International crimes, refugee ‘prisoner’ swaps and duplicity in Australia's refugee admissions

Author(s):  
Peter Billings
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-101
Author(s):  
Brian Moore ◽  
Joris van Wijk

Case studies in the Netherlands and the UK of asylum applicants excluded or under consideration of exclusion pursuant to Article 1Fa of the Refugee Convention reveal that some applicants falsely implicated themselves in serious crimes or behaviours in order to enhance their refugee claim. This may have serious consequences for the excluded persons themselves, as well as for national governments dealing with them. For this reason we suggest immigration authorities could consider forewarning asylum applicants i.e. before their interview, about the existence, purpose and possible consequences of exclusion on the basis of Article 1F.


Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne

Kjersti Lohne describes the impact of non-governmental organizations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular discussing the relative lack of regard for defendants’ rights, and especially highlighting the difficulties encountered by those acquitted. After the Coalition for the International Criminal Court contributed to the establishment of the ICC itself in the fight against impunity for international crimes, that Coalition has continued a victim-oriented approach, arguably at the expense of defendants’ rights. The ICC’s focus on victims, ‘truth’, and ‘memory’ may challenge the legitimacy of the Court in the longer run.


Author(s):  
Pacifique Manirakiza

A matter raised consistently by eminent personalities asked to report on atrocities in Africa, such as former South African President Thabo Mbeki, is the utilization of traditional justice mechanisms known to Africans. Their use has been limited to Gacaca courts in Rwanda, set up in haste and subject to much criticism. However, there exist several types and models of traditional justice mechanisms at the African level. The contribution of these sui generis mechanisms towards accountability for heinous crimes is largely unaddressed in academic literature. This chapter intends to fill this gap by exploring their potential contribution towards accountability for heinous crimes, alongside the International Criminal Court (ICC). In short, the chapter explores how community-based judicial mechanisms and the ICC, two types of accountability mechanisms with different methodologies and approaches, can work side by side to eradicate impunity regarding, and also to prevent, mass atrocities on the African continent.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 208-210
Author(s):  
Catherine Marchi-Uhel

The IIIM is different in that it is not a judicial entity. It cannot adjudicate crimes. It is not a court or tribunal. The IIIM has been referred to as having a “quasi-prosecutorial” function. It has been mandated by the General Assembly in 2016 to assist in the investigation and prosecution of core international crimes committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document