International(ized) Constitutional Court: Kosovo’s Transfer of Judicial Sovereignty

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enver Hasani ◽  
Getoar Mjeku

AbstractThis paper discusses the transfer of judicial sovereignty in Kosovo from a comparative perspective. In particular, it addresses the transfer of constitutional jurisdiction to the Special Court of Kosovo. This court was formed as a result of Kosovo’s commitment to address allegations made by the Council of Europe in a document known as the Dick Marty report. The report alleges that war crimes and crimes against humanity and international law were committed during and in the aftermath of the Kosovo war (1998–1999). It took several years for the Court to be formed as constitutional amendments, legal infrastructure, and other practical steps were needed to make the Court operational. These preparatory measures have been taken, but practical results are missing, and there is fear that the Court might end up like previous UN- and EU-led justice systems, which did too little and were too late to address the culture of impunity in Kosovo.

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-146
Author(s):  
Tom Ginsburg

This chapter focuses on the abuse of international rights to political participation so as to facilitate a leader's remaining in office beyond the constitutionally mandated term. This involves not only the abuse of the interpretation of rights, but also the abuse of the doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments, which has spread around the world in recent years. How does this happen and what, if anything, can international law do about it? After introducing a motivating case — the famous decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court in the second re-election decision, in which courts stood for the protection of democracy — the chapter examines recent 'bad' cases in which rights and constitutional amendments are abused to extend leaders' terms. It surveys recent developments in the law of term limits, and briefly proposes a normative interpretation of the right to political participation which ought to be consistent with the emerging doctrine. The chapter suggests that there is an emerging consensus, at least in some regions of the world, that there are limits in states' ability to modify term limits unconditionally.


Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

The chapter describes international efforts to close the gaps in existing treaties on the obligation to extradite or prosecute. These include: (i) the joint initiative for the adoption of a new international instrument on mutual legal assistance and extradition for the effective investigation and prosecution of the most serious crimes of international concern, in particular, the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, by domestic jurisdictions; and (ii) the International Law Commission's work on a draft convention on Crimes against Humanity. The chapter also explores the issue of capacity building for the national judiciary and a regional judicial mechanism to help alleviate the burden of the International Criminal Court; national peace/reconciliation, international peace/stability, and other considerations against the implementation of the obligation to extradite or prosecute; the operation of transitional justice as an alternative to prosecution; and the implications of the atrocities in Syria for the future prospects of this obligation in the context of international criminal justice.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1067-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Bosdriesz ◽  
Sander Wirken

On 10 May 2013, a Guatemalan trial court rendered a historic judgment, convicting former President José Efraín Ríos Montt to an 80-year prison sentence for genocide and war crimes. On 20 May 2013, in a 3–2 majority decision, Guatemala’s Constitutional Court annulled the trial judgment on procedural grounds. The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, decried by international observers as a defeat of justice, seems to reaffirm the impossibility of successful domestic prosecution of powerful leaders for international crimes and reinforce the need for international prosecutions. However, such a conclusion does not do justice to the profound meaning the genocide trial against Ríos Montt has had for Guatemalan society. This article aims to give a more complete picture. It discusses how the trial could come about, in spite of the apparent inability and unwillingness of the Guatemalan state to prosecute the serious crimes of the civil war era. It looks at the role that the international community and international law played in the trial. Finally, it assesses the trial’s significance, in the face of the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, for both Guatemalan society and the international community.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1020-1036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Adjovi

On August 22, 2012, the Republic of Senegal and the African Union (AU) signed an agreement to create a tribunal within the Senegalese judicial system to prosecute the perpetrators of international law violations in Chad between 1982 and 1990. To be called the Extraordinary African Chambers (Chambers), the tribunal is the result of years of political and judicial bargaining around Hissein Habré, the former President of Chad. The Chambers were inaugurated in February 2013, following the agreement upon a Statute of the Chambers in January 2013. On July 2, 2013, Hissein Habré was charged with crimes against humanity, torture, and war crimes, and placed in pre-trial detention. To date, Habré is the only indictee, but the Prosecutor reportedly intends to seek the indictment of five officials of Habré’s administration suspected of having committed international crimes.


Author(s):  
Giovanni Boggero ◽  
Karin Oellers-Frahm

AbstractIn this chapter we focus on the consequences of Sentenza 238/2014 for the Italian judiciary. The judgment of the Corte Costituzionale obliges the Italian tribunals to admit claims for the reparation of victims or the heirs of victims and to decide on the merits. In this context, a series of difficult legal questions arise that require consistent answers. The practice shows, however, that consistent answers cannot be taken for granted as long as the decision is in the hands of lower-level tribunals. The questions to be solved concern, firstly, who can bring a claim: the victims only or—in cases where they are no longer alive—also their spouses, children, or even grandchildren and other family members? This raises a second question namely whether there is any time limit for bringing claims, which of course touches upon more general concerns, such as intertemporal law, statutory limitations, prescriptions, forfeiture and inadmissibility due to reparation agreements. Thirdly, there is the question as to the specific nature of the reparations: for example, financial reparations and their calculation standards, or satisfaction only? A further question arising from all decisions granting reparation relates to the execution of the judgments, as it seems rather illusory that Germany will comply voluntarily with such judgments. An additional aspect the chapter addresses is the broader impact of the decisions of the Italian judiciary: the non-recognition of state immunity before Italian tribunals will make Italy an attractive forum for similar claims, evidence of which has already emerged. Furthermore, the decisions of the tribunals will serve—although certainly involuntarily—as precedents in similar cases not only in Italy. Such effects will concern issues such as (a) the reparation of war-related claims on an individual basis and (b) their consequences for the readiness of states to terminate armed activities by concluding peace treaties and reparation agreements on a lump sum basis. With a view to actual armed conflicts that are mostly not international armed conflicts the question has then to be asked (c) whether individual reparation claims will lead to discriminatory consequences as reparation will probably only be realizable for victims of war crimes committed by state organs and not those committed by non-state actors. The chapter will then conclude by trying to assess more in general the task of constitutional and/or supreme courts to balance the consequences flowing from their decisions against their power or intent to enhance the development of (international) law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif Rohman

Abstrac Almost every case of armed conflict both internal conflict and inter-state conflicts, violations that fall into the category of crimes against humanity. One such crime is sexual slavery. Nevertheless, the true multiple instrument products have set about sexual slavery, but in fact violations still occur, so how to regulate the instrument set up and how the application of the instrument. The approach used in this study a statutory approach and approach the case, it is intended to determine the international instruments which regulate and application of the crime of sexual slavery. Sexual slavery has been set up in several instruments and is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol II of 1977, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, anti-torture convention so that it can be regarded as war crimes. Sexual slavery is expressed as slavery not as rape. Evidently some tribunal (ICTY, ICTR, Tokyo Tribunal, and ICC) which has been in effect and entrap the perpetrators of sexual slavery was found guilty.Key words: Sexual slavery, Crime Humanity, War Crimes and International Law


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 169-187
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi

AbstractIn the summer of 2017, the International Law Commission adopted a draft article on exceptions to immunity. The Draft Article adopted provides that immunityratione materiaedoes not apply with respect to certain international crimes, namely crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearances. These exceptions do not apply to immunityratione personae. The Draft Article was adopted after a vote and was severely criticized by some members of the Commission. It has also received mixed reaction from states, with some supporting its content while others have opposed it. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Draft Article, there has also been academic commentary, some of which has been critical. The (main) criticism levelled against the Draft Article is that it does not represent existing law and has no basis in the practice of states. This article seeks to evaluate the criticism by considering whether there is any state practice in support of the Draft Article proposed by the Commission.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinmin Shen

In July 2017, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted Draft Article 7 on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, by a recorded vote of twenty-one votes in favor, eight votes against, and one abstention. In the view of the majority of ILC members, immunity ratione materiae does not apply to the six international crimes listed in the draft article—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance—either because of a limitation or because of an exception. The unusual practice of adopting a draft article by recorded vote demonstrated the deep controversy among the ILC members themselves. After all, exceptions to official immunity lie at the core of the project of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” that was started a decade ago by the ILC. This divisive Draft Article 7 naturally garnered criticism and equally deep controversy among states in discussions on the ILC's work report at UN General Assembly Sixth Committee in late October 2017.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document