scholarly journals The Common Core between Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law: A Structural Account

Ratio Juris ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-300
Author(s):  
Alain Zysset
2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Farrell

The prohibition on torture in international human rights law seems a fairly straightforward candidate for productive use in international criminal law. The Convention against Torture contains an elaborate definition of torture and human rights institutions have developed substantial jurisprudence on the prohibition and definition of torture. Indeed, the ad hoc Tribunals and the drafters of the Rome Statute have employed the human rights law approach to torture to varying degrees. But the conception of torture reached by human rights bodies is problematic and unsuitable for usage where individual criminal responsibility is sought. It is unsuitable because the human rights law understanding of torture is subjective and victim-derived. Human rights bodies do not scrutinize intent, purpose and perpetration, central aspects of international criminal legal reasoning. The communication on torture between these bodies of law to date shows that cross-fertilisation, without detailed reasoning, is inappropriate - because rights are different to crimes.


2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 925-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARRYL ROBINSON

AbstractThe general narrative of international criminal law (ICL) declares that the system adheres in an exemplary manner to the fundamental principles of a liberal criminal justice system. Recent scholarship has increasingly questioned the adherence of various ICL doctrines to such principles. This article scrutinizes the discourse of ICL – the assumptions and forms of argumentation that are regarded as sound reasoning with appropriate liberal aims. This article argues that ICL, in drawing on national criminal law and international human rights law, absorbed contradictory assumptions and methods of reasoning. The article explores three modes by which the assumptions of human rights liberalism subtly undermine the criminal law liberalism to which the system aspires. These modes include interpretive approaches, substantive and structural conflation, and ideological assumptions. The identity crisis theory helps to explain how a system that strives to serve as a model for liberal criminal justice systems has come to embrace illiberal doctrines that contradict the system's fundamental principles.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 431-451
Author(s):  
Juan-Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo

Abstract Although the academic literature has examined victim participation at the International Criminal Court (ICC), victim participation during the sentencing stage has remained a virtually unexplored topic. Thus, this article assesses the law and, in particular, the practice of the ICC on victim participation during sentencing in light of domestic/international criminal law and human rights law standards. Victim participation during the ICC sentencing stage, i.e. mainly written observations and sentencing hearing participation, is overall consistent with international and domestic criminal law standards, particularly with certain common law jurisdictions and with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon where the trial and sentencing stages are also divided. Additionally, victim participation during the ICC sentencing stage may arguably be justified under international human rights law, especially human rights case law. Importantly, the ICC has introduced some limitations to victim participation to safeguard the convicted person’s rights and procedural efficiency.


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (04) ◽  
pp. 943-976
Author(s):  
Cóman Kenny ◽  
Yvonne McDermott

AbstractDoes international law govern how States and armed groups treat their own forces? Do serious violations of the laws of war and human rights law that would otherwise constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity fall squarely outside the scope of international criminal law when committed against fellow members of the same armed forces? Orthodoxy considered that such forces were protected only under relevant domestic criminal law and/or human rights law. However, landmark decisions issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) suggest that crimes committed against members of the same armed forces are not automatically excluded from the scope of international criminal law. This article argues that, while there are some anomalies and gaps in the reasoning of both courts, there is a common overarching approach under which crimes by a member of an armed group against a person from the same forces can be prosecuted under international law. Starting from an assessment of the specific situation of the victim, this article conducts an in-depth analysis of the concepts of ‘hors de combat’ and ‘allegiance’ for war crimes and that of the ‘lawful target’ for crimes against humanity, providing an interpretative framework for the future prosecution of such crimes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document