scholarly journals The Crime of Aggression and Humanitarian Intervention on Behalf of Women

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
Feminist Theory ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Gender Aspects

AbstractThis article is part of a larger project to analyse the rarely-considered gender aspects of the crime of aggression and to explore whether or not the amendments adding the crime of aggression to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) represent an advancement for women. This piece focuses on the potential for the new provisions to chill bona fide exercises of humanitarian intervention given that (1) the crime is expansively drafted to potentially cover all uses of sovereign force, (2) delegates rejected efforts by the United States to include an express exception for military operations launched to prevent the commission of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and (3) other proposals that would have prevented humanitarian interventions from being considered 'acts of aggression' were not fully explored or implemented. The article acknowledges that feminist theory may never fully come to terms with a notion of humanitarian intervention given the doctrine's valorisation of militarism, especially in light of the fact that women are so often excluded from decisions about uses of force. It nonetheless argues that if we want to hold out the possibility of humanitarian intervention being deployed in defence of women, elements of the new provisions (such as the terms 'manifest', 'character', 'gravity', and 'consequences') should be interpreted to exclude situations involving the nascent responsibility to protect doctrine.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Hukum Humaniter Internasional dalam Operasi Enduring Freedom Amerika Serikat ke Afghanistan dan Peran International Criminal Court (ICC)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24
Author(s):  
Reno Ismadi ◽  
Awatar Bayu Putranto ◽  
Tiffany Setyo Pratiwi
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Military

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.

Status and Intervention in Darfur, Sudan 2004–2008

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-87
Author(s):  
Courtney J. Fung
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Beijing Olympic Games ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace Operation ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
2008 Beijing Olympic Games

Chapter 4 analyzes China’s decision to shift its position on intervention in Sudan over the Darfur crisis. China went from viewing Sudan’s problems as domestic affairs not for the UN Security Council’s purview, to actively supporting intervention. China wrangled and effectively “enforced” consent from Khartoum for a UN Charter Chapter VII peacekeeping mission, and acquiesced to a referral of the Sudan case to the International Criminal Court, which led to an indictment of sitting President Omar al-Bashir. Though this case is popularly understood as being determined by material drivers—like shielding the Sino-Sudanese economic relationship, or addressing the reputational threat of the “Genocide Olympics” to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games—the chapter demonstrates that status is the key variable to explain China’s shifting position. Under mounting pressure from both the great powers (the “P3” of the United States, the United Kingdom, France) and the African Union, in particular, China gravitated to supporting and permitting intervention with a yes vote for the UN-AU Hybrid Peace Operation (UNAMID) and an abstention vote for an International Criminal Court referral in 2005, and again in 2008.

The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan: The Rupturing of Mutual Accommodation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1107
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Robb ◽  
Shan Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In September 2018, then U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered a speech that ushered in a new, more aggressive era of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (icc). Washington’s disapprobation over the icc’s interest in the alleged crimes of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan has been seen as the cause for this change. While this is certainly partly true, little attention has been paid to Fatou Bensouda’s prosecutorial behaviour as an explanatory factor. Using the framework from David Bosco’s Rough Justice, this article demonstrates that a distinct shift in prosecutorial behaviour occurred when Fatou Bensouda took over as Chief Prosecutor. In contrast to Luis Moreno Ocampo’s strategic approach, avoidant of U.S. interests, Bensouda’s apolitical approach directly challenged the U.S. This shift in prosecutorial behaviour ruptured the ‘mutual accommodation’ that previously characterised the icc-U.S. relationship and, in turn, produced the shift in U.S. policy that now marginalises the Court.

Reforming the International Criminal Court (icc) to Achieve Increased State Cooperation in Investigations and Prosecutions of International Crimes

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-61
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Defensive Strategies ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
State Cooperation

This article examines the issue of state cooperation with the International Criminal Court (icc), and why it is vitally needed to achieve the institution’s mandate, including that of human rights protection. The article examines why state cooperation with the icc is so important and what issues undermine it, including disputes with the African Union, but many other issues as well. It surveys what the icc has done to promote cooperation and what steps ought to be taken to try and enhance state cooperation in the future. This is timely as the icc has set up a review process in 2020 to deal with a range of problems including state non-cooperation. The article therefore examines the practices and procedures of the Court, matters concerning its judges and staff, issues around the appointment of a new prosecutor, as well as and judicial appointments, as well as its jurisprudence. The article examines the issues that ought to be addressed, as well as how a variety of actors could better assist the Court, including the Security Council, the wider United Nations system, and the methodology for doing so. The article also reviews what defensive strategies can be taken up to defend the Court, including against aggressive anti-icc actors, such as the United States of America, who are ramping up their attacks on the Court and its personnel.

The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Through Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractState-parties to the International Criminal Court Statute have a general obligation to cooperate with the Court. The duty to cooperate represents the functional cornerstone of the Court's existence. A narrow exception to this duty is contained in Article 98 of the Statute, which provides for limited circumstances in which the Court must refrain from seeking a surrender of an individual to the Court. Following rules of treaty interpretation, as well as an examination of the legislative history of the ICC Statute, the article explores the scope of Article 98, the provision the United States relied on in concluding a series of bilateral agreements that are primarily aimed at preventing the surrender of any U.S. nationals to the ICC. The article considers the issue of what impact, if any, the agreements have in the context of extradition, and the U.S.' legal ability to fulfill the commitments made in the "Article 98" agreements.

Part 7 Penalties: Les Peines, Art.77 Applicable penalties/Peines applicables

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Individual

This chapter comments on Article 77 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 77 sets out the penalties the Court may impose on a person convicted of a crime. These include imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; a term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person; a fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; and a forfeiture of proceeds, property, and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

Strengthening States’ and the International Community’s Responsibility to Protect Civilians: Revisiting the Prosecution of War Crimes Committed in Africa by the International Criminal Court (ICC)

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-115
Author(s):  
Seun Bamidele
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
Intrastate War ◽  
New Thinking

AbstractThe silhouette of International Criminal Justice (ICJ) is fast changing across the globe. The change and transformation are connected to the criminalization of war, which has complicated the attraction of and engagement in the war for war-mongers. At least, the last few years had seen remarkable prosecution of war criminals in Africa. This is related to a relatively new thinking that informed the establishment of International Criminal Court (ICC) and global re-enforcement of war crime-related charges. Since the genocide in Rwanda, the establishment of the ICC has led to the prosecution of warlords. Also, the ICC has issued thirteen public warrants of arrest on war charges to actors and perpetrators in more than four African states. The case of President of Sudan, whose warrant of arrest had been issued regarding the crisis in Darfur, demonstrated that African leaders and war-mongers would be held responsible for their actions and atrocities they have committed. The lesson from the ICC is clear, war-mongers would be made to pay for their criminality. This article intends to examine the actions of the ICC on intra-state civil war crimes in Africa and assess whether ICC can act as deterrence on for intrastate war mongers in Africa.

scholarly journals Pre-trial ‘Protective Measures for the Purpose of Forfeiture’ at the International Criminal Court: Safeguarding and balancing competing rights and interests

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daley J. Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
Trial Phase

AbstractThe International Criminal Court is empowered by its constituent instrument to request its states parties to identify, trace, freeze, and seize assets ‘after a warrant of arrest or a summons has been issued … having due regard to the strength of the evidence and the rights of the parties concerned’. This article critically examines the approach adopted by the Court to requesting such protective measures at the pre-trial phase, reflecting on how the rights and interests of the primary stakeholders implicated by this process: (i) accused persons, (ii) the Prosecutor, (iii) victims, and (iv) bona fide third parties, are safeguarded and balanced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document