Identity and Diversity on the International Bench

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Adjudication

International courts and tribunals hold the power to decide on questions involving sovereignty over territory, grave human rights violations, international crimes, or millions of euros’ worth of economic interests. Judges and arbitrators are the ‘faces’ and arguably the drivers of international adjudication—yet certain groups tend to be overrepresented on international benches, while others remain underrepresented.

Dealing with international crimes in post-war Bosnia: A look through the lens of the affected population

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 553-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Jones ◽  
Stephan Parmentier ◽  
Elmar G.M. Weitekamp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Political Transition ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Local Populations ◽  
The Past ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Post War

Debates about serious human rights violations and international crimes committed in the past appear during times of political transition. New political elites are confronted with fundamental questions of how to seek truth, establish accountability for offenders, provide reparation to victims, promote reconciliation, deal with trauma and build trust. ‘Transitional’ or ‘post-conflict justice’ is most often managed by elites, national and international, while the views and expectations of the local populations are rarely taken into account. Population-based research can yield deep insights into strategies and mechanisms for dealing with the crimes of the past. This paper reports on the major findings of a study in Bosnia and on the factors that may contribute to trust and reconciliation in the country.

scholarly journals The ICC’s Appeals Chamber Judgments in the Jordan Case Regarding Al Bashir and Ntaganda Case: Victories for the Fights against Impunity and Immunity for Serious Crimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-156
Author(s):  
Aghem Hanson Ekori
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The United Nations

The creation of the ICC was a turning point in the fights against impunity for serious international crimes affecting mankind. Accordingly, the ICC does not recognise any form of immunities before its jurisdiction. Consequently, individuals and senior state officials cannot rely on any form of immunities if accused of any of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Jordan case regarding Al Bashir’s immunity, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber held that by ratifying the Rome Statute, states parties have consented to waive the immunity of their officials regarding proceedings before the Court. As a result of this, there is no immunity between the Court and states parties and between states parties themselves, and Sudan was bound by the Statute of the Court based on the United Nations Resolution 1593. In the Ntaganda case, the Court held there is no impunity for serious international crimes before its jurisdiction. This article examines both cases and concludes that while in the Jordan case there is victory for serious international crimes and the fights against human rights violations over immunity before the ICC, there is also victory for serious international crimes over impunity before the Court as seen in the Ntaganda case.

scholarly journals Realising the Right to Health for Victims of International Crimes. The Case of Medical Rehabilitation Reparations Ordered by International Courts: Challenges, Possibilities and Ways of Improvement

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Pérez-León Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Medical Rehabilitation ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
The Right

In the last few decades, international crimes, ie, serious human rights violations, have inflicted severe harm on both the physical and mental health of large numbers of victims around the world. In attempting to redress these damages, international courts, within their respective mandates, have issued reparations orders in favour of victims and their communities. Precisely, an important modality of reparations has consisted of rehabilitation which includes measures of a medical nature for victims. This means physical and psychological rehabilitation including treatment, care and support. At three international level courts, namely, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), International Criminal Court (ICC), and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), important developments in the field of medical rehabilitative reparations have taken place. This article critically analyses the practices on medical rehabilitation reparations at those courts, suggests which steps should be taken to improve those practices and proposes which actions States and other international community actors should adopt to better implement and/or contribute towards the implementation of orders on medical rehabilitation reparations. Attention is also given to international human rights law, particularly the obligation to cooperate and the right to health standards and principles.

Part III The Right to Justice, A General Principles, Principle 19 Duties of States with Regard to the Administration of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambos Kai
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right

Principle 19 outlines the duties of States with regard to the administration of justice for victims of serious human rights violations and other international crimes. Under this Principle, States must ensure that those responsible for serious crimes under international law are prosecuted, tried and adequately punished. A state’s (criminal) justice obligations have long been recognized by regional human rights courts and international human rights bodies. While the fight against impunity is the explicit aim of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a major goal of the United Nations, the duty to prosecute lies primarily with the domestic justice system with regional or international mechanisms being subsidiary or complementary. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 19 before discussing its theoretical framework and how human rights courts and treaty bodies have interpreted the duty of States to investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations.

Prosecuting Israeli Perpetrators of International Crimes under Universal Jurisdiction Laws: Prospects for Success?

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-135
Author(s):  
Salma Karmi-Ayyoub
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Political Opposition ◽  
Viable Option ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Advocacy Strategies

Abstract This article will review criminal cases brought under universal jurisdiction (hereinafter “UJ”) laws against Israeli officials1 accused of committing human rights violations against Palestinians. It will describe the challenges to bringing such cases and suggest that political opposition is the main reason there has yet to be such a prosecution. It will propose that UJ remains a viable option for pursuing accountability for Palestinian human rights violations but will suggest ways in which the chance of success for future cases can be improved arguing, in particular, that cases more likely to succeed are those which focus on lower-level perpetrators, in which perpetrators or victims are nationals of forum jurisdictions and that are better integrated into broader advocacy strategies.

Corporations, international crimes and national courts: a Norwegian view

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (887) ◽  
pp. 1007-1025
Author(s):  
Simon O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Potential Consequence ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Geographical Scope

AbstractFor a number of reasons, questions regarding the accountability of corporations for actions that might be complicit in the commission of international crimes have gained prominence in recent times. Though initiatives regarding what is more broadly described as business and human rights are to be welcomed, this sometimes distracts from existing systems of accountability, especially when those acts, which may be discussed as human rights violations, equally constitute crimes. Whilst not all criminal jurisdictions extend to legal persons, the Norwegian Penal Code does. This article analyses the Norwegian Penal Code's provisions, in light of amendments made to it in 2008 to include international crimes in it, with the effect of extending those crimes to corporations. The article first addresses the personal, material, temporal, and geographical scope of the penal code. It then addresses the potential consequence of the exercise of jurisdiction in light of the only case in recent times in Norway that deals explicitly with a corporation's potential criminal liability for war crimes. The article then addresses three additional issues with respect to provisions on complicity, intent, and defences under the Norwegian Penal Code, before concluding with some reflections on the possible future effects of this legislation and the possibility that it will inspire developments elsewhere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document