To Wreck a State

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-235
Author(s):  
Amy Baker Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
First Century ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Level ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
Legal Consequences

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P), a modernized version of the doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention, seemed to gain growing acceptance amongst scholars and statesmen during the first decade of the twenty-first century. When Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi faced an insurgency against his rule in 2011, R2P was deployed as the legal justification for the United Nations’ intervention in Libya via NATO, which resulted in the elimination of the Gaddafi regime. However, in the five years since the intervention, Libya has devolved into a broken and failed state. Its social and economic demise raises the question: Should there be consequences in international law for “wrecking” a state, provided the wrecking is accomplished through the pretextual and fraudulent use of humanitarian concerns? This Article answers this question in the affirmative, and proposes the recognition of a new crime in international law, “aggression-by-pretense,” to be prosecuted at the international level in the International Criminal Court. It explores the key theoretical and practical dimensions of this new crime, moving us past the long and somewhat tired debate over the wisdom of R2P and toward an exploration of the concrete legal consequences that should ensue for the world’s statesmen in the event R2P is abused.

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.

scholarly journals Victim’s Right of Access to International Criminal Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Fazlollah Foroughi ◽  
Zahra Dastan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.

scholarly journals Peran Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa dalam Kaitannya dengan Penegakan Hukum Oleh Mahkamah Pidana Internasional (Prospek dan Tantangan)

SASI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 251
Author(s):  
Novy Septiana Damayanti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Community Interactions ◽  
The United Nations

International law in its development moves dynamically according to international community interactions. In the development of international law has spawned an international organization, namely the United Nations (UN). International courts relating to the UN status. The UN has laid the framework of the kosnstitusionic on the underlying instrument of the Charter with the determination of all the members of the UN to avoid the recurrence of World War threats that have twice occurred and have caused A threat to all mankind. THE un-formed International Criminal Court is backed by many demands for justice for its extraordinary crimes (the most serious crime). The International Criminal Court aims to end impunity for perpetrators of gross human rights violations and to give a share of the prevention of the most serious crimes against human rights under international law, as well as Ensure international justice and support the achievement of objectivesof the United Nations Charter principles. Based on the description the problem that will be discussed in this article is the role and authority of THE International Organization (PBB) in maintaining international peace and security in resolving the problems that Conducted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).This Writing uses legal research methods is normative with the research of secondary data and described descriptively.

Amnesty and International Law

2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderick O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
First Century ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commissions ◽  
Tentative Model ◽  
The Right

AbstractAmnesties are proving as popular in the twenty-first century as they did in the twentieth. Wherever there is an attempt to end a conflict, there is often an amnesty. The author briefly surveys the characteristics of amnesties, and offers a simple taxonomy. The author next assesses the approach taken in international law to amnesties. The survey draws on the experience of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Subsequently the author looks ahead to the Proposed Extraordinary Chamber for Cambodia and the International Criminal Court. From this survey, two particular topics for international law are addressed: the right to a fair trial, and alternatives to courts (such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions). Assuming that international law is going to be selective in its treatment of amnesties, the author offers a tentative model for an amnesty which will meet the needs of current international law.

On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (861) ◽  
pp. 87-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhu Wenqi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being, world public attention was focused on issues such as the significance of the Court's establishment, the importance of implementing international criminal justice and the time when the Rome Statute could enter into force. Once the Court was established, attention naturally turned to practical issues, such as whether it would be able to operate normally and perform its historic mission. The question of whether the ICC can operate effectively and perform its mission largely depends on the scope and degree of co-operation provided to it by states. This co-operation concerns not only states party to the ICC but also non-party states. This article offers to explore the obligation of non-party states to co-operate under international law, the prospects of their co-operation and the legal consequences of non-co-operation. The author suggests that beyond the general principle of the law of treaties according to which treaties are binding only on states parties, when viewed in the light of other general principles of international law, co-operation with the ICC is no longer voluntary in nature, but is instead obligatory in the sense of customary international law. Therefore, while a state may not have acceded to the ICC, it may still be subject to an obligation to co-operate with it in certain cases.

An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. By William A. Schabas. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. xvi, 552, (Appendices) 16, (Bibliography) 39 and (Index) 17 pp. Paperback £39.95. ISBN 0–521–78790–4.]

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-492
Author(s):  
Ben Olbourne
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Exciting Development

Not everyone will agree with the author’s claim that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “perhaps the most innovative and exciting development in international law since the creation of the United Nations,” (p. 20) yet the current degree of interest from academic international lawyers is undeniable. Much of this interest has been channelled into detailed and sophisticated analyses of specific provisions or themes in the ICC’s Statute. Schabas has a different aim in mind. As he states, “[t]he goal of this work is … to provide a succinct and coherent introduction to the legal issues involved in the creation and operation of the ICC, and one that is accessible to non-specialists.” (p. viii) With minor qualifications, this goal is achieved and this work is an excellent introduction to the ICC.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Dual Nationality and International Criminal Court Jurisdiction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Wolman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Party ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Dual Nationality ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract The International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of states parties. However, it has never been clear whether the Court will automatically recognize a nationality that has been conferred by a state party under its domestic law, nor what criteria it would use to evaluate that nationality should it not be automatically accepted. In December 2019, the Office of the Prosecutor made its first formal pronouncement on the question, finding that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over North Koreans, despite their being South Korean nationals under South Korean law, because North Koreans are not able to exercise their rights as South Koreans until accepted as such by application, and on occasion their applications might be refused. In this article, I reject the Prosecutor’s analysis as misguided. I also reject the other main approaches to nationality recognition suggested by scholars, namely a ‘genuine link’ requirement, a deferral to municipal law, and a deferral to municipal law except where a conferral of nationality violates international law. Instead, I propose a functional approach that would respect municipal conferral of nationality unless that conferral unreasonably interferes with the sovereign interests of a non-state party.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document