O SURGIMENTO DO TRIBUNAL PENAL INTERNACIONAL COMO UMA DECORRÊNCIA DO NEOCONSTITUCIONALISMO E DE SUA PROPOSTA DE PROTEÇÃO AOS DIREITOS HUMANOS UNIVERSAISTHE EMERGENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AS A RESULT OF THE NEOCONSTITUTIONALISM AND ITS PROPOSAL FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS’ PROTECTION

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Artemis Cardoso Holmes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa)
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Universal Human Rights

Neste artigo pretende-se demonstrar que o Neoconstitucionalismo, ao priorizar os princípios em detrimento das normas positivadas e eleger os direitos humanos como lastro de validade das leis, contribuiu para o desenvolvimento da jurisdição internacional, fato que possibilitou a instituição do Tribunal Penal Internacional.

scholarly journals The other side of the Article 21(3) coin: Human rights in the Rome Statute and the limits of Article 21(3)

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 837-850
Author(s):  
Emma Irving
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Past

AbstractThe drafters of the Rome Statute sought to accord human rights a central place within the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This was done not only through numerous provisions on the rights of the accused, victims, and witnesses, but also through the inclusion of the overarching Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute. Article 21(3) Rome Statute requires that the interpretation and application of all ICC law be consistent with internationally recognized human rights. While this provision has been employed on numerous occasions to bolster human rights protection in the ICC legal framework, it is not without its limits. In a series of decisions over the past few years, ICC judges have placed limits on the protections that can be read into the ICC legal framework on the basis of Article 21(3). Beyond stating that the ICC ‘is not a human rights court’, the decisions in question articulate no clear justification for the limitations imposed on Article 21(3). The present article analyses these decisions and identifies the underlying rationale for the Court’s approach: the principle of speciality. However, the picture is further complicated by the judges’ willingness to overlook the principle of speciality when particularly serious violations of human rights are involved. This leaves the precise contours of human rights protection in the ICC legal framework undefined.

Human Rights Protection before the International Criminal Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-101
Author(s):  
Alex Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Successful Operation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Interpretative Analysis

This article assesses the human rights framework of those accused before the International Criminal Court, with particular emphasis on Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute. Part 2 examines a number of obstacles currently impinging the successful operation of human rights protection before the Court, which Article 21(3) may remedy. Part 3, drawing on strands of interpretative analysis, seeks to interpret and illuminate Article 21(3), arguing that a broad scope ought to be adopted for determining the substantive content encapsulated by ‘internationally recognized human rights’. Moreover, Article 21(3) should be recognised as containing the hierarchical standard of what has been termed ‘super-legality’. Part 4 then highlights the interpretive potential for Article 21(3) as both a tool of innovation and as a remedial device for human rights violations before the Court that are not explicitly provided for in the Rome Statute.

Human Rights at the International Criminal Court: Testing the Limits of Judicial Discretion

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Aksenova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Relationship

The future of the International Criminal Court (icc) is uncertain. The system established by the Rome Statute of the icc ensures that priority is given to domestic prosecutions, while at the same time, it imbues international values into national systems. The approach of the Court to the rights of the accused and victims’ rights poses challenges. In the Al Senussi complementarity decision, the icc refused to act as a human rights court and rendered the case inadmissible, notwithstanding the death penalty threatening the accused if tried in Libya. Does the same reasoning hold true in other circumstances? The article explores the relationship between human rights law and international criminal law with specific reference to the principle of complementarity and argues that judicial discretion is central in the assessment of the degree of human rights protection at the icc.

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