International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice in Brazil

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-534
Author(s):  
Maria Ereza Rocha de Assis Moura ◽  
Fabíola Girão Monteconrado ◽  
Marcos Zilli

AbstractIn the Brazilian legal system there is no tradition in recognising the applicability of international criminal law over domestic law. In two cases judged by the STF, the Haximu Massacre and Siegfried Ellwanger, only tangential questions were addressed. In the first, the arguments concentrated on examining the legal definition of the crime of genocide and its distinction from homicide. In the second, the questions revolved around the social, historical, and political interpretation of the word "race" in the judgment of a defendant who had published anti-Semitic and "revisionist" books and articles about the Holocaust. Brazil has also demonstrated itself to be somewhat refractory in incorporating the principles of international criminal law when examining the Justice of Transition. In a recent decision, the STF affirmed the constitutionality of Law No. 6,683/79, which granted amnesty to the perpetrators of political crimes and the public agents responsible for torture and the forced disappearance of people during the military dictatorship. In summary, the Justices recognised as valid the political agreement that led to the promulgation of the Amnesty Law in such a way that any alteration of its terms could only be made by the National Congress.

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Galain Palermo

AbstractThis article discusses the criminal trials carried out in Uruguay against civilian, military, and political functionaries who committed crimes, including crimes against humanity, during the period of civilian-military dictatorship lasting from 1973 to 1985. These criminal proceedings are analyzed in the contexts of transitional justice and international criminal law. Therefore, the first part of this article addresses the diverse phases of transitional justice in Uruguay while the second part analyzes fundamental aspects of criminal trials against 'state terrorists'.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
ATHANASIOS CHOULIARAS

AbstractThe article focuses on one of the most intriguing and, at the same time, controversial issues of international criminal law: whether the state policy requirement should be considered as a constitutive element in core international crimes. Adopting a criminal policy perspective, my intention is to contribute to the ongoing discussion by offering a doctrinal and criminological corroboration of the position that answers in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily promoting a normative choice entailing the amendment of the definition of core international crimes, but I rather call for a policy choice of focusing on cases that presume a state policy component.


Author(s):  
Stefan Oeter

This chapter addresses the challenging legal and operational issues raised by the proportionality requirement to assess the legality of collateral damage. Specifically, the chapter engages closely with the relevant text of Articles 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(b) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The chapter first asks what makes an attack that unavoidably includes incidental loss of civilian lives or civilian property an “indiscriminate attack” under Article 51(5)(b). In more concrete terms, it asks how the formula for collateral damage—“excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”—may be operationalized. The chapter then moves to an analysis of the rule of precautions in Article 57(2)(b), with special emphasis on understanding how the military operator should navigate this rule in light of battlefield realities. The chapter then poses how these rules may be best understood under the regime of international criminal law.


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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO CASSESE

The essay argues that the absence of an international treaty definition of aggression in international law should not preclude the prosecution of its perpetrators. Two legal regimes of responsibility, namely the prohibition against aggression as an international wrongful act and the crime of aggression have been entangled. Once one separates the criminal liability of individuals from state responsibility, a definition of the crime of aggression can be seen. According to the author, the contours of such a new definition contain the requisite degree of certainty for judicial approaches instead of merely political approaches. Consideration is also given as to whether conspiracy to wage a war of aggression may also be regarded as a separate crime within international criminal law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 879-908
Author(s):  
Auriane Botte-Kerrison

This article examines the viability of integrating the duty to rescue concept in international criminal justice to deal with the responsibility of bystanders. Despite the fact that they often contribute to create the social context in which mass crimes occur, bystanders are almost absent from the scope of international criminal justice, focusing mainly on the perpetrators and the victims. This article explores a possible avenue to fill this gap so that the attribution of responsibility for mass crimes can be more coherent with their collective dimension. It assesses whether the duty to rescue concept, commonly found in the legislation of civil law countries, could provide a ‘ready-made’ solution to deal with bystander responsibility. Following a comparative analysis of the different approaches to the duty to rescue in civil law and common law countries, it examines how the duty to rescue would fit with similar concepts in international criminal law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document