Big Fish and Small Fish Debate–An Examination of the Prosecutorial Discretion

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitomi Takemura
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
East Timor ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Small Fish ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Senior Leaders ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Criminals

AbstractIt is widely known that the earlier practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have been criticized for having dealt with comparably minor war criminals. The implications behind such a criticism may be that an ad hoc international or hybrid criminal tribunal should concentrate on those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The first part of this paper will thus focus on the logic of targeting big fish. Then the recent practices of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of East Timor have been addressed in this light. Irrespective of the institutional and practical demands of targeting big fish, the concern remains whether there is a normative demand for targeting only senior leaders of mass atrocities. Therefore, the last part of this paper would like to discuss the big fish versus small fish debate by examining the possibilities of a leadership element in ratione materiae of international criminal tribunals.

New Mechanisms for the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Foreword by the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 603-604
Author(s):  
Laïty Kama
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Review ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Set Up

The decision to devote an issue of the International Review of the Red Cross to a series of articles on the two ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals set up by the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda reflects the increasing importance of these courts both for the general public and for legal experts.

scholarly journals Le tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda - La justice trahie (Note)

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-840
Author(s):  
John Philpot
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Real Issue ◽  
Set Up

On November 8,1994, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 955 creating an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to judge individuals responsible for violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. In its form and structure, the Tribunal does not respect basic legal requirements required of a tribunal set up in international law. Us mandate - limited in time, in scope of potential indictment, and in jurisdiction to violations of international humanitarian law - mil prevent any light from being shed on the real issue raised by the Rwandan conflict, namely that of armed military intervention in Rwanda from Uganda. It will likely lead to the reinforcement of a one-sided view of the crisis in Rwanda and legitimate further unilateral interventionist policies in Africa and elsewhere. The Tribunal will institutionalize the de facto impunity for the members and supporters of the present government of Rwanda who undoubtedly committed many serious crimes between October 1, 1990 and the present.

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.

Jurisdiction of the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda over crimes against humanity and genocide

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 651-664
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Clear Signal

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) were established on 11 February 1993 and 8 November 1994 respectively by the Security Council to prosecute persons responsible for flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. The aim of the Security Council was to put an end to such violations and to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace, and the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals undoubtedly represents a major step in that direction. Moreover, it sends a clear signal to the perpetrators and to the victims that such conduct will not be tolerated.

Criminal Proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Pocar
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractThe ad hoc Criminal Tribunals have shown, by their case law, how practically to go about judicial enforcement of international humanitarian law at the international level and have guided the formation of other international and mixed criminal courts. Following the precedent set at the Nuremberg trials, the most important legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals has been the development and effective enforcement of the entire body of international humanitarian law put into place since the end of World War II, which seeks to maintain a proper balance between prosecuting individuals for grave breaches of international humanitarian law and upholding due process norms including protection of the rights of the accused. The path paved by the ad hoc Tribunals is crucial for the future regulation of the behaviour of States and individuals in times of conflict and has triggered increased attention to and enforcement of international humanitarian law in various other jurisdictions, including, in the first place, in the International Criminal Court. These are some of the author's conclusions following an analysis of the challenges faced by the ad hoc Tribunals.

International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc Tribunals

2018 ◽  
pp. 566-582
Author(s):  
Richard Goldstone
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
East Timor ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
World War ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Criminals

This chapter traces the growth of international criminal courts since World War II. The trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in 1944 led, after a lapse of almost half a century, to decisions by the UN Security Council to establish two ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and for Rwanda (1994). UN-mandated courts followed in East Timor, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina; and by state-requested courts, so-called ‘mixed’ or ‘hybrid’ criminal tribunals, in partnership with the UN, in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Lebanon. In terms of the Rome Statute of 1998, the International Criminal Court became effective in July 2002 and will likely become the only international criminal court.

Introductory Note

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
International Tribunals

When the UN Security Council (UNSC) created the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993, and Rwanda (ICTR) in 1994, it had in mind that the Tribunals were ad hoc and should have a brief life, enough only to bring to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in those countries. In 2010, as a part of the Completion Strategy, the UNSC established the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals as a new ad hoc body, with the purpose of making sure that the Tribunals conclude their missions timely and successfully. The ICTR was officially closed on 31 December 2015. The ICTY will finish its work at the end of 2017. In this article is the analysis of the cases decided by the ICTY in 2015, providing the relevant facts of each case, the reasoning and the decision issued.

Off target on the Iraq campaign: a response to Professor Schmitt

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 111-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah PoKempner ◽  
Marc Garlasco ◽  
Bonnie Docherty
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
The Military

Law without facts makes a dull subject, and it is one of the peculiarities of international humanitarian law (IHL) that many of the interesting facts are classified or unavailable to those outside the military. This partially explains why IHL until recently has been the redoubt of military lawyers and the International Committee of the Red Cross. That situation is changing, for many reasons.Popular interest in IHL is growing due to concern with responses to terrorism, interventionism (humanitarian and otherwise) and international justice. Civil society organisations have successfully campaigned for both new standards, such as the Landmines Convention, as well as new mechanisms of enforcement, such as the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. At the same time, technology and globalisation have facilitated both real-time battlefront reporting and post-battle analysis by civilians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document