scholarly journals Special Tribunal for Lebanon and progressive development of international criminal law

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-236
Author(s):  
I. I. Sinyakin ◽  
A. Yu. Skuratova

The subject. The article analyses the practice of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and its Judgement of 18 August 2020, rendered against those found guilty of a terrorist act and the impact on the progressive development of international criminal law.The purpose. This article seeks to define what goal the international community pursued in establishing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon from the perspective of international security law, international criminal justice, and counter-terrorism cooperation. The legal nature of the terrorist attack of 14 October 2005 is essential in this regard: is the crime is comparable in its gravity and consequences to the crimes of genocide or war crimes in the territory of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, which predetermined the subsequent establishment of ad hoc international criminal tribunals? Further, was the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon an attempt to make the crimes of terrorism an international crime in practice? Finally, was the establishment of the Tribunal an attempt to lay the groundwork for a new type of international judicial bodies with jurisdiction over crimes of terrorism? The methodology. The authors use such general theoretical and specific scientific methods as comparative analysis, generalization, interpretation and classification as well as systemic analysis and formal logical methods.The main results. The legal qualification and analysis of the circumstances of the terrorist attack do not enable the conclusion that the bomb explosion in Beirut was comparable in danger and consequences to any international crimes or was a threat to international peace and security. In its turn, the involvement of the Security Council in the establishment of the Tribunal does not unequivocally evidence its alleged attempt to create a purely international criminal structure.The choice of applicable law granted to Lebanon and the fact that the crime committed solely affected the interests of that State would qualify the Tribunal as an internationalized judicial body, whose work would focus on defining the crime of terrorism through a broader lens of interpreting national legislation. In other words, the impetus for development has been given not to international but national criminal law.The Tribunal was created neither to progressively develop international criminal law with regard to defining terrorism as an international crime nor to advance the international criminal justice system. Rather, it was an attempt to address Lebanon’s specific political and legal challenges.Conclusions. The outcome of the Tribunal’s work could have a rather negative impact on the development of international criminal law, discrediting the very idea of enabling “peace through justice” and uniform, consistent application and interpretation of international criminal law.

Author(s):  
Gur-Arye Miriam ◽  
Harel Alon

This chapter focuses on why international criminal law (ICL) matters, by generating a distinctive philosophical vision for the project of international criminal justice. Specifically, this chapter rejects the notion that ICL is simply a gap-filler for ineffective penal institutions at the domestic level. So much of the literature is characterized by an assumption, buttressed by the International Criminal Court’s complementarity principle, that international tribunals simply spring into action to resolve the lacunae in domestic legal processes when armed conflict or other disruptions dismantle traditional institutions for criminal enforcement. In contrast, the chapter argues that the goods of ICL and the values it promotes can only be provided by international entities. In that respect, international justice is not a second-best alternative to domestic justice but is, rather, necessarily international because international institutions are specifically designed to redress wrongs that harm the interests of the international community as a whole.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 879-908
Author(s):  
Auriane Botte-Kerrison

This article examines the viability of integrating the duty to rescue concept in international criminal justice to deal with the responsibility of bystanders. Despite the fact that they often contribute to create the social context in which mass crimes occur, bystanders are almost absent from the scope of international criminal justice, focusing mainly on the perpetrators and the victims. This article explores a possible avenue to fill this gap so that the attribution of responsibility for mass crimes can be more coherent with their collective dimension. It assesses whether the duty to rescue concept, commonly found in the legislation of civil law countries, could provide a ‘ready-made’ solution to deal with bystander responsibility. Following a comparative analysis of the different approaches to the duty to rescue in civil law and common law countries, it examines how the duty to rescue would fit with similar concepts in international criminal law.


2020 ◽  
pp. 391-416
Author(s):  
Carsten Stahn

This chapter connects expressivism to justice discourse and different dimensions of justice. It claims that expressivism has a more complex role in international criminal justice than publicly admitted. It is a means to reaffirm the purposes and ambitions of the field and to encourage commitment to it, and to enact and perform law. It also provides a more realistic understanding of justice. It views justice not as something ‘objective’ or ‘definitive’ that can be delivered through criminal proceedings, but rather as an intersubjective process that is triggered through messages and communicative relationships: justice is a message.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Rothe ◽  
Christopher Mullins

AbstractThis article draws attention to the relevance of criminological insight on issues of international criminal law and criminal justice. In particular, the ideology and theory of deterrence, legitimacy, and international criminal law are drawn from. After all, the deterrent effect has been touted as a solid empirical fact with the progression and development of 'international criminal justice', the international tribunals since the mid 1990s, and the International Criminal Court. Yet, the current rather blind belief in the deterrent impact of international criminal justice remains, regretfully, a bit premature. Additionally, beyond the concepts of deterrence and legitimacy, criminologists have much to contribute to international criminal justice. As noted, there are social, political, cultural, and geographical issues that play a role in not only crime commission, but in the hindrance of and/or facilitation of deterrence. Criminologists are well positioned to show how these connections may facilitate or hinder the broader goals of the legal community.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-510
Author(s):  
SALVATORE ZAPPALA

AbstractThis article is a journey through the life of Antonio Cassese, a giant of international law, no doubt one of the most prominent international lawyers of the twentieth century, and the ‘architect of international criminal justice’. From his first steps in the academic community in Pisa in the early 1960s to his well-known contributions as first president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, he became a prolific author and editor of seminal books and commentaries on international law and international criminal law, as well as founder of groundbreaking law journals.


2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-420
Author(s):  
Kirsten J. Fisher

Abstract. Questions concerning how Rawls's theory of justice accords with international criminal justice are largely ignored in favour of extensive debates on questions of distributive justice and how they relate to his theory and its international application. This lack of attention to international criminal law is significant since Rawls claims that his theory of justice is developed to correspond with recent dramatic shifts in international law. This paper argues that it is impossible for Rawls's account, state-centric as it is, to accord with advancements in international law that have increasingly asserted recognition of individuals in the global context.Résumé. Les questions concernant comment la théorie de justice de Rawls est en accord avec la justice criminelle internationale sont en grande partie ignorée, même pendant qu'en même temps sa théorie et son application internationale sont profondement discutée par rapport à la justice distributive. Ce manque d'attention à la loi criminelle internationale est important, puisque Rawls prétende que sa théorie de justice est développée en correspondance avec les récents changements dramatiques au niveau de la loi internationale. Cette exposé argumente qu'il est impossible que l'explication de Rawls, état-centré comme elle l'est, s'accorde avec les avancements en la loi internationale qui affirment de plus en plus la reconnaissance des individus dans le contexte global.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document