scholarly journals Victim’s Right of Access to International Criminal Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Fazlollah Foroughi ◽  
Zahra Dastan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

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.

The new International Criminal Court: A preliminary assessment

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (325) ◽  
pp. 671-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Major Step ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
New Institutions

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.

The Contestation of Value-Based Norms: Confirmation or Erosion of International Law?

2019 ◽  
pp. 311-334
Author(s):  
Tiyanjana Maluwa
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
Normative Powers

The chapter discusses the concepts of shared values and value-based norms. It examines two areas of international law that provide illustrative examples of contestation of value-based norms: the fight against impunity under international criminal law and the debates about the responsibility to protect. It argues that the African Union’s (AU) difference of view with the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the indictment of Omar Al-Bashir is not a rejection of the non-impunity norm, but of the context and sequencing of its application. As regards the right of intervention codified in the Constitutive Act of the AU, Africans states responded to the failure of the Security Council to invoke its existing normative powers in the Rwanda situation by establishing a treaty-based norm of intervention, the first time that a regional international instrument had ever done so. Thus, in both cases one cannot speak of a decline of international law.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Magda Olesiuk-Okomska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Far East ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
Massive Scale

Although in international law responsibility traditionally had belonged to states, along with involvement of individuals in conflicts between states and committing by them crimes on a massive scale, a need to criminalize such acts and to bring offenders guilty of the most serious violations of international law to justice - arose. Establishment of international criminal courts resulted from the need to fulfill internationally the idea of justice. Development of international criminal courts reflects differences in inter alia attitude towards ratione materiae of particular courts and tribunals. The purpose of this article is to present and discuss international crimes within the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals. A typology of international criminal courts was indicated and the most important courts and tribunals were presented in detail. The paper discusses subject jurisdiction of International Military Court in Nuremberg and International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokio, the first international courts established to bring war criminals to justice; as well as the subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the only permanent court in international criminal court system, having universal jurisdiction. Four categories of the most serious crimes of international concern were considered, and doubts concerning subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as well as its functioning in general, were signalized.

scholarly journals Universal jurisdiction in the activities of international criminal courts

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Bazov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes

The article presents an analysis of the principle of universal jurisdiction as an important legal institution of international criminal justice. Analyzed the main international legal norms and judicial practice in this area. The directions of further development of universal jurisdiction have been determined. Analyzed the Princeton Principlesof the universal jurisdiction. Investigated the work of the UN International Law Commission and the UN General Assembly on this issue. Proposals for the improvement of international and national legal acts are presented. Universal jurisdiction or the principle of universality in the fight against international crime is an important legal institution in the activities of both national and international criminal courts. As with any international offense, the obligation to stop international crimes such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of international terrorism take the form of an alternative to aut dedere aut judicare or aut prosegue by Hugo Grotius, and under which any State has an obligation to search for and prosecute international criminals for these heinous acts, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and their victims, as well as the place where the crime was committed, or to extradite international criminals to any State that requires their extradition for prosecution and punishment, or to an international criminal tribunal. Thus, a state is obliged to exercise universal criminal jurisdiction over international crimes and international criminals, or to extradite them to another state or to an international criminal court under conditions determined by international law and national law. Key words: universal jurisdiction, International criminal court, international crime, state sovereignty.

Part III The Right to Justice, A General Principles, Principle 19 Duties of States with Regard to the Administration of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambos Kai
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right

Principle 19 outlines the duties of States with regard to the administration of justice for victims of serious human rights violations and other international crimes. Under this Principle, States must ensure that those responsible for serious crimes under international law are prosecuted, tried and adequately punished. A state’s (criminal) justice obligations have long been recognized by regional human rights courts and international human rights bodies. While the fight against impunity is the explicit aim of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a major goal of the United Nations, the duty to prosecute lies primarily with the domestic justice system with regional or international mechanisms being subsidiary or complementary. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 19 before discussing its theoretical framework and how human rights courts and treaty bodies have interpreted the duty of States to investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations.

Limitations of the Ordinary-Crimes Approach to the International Crime of Rape: the Case of Uganda

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-297
Author(s):  
Emma Charlene Lubaale
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Not many states have effective national laws on prosecution of international crimes. Presently, of the 124 states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), less than half have specific national legislation incorporating international crimes. Some faith has been placed in the ordinary-crimes approach; the assumption being that states without effective laws on international crimes can prosecute on the basis of ordinary crimes. This article assesses the practicality of this approach with regard to the crime of rape in Uganda. Based on this assessment, the author draws a number of conclusions. First, that there are glaring gaps in the Ugandan definition of rape, making it impossible for it to be relied on. Secondly, although national courts have the option to interpret national laws with a view to aligning them with international law, the gaps salient in the definition of ordinary rape are too glaring; they cannot be remedied by way of interpretation without undermining the principle of legality. Thirdly, prosecuting the international crime of rape as an ordinary crime suggests that approaches applicable to the prosecution of ordinary rape will be invoked. Because these approaches were never intended to capture the reality of the international crime of rape, the ordinary-crimes approach remains illusory.

Autocratic Consent to International Law: The Case of the International Criminal Court's Jurisdiction, 1998–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-362
Author(s):  
Barry Hashimoto
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Civil Conflict ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Economic Statecraft

AbstractThis article contributes to an understanding of why autocrats have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Leveraging their ability to obstruct their own prosecution, autocrats have traded off the risk of unwanted prosecutions against the deterrent threat that prosecutions pose to political rivals and patrons of their enemies conspiring to oust them. The risk of unwanted prosecutions and the court's deterrent threat both arise because ICC prosecutions credibly communicate guilt for international crimes to capital-disbursing democracies, which may, insofar as possible, use leader-specific economic statecraft to prevent the administration of foreign states by those whom the court signals are guilty of international crimes. Analysis using fixed effects and matching shows that a greater reliance on capital publicly financed by democracies increased the probability that a state accepted the court's jurisdiction only when it was an autocracy (1998–2017). ICC jurisdiction also lengthened the tenure of autocrats and reduced the severity of civil conflict in autocracies.

scholarly journals I. THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: BACKING INTO THE FUTURE?

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

As a precursor to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2001, the respective Parliaments in the UK adopted two Acts to implement the obligations that treaty imposed on the UK, and to implement the international crimes, as defined in that treaty, into the law of the UK. When the International Criminal Court Act (ICC Act) was being debated in 2001, Baroness Scotland, speaking for the Government, explained that part of the raison d'etre of the Act was that the UK ought not to be seen as a safe haven for international criminals. However, in line with article 11 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of UK courts over such offences, insofar as they were not already covered by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969 (the latter of which was repealed by the ICC Act) only applied prospectively.

scholarly journals Genocide in Light of the Principles and Rules of International Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Mohamad Badrnajad Horand ◽  
Babak Pourghahramani
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
The Right

<p>In Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter has agreed that members of the United Nations must not intervene in internal affairs of another country, and sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries must be respected. Now in Syria, ISIL terrorist group is committed crimes against Shiites with the involvement of Western and Arabic countries, most of which are permanent members of the Security Council. Crimes that deprive peace, security and the right to life, causing disruption to international and regional peace and security must be prosecuted not to witness the occurrence of such crimes. Killings committed by terrorist groups against Shiites in Syria are genocide under Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and lack of attention to crimes committed by terrorist groups in international institutions such as the International Criminal Court continues to bring chaos for the international community and are the unpleasant results resulting from weakness of courts and international organizations including the UN Security Council.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document