Remarks from the Panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 279-285
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
The University ◽  
Global Law

Chimène Keitner, Alfred & Hanna Fromm Professor of International Law at UC Hastings Law, moderated a discussion among John B. Bellinger III, former U.S. State Department legal adviser and current head of Arnold & Porter's global law and public policy practice; Marko Milanovic, professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham School of Law; and Angela Mudukuti, senior international criminal justice lawyer at the Wayamo Foundation.

Types of Injury in Inter-State Reparation Claims: A Guide for the International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 259-276
Author(s):  
Hirad Abtahi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Inter State

Abstract In determining “the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims” under article 75(1) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) Statute, the ICC will progressively lay the foundation of reparations in international criminal justice. In the process of establishing the typology of harms sustained by natural and—under some qualifications—legal persons, inter-state claims practice may prove to be of assistance to the judges in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In addition, such an exercise illuminates how the doctrinal methods adopted in public international law scholarship categorize and describe the harms that have given rise to reparation claims during both war and peacetime.

scholarly journals Radbruch Redux: The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Common and Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL BOHLANDER
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractInternational criminal justice is based to a large extent on extrapolations from criminal-law research on domestic systems. The difficult exercise of arriving at a common denominator is exacerbated by the systemic dichotomy of the so-called common-law and civil-law models, which, in turn, have now been joined by a third contender: public international law. Each of these has its own methods of approaching the task of solving legal problems. This paper queries the inter-model conversation that is happening so far and asks the question as to whether it is necessary to hold this discussion at a much more fundamental level than it would seem has been the case so far. It does so at the example of the relationship between German and English and Welsh law, but its concerns and conclusions merit consideration for the entire debate between the systems.

International Criminal Law and International Criminal Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos ◽  
Alexander Heinze
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

International Criminal Justice is a controversial concept, and there is a burgeoning body of literature on its exact contours. Understood broadly, the term “international criminal justice” covers a broad category, integrating international criminal law (ICL) within an overarching interdisciplinary enterprise also “incorporating philosophical, historical, political and international relations, sociological, anthropological and criminological perspectives” (Roberts, 2007). International criminal law consists, at its core, of a combination of criminal law and public international law principles. The idea of individual criminal responsibility and the concept of prosecuting an individual for a specific (macrocriminal) act are derived from criminal law, while the classical (Nuremberg) offenses form part of (public) international law and thus the respective conduct is directly punishable under ICL (principle of direct individual criminal responsibility in public international law). The dualistic base of international criminal law is also reflected in the reading of the mandates of the international criminal tribunals; one can either take a “security, peace, and human rights”–oriented approach or a “criminal justice”–oriented approach, either of which may entail a paradoxical goal or purpose ambiguity of international criminal law. In any case, the strong grounding in criminal law, together with the actual enforcement of international criminal law by way of international criminal proceedings and trials, converts international criminal law into criminal law on a supranational level and thus entails the full application of the well-known principles of liberal, post-enlightenment criminal law, in particular the principles of legality, culpability, and fairness. These principles constitute the minimum standard of any criminal justice system based on the rule of law and thus must also apply in an international criminal justice system. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 and the effective establishment of the Court in 2002 have led to an institutionalization of international criminal law, turning the page on ad hoc imposition in favor of a treaty-based universal system. In addition, the Rome Statute provides for the first codification of international criminal law, with a potentially universal reach. Therewith, international criminal law was not only united into a single penal system of the international community, but it was also extended beyond its fundamental core areas of substantive and procedural law into other branches of criminal law (law of sanctions, enforcement of sentences, and judicial assistance).

International Criminal Justice History Writing as Anachronism

2019 ◽  
pp. 72-89
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
History Writing ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Individual Accountability

This chapter focuses on the extent to which the contemporary project of international criminal justice cannot easily lay claim to what it imagines to be its past, because that past, despite superficial similarities, often exhibited fundamentally different concerns. It highlights three areas in which international criminal justice today is arguably dramatically different from how it was understood up to the 1990s. First, international criminal justice was for a long time much less obsessed with the criminalization of international law prohibitions specifically, and much more interested in the transnational dimensions of the criminal law. Second, it was much less committed to a strict model of individual accountability under international law and much more willing to see the state as the central pivot of international criminal responsibility. Third, it was intimately linked to peace projects whereas it has become intimately associated to the fight against atrocities and mass human rights violations.

When the Child Surpasses the Father – Admissible Defences in International Criminal Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Fournet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractDue to the heinous nature of international crimes, admissible defences in the context of international criminal justice understandably constitute an issue surrounded with controversy. Yet, while International Criminal Law precludes the use of a series of defences, it also admits that certain grounds may exclude individual criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment even in the case of the most serious international crimes. The present study thus proposes to analyse the permissibility of these defences and the availability of such grounds for excluding responsibility by drawing a comparison between Public International Law and International Criminal Law and by highlighting the differences and discrepancies between the two systems. Ultimately, this analysis aims at demonstrating that International Criminal Law, one of Public International Law's children, has now surpassed its parent to become a more sophisticated and a fairer legal and judicial system, for both the defendants and the victims.

Personal Remarks on Antonio Cassese and His Vision of International Law and International Criminal Justice along the Road He Walked

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-510
Author(s):  
SALVATORE ZAPPALA
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Prolific Author ◽  
The Road

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.

Research Note: Rawls Revisited: Can International Criminal Law Exist?

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-420
Author(s):  
Kirsten J. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Research Note ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Theory Of Justice

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