Abstract
Abstract One of the most significant developments in international law was the establishment of Special Tribunals that could bring to justice individuals allegedly responsible for “grave breaches” and violations of the law against humanity. This is, undoubtedly, a recent global development that has challenged the issues of impunity and sovereignty. Since the Nazis’ atrocities and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes law has broadened its scope and has recognized a number of offenses considered as “international crimes” and which have also come to be described as “genocide”. However, although intended to put an end to the politics of impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes, a number of signatory states are reluctant to bring to justice those responsible for these defined international crimes. Indeed, the jurisprudence developed in these Special Tribunals provided an impetus for the development of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). More specifically, it has been argued that war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such heinous crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced and realized. However, a perfectly reasonable case can be made that the creation of these tribunals does represent a new era in international law.
Highlights
The new approach to “internationalization” Individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and crime of aggression is today undisputed and complex [1]
Belgium), ICJ held that no head of state, Adjei, W.E., (2020) The development of individual criminal responsibility under international law: Lessons from Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials head of government, or minister of foreign affairs while in office may be arrested by order of the national court of another state or preliminary measures, such as the issue of international circulation of an arrest warrant taken against such person [8]
Critiques of the international criminal justice system, which have become manifest in the context of immunity and sovereignty, have essentially focused on institutions, in particular the international criminal prosecutions, accused of being a “threat” to state sovereignty
Summary
The new approach to “internationalization” Individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and crime of aggression is today undisputed and complex [1]. Belgium), ICJ held that no head of state, Adjei, W.E., (2020) The development of individual criminal responsibility under international law: Lessons from Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials head of government, or minister of foreign affairs while in office may be arrested by order of the national court of another state or preliminary measures, such as the issue of international circulation of an arrest warrant taken against such person [8]. Such pronouncements in a large measure have undermined justice and contributed to diplomatic immunities and state impunity. It was formulated to hold perpetrators of serious crimes accountable for their acts, irrespective of their status or positions of authority
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
