The International Criminal Court Statute and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparation

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret

The International Criminal Court (ICC)'s reparations regime seems very geared towards material reparation such as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. However, a growing number of international instruments, particularly in the human rights field, anticipate that more symbolic forms of reparation such as satisfaction and non-repetition are mandatory. The article explores what reasons may have led the ICC drafters to not at least mention symbolic reparation and finds that, apart from a possible trend towards commodification of reparation in general, the perception was probably that only states can grant symbolic reparation, and that ordering individuals to do so might raise human rights problems. None of these arguments are conclusive. Individuals can provide symbolic reparation, and this could be encouraged rather than ordered to avoid the human rights issue. More importantly, the role of the ICC and the Victims Trust Fund will be to use money as reparation, and nothing will prevent them from using awards so made for symbolic purposes. In fact, strong principle and policy arguments militate in favor of granting a larger role to symbolic reparation in the ICC context, thus helping to make the Court into more of an institution of transitional justice.

Reified Life ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 148-174
Author(s):  
J. Paul Narkunas

This chapter describes how English and French as the de jure languages of human rights at the International Criminal Court. As a result, populations who do not adhere to Western Enlightenment notions of rights can be declared terrorists or “enemies of humankind.” By tracing the workings of translation in the ICC through the Thomas Lubanga trial, the author discusses how translation can deny human status to those brought before the ICC. It also provides, however, the means to challenge the legitimacy of the court as merely another sign of universalizing western justice, solidified by the fact that all people brought before the ICC come from the continent of Africa. By focusing on how language produces reality, the creation of natural rights claims allow for new forms of political protection in the chasm between differing legal orders. Consequently, thinking the role of translation as metaphor and practice for world making and the production of agency is an inchoate form of political aesthetics. Translation may offer, thus, a way to reconceive the human and its attendant rights due to language’s role in world making, subject production, and power relations. This indicates a form of ahuman agency.


Author(s):  
Everisto Benyera

One of the most desired actions by human rights activists the world over is to see Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe brought to The Hague to answer to allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity committed during his more than three decades in office. This desire notwithstanding, there are both legal and practical imperatives that render his prosecution highly improbable judging by the failed attempts to do so by various organisations. This article is a contribution to the debate on the fate of heads of states accused of genocide and crimes against humanity by focusing on the complexities surrounding the various attempts at having Mugabe brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The conclusion reached is that, no matter how desirable, the prosecution of Mugabe at the ICC, or any other court of law, is a distant reality due to various reasons outlined in the article. 


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 51-69
Author(s):  
Saud Hassan

In order to end global impunity of perpetration of heinous crimes against humanity and gross violation of human rights and to bring individual perpetrators to justice, international community felt the need for a permanent international criminal court.2 As the armed conflicts and serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law continue to victimize millions of people throughout the world, the reasons for an international criminal court became compelling.3 In many conflicts around the world, armies or rebel groups attack ordinary people and commit terrible human rights abuses against them. Often, these crimes are not punished by the national courts. Here the ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.4 The court only acts in cases where states are unwilling or unable to do so.5 The jurisdiction of the Court is not retrospective and binds only those States that ratify it.6 Unlike the International Court of Justice in The Hague, whose jurisdiction is restricted to states, the ICC has individualized criminal responsibility. However, the role of USA regarding the establishment and continuation of ICC has caused the organization fall in a trouble. The better cooperation of USA and other states could make the organization more active and effective as to its activities. The view of this paper is to analyze the role of USA towards the establishment, continuation and function of the International Criminal Court. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/nujl.v1i0.18525 Northern University Journal of Law Vol.1 2010: 51-69


2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidy Rombouts ◽  
Stephan Parmentier

The last decade has witnessed a rapid development in the field of reparation for victims of serious human rights violations, both at the national and the international level. Both in (post-)conflict situations and in situations of large-scale human rights abuses it has become a major question of transitional justice how to repair the harm inflicted on victims through acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other forms of injustice. As institutions of international criminal justice, the International Criminal Court and the Trust Fund for Victims are also confronted with this question and the many issues involved. They have to address three crucial questions in particular: (a) who are the beneficiaries for reparation; (b) who are the duty-bearers of reparation; and (c) what forms of reparation can be awarded? We argue that the answers to these questions raise very important issues that go beyond a purely legal approach and that require an input from other scientific disciplines and also from other sectors of society, including victims and their organizations. We argue in particular in favour of a concept of reparation that seeks to attain a new balance and that will allow victims to cope with the past and the future alike, and therefore propose a process-oriented approach to reparation based on the work of Barkan and Habermas.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (11) ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
Alexander Galushkin ◽  
Svetlana Grimalskaya ◽  
Petr Kucherenko ◽  
Ruslan Mamedov

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document