Individuals, Their Human Rights and Their International Criminal Responsibility

الحماية الخاصة لحقوق الإنسان | الأطفال الضحايا | جريمة العدوان | القانون الدولي الجنائي | المحكمة الجنائية الدولية | المسؤولية الدولية الجنائية | Special Protection of Human Rights | Child Victims | Crime of Aggression | International Criminal Law | International Criminal Court | International Criminal Responsibility

The primary objective of this paper is to give a reliable overview of the state of the art. This is not an easy task given the great uncertainty, complexity and dynamics of cyber warfare or cybercrime. While ‘cyberspace’ may be broadly defined as a domain characterized by ‘the use of electronics...and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures’ and thus ‘cybercrime’ encompasses a wide variety of criminal activity by means of or in the world wide web (from criminal economic activity to copyright violations and child pornography), this paper will only focus on computer network attacks (CNAs), also sometimes called more shortly cyber-attacks. While definitional detail are still controversial, it is fair to say that a CAN constitutes the strongest form of what is regarded to be cyber warfare, i.e., the use of technical means to wage war against an adversary in cyberspace. The focus on CNAs in this paper is explained by the fact that only these forms of crimes in cyberspace are normally serious enough to qualify as international crimes and thus be covered by an international criminal jurisdiction like the ICC (for more detail see infra A.). On the other hand, ‘international criminal responsibility’ presupposes the existence of international crimes and the participation in these crimes. The current debate in the cyber context is mostly concerned with the application of the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law (IHL) to CNAs (infra B.). This is not surprising since states are, pursuant to Article 36 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (AP I), under an obligation to determine the applicable IHL rules for new weapons and means or method of warfare. Less intense is the debate regarding a possible criminal responsibility for a crime of aggression (infra C.). This is equally unsurprising since this crime has only recently been codified and it is much less likely that it will be applied in any time soon to traditional armed attacks, let alone cyber-attacks. Finally, there is virtually no debate regarding the commission of crimes against humanity by way of CNAs but it is worthwhile to take a brief look at this possibility following up on the discussion of war crimes (infra D.). There are, of course, other issues regarding international criminal responsibility in cyberspace but they must be left to further inquiries.

International criminal responsibility is one of the important topics on which International Criminal Law is based, as it holds a person accountable for his criminal act by subjecting him to the punishment prescribed by law, war crimes are one of the oldest international crimes that the international community tried to identify early, and limit their results to warring armies only, and violations between belligerents accompanied by behaviors tinged with brutality and extreme cruelty to achieve victory due to the lack of organizational rules in the fighting, since the decision of war and the method of its implementation are ordered by commanders on the battlefield or outside, Which results in the commission of serious crimes that are a violation of international humanitarian law, whose humanitarian rules came to alleviate the scourge of wars and minimize their losses, many international crimes that are a violation of the international legal order, Article "VIII" of the statute of the International Criminal Court enumerated war crimes based on The Hague Convention of 1907, and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, in practical and legal, Thus, criminal intent plays a fundamental role in assigning international criminal responsibility, whether under domestic or international law, by bearing the responsibility for the crime and being subject to the punishment prescribed by law, as international jurisprudence is divided into three doctrines :- The first: he denied that responsibility for the individual and made the state responsible for international crime, while he took the second doctrine: the principle of dual responsibility and the third doctrine: he embraced the principle of individual responsibility in international law through the Nuremberg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia and Rwanda trials, so the study tagged with the international criminal responsibility of leaders for war crimes during armed conflicts of a non-international nature aims to clarify the provisions of the international criminal responsibility of leaders in accordance with the provisions of International Criminal Law and the rules of international humanitarian law for grave violations committed during armed conflicts that war crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Courts, The problem of the study lies in the issues raised by the international responsibility of leaders and the practical problems it raises, so the question centered on the person who Bears International Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law was answered, is it the sovereign state Or an individual who works in her name and for her benefit On the one hand, and on the other hand, I was exposed to the standard adopted by the International Criminal judiciary to hold the International Criminal accountable based on the Rome Statute and the development that took place in this regard, and I also followed a research methodology based on a descriptive analytical study through which the research was divided into three balanced investigations, the first, The second topic dealt with war crimes during non-international armed conflicts and the third topic dealt with the contraindications of International Criminal Responsibility, and ended with a conclusion to the research and recommendations. Keywords: International Criminal Responsibility, War Crimes

This chapter reviews the Cherif Bassiouni?s historic legacy of promoting depoliticization of international criminal responsibility and human rights. It then reviews the basic tenets and terminology of both the politicization analysis developed by author and legalization analysis developed independently by other scholars. It explores both the relationship and distinction between them and their joint applicability to understanding issues of politicization and principle in international law and institutions. The chapter concludes that an untenable situation results when politicization prevails over fundamental international principle. This is especially troubling when apparent violations of jus cogens norms such as prohibition of genocide are at issue, and effective prosecution is stymied by national political opposition to a stronger, more legalized regime of international criminal law. Under such circumstances it is both necessary and appropriate to act, as Cherif Bassiouni has done, to help depoliticize the situation by building political will to act according to principle. Keywords: Cherif Bassiouni; depoliticization; human rights; international criminal law; international criminal responsibility; jus cogens norms

The legal discipline of international criminal justice has followed a trajectory that has failed to facilitate a genuine and comprehensive exploration of current realities. These issues are often obscured and serve as major causes of the violations of the fundamental principles of international human rights law and international criminal justice. The prevailing narrative suggests that human rights and criminal justice are akin to a barrel in the possession of oppressive governments that masquerade as advocates of humanitarian norms while showing little regard for the traditional legal and moral rights of victims. This barrel is used to perpetuate deceptive regulations, falsehoods, convoluted metaphors, and empty promises in international criminal courts. A wide array of prominent theories addresses the system of international criminal law without uncovering the underlying truths, while the concept of international criminal responsibility for rogue governments is frequently stripped of its intended meaning. The goal of this book is to provide a thorough examination of the animosity exhibited by Western governments and highlight the dangers of their inextricable judgmental outbursts and dishonest military protection of major criminals from official arrest warrants issued by the ICC. This book will offer support to the rights of victims through promoting the moral truth and imperative legal reasoning.

The article analyses the formation of the Nuremberg model of international crime, its origins and preconditions, the role of theVersailles Peace Treaty of 1919 and other factors. The author states that the inability to ignore the expansion of international crimemakes criminal responsibility unavoidable, and thus the experience of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals bear the fundamental meaning.Examined are the legal bases of the Nuremberg trial, the main problematic issues of discussion, in particular, the recognition ofcertain acts as criminal, procedural security of the accused, harmonisation of procedural rules of different legal systems (continental,Anglo-American, Soviet legal system), immunity of officials and especially the importance of the Nuremberg Trials for the furtherdevelopment of international criminal law. The author argues that individual international criminal responsibility, which should be consideredthe first most important feature of international criminal law, was formed during the Nuremberg Trials on the basis of customarylaw, general principles of law and normative sources: the London Agreement of 1945 “On Prosecution and Punishment of the majorwar criminals of the European Axis countries” and the Statute of the International Military Tribunal. The Nuremberg Trials of1945–1946 and the Tokyo Trials of 1946–1948 were the first effective international criminal tribunals in which individuals with fullprocedural rights and acting on their own behalf were indicted. The precedents of these tribunals have proven the ability to criminalisecrimes under international law that are not crimes under national law and serve as a basis for developing a concept of international crimein a new sense that is closely linked to international justice.The author also concludes by drawing the attention to the fact that due to internationalisation of crime, two different characte -ristics and dimensions have formed: criminal responsibility stricto sensu, and criminal responsibility within the frames of a newlyformed autonomous subbranch of international criminal law – transnational criminal law.

Twenty years after the adoption of the Rome Statute questions concerning complementarity remain. There is no clear indication as to how international involvement would influence the admissibility of a case. One of the responses to human rights violations and possible international crimes that has risen to prominence in the past decades is fact-finding mandated by UN organs. At the same time these mechanisms have started to incorporate a focus on issues of international criminal law and individual criminal responsibility. As these mechanisms are starting to attempt to resemble a criminal investigation in some regards the question starts to rise as to what effect an international fact-finding mechanism can have on the admissibility of a case before the International Criminal Court. This article explains how these mechanisms need to be viewed in the context of the complementarity-regime of the Rome Statute.

At present, the concept of international criminal responsibility lacks explicit provisions in international conventions, and scholars have developed diverse interpretations based on domestic legal frameworks. Traditional international law denies the existence of criminal responsibility for states and holds that only individuals may bear such liability; however, modern international law has incorporated this concept into the broader regime of state responsibility, thereby extending the traditional scope. Owing to political and economic disparities among states, this issue remains contentious. This paper supports the position that states can be subjects of international criminal responsibility. Through comparative analysis, it argues for both the necessity and feasibility of attributing international criminal responsibility to states, emphasizing its vital role in upholding the rule of law at the international level. The paper contends that this represents a significant legal development in the international communitys response to systemic crimes.

This review critically examines Doreen Lustig’s Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation 1886–1981 (Oxford University Press, 2020), which challenges the dominant “failure narrative” surrounding the regulation of multinational corporations under international law. Lustig reconstructs a long and often obscured history of corporate rights and responsibilities through detailed case studies ranging from chartered companies in colonial Africa and Firestone’s activities in Liberia to the Nuremberg industrialist trials and the emergence of the international investment regime. The review situates Lustig’s contribution within broader scholarly debates on sovereignty, the corporate veil, and the indeterminacy of international law, while also highlighting significant omissions – such as the Zyklon-B case, the Polish Supreme National Tribunal, and the Reparations for Injuries advisory opinion – that complicate her narrative of international law’s treatment of corporations. By foregrounding these gaps, the review argues for a more nuanced and contextually rich understanding of corporate accountability that links historical developments to post-1990s discussions on business and human rights, international criminal responsibility, and transitional justice.

This chapter is structured in seven parts: position of individual, human rights, international refugee law, nationality and statelessness, international terrorism, international health law and international criminal law. The second part covers the denial of a Ukrainian extradition request by a German court, and Germany’s concerns over human rights of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The fourth part assesses a decision by a German court that there is no Palestinian State and no Palestinian nationality. The fifth covers the Federal Prosecutor General accusing Russia of State-ordered murder. The seventh encompasses a German court’s sentence against a member of the Syrian opposition for war crimes against persons, the Federal Public Prosecutor General declining to bring charges against members of the Federal Government for aiding the killing of Iranian General Soleimani, a German court sentencing the handing over of a child to an ‘Islamic State’ training camp in Syria as a war crime of enlisting children, the conviction of an IS member by a German court for aiding and abetting a crime against humanity by enslavement and the conviction of an IS member of war crimes by a German court.

Mass atrocity crimes constitute a grave affront to international peace and security as well as to human rights. Due to their deep reach in society, they also constitute a very major social predicament. It is undignifying to allow perpetrators of these crimes to be left un-investigated or unpunished. This paper considers how behind the scenes high-ranking military and political indirect perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes should be adjudged guilty of collective criminal responsibility. One mode of collective criminal responsibility – Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) – is hereby analysed. Considering the International Criminal Court’s praxis in rejecting certain approaches to JCE, we propose two amendments to the ICC’s Rome Statute, namely: incorporating JCE into Article 25(3)(a) to include acts through another person via JCE, and adding provisions to define elements of Article 25A to guide the Court’s interpretation. This will enable the ICC to apply JCE like the international ad hoc tribunals have done in the past, in the process enhancing the capacity to hold masterminds accountable and buttressing the causes of restorative and social justice in societies grappling with the effects of mass atrocities.

The world is witnessing many armed conflicts, which played a prominent role in tearing the countries that were exposed to those conflicts, and therefore these conflicts prompted governments that are experiencing internal or external conflicts and turmoil to seek the assistance of private military and security companies in order to maintain their rule, and the services provided by these companies are Several, including training, providing advice and intelligence information, as well as securing convoys and transporting supplies, but their progress increased to the point of participating with the security forces in the fighting. This research is of great importance in the international and national criminal responsibility of employees of private military and security companies, to clarify individual criminal responsibility in the light of the provisions of international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Since private security companies are so far governed by clear and binding international rules, it is necessary to make possible efforts to prevent serious violations of the rules of international humanitarian law and human rights rules by employees of those companies at the internal and international levels.

The subjects of international law have historically been states and intergovernmental organizations. Individuals became subjects of that legal discipline after World War II by virtue of the establishment of their criminal responsibility under international law, irrespective of the dictates of national law. This chapter discusses the international criminal responsibility of individuals, organizations, and states. The first of these is well established in international criminal law (ICL). The second is unsettled, as there is some precedent for it and a growing trend to include such a concept of criminal responsibility in domestic legal systems. The third, state criminal responsibility, had somewhat of a beginning in the reparations regime that followed WWI, but it has been rejected, except that it exists de facto in the form of U.N. sanctions. The issue of head of state immunity arises in three different contexts, and a different law applies to each.Keywords:international criminal law (ICL); international criminal responsibility; state criminal responsibility; state immunity

The concurrent increase in states’ cyber-capabilities and in the potential (mis)uses of artificial intelligence (AI) to further harmful state objectives raise the question: is ICL prepared to grapple with AI-powered cyberattacks conducted by and against states? Or does AI’s conduct run the risk of falling into a legal loophole, shielding from liability the human actors who commissioned its use? Addressing these questions, this article analyses how AI impacts ICL’s fundamental elements of international crimes — namely, the requirements of actus reus and mens rea. Specifically examining the literature’s more recently explored notion of the crime of ‘cyber-aggression’, this article scrutinizes the efficacy of the current text and interpretation of the Rome Statute in according international criminal responsibility where AI causes an act of cyber-aggression. It examines the spectrum on which potential acts of cyber-aggression may be fairly ‘reduced to human activity’, and thus where criminal responsibility may flow to the AI’s human instructor, versus where the act committed was perhaps too removed from human intervention to justify criminal responsibility under the applicable culpable mental state. In this article, the author argues the elements for criminal responsibility of an act of aggression, in their current construction and interpretation, are ill-prepared when faced with the murky implications of cyber-aggression conducted via state-backed AI systems. In order to engage in such a discussion, this article proceeds by providing an overview of the crime of aggression and introducing the emerging concept of ‘cyber-aggression’. Then, the article explores the challenges AI-powered acts of aggression present for the conventional elements of international criminal responsibility. Finally, the article details solutions posed by the literature and proposes an additional approach, before offering concluding remarks.

Contents: The United Nations System: United Nations mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, Zdzislaw Kedzia The international labour organization's system of human rights protection, Lee Swepston UNESCO procedures for the protection of human rights, Karl Josef Partsch and Klaus HA fner. Regional Systems: The European systems for the protection of human rights, Maxime Tardu The Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, Hugo Caminos The protection of human rights in Africa: the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Daniel D.C. Don Nanjira Regional protection of human rights in the Arab States In Statu Nascendi, Bahey el Din Hassan. Towards Further Strengthening of Human Rights Protection: National systems for the protection of human rights, Jean-Bernard Marie Criminal responsibility for violations of human rights, William A. Schabas Sanctions and human rights, Katarina Tomasevski Indicators for the implementation of human rights, Michael Kirby The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the protection and enforcement of human rights, Laurie S. Wiseberg Index.