It is all in the Process: Reflections on the Relation between International Criminal Trials and International Humanitarian Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-480
Author(s):  
Frederik Harhoff
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Law System ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Civil Law System ◽  
Real Challenge ◽  
International Criminal Trials

AbstractWhile much attention has been drawn all along to the substantial contribution by the jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunals to the development of international humanitarian law, the criminal legal procedural aspect of the tribunals' jurisprudence has been less prominent. The present article seeks to highlight the material importance of this much neglected aspect of the tribunal's jurisprudence. It illustrates the delicate interplay between the common law system and the civil law system and demonstrates how the latter is better suited to control very complex trials. It also explains why international criminal trials are inherently lengthier than criminal trials in domestic courts. Ultimately, the author argues, it is not sufficient to just agree on the crimes and how to define them; the real challenge lies in how you apply the evidence to these definitions.

Dealing with the Principle of Proportionality in Armed Conflict in Retrospect: The Application of the Principle in International Criminal Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogier Bartels
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
International Criminal Trials

The principle of proportionality is one of the core principles of international humanitarian law. The principle is not easy to apply on the battlefield, but is even harder to apply retrospectively, in the courtroom. This article discusses the challenges in applying the principle during international criminal trials. It discusses the principle itself, followed by an explanation of the general challenges of dealing with violations of international humanitarian law, and more specifically the rules related to the conduct of hostilities, during war crime trials. The way in which the principle has been used before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is examined, including an in-depth discussion of the recentGotovinacase. The second part consists of an evaluation of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and discusses the difficulties the International Criminal Court would face in cases dealing with violations of the principle of proportionality.

Aspects of victim participation in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (870) ◽  
pp. 409-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Baumgartner
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Effective Instrument ◽  
Victim Participation ◽  
International Criminal Trials

AbstractThe participation of victims in criminal proceedings is generally a rather new phenomenon. While there is a certain tradition of victim participation as “partie civile” in the criminal proceedings of some national jurisdictions, it is a novelty in international criminal trials. The drafters of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute chose to design a rather broad victim participation scheme. Although it is hailed as an important and effective instrument for giving victims of gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law a voice, the procedural and substantive details are far from being settled. Some of the most significant issues are discussed in this article, including the question whether and how victim participation may influence sentencing and punishment.

scholarly journals Sham of the Moral Court? Testimony Sold as the Spoils of War

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Findlay ◽  
Sylvia Ngane
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Empirical Truth ◽  
Judicial Determinations ◽  
Truth Finding ◽  
International Criminal Trials

This paper analyses the critical influences on witness-based truth-telling for judicial decision-making in the international criminal tribunals. The judicial fixation on witness testimony reflects the weight and legitimacy given to personal testimony before international courts. This weight must be balanced by the awareness that a witness may provide false testimony intentionally, or may be coaxed by third parties to provide such testimony, as has been evidenced recently before the ICC. If witness testimony is tainted then its capacity to endorse the truth-finding function of the court is compromised. As a consequence the ability to assert that the tribunal is a ‘moral court’ based on empirical truth in such circumstances is jeopardized. The nexus between witness testimony, truth, the morality of judicial determinations, and the legitimacy this affords is explored in what follows. We question whether simple assertions that witness testimony, tested through adversarial examination, produces truth and resultant morality, are all they seem. The analysis also critiques the forensic reality of witness testimony before the international tribunals. Ultimately the paper suggests that while truthful testimony is crucial if international criminal trials are to produce legitimate judicial determinations, the naïve claim to a moral court as a consequence of tested witness testimony is problematic at least and unsustainable at best.

International Humanitarian Law, War Criminality and Child Recruitment: The Special Court for Sierra Leone's Decision in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTHEW HAPPOLD
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Appeal Chamber ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Status ◽  
Insight Into

The recent decision of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman not only addresses the status of child recruitment as a war crime, but also provides an insight into how international criminal tribunals determine what conduct is criminal in international law. However, the authority of the decision is weakened by the unconvincing evidence relied upon by the Appeal Chamber in coming to its conclusions and by a strong dissent from Justice Robertson. The decision's faults, however, merely reflect problems in the process whereby violations of international humanitarian law are criminalized.

International criminal justice: tightening up the rules of the game

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (861) ◽  
pp. 133-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luc Côté
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Rules Of The Game ◽  
Discretionary Powers

Although much has been said and written about the creation of the international criminal tribunals and their contribution to the development of international humanitarian law, there have been very few studies of the international prosecutor per se. In this article the author briefly surveys recent developments in the international criminal justice institutions, focusing particularly on the limits recently imposed on the discretionary powers of international prosecutors.

Assistance, direction and control: Untangling international judicial opinion on individual and State responsibility for war crimes by non-State actors

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Specific Direction ◽  
Significant Disagreement ◽  
State Actors

AbstractDespite the general consistency in the treatment of international humanitarian law by international courts and tribunals, recent decisions have seen significant disagreement regarding the scope of indirect responsibility for individuals and States for the provision of aid or assistance to non-State actors that perpetrate war crimes. The divisions at the international criminal tribunals with regard to the “specific direction” element of aiding and abetting are reminiscent of the divergence between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the question of State responsibility for supporting or assisting non-State actors that engage in violations of international law. This article analyzes this jurisprudence on individual and State responsibility for the provision of support to non-State actors that breach international humanitarian law, and considers the interaction and interrelationship between these related but distinct forms of responsibility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document