Stakeholder Applications

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 944-968
Author(s):  
Anja Matwijkiw ◽  
Bronik Matwijkiw

Given that talk about “stakeholders” have become commonplace in international law and international relations, the authors examine some of the issues that arise from an account of the theoretical, jurisprudential, and doctrinal parameters that can be derived from competing frameworks. For the specific purpose of international criminal law, the authors concentrate on the single most important question: whether stakeholder applications constitute advantages or disadvantages in a philosophy of law approach to the rule of law. It appears that current matches with concepts, norms and strategies warrant, as a minimum, more critical reflection. Incorporating stakeholder applications from various UN-documents, the ambiguities and inadequacies of these – in comparison to non-UN alternatives and contemporary legal theory of an idealist and progressive orientation even seem to substantiate arguments against too close affiliations with the trend, especially because the separation thesis recently re-emerged in broad frameworks.

Author(s):  
Douglas Lawrence

This chapter argues that the development of the international law of aggression has served to destabilize a dominant narrative based on the distinction between criminal and enemy. The criminal/enemy dyad has long been central to the western legal tradition. By attending to how rival traditions of legal theory have understood the dyad, the chapter illustrates how the criminalization of aggression marks one of the most distinctive developments in the history of international criminal law. This development, however, has proven problematic, as the criminalization of aggression has worked to deconstruct the traditional boundary between criminal and enemy, volatizing the very distinction between war and policing. The criminalization of aggression marks, then, something distinct from simply a growth of international law; it signals a fundamental shift that has left the relations between jus ad bellum and jus in bello in an uncertain state.


1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Nardin

In this paper I am going to argue a familiar but still controversial thesis about the relation between international ethics and international law, which I would sum up in the following list of propositions:First, international law is a source as well as an object of ethical judgements. The idea of legality or the rule of law is an ethical one, and international law has ethical significance because it gives institutional expression to the rule of law in international relations.Secondly, international law—or, more precisely, the idea of the rule of law in international relations—reflects a rule-oriented rather than outcome-oriented ethic of international affairs. By insisting on the priority of rules over outcomes, this ethic rejects consequentialism in all its forms.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Erkin Humbat Musayev Humbat Musayev ◽  

Key words: international law, international criminal law, genocide, war crimes, transnational crime


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT

Fragmentation of international law is a phenomenon that has been discussed ever since the ILC in 2000 decided to add to its programme of work the topic ‘Risks ensuing from the fragmentation of international law’. Koskenniemi, in a paper published in this journal, was one of the first to address fragmentation in legal literature. In 2006, he finalized a voluminous report on ‘Fragmentation of International Law’, providing for means and ways to cope with fragmentation.


Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska

This article deals with the model for prosecuting Nazi crimes committed in Poland in the light of the model presently used in international criminal law. It tries to answer the question: should the investigation of crimes of international law be handed over to transnational tribunals? Should they be hybrid tribunals involving a national factor, or completely supra-national tribunals like the International Criminal Court? Is it legitimate to transfer jurisdiction over these matters to national courts? The case of unpunished Nazi crimes in Poland may give a partial answer to this question. Certainly, various attempts made after World War II, including procedures brought before Polish courts, have contributed to understanding the function of international criminal law, and finding the answer to the question of the best model for prosecuting crimes of international law. At present, we also have the experience of international criminal tribunals, in particular the ICC, which is an efficient machine for prosecuting crimes of international law. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from its functioning that could improve the work of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) prosecutors, and shed new light on the considerations regarding the prosecution of Nazi crimes in Poland after World War II.


Author(s):  
Tiyanjana Maluwa

The chapter discusses the concepts of shared values and value-based norms. It examines two areas of international law that provide illustrative examples of contestation of value-based norms: the fight against impunity under international criminal law and the debates about the responsibility to protect. It argues that the African Union’s (AU) difference of view with the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the indictment of Omar Al-Bashir is not a rejection of the non-impunity norm, but of the context and sequencing of its application. As regards the right of intervention codified in the Constitutive Act of the AU, Africans states responded to the failure of the Security Council to invoke its existing normative powers in the Rwanda situation by establishing a treaty-based norm of intervention, the first time that a regional international instrument had ever done so. Thus, in both cases one cannot speak of a decline of international law.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Melandri

AbstractThis article explores the relationship between state sovereignty and the enforcement of international criminal law under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This doing, it attempts to map out the ambivalent and sometimes contradictory roles that different typologies sovereignty play in advancing or hindering the enforcement of international criminal law. After a brief survey of the literature on the debate over 'international law vs. state sovereignty', the paper focuses on one specific aspect of the newly established ICC: the conditions for case admissibility. The analysis will show that the relationship between state sovereignty and international criminal justice is a dynamic and complex one, which needs to be understood and contextualized within the current system of international relations.


1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 288-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lech Gardocki

1. The principle of double criminality is traditionally bound with institutions of international criminal law. Double criminality is a requirement not only with extradition, but also with the transfer of criminal proceedings and with execution of foreign sentences. International criminal law employs a range of “double conditions”, the common denominator of which is the requirement that two legal systems share a certain set of values or legal prescriptions. In addition to double criminality, international law uses such terms as “double punishability”, the “double possibility of criminal proceedings” and the “double possibility of the execution of penal judgment”. Among these concepts, double criminality is the most important and universal condition applied in the basic institutions of international criminal law, such as extradition, the transfer of proceedings, and the execution of foreign penal judgments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document