L'Afrique et le système de justice pénale internationale

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pacifique Manirakiza
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
War Criminals

AbstractAfrica has been ravaged by armed conflicts and/or oppressive regimes for decades. During those conflicts or oppressive regimes, heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed and made millions of victims. Among these, only a handful number saw some justice. This was possible essentially because the international community took a vigorous stance against the impunity of war criminals and genocidaires by creating international judicial mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to deal with it. Also, some individual African States have prosecuted international crimes within their municipal courts as well as some western States based on the universal jurisdiction principle. This article analyses the African contribution to the building of the international criminal justice system. It also addresses the African objections against the ICC intervention in Africa and the use of the universal jurisdiction criticized as a form of imperialism and neo-colonialism disguised in a judicial form. It concludes by exploring the feasibility of an African Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court and Non-International Armed Conflicts

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Spieker
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Conflicts

Non-international armed conflicts are more numerous, more brutal and entail more blood-shed today than international ones. The Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly upholds the traditional distinction between international and non-international conflicts, and armed conflicts will have to be characterized accordingly. But the tendency to adapt the international humanitarian law (IHL) regime for non-international conflicts to the rules for international ones emerges. Article 7 on Crimes Against Humanity and Article 8(2)(c) and (e) on War Crimes amount to real progress in this respect. Yet, the regulation on war crimes in particular does not provide for comprehensive criminal responsibility of individual perpetrators in non-international conflicts.

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máximo Langer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Under universal jurisdiction, any state in the world may prosecute and try the core international crimes— crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—without any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to the crime in question whenit was committed.The jurisdictional claim is predicated on the atrocious nature of the crime and legally based on treaties or customary international law. Unlike the regime of international criminal tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council and the enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the regime of universal jurisdiction is completely decentralized.

National Implementation of the ICC Statute to Prosecute International Crimes in Africa

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olympia Bekou
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
African Continent ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Effective Functioning ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Key Aspects

This chapter provides a comparative overview of how states from the African continent have sought to implement action against the crimes contained in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It first explores the importance of national implementing legislation for the effective functioning of the ICC and then focuses on some key aspects of the domestic incorporation of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In doing so, emphasis is placed on those states that follow the wording of the Statute, but also on those that go beyond the text of the various articles in the ICC Statute. Regarding the latter, whether an expansive approach is desirable is also discussed. In addition, the chapter explores those national provisions that are narrower than the Statute and briefly discusses what the implications might be for domestic investigations and prosecutions in respect of core international crimes.

The problematic aspects of International core crimes and transnational crimes accordingly to International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (31) ◽  
pp. 376-388
Author(s):  
Nadiia Shulzhenko ◽  
Snizhana Romashkin ◽  
Mykola Rubashchenko ◽  
Hаlyna Tatarenko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Small Range ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Conventions

Today, the boundaries of international crime involving states and transnational organized crime are slowly blurring, and as a result, the number of international crimes is steadily growing. The article analyzes two key groups of crimes: crimes indicated in the Rome Statute and transnational crimes under international conventions. This article is based on the analysis of the main groups of crimes: the first group of international crimes committed with state actors, which includes crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes of genocide; and the second group, crimes committed by criminal groups organized in more than one country with the "international" or "transnational" character of such acts. The authors emphasize the norms of international law, according to which the International Criminal Court, together with international criminal tribunals, have jurisdiction over a small range of key international crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, aggression, committed by state officials. The main objective of this research is to compare the mechanism for investigating crimes in the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, together with the national procedure for investigating transnational crimes, through the ratification of international conventions and the establishment of the International cooperation. The article was made with the following methods: induction, deduction, analogy, as well as historical, dialectical and formal legal methods.

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

scholarly journals A jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional e o deslocamento forçado do Povo Rohingya: o caso Myanmar v. Bangladesh do TPI

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Regina De Oliveira Magalhães da Silva Loureiro
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Specific Objective ◽  
Deductive Method ◽  
Proper Interpretation ◽  
Principle Of Territoriality

Resumo: O artigo analisa a jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional de acordo com o previsto no Estatuto de Roma de 1998, bem como em consonância com os princípios da territorialidade, complementaridade e cooperação. O objetivo principal do artigo é estudar a incidência da jurisdição do Tribunal e o objetivo específico é analisar como a jurisdição universal do Tribunal pode ser aplicada aos crimes praticados no território de um Estado que não é parte do Estatuto de Roma, utilizando-se como fonte principal o caso do Povo Rohingya, que tem uma relação intrínseca com a tese da jurisdição universal do Tribunal Penal Internacional, aspecto que representa a originalidade do trabalho. O critério dedutivo foi o método adotado para o desenvolvimento do trabalho, com o estudo do aspecto normativo, doutrinário e jurisprudencial. O trabalho concluirá que a jurisdição universal do TPI deve ser reavaliada para ser aplicada de acordo com a releitura do princípio da soberania estatal e da adequada interpretação dos crimes internacionais de interesse da humanidade, sob a perspectiva interseccional para a consideração dos atos anti-imigração como crimes contra a humanidade.Palavras-chave: Tribunal Penal Internacional; Jurisdição universal; Estatuto de Roma; Deportação; Princípio da territorialidade; Estado que não é parte do Estatuto do Tribunal; Atos anti-imigração. Abstract: The article analyzes the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in accordance with the 1998 Rome Statute, as well as in line with the principles of territoriality, complementarity and cooperation. The main objective of the article is therefore to study the jurisdiction of the Court and the specific objective is to examine how the universal jurisdiction of the Court can be applied to crimes occurring in the territory of States that are not part of the Rome Statute, using as a source the case of the Rohingya People, which is intrinsically linked to the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, what is the original aspect of the paper. The deductive method was the methodology adopted for the development of the work, with the study of the normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential aspect. The work will conclude that the universal jurisdiction of the ICC should be re-evaluated to be applied in accordance with the re-reading of the principle of state sovereignty and the proper interpretation of international crimes of interest to humanity, from the intersectional perspective for the consideration of anti-immigration acts as crimes against humanity.Keywords: International Criminal Court; Universal Jurisdiction; Rome Statute; Deportation; Principle of territoriality; State did not accept the jurisdiction of the Court; Anti-immigration acts.

International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Charles B.A Ubah ◽  
Osy E. Nwebo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
National Governments

The principle of domestic jurisdiction in international law makes national governments responsible for protecting their citizens, investigating alleged abuses of human rights in their countries and bringing the perpetrators to justice. They governments may also extradite those accused of abuse of human rights to any other states prepared to give them a fair trial. Problem arises however, when governments are unable or unwilling to perform this duty or are themselves perpetrators of these crimes. Thus, millions of people have fallen victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian laws. But only very few of these perpetrators have been brought to justice in national courts as many governments claim sanctuary under the principle of domestic jurisdiction. The need therefore arises for the international community to act in order to protect helpless or defenseless citizens from being victims of crimes against humanity and human rights abuses, by bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The thrust of this article therefore, is that the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fills this void by fulfilling a central and pivotal goal in international jurisprudence. This article, therefore, provides insights and lessons into the history and prospects of the International Criminal Court. These are insights and lessons that are too important and too costly to ignore in the 21st century understanding of international criminal justice system.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document