The ictr and Its Contribution to the Revivification of International Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 231-246
Author(s):  
Emily Crawford

In this article, Emily Crawford explores one set of key institutional and legal responses to, and consequences of, the Rwanda genocide – the ictr and the revival of icl that the ictr and the icty heralded. Tracing the development of the concept and institutions of icl, Crawford observes how the case law of the [ad hoc] tribunals, and the ictr in particular, were pivotal in progressively developing the international law of genocide, and the law of non-international armed conflict’.

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Theofanis

AbstractRes judicata is well-settled as a general principle of international law. But the rules of res judicata in international criminal procedure are undeveloped. Recent cases from the ad hoc criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have added to the understanding of res judicata in international law - demonstrating the risk that new rules of res judicata will implicitly incorporate either a common-law or civil-law definition of what the "law" is. Analysis of issues considered in recent Tribunal jurisprudence - particularly the questions of review and reconsideration - locates potential hazards in the development of the law and provides guidance for the application of the ICC statute.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 784-804
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt

Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-67
Author(s):  
Dragan Jovasevic

Crimes against international law are committed by violating the rules of international humanitarian law during wars or armed conflicts. The perpetrators of these crimes are under the jurisdiction of international criminal courts (military or civil, permanent or ad hoc). The process of the commission of crimes against international law may comprise several different phases or stadiums. Moreover, such criminal offences rarely appear as the results of only one person?s activities. On the contrary, in numerous cases of these criminal offences, accomplice appears as a form of collective participation of several persons in the commission of one or more crimes against international law. All these facts represent grounds for the specific type of criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of crimes against international law. It is a object of regulation international criminal law about whose characteristics converse this article.


Author(s):  
Cristina Fernández-Pacheco Estrada

Abstract Early release has been regularly granted by the ad hoc tribunals for over 20 years. However, it could be argued that some issues still remain contentious. In fact, in May 2020, the Practice Direction ruling early release in the Mechanism of the International Criminal Tribunals was amended. This was intended to clarify key matters, such as the time needed to be served before early release, the possibility of imposing conditions upon those released, and the unappealable character of the resulting decision. At a glance, it could be argued that the International Criminal Court is better equipped to confront the many challenges posed by early release. This is owing to its detailed regulation, which may consequently lead to a more reasoned and solid case law. After comparatively examining ten features key to the application of early release, however, this paper argues that the ultimate problem lies within the nature generally conferred to early release in the Rome Statute.


2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT

The editorial board of the Leiden Journal of International Law is pleased to announce a debate on a very important but underexposed topic in international criminal law: witness proofing. Witness proofing is an accepted and well-established practice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). It entails setting up a meeting between a party to the proceedings and a witness, usually shortly before the witness is to testify in court, the purpose of which is to prepare and familiarize the witness with courtroom procedure and to review the witness's evidence. Recently a trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) prohibited witness proofing. On 30 November 2007, Trial Chamber I held in the Lubanga case that the possibility of witness proofing is not expressly provided for in the ICC Statute and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and that no general principle exists in national or international criminal law that would require the ICC to adhere to such a practice. Moreover, and this is the most interesting argument, the trial chamber held that the ICC Statute ‘moves away from the procedural regime of the ad hoc tribunals’ and that as a result witness proofing is not easily transferable to the ICC.


2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 31-57
Author(s):  
Dragan Jovasevic

After a long historical development, the second half of the 20th century has inaugurated the new, latest branch of the punitive law - international criminal law. By its legal nature and characteristics it is somewhere between the national criminal law and international public law, maintaining its peculiarity and independence. The basic and most important notion and institute of this branch of law is certainly the international criminal act. In the theory of law (domestic and foreign), there are several views on the notion and contents of the international criminal act. However, it can be concluded that this notion implies a socially dangerous, illegal act committed by the perpetrator and defined as a criminal act whose perpetrator is to be punished as prescribed by the law. Such a defined notion of the international criminal act includes its basic elements, and these are as follows: 1) the act of a man (including the act of an adult person that can be committed in three forms: acting, non-acting, failure to provide proper supervision, effect and casualty; 2) social danger; 3) unlawfulness; 4) definition of an act by rules, and 5) guilt of the perpetrator. There are two kinds of international criminal acts: international criminal acts in a narrow sense and international criminal acts in a broad sense. The most significant are certainly the international criminal acts in a narrow sense that are directed towards violation or endangering of the universal, general civilisation values - international law and humanity - what is actually the subject of protection from these criminal acts. Apart from the international criminal act, the theory of law also includes a foreign criminal act (any criminal act with a foreign element). By all this, these two notions coincide largely, but are also considerably different from each other. Apart from the general notion of the international criminal act, the theory of law also includes a special being or a special notion of the international criminal act by whose characteristics and specific forms and shapes of manifestation some international criminal acts or responsibility of their perpetrators actually differ from each other. As a matter of fact, all international legal documents in this field (and then national criminal legislation as well) deal with the whole system of various incriminations punished by various kinds and sorts of penalties (as basic sorts of criminal sanctions). The following documents deal with some international criminal acts in their specific forms and shapes of manifestation: The Statute of the International Military Tribunal (that served to reach the Nuremberg and then the Tokyo verdicts), the Law No. 10 of the Control Council for Germany, the Statute of the Hague Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as well as the statutes of some other ad hoc tribunals such as: Tribunals for Rwanda, Eastern Timor and Sierra Leone, then the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal and finally the Permanent International Criminal Court Statute (the so-called Rome Statute).


Author(s):  
Mutaz M. QAFISHEH ◽  
Ihssan Adel MADBOUH

Abstract Upon the 2014 State of Palestine's accession to Geneva Convention III, captured Palestinians who took part in belligerent acts against the occupier should be treated as prisoners of war due to the fact that they belong to a party to an armed conflict. These individuals fall under three categories: members of security forces, affiliates of armed resistance groups, and uprisers who fight the occupant spontaneously on an individual basis. Contrary to established rules of IHL, Israel does not make any distinction regarding the status of these three types. Unilateral Israeli treatment of its captives does not hold water under international law. Such actions may trigger liability based on international criminal law, particularly as the ICC decided in 2021 that it possesses jurisdiction to investigate crimes occurring in the territory of Palestine. The mere fact of confining prisoners of war after the cessation of hostilities may constitute a ground for criminal prosecution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document