Contemporary International Tribunals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Tribunals

In the course of 2016, international human rights tribunals (ECtHR, IACtHR and ACtHPR) kept on making cross-references to each other’s case-law, as well as to that of other international tribunals. The same has taken place on the part of international criminal tribunals (ICC and ICTFY), at a time of special attention to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals (ICTFY and ICTR). One could have expected the same from the ICJ, as to the case-law of other international tribunals, in its recent decisions in the cases concerning the Obligation of Nuclear Disarmament (2016), keeping in mind the common mission (of realization of justice) of contemporary international tribunals from an essentially humanist outlook.

Contemporary International Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto ◽  
Cançado Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Cross Fertilization

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

Structure, Functions and Initial Achievements of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (mict)

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Soufi ◽  
Sophie Maurice
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Residual Functions ◽  
Completion Process ◽  
Key Features

This article provides a preliminary review of the key features and the achievements of the United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (mict) so far. The article first addresses the completion process of the ad hoc Tribunals that led to the establishment of the mict, before providing a detailed overview of the structure and main functions of this new jurisdiction. The article further includes an analysis of the recent case law of the mict, which will be particularly useful in understanding contemporaneous issues surrounding residual functions of international criminal jurisdictions.

Part 2 Attributing Criminal Responsibility, 8 Superior Responsibility

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Superior Responsibility ◽  
Second World

The concept of superior responsibility has been developed and critically discussed since the Second World War. It owes much of its recent development to the ad hoc tribunals that have relied on the concept to try military and non-military leaders for crimes committed by subordinates. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has drawn from this jurisprudence and developed it further, as evidenced by Article 28 of its Statute. Superior or command responsibility is the primary mechanism through which superiors can be held criminally responsible for failing to prevent or punish crimes committed by subordinates. This chapter describes the present day scope and meaning of command responsibility, which means discussing mainly International Criminal Tribunals for the case law of the Former Yugoslavia, to date the main source of case law on superior responsibility. It discusses superior responsibility through the prism of its nature, which is still ambiguous. This is problematic since it is the nature of the concept that determines its outer limits; limits that have expanded considerably over the years.

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.

International Criminal Tribunals in the Shadow of Strasbourg and Politics of Cross-fertilisation

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-403
Author(s):  
Sergey Vasiliev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Critical View ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human

This article takes a critical view on the debates around the phenomenon of jurisprudential cross-fertilisation between international criminal tribunals and human rights courts, in particular the European Court of Human Rights. Asymmetries of cross-citation and influence along this axis of cross-judicial communication can be explained by distinct judicial styles and uneven mutual relevance, rather than by any sort of hierarchy. However, the discourse surrounding the tribunal-oriented ‘cross-fertilisation’ has a normative pull that introduces an informal hierarchy, which is a means to ensure the tribunals’ conformity with human rights law. However valid its agenda may be, this approach is legally groundless and incompatible with the terms of transjudicial communication and it underestimates the pluralist nature of international human rights, among other discontents. Ultimately, it is also ineffective in serving its main ideological purpose.

Commentary: The Assignment of Defence Counsel Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 957-968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaïl Wladimiroff
Keyword(s):  
Free Choice ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Defence Counsel ◽  
The Right

In light of serious problems with the assignment of counsel to defendants before the ICTR, this article examines the freedom of choice of assigned defence counsel before both ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. International legal instruments guarantee free legal assistance for indigent defendants but do not recognize an unrestricted free choice of such counsel. International case law, however, recognizes that an effective defence can hardly arise from a client-counsel relation that is not based on trust and confidence. Trust and confidence are therefore decisive for a proper understanding of the right to have free legal assistance. Unlike the practice of the ICTY of recognizing the importance of these factors, the Registrar of the ICTR seems to give more weight to geographical distribution of lawyers and other discriminating factors. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dealt with this policy in the Akayesu case and overturned the decision of the Registry to refuse the counsel of the defendant's own choosing.

Provisional Release in International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Doran
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human

AbstractThis article is a review of the jurisprudence on provisional release and an analysis of how such a mechanism operates under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It examines how pretrial release is dealt with in international human rights law while focusing on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It goes on to evaluate the position of the ad hoc tribunals regarding the issue of pre-trial release and seeks to articulate how and why the ad hoc tribunals have moved away from customary international law. It also seeks to evaluate the actual reach of the presumption of innocence in provisional release cases at the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Formen Yugoslavia. Finally, the article considers the recent jurisprudence of the ICC regarding interim release.

Judicial Definition of Torture as a Paradigm of Cross-fertilisation: Combining Harmonisation and Expansion

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Maculan
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Sources ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

This article analyses how the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals have implemented European Court of Human Rights case law with regard to the definition of torture as a paradigm of the phenomenon of cross-fertilisation. Reliance on European jurisprudence has fostered a twofold evolution in the concept of torture. This may be described, on the one hand, in terms of overcoming the fragmented normative framework towards harmonisation of the definition of the offence. On the other hand, it has also caused a significant and somewhat problematic broadening of its scope. In addition, the case study offers some insights as to the method applied by Courts in the selection and interpretation of external sources, as well as to some possible misuses of these references. The judicial interpretation of torture provides therefore some relevant suggestions that could both enhance the potentialities of cross-fertilisation and overcome its dangers.

Why Do Individuals Surrender to the International Criminal Tribunals?

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 926-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
James David Meernik
Keyword(s):  
Expected Utility ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Significant Support

Most observers of the International Criminal Court (icc), as well as the several ad hoc tribunals have argued that one of the greatest challenges facing these institutions is their lack of power to enforce their indictments and apprehend suspects. In view of the justifiable concern with the ability of international courts to secure the detention of suspects, it is rather remarkable that nearly one-third of those indicted by the most successful ad hoc tribunals (icty, ictr, scsl) and the icc have surrendered. I offer a theory of surrender that centres on those factors that tend to minimise the costs of surrender and enhance its benefits to explain this phenomenon. I demonstrate how international tribunals and other actors can manipulate the parameters of this calculation and encourage surrender by individuals whose expected utility for surrender is not minimal, but movable. The analysis provides significant support for the minimisation and benefit enhancement model of surrender.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document