The Legal Characterization of Facts During the Red Terror in Ethiopia: Genocide, War Crimes, or Crimes Against Humanity?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Kassahun Molla Yilma
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
District Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Best Fit ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Multiple countries have investigated and prosecuted the perpetrators of crimes committed during the Red Terror in Ethiopia. In bringing the perpetrators to account, each country adopted a unique approach, resulting in a variation in the situation’s legal characterization. The charges against the Red Terror perpetrators in the U.S. were based on violations of immigration laws, while the perpetrators in Ethiopia were charged and convicted of the crime of genocide. In contrast, one suspect, who had already been convicted of genocide by the Ethiopian High Court, has recently been convicted of war crimes by the Hague District Court, the Netherlands. The article investigates whether the Red Terror crimes constitute war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. Accordingly, this analysis shows that while countries have used genocide or war crimes when prosecuting crimes perpetrated during the Red Terror, the best fit to the situation’s legal characterization would be crimes against humanity.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

scholarly journals International Crimes before Dutch Courts: Recent Developments

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
European Convention ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Right

In the early 1990s, two former members of the Afghan secret service applied for a residence permit in the Netherlands. Their request was denied on the basis of the exclusion clause of Article 1F(a) of the Vienna Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There were serious reasons for suspecting that the men had committed war crimes during the Afghan civil war of 1979–92. In 2000, the immigration authorities transmitted the files of the two men to the public prosecution office, which initiated prosecutions in 2003. At the trial, defence counsel raised various preliminary challenges. They argued that the case should be declared inadmissible since relying on the immigration files would violate the nemo tenetur principle and the right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court had no universal jurisdiction over violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions since there was no international rule mandating a right to universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. The Hague District Court dismissed the defence challenges and eventually convicted the Afghan nationals to 9 and 12 years' imprisonment. The Hague Appeal Court endorsed most of the findings of the District Court and confirmed the convictions and sentences. The reasoning underlying the decisions, both at first instance and at appeal, raise questions particularly with regard to universal jurisdiction. In this article the defence arguments are explored and the reasoning of the courts is analysed.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction and Combatant’s Privilege in the MH17 Trial: Treading the Line Between Domestic and International Criminal Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachezar Yanev
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
District Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Hague

AbstractThis article focuses on the MH17 Trial that is currently underway in the Netherlands, dealing with the shooting down of a civilian aircraft over Eastern Ukraine and the resulting deaths of all 298 persons on board. Two legal questions arising from the prosecutorial strategy to charge the four accused with ‘ordinary’ crimes under the Dutch Criminal Code—instead of with war crimes—are studied here. First, the jurisdictional basis on which the District Court of The Hague is trying MH17, and its effect on the applicable laws, is examined. It is argued that, contrary to what the Prosecution has submitted, jurisdiction over the killing of the 93 non-Dutch nationals on board of flight MH17 can only be established on the basis of the less known title of delegated (representative) jurisdiction: a conclusion that also brings certain legal requirements. Second, this paper analyzes the way the MH17 Prosecutor defined the notion of ‘combatant’s privilege’ under international humanitarian law and his arguments for rejecting a combatant status for the separatist armed forces that shot down flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine. All this analysis is then used to explain why it was indeed more sensible for the Prosecution to charge the four accused with murder and intentionally causing an aircraft to crash under Dutch criminal law, than with war crimes under international law.

scholarly journals A Primer on Citizenship Revocation for WWII Collaboration: The 1998-1999 Federal Court Term

1969 ◽  
pp. 415
Author(s):  
Claire I. Farid
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
Security Screening ◽  
The Government ◽  
Modern War

This article provides a review of recent jurisprudence in relation to revocation of citizenship proceedings against those alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. The author discusses proceedings involving citizenship obtained by deception by those involved in World War II, with a particular focus on five cases decided in late 1998 and 1999. The article addresses both procedural and substantive issues that have arisen in these proceedings. Although past procedural problems of characterization of the proceedings, the scope of required notices, and rights to appeal have generally been clarified in recent jurisprudence, some specific problems still remain to be resolved. The author points out that the substantive issues surrounding collaboration, actual post-WW Il security screening practices, the existence of a duty of candour, and the legal authority for security screening of immigration applicants still remain in a state of uncertainty as the current cases have provided conflicting results. Interpretation of old legislation and the determination of how such legislation was actually applied to security screening by immigration officials at the time of the immigrant's application are the main concerns in deciding these substantive issues. Matters are further complicated by the lack of evidence, both testimonial and documentary. The resolution, or lack thereof, of the procedural and substantive issues will have a bearing on proceedings initiated by the government in relation to modern war crimes cases.

Kosovo parties will seize chance to unseat government

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Status ◽  
Significant Step ◽  
The Hague ◽  
National Hero

Significance Haradinaj was earlier summoned as a suspect to the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (SC), part of the Kosovo judicial system but sitting in The Hague and with a mandate to try war crimes and crimes against humanity. His resignation is likely to trigger fresh elections and affect Kosovo’s stance in the status debate with Serbia, although much depends on the composition of the next government. Impacts The start, albeit belated, to addressing war crimes by the Kosovo Liberation Army is a significant step. Haradinaj's summons to the SC has united Albanians in both Kosovo and Albania around him, as a figure many see as a national hero. Conversely, the reopening of criminal procedures has caused satisfaction in Serbia, where many believe Haradinaj unfairly escaped justice.

The ICC's Potential for Doing Bad When Pursuing Good

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Schiff
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Republic Of Congo ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks to end impunity for the atrocity crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, eventually, crimes of aggression. My contribution to this discussion takes a consequentialist view to outline ethical hazards confronting the court. Since the ICC has only recently begun to operate, with its first suspect, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of Congo, arriving in The Hague in 2006 and his trial completed only in the fall of 2011 (and awaiting a verdict in 2012), it is too early to reach a general appraisal of the court's effects.

The Cruelty of False Remorse: Biljana Plavšić at The Hague

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Subotić
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Republika Srpska

Biljana Plavšić, the former president of Republika Srpska, was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. After she plead guilty and issued a remorseful statement, the prosecution dropped the genocide charges and she was sentenced to 11 years in prison, and subsequently granted early release. While in prison, she published lengthy memoirs in which she retracted her confession. In this article, I take a look back at Plavšić's ICTY case to put forward three principal arguments. First, the Plavšić case demonstrates significant inconsistencies in ICTY procedures and sentencing, which have important ramifications for other international justice cases. Second, the expectation and hope displayed by many international justice promoters that war crimes trials may lead to truthful confessions, apologies, or acknowledgments of abuses is not borne out by evidence. Finally, the Plavšić case demonstrates that the international justice focus on individualizing accountability for mass atrocity is ill equipped to deal with the collectivist nature of such crimes.

Prosecutor v. Taylor

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Triestino Mariniello
Keyword(s):  
Sierra Leone ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Sexual Slavery ◽  
Single Term ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Personal Dignity ◽  
The Hague

On April 26, 2012, Trial Chamber II (Chamber) of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (Special Court or Court) in The Hague convicted former Liberian president Charles Ghankay Taylor of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from November 30, 1996, to January 18, 2002, in the territory of Sierra Leone during its civil war. Specifically, Taylor was found guilty of the crimes against humanity of murder, rape, sexual slavery, enslavement and other inhumane acts, and the war crimes of committing acts of terror, murder, outrages upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, pillage, and conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities. In a separate judgment rendered on May 30, 2012, the Chamber sentenced Taylor to a single term of fifty years for all the counts on which the accused had been convicted.

Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-583
Author(s):  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Made In

Plaintiff Sheets sought sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against defendants, the Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. (Yamaha Japan) and its wholly owned American subsidiary, Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A. (Yamaha U.S.A.), for misconduct in discovery and frivolous insistence that service on the foreign parent be made in conformity with the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, better known as the Hague Service Convention. Plaintiff had effected service under the Louisiana long-arm statute, which permitted service on the subsidiary as involuntary agent for the defendant parent company in an action arising out of business transacted or tortious conduct occurring in the state. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana initially awarded $25,000 in sanctions to the plaintiff. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the decision for further findings by the district court on the grounds for imposing sanctions. The district court held (per Schwartz, J.): in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, involving a state service statute virtually identical to that of Louisiana, the defendants’ failure to waive service under the Hague Convention needlessly increased the cost of litigation and was properly the subject of Rule 11 sanctions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document