US ICC sanctions are unlikely but spats will come

Subject The United States, the International Criminal Court and international legal investigations. Significance The International Criminal Court (ICC) is being criticised for its paltry conviction record, alleged targeting of particular states and leaders and possibly existential crisis of being unable to prosecute many international criminals. On September 10, US National Security Advisor John Bolton questioned the ICC's legitimacy and applicability, threatening sanctions against its leadership if it pursued investigations against US military personnel for controversial incidents in Afghanistan or against US allies. Impacts African states may push the ICC to refocus away from eastern and southern Africa. Some leaders could use US criticisms of the ICC as cover to violate international human rights. Washington may increasingly seek bilateral protections against ICC involvement in US global activities. The ICC may recalibrate its approach to disputes, seeking other support for its activities.

Author(s):  
Juan-Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo

This chapter argues that female judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have made significant meaningful contributions to the ICC jurisprudence on victim matters. They have interpreted and applied the ICC legal framework on victims, have fleshed out the contours and scope of normative provisions, and have faced substantive and procedural issues on victim-witness protection, victim participation and reparations at the ICC. This chapter uses international human rights as a standard to assess the legitimacy of ICC jurisprudence. The jurisprudence on defence rights has largely sought to strike a balance between defence and victim rights. However, some jurisprudence on victims (partially) construed by female judges prompts questions on whether respect for defence rights or other ICC goals may have been compromised. It is argued that all ICC judges, including female judges, should take distance from excessive pro-victim judicial activism to fully respect defence rights, and avoid victim frustration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24
Author(s):  
Reno Ismadi ◽  
Awatar Bayu Putranto ◽  
Tiffany Setyo Pratiwi

The US military invasion to Afghanistan took place when the War on Terror declared by the United States after the incident in September, 2001 at World Trade Center. One of the military operations in this invasion was called Enduring Freedom. This research will discuss the violations committed by America in the invasion of Afghanistan, particularly during the Enduring Freedom operation, which it was reviewed through Geneva Law and The Rome Statute. The author using literature studies with qualitative methods. The author found that the violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and The Rome Statute Article 8 and 11 were carried out by America during the deliberate Enduring Freedom Operation. The violation was proven but the International Criminal Court (ICC) did nothing.


Author(s):  
A. B. Mezyaev

INTRODUCTION. The practice of modern international criminal courts and tribunals raises serious questions about the proper enforcement of the rights of the accused. Among these rights, the accused's right to compensation is highlighted. Compensation is given to the accused (regardless of the verdict) for violation of his procedural rights and fundamental human rights and compensation to the acquitted person.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The analysis of ensuring the human right to compensation in the event of an unjust sentence is carried out on the basis of international human rights treaties, treaties on the creation of international courts, including appeal to the travaux preparatoires of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the practice of international criminal courts and tribunals, especially the ICC, as well as the International Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The study was conducted using general scientific methods of cognition (in particular, analysis and synthesis), as well as comparative legal, historical legal and formal dogmatic methods. To achieve the corresponding conclusions, various methods of interpretation of the rule of law are used, in particular, grammatical, systematic, teleological, harmonic, etc.RESEARCH RESULTS. In the activities of international criminal courts and tribunals, a violation of the accused’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time is systemic, including due to the absence of any procedural deadlines on the one hand, and the absence of any rules (or their non-application) to restore the rights of the accused and punishment of the party who committed the violation of these rights. This situation poses serious problems of ensuring the rights of specific accused (including justified), but also the development of modern international criminal procedural law and international human rights law.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. National legislation and international human rights instruments provide for the right of an acquitted person to compensation. In international criminal courts, this issue, however, is addressed in different ways. The statutes of international criminal courts ad hoc created by the UN Security Council do not mention the right to compensation for an accused or acquitted person. At the same time, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recognized that the absence of a reference to law in the Statute of the Tribunal does not mean that the persons concerned do not have the corresponding right. At the same time, this recognition did not have practical consequences. The Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes the right to compensation, however, does so to a limited extent. Thus, in international criminal courts and tribunals, the provision of the human right to compensation (primarily compensation to an acquitted person) is performed at a lower level than that established in international human rights treaties.


Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document