Domesticating Atrocity Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 50-78
Author(s):  
Mark S. Berlin

This chapter traces the history of efforts to domesticate international atrocity law, which provides initial plausibility for the book’s central argument. The chapter locates the origins of atrocity laws in the decades prior to World War II with a community of influential European criminal law scholars, most of whom were leaders of the International Association of Penal Law (AIDP). Following the war, some of these experts helped draft the first international atrocity law treaties, and the enforcement regimes they designed relied on national enforcement through domestic legislation. Four phases of atrocity law adoption then followed. In the first phase (1945–1957), the adoption of atrocity laws was driven mostly by principled norm entrepreneurs who were actively committed to the advancement of an international criminal law regime. In the second phase (1957–1985), professionalization and emulation became central drivers of domestic atrocity criminalization. As national governments all over the world drafted new criminal codes, transnational professional influences conditioned technocratic drafters to see atrocity criminalization as important for a modern criminal code. In the third phase (1985–1998), a new wave of domestic and international attempts to prosecute government officials for past atrocities, coupled with a resurgence of foreign technical legal assistance, helped foster the conditions that made atrocity criminalization salient beyond a specialized community of professional criminal law experts. Finally, in the current phase (1998–present), international civil society groups, inspired by the creation of the International Criminal Court, have undertaken concerted public advocacy efforts to promote the domestication of atrocity law.

Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska

This article deals with the model for prosecuting Nazi crimes committed in Poland in the light of the model presently used in international criminal law. It tries to answer the question: should the investigation of crimes of international law be handed over to transnational tribunals? Should they be hybrid tribunals involving a national factor, or completely supra-national tribunals like the International Criminal Court? Is it legitimate to transfer jurisdiction over these matters to national courts? The case of unpunished Nazi crimes in Poland may give a partial answer to this question. Certainly, various attempts made after World War II, including procedures brought before Polish courts, have contributed to understanding the function of international criminal law, and finding the answer to the question of the best model for prosecuting crimes of international law. At present, we also have the experience of international criminal tribunals, in particular the ICC, which is an efficient machine for prosecuting crimes of international law. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from its functioning that could improve the work of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) prosecutors, and shed new light on the considerations regarding the prosecution of Nazi crimes in Poland after World War II.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Plesch ◽  
Shanti Sattler

Abstract More than 2,000 international criminal trials were conducted at the end of World War II in addition to those held by the International Military Tribunals (IMTs) at Nuremburg and Tokyo. Fifteen national tribunals conducted these trials in conjunction with an international war crimes commission established by these same states in October 1943 under the name, The United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes, that soon became the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). The extensive work of the UNWCC and these tribunals serves as a source of customary international criminal law that relates directly to the current work of the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc tribunals in operation since the 1990s.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-91
Author(s):  
Michael Lysander Fremuth

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 constitutes a landmark in the development of International Criminal Law (ICL), which gained its first momentum after World War II through the foundation of International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. ICL is, however, not confined to these most prominent courts or their statutes providing for definitions of international crimes under their respective jurisdiction; rather, ad hoc international, or internationalized and hybrid special tribunals and criminal chambers also contribute to the development and shape of ICL and reflect its diverse legal and institutional basis. Perceived as another tribunal of “international character,” on August 18, 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) pronounced its judgment on the merits in the Ayyash case. The long-awaited verdict raises the question of the Tribunal's contribution to the further evolution of ICL.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Munivrana Vajda

AbstractAt its 18th session held in September 2009, the Congress of the International Association of Penal Law adopted the Resolution on Universal Jurisdiction (RUJ). For the past decade, universal jurisdiction has been one of the most debated issues in international criminal law, and the RUJ has been expected to shed valuable light on this controversial subject matter. After setting out the rationale and scope of universal jurisdiction, the RUJ regulates its exercise and subjects it to a number of requirements and limitations. The drafters should be commended for their general support of the idea that states can exercise universal jurisdiction over a limited number of international crimes. However, the RUJ does suffer from a number of weaknesses. Whether it will ultimately serve as a point of reference for state legislators and practitioners therefore remains to be seen.


Author(s):  
John Braithwaite

Responsibilities to protect and prevent elite crimes are best energized by enforcement that walks through many doors. Effective deterrence is rarely delivered by the International Criminal Court. Yet deterrence is possible when it patiently cumulates through many doors. Likewise truth, justice, and reconciliation can achieve little through one door and much through many. Opening more doors to the complexly cross-cutting character of survivor guilt with mass atrocities can better open possibilities for future prevention and reconciliation than simply doors to courtrooms that find a criminal on one side of complex sequences of atrocity. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials opened quickly after World War II. They did not prove to hold keys to truth and reconciliation for Germany until the Eichmann trial finished in Jerusalem in 1962. Why? Still today, non-confession by the U.S. to Hiroshima/Nagasaki as war crimes has meant truncated Japanese reconciliation. Different kinds of doors are needed with crimes like the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombing, the rape of Nanjing and the “comfort women” issue. These have included citizens tribunals, truth commissions, and indigenous justice in cases like Bougainville that rejected the truth commission model. When we reflect upon door diversity, transitional justice turns out not to be very focused on justice or international criminal law, and not to be at all transitional, but rather a maze of doors to justice of diverse kinds that open or close across the longue durée (as developed in the work of Susanne Karstedt).1


Author(s):  
Rahma Yanti

Terrorism is one of transnational crime base on international conventions. One of national crime which consists of transnational aspects. Transnational crime convention only manage about how to run cooperation to eliminate national crime which across country borders. Terrorism hasn’t consider as International crime because there’s no unification about its definition. Terrorism still consider as a sensitive issue in each country related with rass, etnis, culture, religion, and geographical aspects. Terrorism law enforcement proses is each country positive law jurisdiction and not as International Criminal Court jurisdiction based on Rome Statuta.Keywords: Crime, Terrorism, International Criminal Law


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document