scholarly journals SOME LEGAL ASPECTS OF APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION OVER WAR CRIMES

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
İlyas GULİYEV
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

scholarly journals International Crimes before Dutch Courts: Recent Developments

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
European Convention ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Right

In the early 1990s, two former members of the Afghan secret service applied for a residence permit in the Netherlands. Their request was denied on the basis of the exclusion clause of Article 1F(a) of the Vienna Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There were serious reasons for suspecting that the men had committed war crimes during the Afghan civil war of 1979–92. In 2000, the immigration authorities transmitted the files of the two men to the public prosecution office, which initiated prosecutions in 2003. At the trial, defence counsel raised various preliminary challenges. They argued that the case should be declared inadmissible since relying on the immigration files would violate the nemo tenetur principle and the right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court had no universal jurisdiction over violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions since there was no international rule mandating a right to universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. The Hague District Court dismissed the defence challenges and eventually convicted the Afghan nationals to 9 and 12 years' imprisonment. The Hague Appeal Court endorsed most of the findings of the District Court and confirmed the convictions and sentences. The reasoning underlying the decisions, both at first instance and at appeal, raise questions particularly with regard to universal jurisdiction. In this article the defence arguments are explored and the reasoning of the courts is analysed.

Implementing Universal Jurisdiction Over Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 815-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard van Elst
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Geneva Conventions

As the most serious war crimes (grave breaches) should not be left unpunished, the 1949 Geneva Conventions contain an unusually worded obligation to either prosecute such a suspected war criminal or to hand him over to another country to be tried there (aut judicare aut dedere in stead of aut dedere aut judicare). Fifty years on, less than one in six of the parties to the Conventions have established universal jurisdiction over grave breaches which is necessary to prosecute a suspect if he was to be found in their country. An assessment and classification of the Conventions, national laws, prosecutions and practical obstacles. But if, what God forbid, these Conventions should ever have to be applied, they must be obeyed.M.W. Mouton, Diplomatic Conference, Geneva 16 July 1949

scholarly journals Dutch Criminal Justice for Ethiopian War Crimes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 633-659
Author(s):  
Lachezar Yanev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Legislation And Jurisprudence ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The past few years have witnessed a proliferation of universal jurisdiction proceedings in Europe, many of which concern asylum seekers suspected of committing international crimes in Syria and the wider region. Alongside the known practical challenges of such trials, these trials also raise a range of normative questions regarding inter alia the scope of universal jurisdiction and the applicable legal standards in such proceedings. This article unpacks several such questions through the lens of a recent Dutch case in which a former refugee, who was granted asylum in The Netherlands and later obtained Dutch citizenship, was tried and convicted by a local court in The Hague of war crimes committed in Ethiopia four decades ago. The judges used an amalgam of Dutch and (customary) international criminal law to convict the accused. They defined the charged war crimes in strict conformity with the standards established in international legislation and jurisprudence, relied exclusively on Dutch law to define one of the applied modes of criminal liability (co-perpetration), and synthesized Dutch and international law to define the other (command responsibility). To what extent does the notion of universal jurisdiction accommodate such choices of law, and how is the use of domestic criminal law on modes of liability in such proceedings compatible with the principle of legality?

scholarly journals Application of universal jurisdiction for war crimes in national legislations of states: comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 24-27
Author(s):  
Alovsat Vilayet Allahverdiyev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Case Examples ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Jurisdiction

The present article is dedicated to the meaning, nature and scope of the universal jurisdiction over war crimes as well as the use of universal jurisdiction in the practice of various states. The universal jurisdiction on war crimes can be considered as one of the cornerstones of the current international law areas, particularly international criminal law and international humanitarian law. In this regard, not only international courts, but also national judiciary applies the concept of universal jurisdiction while overviewing the criminal cases of world-wide importance. The article deals with war crimes and the application of universal jurisdiction, which pose a serious threat to international peace and security. First of all, the essence of universal jurisdiction, the disagreement over its application and, consequently, its importance are touched upon. It has become the responsibility of states to prosecute or to extradite those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression and genocide, regardless of their nationality or home country. Of course, the goal here is to ensure that those convicted of international crimes that are dangerous to humanity go unpunished with no exception. There are many case examples from the national jurisdiction of different states and the article refers to specific court judgements in this regard. Finally, the author considers recommendations regarding the establishment of national legislation what allows more efficient application of universal jurisdiction in connection with war crimes.

The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máximo Langer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Under universal jurisdiction, any state in the world may prosecute and try the core international crimes— crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—without any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to the crime in question whenit was committed.The jurisdictional claim is predicated on the atrocious nature of the crime and legally based on treaties or customary international law. Unlike the regime of international criminal tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council and the enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the regime of universal jurisdiction is completely decentralized.

Universal jurisdiction: lessons from the Belgian experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 394-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luc Walleyn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Political Debate

Belgium was variously praised, criticized and ridiculed for its 1993 law (as amended in 1999) giving it universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The invocation of this law against Israeli and US defendants provoked an unprecedented conflict with Israel and serious tension with the United States of America in 2003. After months of diplomatic incidents, economic threats, provocative complaints and political debate, Belgium's controversial anti-atrocity law was repealed on 5 August 2003, ten years after entering into force. Even in the international legal community, real understanding of what happened in this legal laboratory is not common. This article is not a neutral study, but a contribution from an actor and a privileged witness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document