Bespoke Transitional Justice at the International Criminal Court

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

Beyond ‘African Solutions to African Problems’ at the Extraordinary African Chambers and ‘Distant Justice’ at the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thijs B Bouwknegt
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Congo Free State ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Cold Case ◽  
Passive Object

Abstract The trial of Chad’s former President Hissène Habré in 2015 was heartily anticipated and then heralded as an ‘African solution to African problems’. In myriad ways, the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) in Senegal’s court system indeed picketed a momentous transitional justice experience. It was simultaneously international, regional and local. It applied the universal jurisdiction principle. It judged a former and foreign head of state. It dealt with a ‘cold case’ from the Cold War. This was unprecedented in Africa and elsewhere. Crucially, the Habré trial departed from a ‘distant’, alienating trend of symbolic justice for African atrocities promised by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In Dakar, justice was pursued, performed and profited by those indirectly and directly victimized by the accused, while the passionate courtroom dynamics were palatably and transparently broadcasted. Notwithstanding these topical novelties, this article traces a more complex, more remote, and at times forgotten genealogy of transitional justice in Africa. By historicizing, contextualizing and exemplifying the Habré trial in light of unseen precedents from, inter alia, Congo Free State, Namibia, Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia, it seeks to add historical layers of complexity to portrayals of Africa as passive object in the evolution of international criminal justice.

The International Criminal Court Statute and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparation

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Do So

The International Criminal Court (ICC)'s reparations regime seems very geared towards material reparation such as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. However, a growing number of international instruments, particularly in the human rights field, anticipate that more symbolic forms of reparation such as satisfaction and non-repetition are mandatory. The article explores what reasons may have led the ICC drafters to not at least mention symbolic reparation and finds that, apart from a possible trend towards commodification of reparation in general, the perception was probably that only states can grant symbolic reparation, and that ordering individuals to do so might raise human rights problems. None of these arguments are conclusive. Individuals can provide symbolic reparation, and this could be encouraged rather than ordered to avoid the human rights issue. More importantly, the role of the ICC and the Victims Trust Fund will be to use money as reparation, and nothing will prevent them from using awards so made for symbolic purposes. In fact, strong principle and policy arguments militate in favor of granting a larger role to symbolic reparation in the ICC context, thus helping to make the Court into more of an institution of transitional justice.

Transitional justice and the International Criminal Court – in “the interests of justice”?

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (867) ◽  
pp. 691-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dražan Đukić
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractTransitional justice encompasses a number of mechanisms that seek to allow post-conflict societies to deal with past atrocities in circumstances of radical change. However, two of these mechanisms – truth commissions and criminal processes – might clash if the former are combined with amnesties. This article examines the possibility of employing the Rome Statute's Article 53 so as to allow these two mechanisms to operate in a complementary manner. It considers three arguments – an interpretation of Article 53 in accordance with the relevant rules on treaty interpretation, states' obligations to prosecute certain crimes and the Rome Statute's approach to prosecutorial discretion – and concludes that Article 53 is ill-suited to accommodate truth commissions in conjunction with amnesties.

The International Criminal Court and its Trust Fund are Coming of Age: Towards a Process Approach for the Reparation of Victims

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidy Rombouts ◽  
Stephan Parmentier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Major Question ◽  
Post Conflict

The last decade has witnessed a rapid development in the field of reparation for victims of serious human rights violations, both at the national and the international level. Both in (post-)conflict situations and in situations of large-scale human rights abuses it has become a major question of transitional justice how to repair the harm inflicted on victims through acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other forms of injustice. As institutions of international criminal justice, the International Criminal Court and the Trust Fund for Victims are also confronted with this question and the many issues involved. They have to address three crucial questions in particular: (a) who are the beneficiaries for reparation; (b) who are the duty-bearers of reparation; and (c) what forms of reparation can be awarded? We argue that the answers to these questions raise very important issues that go beyond a purely legal approach and that require an input from other scientific disciplines and also from other sectors of society, including victims and their organizations. We argue in particular in favour of a concept of reparation that seeks to attain a new balance and that will allow victims to cope with the past and the future alike, and therefore propose a process-oriented approach to reparation based on the work of Barkan and Habermas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document