Standing Up for Justice

Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

This book discusses international criminal justice. While many books on this topic have focused on crimes and procedures, this book deals with process and the judicial function, the rule of law and the principle of fairness in trying atrocity crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It studies judicial independence and impartiality in international criminal courts, shedding light on the mystery of judicial decision-making and deliberations. Notably, the book addresses the controversial subjects of acquittals and the early release of prisoners. While acquittals are often seen as a failure of international justice, the book argues that legal principle must come before any extraneous purpose, however desirable that purpose may be. Finally, the book looks at the challenges facing the future of international justice and accountability.

Author(s):  
Jenia Iontcheva Turner

This chapter examines the pluralistic nature of international criminal procedure. International criminal procedure refers to the procedures used at the international criminal courts and tribunals that were established to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other serious offenses. The chapter begins with an overview of the evolution of modern international criminal procedure, first at the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and then at hybrid courts and the International Criminal Court. It then discusses the goals pursued by international criminal procedure, such as: providing a fair trial, establishing the truth, enforcing criminal laws effectively, respecting human rights, and promoting the rule of law. Different views about the proper weight to be placed on each of these goals leads to diverse procedures across and within international criminal courts. The chapter considers two examples of pluralism in international criminal procedure: judicial management of criminal proceedings and involvement of victims in the proceedings. Finally, the chapter offers a normative assessment of pluralism in international criminal procedure. While diversity of procedures can help international criminal courts arrive at solutions that address the unique political and practical challenges of international criminal justice, divergent procedures within the same court raise concerns about predictability and equal treatment.


Author(s):  
V. Popko

The article analyses the development of the concept of international crime in the "Hague" period, which covers the last decades of the last century and is closely related to the establishment of ad hoc international tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The article reveals the legal grounds for the establishment of these tribunals, the features of their activities, jurisdiction and principles of responsibility of persons who committed crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The establishment of international justice bodies by UN Security Council decisions has provoked a number of debates about their legitimacy, but it is undeniable that the activities of ad hoc international tribunals have contributed to the initiation of a new stage in the development of international criminal justice, further development of international criminal law, in particular in the development of the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court. All types of tribunal jurisdictions are disclosed, but special attention is paid to the substantive and personal jurisdictions of tribunals, which became the basis for the theoretical justification of the "Hague" modification of international crime, as well as the practical implementation of this concept in tribunal decisions. It is shown that the categories of international crimes that constitute the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity) and the categories of crimes defined in the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions) in the documents of the tribunals have been developed in comparison with the Nuremberg and post-Nuremberg periods. ~ 74 ~ ВІСНИК Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка ISSN 1728-3817 It is shown that the substantive jurisdiction of the ICTY and the ICC does not coincide with the provisions of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. The differences relate to the list of categories of crimes; parallel jurisdiction of international ad hoc tribunals and national courts; extending the competence of ad hoc tribunals to cases of crimes committed both during wars between states and during internal armed conflict, etc. The content of the categories of crimes, their composition, the subjects of responsibility have been clarified. In particular, the characteristic features of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity are identified; the conditions, elements and subjects for the recognition of their qualifications are indicated. The author pays attention to the principles of personal jurisdiction, shows that in the decisions of international tribunals ad hoc has developed the principle of individual responsibility for international crimes that constitute substantive jurisdiction. The application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the activity of tribunals is revealed. The author concludes that the establishment of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and their activities has contributed to the development of the concept of international crime and the separation of a special "Hague" modification. Keywords: international crime, tribunal, "Hague" modification, international justice, jurisdiction, criminal liability


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 134-135
Author(s):  
Julian Nicholls

Investigation and prosecution at international criminal courts and tribunals of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide often present challenges which are less common in domestic judicial systems. These challenges may include conducting investigations many years after the crimes were committed, in faraway countries, in which much of the testimonial and other evidence is likely in a language not spoken by the majority of the lawyers and investigators on the team.


Author(s):  
Elena Baylis

This chapter assesses hybrid tribunals as an example of cosmopolitan pluralist engagement. Hybrid tribunals, also known as internationalized criminal tribunals or hybrid courts, are ad hoc courts that incorporate a blend of international and national components and have jurisdiction over atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These tribunals are expected to achieve their transitional justice and rule of law goals in no small part through the mechanism of pluralist engagement among multiple international and national legal communities. This chapter reviews the evolution of hybrid courts’ original core features of mixed staffing, mixed law, domestic location, and close relationship to the national legal system, including the emergence of new elements such as victim participation and domestic outreach. It evaluates their efforts to promote the goals of domestic perceived legitimacy, capacity building, and norm penetration, assesses the inclusivity of their design processes, and considers their influence on norm fragmentation in international criminal law. Overall, as institutions, some hybrid tribunals offer substantial opportunities for cosmopolitan pluralist engagement between international and local actors, while others are significantly constrained by institutional design or operational choices.


Author(s):  
Richard Ashby Wilson

Anthropologists have been critical of the global asymmetries of knowledge and power embedded in justice institutions established in the aftermath of violence. Truth commissions and mediation processes may be coopted by states seeking to nation-build and extend their coercive and normative capacity in local communities. International criminal courts may impose an alien version of justice that disrupts national politics and a peace process, and they often misapprehend the causes of mass crimes because they employ a form of legal inquiry that is far removed from local historical contexts. Litigation against companies for complicity in crimes against humanity may raise survivors’ expectations, only to dash them when states refuse to recognize universal jurisdiction. Even when legal recourse is not successful, new social movements focused on accountability, reparations, and legal remedy can emerge that engender new forms of sociality and political subjectivity. Anthropological investigations into transitional justice reveal a complex process in which survivors can recover an emancipatory political agency, and anthropologists testifying as experts often influence outcomes more than anticipated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document