Legitimacy, Gravity, and Global Community

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-33
Author(s):  
Margaret M. deGuzman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Global Values

This chapter provides a theoretical framework for the book’s central argument that the concept of gravity should be reconceived as a function of values and goals to promote the legitimacy of international criminal law. It does so by: (1) explaining how the book uses the concept of legitimacy; (2) describing the pervasive goal-independent approach to gravity as a justification for regime decisions, and explaining the proposed reconceptualization; (3) elaborating a theory of international criminal law as both a tool, and constructor, of the global justice community; and (4) suggesting some of the global values and goals that ought to guide regime decisions.

Shocking the Conscience of Humanity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. deGuzman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Global Values

The most commonly cited justification for international criminal law is that it addresses crimes of such gravity that they “shock the conscience of humanity.” From decisions about how to define crimes and when to exercise jurisdiction, to limitations on defenses and sentencing determinations, gravity rhetoric permeates the discourse of international criminal law. Yet the concept of gravity remains highly undertheorized. This book uncovers the consequences for the regime’s legitimacy of its heavy reliance on this poorly understood idea. It argues that gravity’s ambiguity may at times enable a thin consensus to emerge around decisions, such as the creation of an institution or the definition of a crime, but that, increasingly, it undermines efforts to build a strong and resilient global justice community. The book suggests ways to reconceptualize gravity in line with global values and goals to better support the long-term legitimacy of international criminal law.

Contextualising Radhabinod Pal's Dissenting Opinion in Contemporary International Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sumedha CHOUDHURY
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Global Democracy

Abstract Radhabinod Pal, a judge at the Tokyo Tribunal, wrote a dissenting opinion absolving all the accused Japanese of the alleged crimes. In so doing, he advanced several conceptual and theoretical arguments to support his opinion. This paper focuses on the opinion of Pal concerning non-retroactivity of law, global democracy, imperialism, and victor's justice. The paper analyses his opinion in the light of contemporary developments and argues that his criticisms of the international criminal law regime and global justice are still relevant.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 24 Restrictions and Other Measures Relating to Amnesty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siatitsa Ilia Maria ◽  
Wierda Marieke
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Transitions To Democracy ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Right

Principle 24 deals with restrictions and other measures relating to amnesty. It requires that no amnesty should take precedence over the obligation of states to prosecute, try, and punish the perpetrators of serious crimes under international law. Through the impunity principles, the obligation to prosecute becomes intertwined with the prohibition of amnesties. An amnesty has long been considered a valuable tool to end conflicts or to ease transitions to democracy. In reality, however, state practice on amnesties remains inconsistent and the debate on amnesties continues to persist. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 24, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework, focusing on issues arising from the obligation to prosecute, the right to remedy, amnesties in international criminal law, and the right to refuse amnesty. It also examines how amnesties are used by states to end armed conflicts.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 196-202
Author(s):  
Margaret M. deGuzman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Community Values ◽  
Global Institutions

This book has examined the legal and theoretical bases for the often-cited claim that international criminal law addresses crimes of such gravity that they “shock the conscience of humanity.” It has argued that gravity as a justifying rationale is undertheorized and that the lack of consensus about the meaning of gravity undermines the legitimacy of the international criminal law regime. Addressing each of the decision-making contexts in which gravity plays an important role, the book has set forth proposals to operationalize the concept in ways that promise to better promote the regime's legitimacy. The book has suggested that for global institutions such as the international criminal court, gravity should be a function of global community values and goals, in particular, the value of promoting and protecting human dignity. It has advocated an inclusive dialogic process for identifying the particular values and goals associated with human dignity that ought to be given priority in each decision-making context in order to ensure that international criminal law serves as an effective tool of global crime prevention.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Margaret M. deGuzman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Community Values

This book examines the role that the concept of gravity plays in determining the legitimacy of international criminal law. The Introduction sets forth the book’s central arguments that: (1) the international criminal law regime relies heavily on the concept of gravity to justify its existence and many of its decisions; (2) the concept is undertheorized and ambiguous; (3) the regime’s reliance on the concept undermines its legitimacy; (4) gravity should be reconceptualized as a function of the regime’s values and goals; and (5) the regime’s focus should be on global community values and goals, rather than on those of the national communities most directly affected by the crimes it addresses.

scholarly journals CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: GLOBAL JUSTICE AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE

Vniversitas ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Laura Bernal Bermúdez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Common Humanity ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse

The human rights discourse has been justified by the need to move pastthe restrains and impunity that arose from nationalism and citizenshiprights. Although international criminal law has recently been imaginedas the scenario or theatre to reinforce the existence of a ‘political communityof justice’ based on our common humanity, it has not been ableto displace the concept of state sovereignty. This shows how our ‘naturalindifference to others’ is not overcome by the simple use of language,by the subscription of covenants or by the creation of institutions andmechanisms for the adjudication of justice.

Corporations before International Criminal Courts: Implications for the International Criminal Justice Project

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOANNA KYRIAKAKIS
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
African Union ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe debate over whether the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over corporations has persisted over the years, despite the failure of the legal persons proposals at Rome. For its part, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon determined that it has jurisdiction over corporations for the purpose of crimes against the administration of the Tribunal, albeit not for the substantive crimes over which it adjudicates. Most recently, the African Union has adopted a Protocol that, should it come into operation, would create a new international criminal law section of the African Court of Justice and Human and People's Rights with jurisdiction over corporations committing or complicit in serious crimes impacting Africa. In light of the enduring nature of the proposal that international criminal institutions should directly engage with the problem of commercial corporations implicated in atrocity, this article explores the possible implications for the international criminal justice project were its institutions empowered to address corporate defendants and prosecutors emboldened to pursue cases against them. Drawing on the expressive goals of international criminal justice and concepts of sociological legitimacy, as well as insights from Third World Approaches to International Law, the article suggests that corporate prosecutions, where appropriate, may have a redeeming effect upon the esteem in which some constituent audiences hold international criminal law, as a system of global justice. The article's thesis is then qualified by cautionary thoughts on the redemptive potential of corporate prosecutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document