scholarly journals Recklessness, Intent, and War Crimes: Refining the Legal Standard and Clarifying the Role of International Criminal Tribunals as a Source of Customary International Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Cox
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Legal Standard

The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máximo Langer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Under universal jurisdiction, any state in the world may prosecute and try the core international crimes— crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—without any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to the crime in question whenit was committed.The jurisdictional claim is predicated on the atrocious nature of the crime and legally based on treaties or customary international law. Unlike the regime of international criminal tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council and the enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the regime of universal jurisdiction is completely decentralized.

The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran Sluiter
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article deals with the question of possible effect of the law of international criminal procedure for domestic war crimes trials. With the increasing number of national prosecutions for war crimes this question will gain in relevance.The article starts with an exploration of the origin and development of the law of international criminal procedure, to reach the conclusion that because of the lack of a strong foundation it is difficult to discern firmly established rules in this field. Next, two areas are examined where the law of international criminal procedure is capable of producing effect for national trials: human rights and rules that have developed in the specific context of war crimes prosecutions.Whether rules of international criminal procedure are formally effective in the domestic legal order remains to be seen. There is no clear obligation under international law to do so. Furthermore, the law of international criminal procedure may be difficult to harmonise with domestic inquisitorial systems.In spite of these difficulties, the article concludes that national courts will increasingly face similar procedural problems in complex war crimes trials as international criminal tribunals and will be happy to learn from their experiences.

scholarly journals State Practice as Element of Customary International Law: A White Knight in International Criminal Law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 784-804
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice

Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.

The work of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 435-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
George H. Aldrich
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Rare Event ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
Common Boundary ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Creation

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC) is one of a pair of commissions established by the Peace Agreement of 12 December 2000 that ended a costly war between Ethiopia and Eritrea that had begun in May 1998. That war, which was sparked by disputes over the countries' common border, caused much damage and many thousands of casualties on each side. It also proved terribly expensive, as each party spent large amounts of money and incurred large debts to acquire modern weapons of war and the related munitions. Given the causes and the consequences of the war, it was, perhaps, not surprising that the Peace Agreement created a boundary commission to determine for the parties a common boundary that they would be obliged to accept, and a claims commission to resolve the claims of each party against the other for any acts arising out of the war that injured that party, including injury to its nationals, and that were in violation of international law.However understandable in the context of the war, the creation of an international commission charged with determining which actions of the parties to a war violated the applicable international law is a rare event. While we have seen very recently the establishment of international criminal tribunals for the punishment of war crimes by individuals, we have not seen the creation of any other international tribunal that has the task of deciding the legal responsibility of a state for violations of the laws of war.

International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc Tribunals

2008 ◽  
pp. 462-478
Author(s):  
Richard Goldstone
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Single Model ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

This article discusses contemporary international efforts to consolidate and codify significant portions of existing customary international law. It studies the ad hoc tribunals of the UN and pinpoints the successes and failures of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The ‘completion strategy’ of both international criminal tribunals is discussed. The article also covers the creation of ‘mixed’ courts and a single model for international criminal justice, namely the International Criminal Court.

scholarly journals Heads of State Immunities, International Crimes and President Bashir’s Visit to South Africa

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guénaël Mettraux ◽  
John Dugard ◽  
Max du Plessis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between international crimes and sovereign immunities has bedevilled judicial practice and legal scholarship and created an apparently irreconcilable tension between the two notions. Part of the difficulty in addressing this tension derives from the approach to resolving it. This paper proposes a novel approach, viewing the relationship specifically from the perspective of international criminal law and looking at the three core functions of immunities in that context. The authors conclude that customary international law excludes immunities as defence or bar to jurisdiction for core international crimes regardless of the nature of the jurisdiction concerned, the position of the accused, or the capacity in which the accused acted. When interpreted within that framework, the ICC Statute provides for clear limitations to the role of immunities in ICC proceedings and avoids the pitfalls that have thus far marred the ICC’s approach to the law of immunities.

War Crimes in Non-international Armed Conflicts under the Statute of the International Criminal Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 177-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djamchid Momtaz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Draft Statute ◽  
International Law Commission

International humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts has long been characterized by the absence of universal competence to suppress serious violations of its provisions. This failure has been due to the reluctance of states – which are naturally prone to consider any limitation of their exclusive competence in this field as a threat to their sovereignty – to criminalize such acts under international law.The first attempt at remedying such a situation was seen in the Draft Statute of an International Criminal Court (ICC), which was prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1994, and inspired by the draft articles of the Code of Crimes against the Peace and International Security of Mankind, provisionally adopted by the ILC in 1991 at first reading. Under the Draft Statute of the ICC, serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts would be under the jurisdiction of the Court. The ILC had in mind exceptionally serious war crimes, such as those described in the pertinent article of the draft code referred to by the Commission, constituting an extremely grave violation of the principles and laws of international law applicable in armed conflicts. In the commentary on this article, the ILC took care to specify that the expression ‘armed conflict’ covered the non-international armed conflicts that are the focus of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as international armed conflicts.This first step was of very limited scope. In fact, according to the ILC, in order to be criminalized, the laws and customs of war had to find their origin in general customary international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document