The Forty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Current Term ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-sixth session from May 2 to July 22, 1994, under the chairmanship of Professor Vladlin Vereshchetin of Russia.The Commission had one of its most productive sessions. It completed a second draft of a statute for an international criminal court; completed its second reading on nonnavigational uses of international watercourses; completed, provisionally on first reading, a discrete portion of its work on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law; considered aspects of state responsibility; began its second reading on the Draft Code of Crimes; and appointed Vaclav Mikulka and Alain Pellet, respectively, as special rapporteurs for the new topics of “State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons” and “the law and practice relating to reservations to treaties.” It is the intention of the Commission to conclude its work on these two topics during the current term, i.e., by 1996.

The Forty-Fourth Session of the International Law Commission

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Future Plan ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fourth Session ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its 44th session from May 4 to July 24, 1992, under the chairmanship of Professor Christian Tomuschat. The Commission considered aspects of state responsibility, the possible establishment of an international criminal court, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, and its future plan of work and working methods.

The Forty-Second Session of the International Law Commission

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 930-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. McCaffrey
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-second session from May 1 to July 20, 1990, under the Chairmanship of Professor Shi Jiuyong. In the context of its work on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the Commission considered the establishment of an international criminal court and adopted three articles of the code. Also at the forty-second session, the Commission adopted six articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and discussed reports on state responsibility, relations between states and international organizations, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law and jurisdictional immunities of states and their property.

The Forty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-140
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Draft Statute ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-fifth session from May 2 to July 23, 1993, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Julio Barboza of Argentina. The Commission elaborated a substantially complete draft statute of an international criminal court in a working group, considered aspects of state responsibility, commenced drafting articles on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, began its second reading on non-navigational uses of international watercourses, and made recommendations for its future work. The Commission continued its innovative use of working groups and subgroups to expedite its work and, consequently, had a highly productive session.

Completing the ``International Criminal Order''

1998 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Draft Statute ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

AbstractRecent efforts in the United Nations to establish a comprehensive system of international criminal repression by creating a permanent international criminal court are by no means free from doubts regarding the possibility ever to enforce such law. The preamble of the draft statute prepared by the International Law Commission states the basis on which the court is to assert jurisdiction in an ambitious manner: it is the ``International Community'', joining against ``the most serious crimes of international concern''. The project cannot, however, ignore decades of realist criticism against the assumption of the existence of an international community that is ready to accept an international criminal jurisdiction. In the negotiations, this contradiction is dealt with by a technique provided with an ambiguous name: ``complementarity'', i.e. the coordination of the tasks of the international and domestic jurisdiction. The writer discusses the various ideas and proposals presented under the heading of ``complementarity'' in order to examine the tension between communitarian and sovereignty-based strands in the international project to create an effective criminal jurisdiction.

Counterintuiting Countermeasures

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 817-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Bederman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Methodological Challenge ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission

The adoption in August 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of its articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts well and truly brings to a close the twentieth century’s engagement with international law as (in Martti Koskenniemi’s memorable refashioning of George Kennan’s savage critique) a “gentle civilizer of nations.” Including the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the seven pillars of international legal codification have been completed with some form of assistance by the ILC: diplomatic immunities, the law of the sea, a comprehensive law of treaties, the Nuremberg Principles, andjurisdictional immunities of states. Indeed, the articles on state responsibility may represent an even greater methodological challenge for international law codification because they pose fundamental questions regarding the identity and nature of states. Like the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States and the ILC’s own somewhat obtuse efforts on the international law of state succession, the articles on state responsibility go to the intellectual core of public international law by delimiting the character of states and the nature of their obligations when they interact with other international actors. Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that the ILC’s journey into that doctrinal realm took over half a century, and consumed the attention of five special rapporteurs and countless Commission members.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.32 Mistake of fact or mistake of law/Erreur de fait ou erreur de droit

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter comments on Article 32 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 32 addresses defences of mistake of fact or mistake of law. The drafters of the Statute did not want to leave the determination of defences to the discretion of judges, an approach used in all of the earlier models including the final draft Code of Crimes adopted by the International Law Commission in 1996. In general, the purpose of codifying defences in the Rome Statute is not to authorize them but rather to confine them. Thus, article 32 admits defences of mistake of fact and law but under certain conditions. If article 32 were not in the Statute, the general rule on mens rea set out in article 30 would apply without restriction, possibly subject to limitation by the Elements of Crimes.

The Statute of the International Criminal Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danesh Sarooshi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The conclusion and adoption of the Statute of a permanent International Criminal Court2 (“Statute”) in Rome in July 19983 represent a turning point in the enforcement of legal norms regulating armed conflict. Th e Rom e Conference was the latest, and most important, chapter in a long saga concerning the broader issue of the conclusion and adoption of a Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, an important part of which was the establishment of an international criminal court to try such crimes.4 The International Law Commission (ILC), the UN organ responsible for the preparation of the Code,5 decided to separate the two objectives and to proceed with the drafting of a statute for an international criminal court that was distinct from the Draft Code of Crimes: the ILC envisaged a court that would exercise jurisdiction in respect of crimes of international concern which existed as such in various treaties already in force.6 This approach is reflected in the provisions of the Statute adopted at Rom e concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, as explained below.7

Visits to the ICRC

1990 ◽  
Vol 30 (277) ◽  
pp. 345-346
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

• ICRC President Comelio Sommaruga received the members of the International Law Commission (ILC) at ICRC headquarters on 7 June 1990.The Commission is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. Its 34 members are elected from among the most eminent representatives of the world's different legal systems. The Commission is entrusted with the task of promoting the codification and development of international law. It is currently working on the codification of offences against the peace and security of mankind (which include war crimes) and the setting up of an international criminal court.

The Bosnia Genocide Case

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. AMERASINGHE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
International Law Commission

AbstractThe Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.

The Twenty-Fourth Session of the International Law Commission

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Unfinished Business ◽  
Complete Work ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fourth Session ◽  
Law Commission

The agenda that faced the International Law Commission at the first meeting of the 24th session on May 2, 1972, was a formidable one. The 23rd session in 1971, despite an extension to fourteen weeks in place of the usual ten, had been able to complete work on the draft articles on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations only by concentrating on that subject to the substantial exclusion of other topics. As a consequence the Commission had not made any real progress on the other active subjects before it, which included State Succession in respect of treaties and in respect of matters other than treaties, as divide between two Special Rapporteurs, State Responsibility, the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and Treaty Law of International Organizations. In addition, the Commission had before it another piece of unfinished business, the review of its longterm program of work in light of the wide-ranging and thoughtful “Survey of International Law” which had been prepared in 1971 by the U.N. Secretariat at the Commission request.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document