Abstract
Ethics plays a crucial role in international adjudication, in particular in the context of international criminal proceedings where the liberty of the accused is at stake. Criminal courts have been trying to create an “international judicial culture” based on shared ethical standards. In doing so, however, they are constantly faced with an obstacle inherent in the very idea of ethics: the impossibility of defining what constitutes “ethical conduct” divorced from one's culture, tradition, legal system, or professional background. This contribution intends to explore the complexity of trying to define the contours of ethical standards in international criminal proceedings, in particular in the absence of precise written rules, by focusing on the Furundžija case. Even when rules are codified, however, they often remain open to divergent interpretations depending on one's cultural, social, and legal background. Ultimately, it is not simply a matter of codifying ethical rules but, more importantly, of agreeing on “whose ethics” these rules should reflect.
Highlights
Ethics plays a crucial role in international adjudication, in particular in the context of international criminal proceedings where the liberty of the accused is at stake
Criminal courts have been trying to create an “international judicial culture” based on shared ethical standards. They are constantly faced with an obstacle inherent in the very idea of ethics: the impossibility of defining what constitutes “ethical conduct” divorced from one’s culture, tradition, legal system, or professional background
This contribution intends to explore the complexity of trying to define the contours of ethical standards in international criminal proceedings, in particular in the absence of precise written rules, by focusing on the Furundžija case
Summary
Before taking up their respective duties, the members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are required to make the following declaration, which is not much different from the oath or affirmation judges in many countries must take before performing the duties of their office:. It is less apparent what their meanings should be in the context of international courts.[8] This is because the meanings of independence, impartiality, and diligence—just as the meaning of ethics more broadly—are culture-specific and nearly impossible to define when divorced from culture, tradition, legal system, or professional background. Depending on these factors, each of us might have different views on what constitutes ethical or unethical behavior. For example, that certain behavior—such as introducing a new argument or document at a stage in the pleading when the opposing counsel had no opportunity to respond—deeply disturbed her and felt
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
