Counterintuiting Countermeasures

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 817-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Bederman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Methodological Challenge ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission

The adoption in August 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of its articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts well and truly brings to a close the twentieth century’s engagement with international law as (in Martti Koskenniemi’s memorable refashioning of George Kennan’s savage critique) a “gentle civilizer of nations.” Including the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the seven pillars of international legal codification have been completed with some form of assistance by the ILC: diplomatic immunities, the law of the sea, a comprehensive law of treaties, the Nuremberg Principles, andjurisdictional immunities of states. Indeed, the articles on state responsibility may represent an even greater methodological challenge for international law codification because they pose fundamental questions regarding the identity and nature of states. Like the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States and the ILC’s own somewhat obtuse efforts on the international law of state succession, the articles on state responsibility go to the intellectual core of public international law by delimiting the character of states and the nature of their obligations when they interact with other international actors. Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that the ILC’s journey into that doctrinal realm took over half a century, and consumed the attention of five special rapporteurs and countless Commission members.

The Forty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Current Term ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-sixth session from May 2 to July 22, 1994, under the chairmanship of Professor Vladlin Vereshchetin of Russia.The Commission had one of its most productive sessions. It completed a second draft of a statute for an international criminal court; completed its second reading on nonnavigational uses of international watercourses; completed, provisionally on first reading, a discrete portion of its work on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law; considered aspects of state responsibility; began its second reading on the Draft Code of Crimes; and appointed Vaclav Mikulka and Alain Pellet, respectively, as special rapporteurs for the new topics of “State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons” and “the law and practice relating to reservations to treaties.” It is the intention of the Commission to conclude its work on these two topics during the current term, i.e., by 1996.

The Bosnia Genocide Case

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. AMERASINGHE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
International Law Commission

AbstractThe Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.

The Forty-Fourth Session of the International Law Commission

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Future Plan ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fourth Session ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its 44th session from May 4 to July 24, 1992, under the chairmanship of Professor Christian Tomuschat. The Commission considered aspects of state responsibility, the possible establishment of an international criminal court, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, and its future plan of work and working methods.

scholarly journals Pakistan’s Commitment to Human Rights: A Probe into the Question of Ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Mazhar Ali Khan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Public International Law

The question of ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court is one of the most debated questions in public international law. Because it involves strict commitment to human rights many states often see it as a hurdle to their national interests. Nevertheless a number of states have ratified the statute except a few. Pakistan is one of those states that have not ratified the Rome Statute even though it has been a party to various other treaties on human rights. This article focuses on the question why Pakistan did not ratify the statute? The article also provides recommendations how the ratification can be made possible.

The Forty-Second Session of the International Law Commission

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 930-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. McCaffrey
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-second session from May 1 to July 20, 1990, under the Chairmanship of Professor Shi Jiuyong. In the context of its work on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the Commission considered the establishment of an international criminal court and adopted three articles of the code. Also at the forty-second session, the Commission adopted six articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and discussed reports on state responsibility, relations between states and international organizations, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law and jurisdictional immunities of states and their property.

Canadian Implementing Legislation for the Rome Statute

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Ongoing Work ◽  
Preparatory Committee ◽  
Draft Statute ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

Canada has been very much at the centre of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the momentum shifted in late-1994 from the International Law Commission (ILC) to more broadly representative bodies established by the General Assembly. It was Canada that chaired the ‘like-minded’, a group of states active during the several sessions of the Preparatory Committee and during the Diplomatic Conference in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998. The ‘like-minded’ were committed to invigorating the ILC's draft statute by enhancing the independence of the Prosecutor and trimming the sails of the Security Council. At Rome, Canadian diplomat Philippe Kirsch was elected chair of the Committee of the Whole, and he directed the intense negotiations throughout the five-week session. Kirsch crafted the final package of compromises that was submitted to the Conference at its close, on the morning of 17 July, and that succeeded in rallying the vast majority of delegations when put to a vote later that day. Since then, Kirsch and his team have presided over the ongoing work of the Preparatory Commission.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.32 Mistake of fact or mistake of law/Erreur de fait ou erreur de droit

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter comments on Article 32 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 32 addresses defences of mistake of fact or mistake of law. The drafters of the Statute did not want to leave the determination of defences to the discretion of judges, an approach used in all of the earlier models including the final draft Code of Crimes adopted by the International Law Commission in 1996. In general, the purpose of codifying defences in the Rome Statute is not to authorize them but rather to confine them. Thus, article 32 admits defences of mistake of fact and law but under certain conditions. If article 32 were not in the Statute, the general rule on mens rea set out in article 30 would apply without restriction, possibly subject to limitation by the Elements of Crimes.

The Forty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-140
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Draft Statute ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-fifth session from May 2 to July 23, 1993, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Julio Barboza of Argentina. The Commission elaborated a substantially complete draft statute of an international criminal court in a working group, considered aspects of state responsibility, commenced drafting articles on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, began its second reading on non-navigational uses of international watercourses, and made recommendations for its future work. The Commission continued its innovative use of working groups and subgroups to expedite its work and, consequently, had a highly productive session.

Part 4 Composition and Administration of the Court: Composition et Administration de la Cour, Art.36 Qualifications, nomination, and election of judges/Qualifications, candidature et élection des juges

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Gender Balance ◽  
Election Process ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Criteria For Selection ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter comments on Article 36 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 36 provides an elaborate list of criteria for selection of judges, aimed at ensuring competence in criminal trial procedure and public international law as well as geographic and gender balance. The Assembly of States Parties has devised a complicated election process in order to ensure that these goals are actually achieved. Specifically, the article sets out the number of judges, the basic qualifications of judges, election procedure, and terms of office. It is also one of the longest provisions in the Rome Statute, comprising ten paragraphs, some of them quite detailed, and more than 1,100 words.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document