International Law. Genocide. U.N. Tribunal Finds That Mass Media Hate Speech Constitutes Genocide, Incitement to Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, and Ngeze (Media Case), Case no. ICTR-99-52-T (Int'l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda Trial Chamber I Dec. 3, 2003)

2004 ◽  
Vol 117 (8) ◽  
pp. 2769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney

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.


Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.


2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Michael Greig ◽  
James D. Meernik

The International Criminal Court (icc) came into force in July 2002 with the potential to drastically alter both the war fighting and peacemaking behavior of states. Theiccis designed to try and subsequently punish those found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Supporters of theicchave argued that its establishment will erode the norm of impunity that state and military leaders have historically enjoyed. Yet, another logic suggests that the initiation of aniccinvestigation or the issuance of an arrest warrant for individuals embroiled in an ongoing dispute may make matters worse. Such individuals may see little reason to stop fighting and reach a settlement if conflict resolution results in their detention in The Hague. Indeed, suspected war criminals and their patrons may wish to escalate their violence in order to avoid showing any sign of weakness or possibility of capitulation lest their enemies press the fight or their rivals seek to undermine their authority. In this article, we explore the potential impact of theiccon the likelihood of peace by examining the impact of actions by theicc– the initiation of investigations into conflict situations and the issuance of arrest warrants for those suspected of committing violations of international law – on the likelihood of mediation. Our findings suggest that whileiccarrest warrants can encourage mediation, the initiation of investigations by theicccan actually undermine the occurrence of mediation.


Author(s):  
Sunneva Gilmore

The Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the long awaited first reparation order for sexual violence at the court. This will hopefully see the implementation of reparations for the war crimes and crimes against humanity of rape and sexual slavery among civilians and former child soldiers, after previous cases such as against Jean-Pierre Bembe and Laurent Gbagbo were acquitted of rape. This article drawing from the author's role as a reparation expert in the case, is a reflection on the challenges of designing and providing reparations at the ICC against convicted individuals, as well as amidst insecurity and the COVID-19 infectious disease pandemic. It begins by discussing how the Ntaganda reparation order expanded reparation principles for the first time since the Lubanga case, in particular for crimes of a sexual nature. This is followed by an outline of some of the harms as a result of sexual violence from the perspective of an expert with a medical background. The analysis then turns to the appropriate reparations in this case and the details contained within the chamber's reparation order. Final conclusions consider how the procedural and substantive elements of reparations in this case will be instructive to future cases that address sexual violence. Ultimately, key insights are offered on the modest contribution an appointed reparation expert can do in assisting a trial chamber in the reparation process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi

In 2019 the International Law Commission adopted two texts providing for the peremptory character of the prohibition of crimes against humanity, namely the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity and the draft conclusions on peremptory norms of general international law. While both of these instruments recognise the peremptory character of the prohibition of crimes against humanity, neither of them address the consequences of the peremptory character of the prohibition of crimes against humanity. This article, on the basis, inter alia, of the internal processes leading to the adoption of these instruments, addresses the consequences of the peremptory character of the prohibition of crimes against humanity.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Mark S. Berlin

Why do governments take atrocity offenses, like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, from international law and legislate them into domestic criminal law, empowering national courts to prosecute their own, and sometimes other states’, government and military officials? The question is important, because the international community has constructed an international legal regime to prosecute the most serious human rights violations, but that regime is designed to rely primarily on domestic criminal courts to try offenders. To fulfill this role, domestic courts often require specific legislation that defines and criminalizes these offenses in national law. Yet, the adoption of national atrocity laws is puzzling, since in a number of ways, these laws appear to threaten states’ interests. This introductory chapter highlights the puzzle of atrocity criminalization and discusses its importance for the functioning of the international atrocity regime. It then situates this study in existing literatures and highlights the book’s contributions to research on atrocity justice, human rights, and international law. Next, it summarizes the book’s main arguments and details the study’s multi-method research design, which combines quantitative analyses of new, original datasets with in-depth qualitative case studies of Guatemala, Colombia, Poland, and the Maldives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document