Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Barbora Holá
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Disciplinary Field ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

This chapter introduces the field of perpetrator studies, the topic of perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes, and provides short summaries of all the remaining chapters. It first describes perpetrator studies as a newly emerging, inter-, and multi-disciplinary field of scholarly interest focusing on perpetrators of mass atrocities, in which we include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and terrorism. Secondly, it demarcates the scope of the book and discusses the subject of perpetrator studies—the perpetrator. Perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes as a category is contested and complex. We deliberately use it in a broad sense to include all individuals that are involved in one way or another in the perpetration of mass atrocities. Lastly, it explains the focus on theories, methods, and evidence, and briefly introduces all the book’s chapters.

Part VI Impact, ‘Legacy’, and Lessons Learned, 47 The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grono Nick ◽  
Wheeler Anna de Courcy
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

This Chapter examines in which circumstances, and under what conditions, the prospect of prosecution by the ICC may act to curtail the actions of government or rebel leaders by shifting the strategic calculus in favour of avoiding war crimes or crimes against humanity. It studies ICC engagement and its impact in Uganda, the DRC, Colombia, Sudan, Kenya, and Mali. It argues that success or failure of ICC deterrence rests to a large degree on its ability to pursue successful prosecutions. It concludes that potential to deter future atrocity crimes may not exist in all cases, and probably not in the midst of armed conflict, but could exist in those situations where the commission of crimes is one of a series of policy options available to a leader facing a challenge to his or her authority.

The Myanmar-Rohingya Crisis, Civilian Protection, and the Dilemma of the Responsibility to Protect Norm Institutionalization

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-74
Author(s):  
Nicholas Idris Erameh ◽  
Victor Ojakorotu
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
To Come

Existing studies on the Myanmar-Rohingyan crisis have explored the contending issues from a narrow perspective. This underscores the need for broader engagement by interrogating the veracity of the claims of mass atrocities against the Rohingyans, nonauthorization of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and implications for consolidating and internalizing the RtoP norm. This study argues that, while the acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against the Rohingyans satisfies four of the crimes upon which RtoP can be authorized, its nonauthorization suggests that in spite of its commitment to “Never Again,” the international community is yet to come to terms with issues bordering on mass atrocity and civilian protection. This inaction amidst widespread atrocities against the Rohingyans explains why the RtoP is not only contested, but also risks the chances of further nonutilization and institutionalization. Thus, the possibility that the RtoP would remain valuable depends on how the international criminal court and the global community prosecute those culpable of atrocities against the Rohingyans, adopt a clear rule of establishing when mass atrocity has been perpetuated and demand RtoP intervention, and ensure that these interventions are guided by the principle of Jus in Bellum and Jus ad Bello.

Notes for the Next un Secretary-General

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Crisis Response ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Single Issue ◽  
Existential Crisis ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

The United Nations faces an existential crisis. The norms that bind and ‘safeguard humanity’ are currently under threat. The deliberate bombing of hospitals and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has become almost routine in Syria and several other conflicts. Numerous governments and murderous non-state actors (like isis or Boko Haram) are defying international humanitarian and human rights law. This article argues that the solution to the current global exigency and a central challenge facing the next Secretary-General is to achieve an equilibrium shift away from crisis response and towards conflict prevention. This is especially true with regard to preventing mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing). Historically, no single issue has done more to tarnish the reputation of the un than the failure to halt atrocities. Under a committed Secretary-General, the un has unique capacity to prevent these crimes.

scholarly journals Relativising Atrocity Crimes: The Message of Unconditional Early Release of Perpetrators Convicted by the ICTY (1998 – 2018)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Priyamvada Yarnell
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Moral Condemnation ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Abstract Despite being found guilty of egregious acts, crimes against humanity and war crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (icty) were granted unconditional early release (uer). This article argues that uer did a disservice to two principal expressive purposes of punishment - moral condemnation of the crimes and the overall norm projected by the icty, the ‘universal repugnance of group-based killing’. Fundamentally, punishment of perpetrators signifies the inherent worth of victims. Interviews with key stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina revealed that the interviewees largely concurred with authors who posit that punitive justice conveys valuable messages to audiences. This article complements expressivist theories by demonstrating the extent to which expressivism was negated as perpetrators were granted uer. Finally, it proposes how early release in future tribunals and courts might be tailored to counter the negation of international criminal justice’s expressive value.

The African Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwesi Aning ◽  
Frank Okyere
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
African Union ◽  
Limited Capacity ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Concrete Action ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Made In ◽  
Hybrid Forms

The African Union has been acclaimed for its effort in adopting policies that seek to protect civilian populations from mass atrocity crimes. It has transited from the principle of non-interference to non-indifference through the adoption of Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of 2000, which enjoins it to intervene in respect of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Article 4(h) and the responsibility to protect share striking commonalities—both are rooted in the notion of sovereignty as responsibility. However, limited progress has been made in translating these normative principles into concrete action. This chapter notes the lingering issues of sovereignty and limited capacity for enforcement, as well as the state-centric approach to prevention without regard for local sources of resilience. Effective implementation of R2P should address the challenges of cooperation between the AU and other organs, and consider hybrid forms of prevention which exist in many African states.

From the Sentimental Story of the State to the Verbrecherstaat, Or, the Rise of the Atrocity Paradigm

2019 ◽  
pp. 54-71
Author(s):  
Lawrence Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The State ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Effects Of Violence

By the terms of the ‘sentimental story of the state’ fashioned by thinkers such as Hobbes, the state represented the greatest bulwark against the disordering effects of violence, and obedience to the law represented the supreme virtue of the pacified citizenry. Nazi Germany fundamentally upset the sentimental story; in the parlance of Karl Jaspers, Nazi Germany was a Verbrecherstaat, a criminal state. The Nuremberg trial treated aggression as the paradigmatic crime of the criminal state; subsequent developments in international criminal law view acts of atrocity—crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes—as the paradigmatic state crimes. In this chapter, it is argued that this shift—from treating aggression to treating acts of atrocity as the paradigmatic state-sponsored crimes—has unsettled basic legal categories, such as the criminal/enemy dyad and the distinction between policing and war-making. The unsettling of these categories leaves, the chapter argues, international criminal law in a vexed state.

The ICC's Potential for Doing Bad When Pursuing Good

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Schiff
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Republic Of Congo ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks to end impunity for the atrocity crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, eventually, crimes of aggression. My contribution to this discussion takes a consequentialist view to outline ethical hazards confronting the court. Since the ICC has only recently begun to operate, with its first suspect, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of Congo, arriving in The Hague in 2006 and his trial completed only in the fall of 2011 (and awaiting a verdict in 2012), it is too early to reach a general appraisal of the court's effects.

scholarly journals Is a European Practice of Mass Atrocity Prevention Emerging? The European Union, Responsibility to Protect and the 2011 Libya Crisis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 44-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara De Franco ◽  
Annemarie Peen Rodt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Task Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

Observers have classified the European Union (EU) as reluctant in its implementation of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) (Task Force on the EU Prevention of Mass Atrocities, 2013). This contribution revisits that argument by employing a more nuanced interpretation of norm implementation than the binary conceptualisation typically applied. By appraising EU reactions to the 2011 Libyan crisis, we investigate whether a “European practice of mass atrocity prevention” is emerging and if so how this relates—or not—to R2P. We do this by investigating EU practices seeking to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity—paying particular attention to the three pillars and four policy areas included in the R2P framework (ICISS, 2001). Our review of EU responses to Libya seeks to unveil whether and if so how EU practice related to mass atrocity prevention in that country rejected, adopted or indeed adapted R2P. The enquiry appraises both how R2P mattered to the EU response and how the Libya crisis affected the Union’s approach to mass atrocity prevention and within it R2P. In this way, the study asks how norms can change practice, but also how practice can change norms. As such, our focus is on the inter-relationship between principles and practices of protection.

scholarly journals The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Colette Rausch
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Protection Pillar

The doctrine of “responsibility to protect” obliges all states to protect populations from “atrocity crimes”—namely, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing—under three “pillars” of protection. Pillar One requires a state to protect its own population from atrocity crimes. Pillar Two obliges the international community to help states to exercise this responsibility through diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means. When both of these approaches fail, states must pursue a “Pillar Three” strategy: the UN Security Council must “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document