scholarly journals Parties to Offences under the Canadian Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act : an Analysis of Principal Liability and Complicity

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 967-1014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fannie Lafontaine
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
Legislative Choice ◽  
Domestic Law

The Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act presents an interesting mosaic of law applicable to the domestic prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The definitions of offences refer essentially to international law, whereas the available defences, justifications and excuses are those of both Canadian law and international law, and the modes of participation in offences are exclusively those of Canadian law. This raises the question of the relevance and effectiveness of the legislative choice to apply domestic law to the principles of liability for international crimes. The present study offers a preliminary and limited analysis of certain modes of participation in offences provided for by the Act, namely perpetration and complicity pursuant to section 21 of the Criminal Code. This analysis aims at assessing, in light of the principles developed in international criminal law with respect to individual responsibility, whether and how Canadian law may be adapted to the particular — collective — nature of international crimes.

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

scholarly journals The General Principles of International Criminal Law in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey SAYAPIN
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Republic

AbstractInternational Criminal Law [ICL] contains a number of general principles, which form the foundations of and conditions for holding individuals criminally responsible for crimes under international law (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), and other crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Most general principles of ICL have been adequately implemented in the current (second) edition of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This paper assesses the quality of and identifies the lacunae in the implementation of Kazakhstan’s Criminal Code, with a view to suggesting further improvements to this Code.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW AND AR (AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC) LEGISLATION GENOCIDE CRIME AND ITS COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Erkin Humbat Musayev Humbat Musayev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Transnational Crime ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes

Key words: international law, international criminal law, genocide, war crimes, transnational crime

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The Agreement on the Establishment of the Extraordinary African Chambers within the Senegalese Judicial System Between the Government of the Republic Of Senegal and the African Union and the Statute of the Chambers

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1020-1036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Adjovi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
African Union ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

On August 22, 2012, the Republic of Senegal and the African Union (AU) signed an agreement to create a tribunal within the Senegalese judicial system to prosecute the perpetrators of international law violations in Chad between 1982 and 1990. To be called the Extraordinary African Chambers (Chambers), the tribunal is the result of years of political and judicial bargaining around Hissein Habré, the former President of Chad. The Chambers were inaugurated in February 2013, following the agreement upon a Statute of the Chambers in January 2013. On July 2, 2013, Hissein Habré was charged with crimes against humanity, torture, and war crimes, and placed in pre-trial detention. To date, Habré is the only indictee, but the Prosecutor reportedly intends to seek the indictment of five officials of Habré’s administration suspected of having committed international crimes.

The international law commission’s recent work on exceptions to immunity: Charting the course for a brave new world in international law?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 169-187
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Brave New World ◽  
Main Criticism ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Mixed Reaction

AbstractIn the summer of 2017, the International Law Commission adopted a draft article on exceptions to immunity. The Draft Article adopted provides that immunityratione materiaedoes not apply with respect to certain international crimes, namely crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearances. These exceptions do not apply to immunityratione personae. The Draft Article was adopted after a vote and was severely criticized by some members of the Commission. It has also received mixed reaction from states, with some supporting its content while others have opposed it. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Draft Article, there has also been academic commentary, some of which has been critical. The (main) criticism levelled against the Draft Article is that it does not represent existing law and has no basis in the practice of states. This article seeks to evaluate the criticism by considering whether there is any state practice in support of the Draft Article proposed by the Commission.

scholarly journals Methodological Flaws in the ILC's Study on Exceptions to Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinmin Shen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
International Law Commission

In July 2017, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted Draft Article 7 on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, by a recorded vote of twenty-one votes in favor, eight votes against, and one abstention. In the view of the majority of ILC members, immunity ratione materiae does not apply to the six international crimes listed in the draft article—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance—either because of a limitation or because of an exception. The unusual practice of adopting a draft article by recorded vote demonstrated the deep controversy among the ILC members themselves. After all, exceptions to official immunity lie at the core of the project of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” that was started a decade ago by the ILC. This divisive Draft Article 7 naturally garnered criticism and equally deep controversy among states in discussions on the ILC's work report at UN General Assembly Sixth Committee in late October 2017.

“Revolution is glorious! Revolution is no crime!” International Crimes and Chinese Domestic Law, and the Gang of Four Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Modern China ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Glorious Revolution ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

China was active in the drafting of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but has not become a state party, and the Chinese relationship with international criminal law is not strong. Given this, an examination of China’s own abilities and actions with regard to accountability for international crimes is warranted. China does not have any legislation proscribing violations of international humanitarian law, or war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. This article will examine some of the options under current Chinese Criminal Law of 1997 that could be used to prosecute international crimes in lieu of express provisions. The second part of the article undertakes an international criminal law and human rights analysis of the Gang of Four trial, as the only trial of leaders linked to the mass crimes of the Cultural Revolution and thus the only real example of an attempt at accountability for mass crimes in modern China. These two parts of the article combine together to provide an analysis of China’s ability to enact and attempts at accountability for international crimes committed in China.

Part III Security Governance Tools, Ch.41 Criminal Prosecution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Governance Tools ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter focuses on criminal prosecution. Traditionally, in domestic law, criminal prosecution has been regarded as a tool capable of contributing to peaceful and secure governance. Under international law, however, recourse to criminal prosecution as a safeguard for maintaining international peace and security is very recent and still limited, and in many respects disputed. This is the case both when international rules are applied by international jurisdictions and when they are directed at soliciting the exercise of criminal prosecution by domestic courts. The chapter looks at the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute), which expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the Court ‘shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, and identifies these crimes as the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Given that the ICC Statute does not merely codify customary international law, but also partially develops or restricts it, its adoption has produced some degree of fragmentation of international criminal law, which further impacts on the existing international case law.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document