a consideration of the treatment of the principle at Nuremberg and the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The final section of the chapter turns to the European Court of Human Rights and examines how it has addressed the rule of non-retroactivity in the context of national prosecutions of international crimes, in particular in Kononov v. Latvia.

Accessibility and Foreseeability in the Application of the Principle of Legality under General International Law: A Time for Revision?

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-674
Author(s):  
Talita de Souza Dias
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Close Analysis ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Check Compliance

ABSTRACT The principle of legality is one of the most fundamental principles of domestic and international criminal law. It features in some of the most prominent human rights instruments, and its application has been scrutinised by various human rights courts and international criminal tribunals. One of the principal tests used to check compliance with that principle measures the accessibility and foreseeability of the criminal law at the time of the conduct. Yet a close analysis of this test reveals a number of fundamental flaws that seem to have escaped the eyes of most commentators and practitioners. These have led to outcomes of dubious legality. In this article, I argue that those problems are serious enough to justify a revision or a substitution of that test for one which is more in line with the rationales and dictates of the legality principle.

scholarly journals Nullum Crimen and International Criminal Law: The Relevance of the Foreseeability Test

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-531
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point

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.

scholarly journals Custom as a Source Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Amit KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The adoption of the Rome Statute is a significant moment for international criminal law. Before its formulation, the criminal law was governed by the sources mentioned in their statute or Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [ICJ Statute]. Custom is one of the important sources within the ICJ Statute. The ad hoc tribunals applied custom and even formulated certain customs. The formulation of custom is considered as against the principle of legality. To avoid such criticism, the State Parties inserted Article 21 in the Rome Statute. The provision clarifies the law which the court can apply. The parties chose not to include custom explicitly. However, the wordings of the provision indicate that the custom is still a source for the court. Apart from the wording of Article 21, other provisions of the Statute give ample scope for the application of custom.

Just How Ill-treated Were You? An Investigation of Cross-fertilisation in the Interpretative Approaches to Torture at the European Court of Human Rights and in International Criminal Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Definition Of

The prohibition on torture in international human rights law seems a fairly straightforward candidate for productive use in international criminal law. The Convention against Torture contains an elaborate definition of torture and human rights institutions have developed substantial jurisprudence on the prohibition and definition of torture. Indeed, the ad hoc Tribunals and the drafters of the Rome Statute have employed the human rights law approach to torture to varying degrees. But the conception of torture reached by human rights bodies is problematic and unsuitable for usage where individual criminal responsibility is sought. It is unsuitable because the human rights law understanding of torture is subjective and victim-derived. Human rights bodies do not scrutinize intent, purpose and perpetration, central aspects of international criminal legal reasoning. The communication on torture between these bodies of law to date shows that cross-fertilisation, without detailed reasoning, is inappropriate - because rights are different to crimes.

scholarly journals State Practice as Element of Customary International Law: A White Knight in International Criminal Law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 784-804
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice

Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.

Preventing the Forcibly Displaced from Returning as Persecution and Inhumane Act under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Elena Katselli Proukaki
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Jurisprudence ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Preventing the forcibly displaced from returning to the territory from which they were unlawfully expelled has not received adequate attention under international criminal law. This article addresses this gap by focusing on denial of return as a crime against humanity. It evaluates international criminal jurisprudence including the proceedings concerning the Rohingya and evolving human rights standards to show that prevention from returning is a serious and continuing denial of fundamental human rights which inflicts great suffering. As such, it may qualify as persecution and/or an inhumane act under the Rome Statute. The ramifications of this on the temporal and territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the principle of legality are important especially in situations of protracted displacement. The article demonstrates that although criminalisation of denial of return is not a panacea, it is instrumental in tackling forced displacement which affects millions across the world.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Early Release in International Criminal Law: The Sui Generis Nature of the Reduction of Sentence Under the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Cristina Fernández-Pacheco Estrada
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Many

Abstract Early release has been regularly granted by the ad hoc tribunals for over 20 years. However, it could be argued that some issues still remain contentious. In fact, in May 2020, the Practice Direction ruling early release in the Mechanism of the International Criminal Tribunals was amended. This was intended to clarify key matters, such as the time needed to be served before early release, the possibility of imposing conditions upon those released, and the unappealable character of the resulting decision. At a glance, it could be argued that the International Criminal Court is better equipped to confront the many challenges posed by early release. This is owing to its detailed regulation, which may consequently lead to a more reasoned and solid case law. After comparatively examining ten features key to the application of early release, however, this paper argues that the ultimate problem lies within the nature generally conferred to early release in the Rome Statute.

Legality, Culpability and Dogmatik: A Dialogue between the ECtHR, Comparative and International Criminal Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 823-860
Author(s):  
Giulio Vanacore
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Constitutive Element

This article aims to analyse a peculiar interplay between the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), comparative and international criminal law. The discussion focuses on legality, foreseeability of the criminal nature of conduct, knowledge of a fact’s wrongfulness and mistakes of law. Starting from foreseeability as a constitutive element of legality in the ECtHR case-law, the author examines ‘knowability’ of a fact’s wrongfulness as a component of the Continental law Dogmatik category of culpability, the issue of ignorance in common law and the general interaction between the principles of legality and culpability. With regard to the International Criminal Court, there is a problematic need to establish a personal mental link between an individual’s actions and the system criminalising such action. In this context, the issue of foreseeability as applied to modes of liability has proven to be problematic. The upshot is this paper’s appeal for a truly international criminal Dogmatik.

scholarly journals The Main Characteristics of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia During its Mandate from 1993 to 2017

SEEU Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-116
Author(s):  
Viona Rashica
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Abstract The tradition of international criminal tribunals which started with the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals was returned with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As a result of the bloody wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the Security Council of the United Nations decided to establish the ICTY as an ad hoc tribunal, that was approved by the resolutions 808 and 827. The main purpose of the paper is to highlight the features of the ICTY during its mandate from 1993 to 2017. For the realization of this research are used qualitative methods, based on the bibliography that is related with international criminal law, with special emphasis with the activities of international criminal tribunals. Furthermore, some data are also collected from the credible internet sources, which have valuable information about the procedures of the ICTY and for the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The results of the study demonstrate that during its mandate, the ICTY was accompanied with a lot of successes which distinguish it from the other international criminal tribunals. At the same time, the ICTY has also a lot of failures, which have come as a result of various political influences within it. The conclusions of this paper aim to increase knowledge about the activity of the ICTY, by offering important information for its establishment and organs, and for its main successes and failures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document