The International Criminal Court and its Trust Fund are Coming of Age: Towards a Process Approach for the Reparation of Victims

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidy Rombouts ◽  
Stephan Parmentier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Major Question ◽  
Post Conflict

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.

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

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Do So

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.

Transitional justice and the International Criminal Court – in “the interests of justice”?

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (867) ◽  
pp. 691-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dražan Đukić
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractTransitional justice encompasses a number of mechanisms that seek to allow post-conflict societies to deal with past atrocities in circumstances of radical change. However, two of these mechanisms – truth commissions and criminal processes – might clash if the former are combined with amnesties. This article examines the possibility of employing the Rome Statute's Article 53 so as to allow these two mechanisms to operate in a complementary manner. It considers three arguments – an interpretation of Article 53 in accordance with the relevant rules on treaty interpretation, states' obligations to prosecute certain crimes and the Rome Statute's approach to prosecutorial discretion – and concludes that Article 53 is ill-suited to accommodate truth commissions in conjunction with amnesties.

Seeking gender justice in post-conflict transitions: towards a transformative women’s human rights approach

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Women's Movements ◽  
Gender Justice ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Gender Biases ◽  
Women’S Human Rights ◽  
Women's Human Rights

This article critically examines the prospects for achieving a comprehensive vision of gender justice in post-conflict transitional contexts. It is divided into three main sections. The first reviews the gendered limits of mainstream approaches to transitional justice and highlights gender biases in related dominant discourses, which shape how conflict, and transitions from conflict, are understood and enacted to the detriment of women. The second focuses on the benefits and limitations of engendering wartime criminal justice with particular reference to the International Criminal Court. The third considers the prospects for a more comprehensive approach to gender justice that shifts the emphasis from ‘women as victims’ of conflict to women as agents of transformation, through an examination of the significance of Security Council Resolution 1325. Ultimately, the author argues that achieving gender justice in transitions is inextricably tied to wider bottom-up efforts by women’s movements to realise a comprehensive vision of women’s human rights within a framework of critically-interpreted, universal, indivisible human rights.

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

scholarly journals Ending Impunity: The Case for War Crimes Trials in Liberia

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhagi Marong ◽  
Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sierra Leonean ◽  
Post Conflict

AbstractThis article argues that Liberia owes a duty under both international humanitarian and human rights law to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes, including torture, rape and extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians, committed in that country by the warring parties in the course of fourteen years of brutal conflict. Assuming that Liberia owes a duty to punish the grave crimes committed on its territory, the article then evaluates the options for prosecution, starting with the possible use of Liberian courts. The authors argue that Liberian courts are unable, even if willing, to render credible justice that protects the due process rights of the accused given the collapse of legal institutions and the paucity of financial, human and material resources in post-conflict Liberia. The authors then examine the possibility of using international accountability mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc international criminal tribunal as well as a hybrid court for Liberia. For various legal and political reasons, the authors conclude that all of these options are not viable. As an alternative, they suggest that because the Special Court for Sierra Leone has already started the accountability process for Liberia with the indictment of Charles Taylor in 2003, and given the close links between the Liberian and Sierra Leonean conflicts, the Special Court would be a more appropriate forum for international prosecutions of those who perpetrated gross humanitarian and human rights law violations in Liberia.

ACCIDENT AND DESIGN: RECOGNISING VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-132
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

AbstractInternational law has not traditionally recognised individuals as victims of the crime of aggression. Recent developments may precipitate a departure from this approach. The activation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression opens the way for the future application of the Court's regime of victim participation and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. The determination by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 that any deprivation of life resulting from an act of aggression violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights serves to recognise a previously overlooked class of victims. This article explores these recent developments, by discussing their background, meaning and implications for international law and the rights of victims.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document