International Criminal Law Review
Latest Publications


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

813
(FIVE YEARS 179)

H-INDEX

13
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Published By Brill

1571-8123, 1567-536x

Author(s):  
Anne Herzberg

Abstract The International Criminal Court (icc) is an independent treaty-based international organisation acting in close cooperation with the United Nations (UN). To that end, organs of the Court have extensively relied on UN documentation in proceedings. These materials have been used to support grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction, demonstrate legal elements of crimes, and prove matters of fact. In recent practice, including in the situations of Palestine, Bangladesh/Myanmar, and Mali, UN materials have been used to establish legal and factual matters on the primary basis that they represent the ‘views of the international community’. This paper examines the ways in which Court organs rely on UN documentation in icc proceedings. It assesses the interplay of such information with rights of the accused. The paper concludes that in order to safeguard its credibility and the fairness of the proceedings, the Court should adopt specific guidelines relating to the evaluation of and admissibility of UN materials.


Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe

Abstract International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict and which apply to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture, sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that the entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements in light of the existing icc case law. That study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant icc case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which was published in the previous issue of this journal, dealt with the status requirement. It especially delved into the icc decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocated the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments relied on ihl provisions protecting specific persons as well as on the potential for humanizing ihl on the matter and also on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which is published here, deals with the control requirement. It examines several icc cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees may apply in the conduct of hostilities. This concerns mainly those guarantees whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties.


Author(s):  
Karen McGregor Richmond ◽  
Sebastiano Antonio Piccolo

Abstract It is a fundamental tenet of the law of evidence, spanning all jurisdictions, that witness testimony should ideally be delivered in open court by the individual who observed the event in question, or by the expert whose technical knowledge is relied upon. A notable exception to this principle has emerged in the field of international criminal justice, where courts and tribunals may allow ‘summarising witnesses’ to present a summation of witness testimony. In the case of Ayyash et al., the Special Tribunal for Lebanon extended the principle, allowing voluminous expert opinion evidence to be presented in factual summation. This article analyses such approaches, utilising doctrinal methods alongside empirical Wigmorean analysis, to assess the probity of these sui generis practices. The results are placed in legal and theoretical perspective, demonstrating that international courts and tribunals are departing from an overarching obligation to integrate international and domestic standards in respect of expert testimony.


Author(s):  
Karol Nowak

Abstract In this article the argument is made that a global court like the icc is not suitable for gaining the trust of those it rules over and that the procedure used when trying crimes against humanity is a poor fit as it is to a large extent based on national procedural codes. It is suggested that a split of the icc into several regional bodies with common procedural rules that are amended to suit the special needs when trying crimes against humanity would be beneficial for the court’s credibility. The point is also made that the goals of international trials and tribunals a poorly formulated and that they over promise and need to be amended to better reflect reality.


Author(s):  
Elena Katselli Proukaki

Abstract Preventing the forcibly displaced from returning to the territory from which they were unlawfully expelled has not received adequate attention under international criminal law. This article addresses this gap by focusing on denial of return as a crime against humanity. It evaluates international criminal jurisprudence including the proceedings concerning the Rohingya and evolving human rights standards to show that prevention from returning is a serious and continuing denial of fundamental human rights which inflicts great suffering. As such, it may qualify as persecution and/or an inhumane act under the Rome Statute. The ramifications of this on the temporal and territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the principle of legality are important especially in situations of protracted displacement. The article demonstrates that although criminalisation of denial of return is not a panacea, it is instrumental in tackling forced displacement which affects millions across the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document