Legislated Out of Existence: Mass Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality Resulting in Statelessness as an International Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1026-1067
Author(s):  
Cóman Kenny
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Crime ◽  
World War ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
First Time ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Abstract A state’s prerogative to legislate for nationality remains subject to international law, with the arbitrary deprivation of nationality prohibited. The human rights implications of statelessness are profound, permeating all aspects of life and resulting in the marginalisation and oppression of those affected. Nonetheless, states have implemented laws depriving particular groups of legal status and making them stateless. In addition to the severe impact on the individual, such targeted discrimination creates a permissive atmosphere of dehumanisation that threatens a group’s existence and has been the precursor to mass atrocity. This article assesses, for the first time, whether individual criminal responsibility could be established for the creation or maintenance of a state policy to arbitrarily deprive a group of its nationality, rendering its members stateless. Based on post-World War ii precedent, it argues that such conduct could constitute a crime under the Rome Statute.

Part 2 Attributing Criminal Responsibility, 4 Perpetration and Participation

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Insight Into

National criminal law has been an important source for drafting provisions of individual criminal responsibility in international law. Notions that we know from national criminal law, such as aiding/abetting, conspiracy and instigation, are used to refer to modalities of criminal responsibility. To gain a better insight into the modalities of participating in international crime as codified in international statutes, they need to be analyzed in light of national criminal law. This chapter discusses five models of participation in crime and international models of participation.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

scholarly journals Globalized Cross-Border Insolvency Law: The Roles Played by China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zinian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Foreign Judgment ◽  
Judicial Assistance ◽  
First Time

AbstractThis study empirically investigates China’s participation in the globalized cross-border insolvency collaboration system. It is the first time for the development of China’s cross-border insolvency law to be examined against the background of private international law on foreign judgment recognition and enforcement. The findings of this article reveal that foreign bankruptcy representatives face considerable difficulties in satisfying the treaty and reciprocity requirements when seeking judicial assistance from China, and that local protectionism in favour of China’s state-owned and state-linked companies undermines foreign bankruptcy representatives’ confidence in approaching China’s courts for support. Although there are several court recognitions of foreign bankruptcy judgments in China, this article finds that they are only used to acknowledge the legal status of foreign bankruptcy representatives to meet the demands of government authorities; Chinese courts have not taken a substantial step in recognizing a foreign bankruptcy judgment so as to bar individual creditors’ action in the interest of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. On the contrary, for Chinese bankruptcy representatives seeking assistance abroad, they could take advantage of the liberal judicial infrastructure, especially of some advanced jurisdictions, to obtain recognition and relief.

Criminal law measures to combat provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals

2021 ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Viktor N. Borkov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Actual Problem ◽  
The Individual

The article examines the criminal-legal aspects of the actual problem of protecting the inviolability of the individual from the unacceptable activity of state representatives in the exercise of law enforcement functions. Topical issues for theory and practice of the legal nature of the provocation of crime and the falsification of criminals remain debatable. There are no unified approaches to the qualification of provocative and inflammatory actions and cases of "throwing" objects to citizens, for the turnover of which criminal responsibility arises, there is no theoretical justification for the criminal legal status of persons provoked to commit a crime. The article shows that the qualification of common cases of provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals according to the norms providing for liability for abuse of official authority, falsification of evidence or the results of operational investigative activities should be recognized as not accurate. At the same time, responsibility for these actions committed by subjects who are not officials, and without the participation of the latter, has not been established at all. The author proposes a draft criminal law provision providing for liability for inducing to commit a crime or its staging in order to illegally create grounds for criminal prosecution. The paper questions the approach according to which a person provoked by law enforcement officers to commit a crime is not subject to criminal liability regardless of the specifics of the encroachment.

Challenges to Criminalizing State Responsibility for Genocide

Postgenocide ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-62
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

This chapter shows that although often states are parties in a genocide enterprise, the centrality—and responsibility—of states for genocide does not receive attention commensurate with the severity of the problem. Indeed, genocidal states are not held criminally responsibility for genocide. Underscoring difficulties at proving state criminal responsibility for genocide, the analysis compares and contrasts individual criminal responsibility and state criminal responsible for genocide. Whereas in the former case the matter has been dealt with by domestic and international criminal courts and tribunals, in the latter case there is no international judicial authority which can try states for criminal responsibility. However, non-state corporate criminal liability, and evolution of this institute in international law, may provide some transferable lessons for state responsibility for genocide. The chapter highlights the nexus between individual responsibility and state responsibility, and the failures of international genocide law in establishing state responsibility for genocide.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document