scholarly journals Jus cogens standards and erga omnes commitments in international criminal justice

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 72-78
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Jus Cogens

The article analyzes the application of jus cogens and erga omnes obligations in international criminal justice. The main ideas that were the basis of the concept of jus cogens norms and the concept of obligations erga omnes are investigated. The modern doctrines of jus cogens and erga omnes are analyzed. Imperative norms, which have a special legal force, is one of the characteristic features of modern international law. These rules are a set that determines the nature of international law, its goals and principles and in general its main content. The norms of jus cogens include the principles and norms of international law prohibiting aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide and other international crimes. These crimes are of concern to the entire international community and oblige states to counter these horrific phenomena. Ensuring mandatory norms in the field of combating international crime requires the introduction of an effective international legal mechanism, an important element of which are the relevant international courts. In case of violation of imperative norms, there are universal legal relations of responsibility. The point is that not only the directly affected state, but also any other state has the right to raise the issue of the offender’s liability, in particular in the case of international crimes. This is similar to the Roman rule «actio popularis», according to which every member of society had a legal right to protect public interests. With this in mind, jus cogens and erga omnes are at the heart of the legal framework of international criminal courts and are an important area of research in international criminal law. Key words: jus cogens norms, erga omnes obligations, international crimes, international criminal court.

Why the Prohibition of Enforced Disappearance Has Attained Jus Cogens Status in International Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
Jus Cogens

This article examines the question whether jus cogens includes the prohibition of enforced disappearances, and why this is important. It surveys the meaning, context, development, status and position of jus cogens as well as enforced disappearance in international law, including their relationship to each other. It surveys the status of enforced disappearance in international law in general, as well as in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The article scans the historical developments of international law, including developments over the last few decades, to indicate that the prohibition against enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status. The legal framework is examined, including the jurisprudence that has emanated from a variety of sources. Specific treaties that deal with enforced disappearance are reviewed including the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICED). What jus cogens is, what the controversies are that surround it, the different ways that it is understood within different schools of thought, and how these issues impact on whether the prohibition of enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status are studied. The historical developments around enforced disappearances are examined in some detail to determine what its status is, particularly in relation to state practice, so as to determine whether it is jus cogens.

Corporations before International Criminal Courts: Implications for the International Criminal Justice Project

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOANNA KYRIAKAKIS
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
African Union ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe debate over whether the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over corporations has persisted over the years, despite the failure of the legal persons proposals at Rome. For its part, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon determined that it has jurisdiction over corporations for the purpose of crimes against the administration of the Tribunal, albeit not for the substantive crimes over which it adjudicates. Most recently, the African Union has adopted a Protocol that, should it come into operation, would create a new international criminal law section of the African Court of Justice and Human and People's Rights with jurisdiction over corporations committing or complicit in serious crimes impacting Africa. In light of the enduring nature of the proposal that international criminal institutions should directly engage with the problem of commercial corporations implicated in atrocity, this article explores the possible implications for the international criminal justice project were its institutions empowered to address corporate defendants and prosecutors emboldened to pursue cases against them. Drawing on the expressive goals of international criminal justice and concepts of sociological legitimacy, as well as insights from Third World Approaches to International Law, the article suggests that corporate prosecutions, where appropriate, may have a redeeming effect upon the esteem in which some constituent audiences hold international criminal law, as a system of global justice. The article's thesis is then qualified by cautionary thoughts on the redemptive potential of corporate prosecutions.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

Principles of International Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Werle Gerhard ◽  
Jeßberger Florian
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
International Crimes

This book is one of the most influential textbooks in the field of international criminal justice. It offers a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the foundations and general principles of substantive international criminal law, including thorough discussion of its core crimes. It provides a detailed understanding of the general principles, sources, and evolution of international criminal law, demonstrating how it has developed, and how its application has changed. After establishing the general principles, the book assesses the four key international crimes as defined by the statute of the International Criminal Court: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. This new edition revises and updates the work with developments in international criminal justice since 2014. The book retains its systematic approach and consistent methodology, making it essential reading for both students and scholars of international criminal law, as well as for practitioners and judges working in the field.

‘Cosmopolitan Citizenship’, Territorial Borders, and Bringing Denationalized Terrorists to Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Seet
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Territorial State ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Cosmopolitan Citizenship ◽  
Globalized World

Abstract This article challenges scholarly claims that a post-national ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ — an expanded and less territorially bounded belonging of ‘humanity’ — has been emerging in the international criminal justice context. In examining the contemporary denationalization of terrorists from the under-explored angle of criminal justice, this article argues that states’ territorial borders prevent denationalized terrorists — deemed enemies of ‘humanity’ — from being brought to justice. Some states strip citizenship from terrorists without holding them accountable for terrorist offences and international crimes, subsequently deporting them to — or leaving them stranded in — states which are, according to international criminal law, ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ to prosecute. As such, states’ territorial borders serve as a ‘shield’ which not only enable denationalized terrorists to avoid accountability for their terrorist offences and international crimes, but which also enable states to avoid their international obligations to bring terrorists to justice. This case study of denationalized terrorists not only demonstrates the enduring relevance of territoriality to international criminal justice but also broadly demonstrates how post-national ‘citizenship’ remains tied to the territorial state in a globalized world.

Rome’s Legacy: Negotiating the Reparations Mandate of the International Criminal Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sperfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Fresh Perspective ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Victim Reparations

This article examines the negotiations that led to the incorporation of reparations provisions into the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (icc). Building upon a review of the travaux préparatoires and interviews, it traces the actors and main debates during the lead-up to the Rome Conference and the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, explaining how and why reparations were included into the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article shows how the reparations mandate was produced at the intersection of a set of different agendas and actors. From this account, it identifies a number of key themes that were at the centre of the negotiations and often galvanised contestations among delegations or with ngos. The article concludes with a fresh perspective on the origin of victim reparations in the Rome Statute and its relevance for understanding many of today’s debates around reparations in international criminal justice.

Crimes against Humanity

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Civilian Population

Crimes against humanity have both a colloquial and a legal existence. In daily parlance, the term is employed to condemn any number of atrocities that violate international human rights. As a legal construct, crimes against humanity encompass a constellation of acts made criminal under international law when they are committed within the context of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. In the domain of international criminal law, crimes against humanity are an increasingly useful component of any international prosecutor’s toolbox, because they can be charged in connection with acts of violence that do not implicate other international criminal prohibitions, such as the prohibitions against war crimes (which require a nexus to an armed conflict) and genocide (which protects only certain human groups and requires proof of a specific intent to destroy such a group). Although the concept of crimes against humanity has deep roots, crimes against humanity were first adjudicated—albeit with some controversy—in the criminal proceedings following the World War II period. The central challenge to defining crimes against humanity under international criminal law since then has been to come up with a formulation of the offense that reconciles the principle of sovereignty—which envisions an exclusive territorial domain in which states are free from outside scrutiny—with the idea that international law can, and indeed should, regulate certain acts committed entirely within the borders of a single state. Because many enumerated crimes against humanity are also crimes under domestic law (e.g., murder, assault, and rape), it was necessary to define crimes against humanity in a way that did not elevate every domestic crime to the status of an international crime, subject to international jurisdiction. Over the years, legal drafters have experimented with various elements in an effort to arrive at a workable penal definition. The definitional confusion plaguing the crime over its life span generated a considerable amount of legal scholarship. It was not until the UN Security Council promulgated the statutes of the two ad hoc international criminal tribunals—the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda—that a modern definition of the crime emerged. These definitions were further refined by the case law of the two tribunals and their progeny, such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone. All these doctrinal developments were codified, with some additional modifications, in a consensus definition in Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is now clear that the offense constitutes three essential elements: (1) the existence of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and (2) the intentional commission of an enumerated act (such as an act of murder or torture) (3) by an individual with knowledge that his or her act would contribute to the larger attack. A renewed effort is now afoot to promulgate a multilateral treaty devoted to crimes against humanity based on the ICC definition and these central elements. Through this dynamic process of codification and interpretation, many—but not all—definitional issues left open in the postwar period have finally been resolved. Although their origins were somewhat shaky, crimes against humanity now have a firm place in the canon of international criminal law.

When the Child Surpasses the Father – Admissible Defences in International Criminal Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Fournet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractDue to the heinous nature of international crimes, admissible defences in the context of international criminal justice understandably constitute an issue surrounded with controversy. Yet, while International Criminal Law precludes the use of a series of defences, it also admits that certain grounds may exclude individual criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment even in the case of the most serious international crimes. The present study thus proposes to analyse the permissibility of these defences and the availability of such grounds for excluding responsibility by drawing a comparison between Public International Law and International Criminal Law and by highlighting the differences and discrepancies between the two systems. Ultimately, this analysis aims at demonstrating that International Criminal Law, one of Public International Law's children, has now surpassed its parent to become a more sophisticated and a fairer legal and judicial system, for both the defendants and the victims.

scholarly journals Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT CRYER
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International System ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Incomplete Reaction

The UN Security Council has recently referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the International Criminal Court. This has been hailed as a breakthrough in international criminal justice. However, aspects of the referral resolution can be criticized from the point of view of their consistency with both the Rome Statute and the UN Charter. The limitations of the referral with respect to whom the Court may investigate also raise issues with respect to the rule of law. In addition, Sudan has accused the Security Council of acting in a neo-colonial fashion by referring the situation in Darfur to the Court. This article investigates these criticisms against the background of the international system in which international criminal law operates, and concludes that although the referral cannot be considered neo-colonial in nature, the referral can be criticized as selective and as an incomplete reaction to the crisis in Darfur. The referral remains, however, a positive step.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document