Universal Civil Jurisdiction and Reparation for International Crimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-119
Keyword(s):  
International Crimes ◽  
Universal Civil Jurisdiction

The Law of State Immunity

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
High Profile ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Law ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Universal Civil Jurisdiction ◽  
International Rule ◽  
Relevant Material

Revised and updated to include recent developments since 2013, this new edition provides a detailed guide to the operation of the international rule of State immunity which bars one State's national courts from exercising criminal or civil jurisdiction over claims made against another State. Building on the analysis of its two previous editions, it reviews relevant material at both international and national levels with particular attention to US and UK law; the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and its Property (not yet in force), and also seeks to assess the significance of recent changes in the evolution of the law. Although the restrictive doctrine of immunity is now widely observed by which foreign States may be sued in national courts for their commercial transactions, the immunity rule remains controversial, not only by reason of the recognition of a single State's right to deny a remedy for a wrong — China, a major trading State, continues to adhere to the absolute bar — but also by the exclusion of any reparation or relief for the commission on the orders of a State of grave human rights violations. The complexity and moral challenge of the issues is illustrated by high profile cases. The expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction of national courts with regard to torture in disregard of pleas of act of State and nonjusticiability offers a further challenge to the exclusionary nature and continued observance of State immunity. Recent developments in key areas are examined, including: impleading; public policy and non-justiciability; universal civil jurisdiction for reparation for international crimes; the application of the employment exception to embassies and diplomats; immunity from enforcement and procedural measures; immunity of State officials, and tensions between national constitutional requirements and superior international norms.

Asylum-seekers falsely implicating themselves in international crimes: Should they be informed of the existence of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention?

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-101
Author(s):  
Brian Moore ◽  
Joris van Wijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Convention ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Refugee Claim ◽  
The Uk ◽  
National Governments

Case studies in the Netherlands and the UK of asylum applicants excluded or under consideration of exclusion pursuant to Article 1Fa of the Refugee Convention reveal that some applicants falsely implicated themselves in serious crimes or behaviours in order to enhance their refugee claim. This may have serious consequences for the excluded persons themselves, as well as for national governments dealing with them. For this reason we suggest immigration authorities could consider forewarning asylum applicants i.e. before their interview, about the existence, purpose and possible consequences of exclusion on the basis of Article 1F.

NGOs for International Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Relative Lack ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Oriented Approach

Kjersti Lohne describes the impact of non-governmental organizations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular discussing the relative lack of regard for defendants’ rights, and especially highlighting the difficulties encountered by those acquitted. After the Coalition for the International Criminal Court contributed to the establishment of the ICC itself in the fight against impunity for international crimes, that Coalition has continued a victim-oriented approach, arguably at the expense of defendants’ rights. The ICC’s focus on victims, ‘truth’, and ‘memory’ may challenge the legitimacy of the Court in the longer run.

Complementing the ICC Efforts to Curb the Impunity of International Crimes in Africa

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pacifique Manirakiza
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
African Continent ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Thabo Mbeki

A matter raised consistently by eminent personalities asked to report on atrocities in Africa, such as former South African President Thabo Mbeki, is the utilization of traditional justice mechanisms known to Africans. Their use has been limited to Gacaca courts in Rwanda, set up in haste and subject to much criticism. However, there exist several types and models of traditional justice mechanisms at the African level. The contribution of these sui generis mechanisms towards accountability for heinous crimes is largely unaddressed in academic literature. This chapter intends to fill this gap by exploring their potential contribution towards accountability for heinous crimes, alongside the International Criminal Court (ICC). In short, the chapter explores how community-based judicial mechanisms and the ICC, two types of accountability mechanisms with different methodologies and approaches, can work side by side to eradicate impunity regarding, and also to prevent, mass atrocities on the African continent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document