Introductory Note

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
International Tribunals

When the UN Security Council (UNSC) created the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993, and Rwanda (ICTR) in 1994, it had in mind that the Tribunals were ad hoc and should have a brief life, enough only to bring to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in those countries. In 2010, as a part of the Completion Strategy, the UNSC established the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals as a new ad hoc body, with the purpose of making sure that the Tribunals conclude their missions timely and successfully. The ICTR was officially closed on 31 December 2015. The ICTY will finish its work at the end of 2017. In this article is the analysis of the cases decided by the ICTY in 2015, providing the relevant facts of each case, the reasoning and the decision issued.

New Mechanisms for the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Jurisdiction of the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda over crimes against humanity and genocide

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 651-664
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Clear Signal

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) were established on 11 February 1993 and 8 November 1994 respectively by the Security Council to prosecute persons responsible for flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. The aim of the Security Council was to put an end to such violations and to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace, and the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals undoubtedly represents a major step in that direction. Moreover, it sends a clear signal to the perpetrators and to the victims that such conduct will not be tolerated.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

2020 ◽  
pp. 477-482
Author(s):  
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council

The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals was established by the UN Security Council through Resolution 1966 on 22 December 2010. However, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda continued their operations until they completed their mandate. They formally closed on 31 December 2017 and 31 December of 2015, respectively. This Introductory Note refers exclusively to the work formerly carried out by the ICTY.

Foreword by the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 603-604
Author(s):  
Laïty Kama
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Review ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Set Up

The decision to devote an issue of the International Review of the Red Cross to a series of articles on the two ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals set up by the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda reflects the increasing importance of these courts both for the general public and for legal experts.

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.

Commanding Rape: Sexual Violence, Command Responsibility, and the Prosecution of Superiors by the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

1999 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 93-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole LaViolette
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Sexual Assaults ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
Military Command

SummaryEvidence indicates that individuals responsible for mass rapes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were acting on orders from their superiors. The international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda have indicated their intention to prosecute individuals responsible for sexual violence and their superiors. The prosecution of superiors rests on the doctrine of command responsibility — a doctrine Well-established in international criminal law. This article presents the difficulties that arise in applying the doctrine of command responsibility to cases of wartime sexual assaults. Relying on a feminist analysis of international humanitarian law, the author identifies the imbalance that exists between the principle of military necessity and the principle of humanitarianism — an imbalance that makes rape the least condemned and punished of war crimes. In the absence of traditional military command structures, as was the case in Bosnia and Rwanda, a superior is well-placed to deny his authority over those who committed wartime rapes. Despite this challenge, the author asserts that the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in theCelebicicase, developed a realistic approach to the doctrine of command responsibility and reasonably concluded that a camp commander was criminally responsible for rapes committed by his subordinates.

Criminal Proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Pocar
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractThe ad hoc Criminal Tribunals have shown, by their case law, how practically to go about judicial enforcement of international humanitarian law at the international level and have guided the formation of other international and mixed criminal courts. Following the precedent set at the Nuremberg trials, the most important legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals has been the development and effective enforcement of the entire body of international humanitarian law put into place since the end of World War II, which seeks to maintain a proper balance between prosecuting individuals for grave breaches of international humanitarian law and upholding due process norms including protection of the rights of the accused. The path paved by the ad hoc Tribunals is crucial for the future regulation of the behaviour of States and individuals in times of conflict and has triggered increased attention to and enforcement of international humanitarian law in various other jurisdictions, including, in the first place, in the International Criminal Court. These are some of the author's conclusions following an analysis of the challenges faced by the ad hoc Tribunals.

I. Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 947-954
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Colin Warbrick
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Domestic Law

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (the Tribunal) by Resolution 827.1 It “determined” that the widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 827 is a Chapter VII resolution. The Council “decided” that all States shall co-operate fully with the Tribunal and its organs and that they shall “take any measures necessary under their domestic law” to give effect to the resolution and obligations which arose under the Statute of the Tribunal.

Big Fish and Small Fish Debate–An Examination of the Prosecutorial Discretion

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitomi Takemura
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
East Timor ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Small Fish ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Senior Leaders ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Criminals

AbstractIt is widely known that the earlier practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have been criticized for having dealt with comparably minor war criminals. The implications behind such a criticism may be that an ad hoc international or hybrid criminal tribunal should concentrate on those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The first part of this paper will thus focus on the logic of targeting big fish. Then the recent practices of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of East Timor have been addressed in this light. Irrespective of the institutional and practical demands of targeting big fish, the concern remains whether there is a normative demand for targeting only senior leaders of mass atrocities. Therefore, the last part of this paper would like to discuss the big fish versus small fish debate by examining the possibilities of a leadership element in ratione materiae of international criminal tribunals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document