THE WAR AGAINST IMPUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIME: OPTICAL ILLUSION?

Deliberation on the imprescriptibility principle in international criminal law motivates determination towards the principle's function against impunity for international crimes. It is indeed a question of confronting this principle with judicial responsiveness, which relies on the speed of the criminal response. However, the current criminal response seems somewhat poorly considering the arising crimes. The poor execution enables criminals than the victims, which injures society. Therefore, it leads to inadmissibility. It is for this purpose that imprescriptibility arises and imposes itself comfortably. The research's conclusion attempts to demonstrate another facet of imprescriptibility. Imprescriptibility includes the impunity's ineffectiveness which passes irreversibly where ipso facto ensures impunity. This condition was perceived as a temporary and partial absence of justice that produced its socio-legal effects. Thus, the uncertainty of a judicial reaction resulting implicitly from this principle foster indolence in society. Over time, this would unsurprisingly lead to a denial of justice and eternal impunity.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

In the article an attempt has been made to analyze the peculiarities of the application of the categories of “international crimes” and “obligations erga omnes” in the context of environmental protection by the means of international law. The interrelation between these categories is investigated and their connection is demonstrated analyzing the work of the International Law Commission of the United Nations on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The tendency towards the formation in international law of a new type of obligations erga omnes aimed at environmental protection is analyzed. It is emphasized that environmental protection can be carried out both in the context of enforcement of obligations erga omnes and international responsibility of states, and in the context of prosecuting individuals for committing international war crimes against the environment. It is worth noting that at the moment the mentioned protection is fragmented and does not cover all elements of the environment. For example, the provisions of the Rome Statute about war crimes against environment relate to international armed conflicts and protect the natural environment only. At the same time the harm to the environment in armed conflicts not of an international character can be equally widespread, long-term and severe. In this regard, special attention is paid to the concept of “environment” as an object of protection under international law. Its complex nature manifested through a significant number of components, including natural resources and artificial elements, as well as the interaction between them, is shown. Thus, it seems necessary to develop such an international legal regulation that could ensure environmental protection, which would cover all elements of the environment and take into account their peculiarities

The ICC’s Appeals Chamber Judgments in the Jordan Case Regarding Al Bashir and Ntaganda Case: Victories for the Fights against Impunity and Immunity for Serious Crimes

The creation of the ICC was a turning point in the fights against impunity for serious international crimes affecting mankind. Accordingly, the ICC does not recognise any form of immunities before its jurisdiction. Consequently, individuals and senior state officials cannot rely on any form of immunities if accused of any of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Jordan case regarding Al Bashir’s immunity, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber held that by ratifying the Rome Statute, states parties have consented to waive the immunity of their officials regarding proceedings before the Court. As a result of this, there is no immunity between the Court and states parties and between states parties themselves, and Sudan was bound by the Statute of the Court based on the United Nations Resolution 1593. In the Ntaganda case, the Court held there is no impunity for serious international crimes before its jurisdiction. This article examines both cases and concludes that while in the Jordan case there is victory for serious international crimes and the fights against human rights violations over immunity before the ICC, there is also victory for serious international crimes over impunity before the Court as seen in the Ntaganda case.

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

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.