Approval of Terrorist Actions

The author discusses the relationship between international criminal law and national criminal law. The relationship between international and domestic law is a perennial issue in the theory and practice of international and constitutional law. Slovenian law recognises the supremacy of international law over national laws and regulations but maintains the supremacy of the Constitution over international law. Customary international law poses the greatest problem in the relationship between international and national criminal law. Unlike international law, which considers customary law an extremely important source, national criminal law expressly prohibits using customary law because of the principle of legality. In Slovenia, the principle of legality in criminal proceedings is also expressly enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution. The author considers that, by adopting the Act on Cooperation between the Republic of Slovenia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Slovenia has ratified instruments of international law which are contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. A similar finding applies to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Such a conflict can only be resolved in two ways: either by denunciation of the treaty or by amendment of the Constitution. The author cannot predict how the legislator will decide.

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

This book fills a major gap in the scholarly literature concerning international criminal law, comparative criminal law, and human rights law. The principle of legality (non-retroactivity of crimes and punishments and related doctrines) is fundamental to criminal law and human rights law. Yet this was the first book-length study of the status of legality in international law - in international criminal law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. This was also the first book to survey legality/non-retroactivity in all national constitutions, developing the patterns of implementation of legality in the various legal systems such as Common Law, Civil Law, Islamic Law, and Asian Law around the world. This is a necessary book for any scholar, practitioner, and library in the area of international, criminal, comparative, human rights, or international humanitarian law.

International criminal tribunals have often resorted to human rights law in order to ground their rulings. Acknowledging that international criminal law results from the combination of human rights law, international humanitarian law and national criminal laws, this article reviews selected case-law and argues that an emotionally driven application of human rights law has been deployed in respect of domains exclusively pertaining to criminal law. While a comprehensive approach to law is to be praised, it is submitted that international criminal law has undergone controversial developments due to resorting to human rights law in a somewhat erratic manner which overlooks the differences, and sometimes the opposition, between the telos of both legal areas, often imperilling the principles of legality and individual culpability as unique foundational rationales of international criminal law. Challenging the methodology adopted by international tribunals and its consequences on substantive international criminal law, the article attempts to set forth the theoretical framework that should underpin the appeal to human rights law in international criminal judgments. It further proposes “analogy” and “complementarity” as analytical devices able to guide an interaction between international criminal law and human rights law that assists international criminal law in moving towards rationalized hybridity as opposed to “wild” fragmentation, political manipulation, selectivity and the discreditation of international criminal justice. Concluding, the practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be briefly assessed through the lens of the theoretical framework proposed.

The article examines the current challenges and prospects of legal regulation of ecocide in national and international criminal law. The author analyzes the problems of prosecution for ecocide in national criminal law and the prospects for such liability in international criminal law. The authors emphasize that the armed aggression of the terrorist state of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has had a devastating impact on the environment, which will take decades to restore. Russian attacks on Ukrainian oil depots, strikes on the territory of the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology with its nuclear facility, the death of several million chickens at the Chornobaiv poultry farm, and the mass death of dolphins in the Black Sea are qualified as ecocide. The destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam is qualified as ecocide and a violation of the laws and customs of war. The evolution, concept, and composition of ecocide are analyzed. Having found its legislative consolidation in the national criminal law (Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), ecocide has not been enshrined in international criminal law. It is not recognized as a crime either in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court or in any other international legal act. As of today, Russian crimes against the environment can be investigated by the International Criminal Court as war crimes. The authors of the article emphasize the need to include the crime of ecocide in the Rome Statute, since serious damage to the environment during armed conflicts is still to some extent covered by the provisions of the Rome Statute, but such damage caused in peacetime falls outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The authors of the article note that it is important not only to punish the racists for all crimes of ecocide committed in Ukraine since 2014, but also to force the aggressor state to compensate for all environmental damage caused. When creating a compensation mechanism, we must take into account the international practice of compensation for environmental damage caused by military actions, in particular the practice of the International Court of Justice and the historical experience of creating special compensation bodies (in particular, the experience of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), 1991-2022). The future compensation mechanism should be based on the «ecosystem services approach», which will significantly increase the amount of reparations to be paid by the Russian Federation to Ukraine. To ensure legal regulation of the concept of ecosystem services, it is necessary to develop and adopt the Law of Ukraine «On Ecosystem Services» and regulations aimed at its implementation (primarily, methods of inventory and assessment of ecosystem services).

Refugee status determination is difficult by its very nature but it becomes even more complex when the issue of exclusion under article 1F(a) is raised and it is alleged that there are ‘serious reasons for considering’ that the applicant is ‘guilty of having committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments that have been drawn to make provision for such crimes’. The ‘War Crimes and Refugee Status’ Research Project’s Canadian jurisprudence dataset, consisting of 98 article 1F(a) cases, reveals that more than 91 per cent of these cases cite international humanitarian law (IHL) or international criminal law (ICL), but only 13 per cent of the cases cite UNHCR guidelines or directives. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds, 65.8 per cent, of these appeal cases are denied. Five of the most frequently cited judgments in this sample of cases were Ramirez , Moreno , Sivakumar , Harb , and Pushpanathan , in that order. After analyzing these five appeal court judgments in depth, seven legal principles were identified respecting the application and interpretation of IHL and ICL in Canada: (1) violations of international law can be committed by private individuals as well as states, or public officials acting on behalf of states; (2) the standard of proof for ‘serious reasons for considering’ under article 1F is lower than a balance of probabilities, the civil law standard; (3) two fundamental tenets on which complicity and culpability are established in international crimes are: (i) no one can commit an international crime without personal and knowing participation; (ii) complicity rests on the existence of a shared common purpose and the knowledge of all the parties involved; (4) Mere membership or passive acquiescence in a group or organization that commits international crimes can never be sufficient to exclude a refugee applicant under article 1F(a); (5) ‘Voluntary, significant and knowing contribution’ does not require formal membership in a group or organization that is engaged in crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity. An accomplice contributes knowingly to those activities of a group or organization that makes them possible. (6) the offence of ‘aiding and abetting’ cannot be made out by mere presence on the scene where an international crime has taken place. What is required is voluntary, significant and knowing contribution in persecutory acts. (7) there is a close affinity between article 1F(a), which deals with those activities that take place in situations of armed conflict, and article 1F(c), which deals with activities irrespective of whether or not they take place in a situation of armed conflict. Article 1F(a) and (c) can overlap in various ways, such as where the sales of illicit narcotics are used to finance the purchase of weapons that are used in armed conflicts and/or for terrorist activities. The new test for exclusion under article 1F(a) in Canada, ‘voluntary, significant and knowing contribution,’ leaves a broad area of discretion for refugee law decision makers. This will cause, undoubtedly, legal contention in the appellate courts as the article 1F(a) cases make their way through the judicial process in Canada. The application and interpretation of international refugee law under article 1F(a) in Canada will continue to evolve with national court judgments as well as the development of international humanitarian and criminal law.

Interconnections between International and National Criminal Law Relevant to Energy Security

Introduction. The article is devoted to the disclosure of one of the important issues of modern criminal law - the institution of complicity. Complicity is the doctrine that another person (accomplice) may be held liable for a crime if he or she facilitated, aided, abetted, encouraged, demanded, or directed another person's criminal activities. This includes assistance in committing a crime before, during and after the crime. The relevance of the research topic is that complicity by its nature is more socially dangerous than a criminal offense committed by one person, and therefore leads to more harmful consequences. The study of the causes, nature and types of complicity makes it possible to consider in more detail each of the gaps that have arisen in criminal law and eliminate them in the application of law in practice in the future. That is why, in our opinion, the chosen research issues are very relevant at the moment due to a number of important conditions, including the beginning of a full-scale russian invasion of Ukraine and mass atrocities committed by russian occupiers in our cities. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to present the basic concepts, types and responsibilities of different types of accomplices for criminal offenses, determine the importance of a more detailed study of such an institution of criminal law, compare the main legislative aspects of the institution of complicity in national law and international criminal law. Materials and methods. The materials of the study are: 1) the legal framework for the ratio of institutions of participation in national and international law; 2) works of domestic and foreign scholars, the research topics of which are scientific and practical research in the field of national criminal and international criminal law. In the course of the research we used the following scientific methods: theoretical generalization (for the general characteristics of the institute of complicity, research of its forms, types, significance of this research); analysis and synthesis (drawing parallels between the norms of Ukrainian criminal law and international law); historical (study of the formation of approaches to determining the institution of complicity); generalization of results (formulation of conclusions). Results. The practical significance of our study lies in the huge role of clarifying the nature of complicity, its social danger and illegality for the fair and legal treatment of criminal offenses committed in several persons. Discussion. Research into the problems of this institution can further help to resolve the confusing issues related to bringing those who have committed criminal offenses in complicity to criminal liability, including international law, for crimes committed in military conditions.

Before the 1940's, trends in international human rights, international criminal law and humanitarian law helped develop a rudimentary set of norms, particularly in Europe. These early trends sprang from populist social justice movements and evolving intellectual, religious and social mores. The 1940's saw the landmark intersection of preexisting trends in international human rights, humanitarian and criminal law and provided the bedrock intellectual, legal and historical bases that would incorporate those disparate trends into a collective and vital modern legal rights regime. These advances helped articulate and refine the substantive and procedural guidelines for subsequent international criminal bodies and help drive the revival of the principles of Nuremberg during the 1990's and into the 21st century. The modern international human rights treaty regime has affected international law in more ways than just by growing a sophisticated international jurisprudence, generating more exacting substantive definitions of human rights, and general principles of law.Keywords: International Criminal Law; international human rights; international humanitarian law; international jurisprudence

The article presents both theoretical and practical reflections on international humanitarian law as a part of public international law. The author analyses the principle of legal certainty as an integral component and foundation of any normative legal regulation within a specific legal field. A correlation is drawn between international humanitarian law and related branches of international law, such as international criminal law and international human rights law. The study discusses the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law in the context of contemporary approaches to its interpretation as jus in bello, with references to previous definitions. The article analyses the definition of international humanitarian law in the context of balancing its two main principles: military necessity and humanity. A distinction is made between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The study explores scholarly approaches to understanding the interrelationship and mutual influence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law based on the principles of complementarity and affinity. Consequently, the differences between international humanitarian law and international human rights law are identified. The author analyses practical examples of differentiating these branches of public international law at the present stage based on the lex specialis principle. The article also identifies future trends in the continued mutual development of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It explores the influence of international criminal law on international humanitarian law, establishing that the field of international criminal law complements international humanitarian law, especially when it comes to the practical application of international criminal law norms in punishing acts that fall under the prohibitive norms of international humanitarian law. Finally, the article systematizes approaches to the integration of elements within the system of public international law.

The principle of legality is the oldest principle of criminal law and is almost found throughout the national criminal law in the world. The existence of this principle is simply to protect citizens from the arbitrariness of the authorities. The strengthening of the issue of human rights contributes to the development of the legality principle, both from national criminal law and international criminal law. Events relating to this issue affect the application of legality principles in law enforcement. The issues to be discussed in this paper are the theoretical principles of legality in criminal law in general and the development of legality principles in national criminal law and international criminal law. The research was conducted by normative juridical method with data collection method through literature study. The application of the principle of legality both in national criminal law and in international criminal law is not rigid, especially to combat crimes against human rights. But in national criminal law must be made in written rules, whereas in international criminal law can be referenced from customary international law.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: ICC) is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community that threaten security, peace, and well-being of the world. This article argues that serious (transitional) economic offences should belong in this group. Ignoring these crimes, which often represent economic violence characteristic of transitional and post-conflict countries, can lead to another cycle of armed conflict and/or physical violence as well as to internal and external insecurity. Responses to globalization are having a significant effect on international law and institutions with a view to protecting economic and social human rights, human security, and human dignity. Sometimes, as in the case of Croatia, national states are not able to and/or unwilling to prosecute serious and systemic economic crimes, which in turn undermines individual and collective security. The same could be said for international criminal law. By ignoring these crimes and violations – unlike what international human rights law, supranational criminology, and transitional justice does – the core international criminal law no longer responds to the needs of societies and individuals. The Rechtsgut in need of protection by prosecuting serious economic crimes that fulfill the threshold of core crimes on an international level is comprised of the “security, peace and well-being of the world.” Therefore, one could argue that the International Criminal Court’s possible involvement in economic violence does have a legal base, without needing to amend the ICC’s Statute (hereinafter: ICCSt). Since one must be aware of the diversity that exists as to the criteria for international criminalization, this article is based on broader grounds in order to argue in favor of international criminalization of these economic crimes. The article therefore emphasizes the importance of connecting narratives of international criminal law, with discourses on international human rights law (based on Art. 21 of the ICCSt), human security, (supranational) criminology, transitional justice, and (economic) criminal law. In the line of (human) security discourse, this approach seeks to find arguments as to whether or not it is necessary to begin prosecuting serious (transitional) economic offences as crimes under international law. First, this article gives a brief overview of the failed experiment in Croatia concerning the prosecution of transitional economic crimes that served as incentive, based on the ICC’s complementarity principle.

The research focuses on a legal analysis of some facts and events taking place during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine through the prism of international law. The article analyzes different facets of the current conflict that trigger such major topics of international law as the threat and use of force, cyberattacks, recognition, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and many others. Special attention is paid to legal reasoning articulated by the Russian Federation in order to justify its aggression against Ukraine, in particular, to the claim of self-defense and the accusations of genocide, dispelling them. Furthermore, the relevance of international humanitarian law for the current conflict and the prospects of bringing to responsibility for the crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine both through the prism of national and international criminal law are explored. Finally, special emphasis is given to the challenges that the Russian aggression against Ukraine poses to international law and the international community as a whole.

This book brings together leading feminist international criminal and humanitarian law academics and practitioners to examine the place of gender in international criminal law (ICL). It identifies and analyses prevailing misconceptions and narrow understandings of gender, before turning to a consideration of the impact a limited conceptualization has on accountability efforts and the protection of rights. It includes specific examples from national and international jurisprudence from which it is clear that the term ‘gender’ has not been well understood and that gender ‘blind spots’ prevail. These manifest starkly, for example, with respect to sexual violence against men and boys, gender-based crimes affecting children, and the gendered dimensions of slavery, forced marriage, and reproductive crimes. The authors consider how best to implement a deeper and more accurate understanding of gender in the practice of international criminal law by identifying possible responses, including embedding a sophisticated gender strategy into the practice of ICL, the gender-sensitive application of international human rights and international humanitarian law, and feminist reconstruction of judging in ICL. Other authors examine efforts to ensure that gender is expansively interpreted in ICL, for example in a new treaty on crimes against humanity, and that victims’ reparation awards are gender-inclusive. The objective of this book is to promote a more nuanced and expanded understanding of the concept of ‘gender’ in the field ICL in order to strengthen efforts for accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression.

INTRODUCTION There are close connections between international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Perhaps the most obvious of these is the circumstance that war crimes trials have played a major role in the development of what is commonly referred to as international criminal law. Yet it seems useful and justifiable to treat the two bodies of law separately, for on the one hand, as the previous chapter has sought to show, humanitarian law covers more than war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression, and international criminal law, by the same token, covers more than humanitarian law as well. Hence the two branches overlap, but are not identical, and it cannot be said that one subsumes the other. What makes international criminal law particularly fascinating is that it assigns responsibility to individuals, and thereby breaks through the classic structure of international law. The current chapter will address the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and war crimes trials, but will also pay some attention to more ordinary forms of crimes with transboundary elements, and will discuss the forms of cooperation states have developed in combating crime. Even though the term ‘international criminal law’ is usually reserved for war crimes and the like, it should not be forgotten that there is a vast body of legal instruments dealing with international cooperation in combating other crimes. The chapter will also contain a discussion of the law of extradition, as the classic form of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters. WAR CRIMES TRIALS AND THE ICC Throughout history it has often been the case that once a war had come to an end, the victorious powers would quickly mete out ‘justice’ by executing enemy leaders or, more charitably perhaps, ordering them into exile, as happened to Napoleon. If there were trials, they would be conducted by national courts, trying foreigners suspected of war crimes and, one may surmise, often enough finding them guilty. This would occasionally even apply after civil war. A famous example is how Henry Wirz, a Confederate camp commander during the US civil war, maltreated prisoners of war and was later tried by a military commission in Washington; he was hanged in 1865.