Core Crimes Research Articles

‘AmendedMost Serious Crimes’: A New Category of Core Crimes within the Jurisdiction but out of the Reach of the International Criminal Court?

AbstractArticle 121(5) Rome Statute provides for a specific regime for amendments to Articles 5–8 of the Statute. Its final clause precludes the exercise of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over a crime covered by an amendment when committed by a national or on the territory of a state party which has not accepted the amendment. This provision has been understood as derogating from the Statute's general rules on jurisdiction. The present article argues that a stringent reading of the clause as well as a systematic and teleological approach warrant an alternative interpretation in conformity with the jurisdictional system of the Statute.

Applying The Rome Statutes Complementarity Principle: Drawing Lessons From The Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle

Applying The Rome Statutes Complementarity Principle: Drawing Lessons From The Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle

International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction and § 153f of the German Criminal Procedure Code: a Commentary on the Decisions of the Federal Prosecutor General and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case

From the entry into force of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (Vo¨lkerstrafgesetzbuch, hereinafter CCAIL), up until September 2006, there had been 57 petitions filed for alleged crimes codified in this law. Most of the petitions relate to the conflict in the Middle East, as well as the war in Iraq and its aftermath. These petitions target members of the United States, German and Israeli Governments, as well as members of Governments and Heads of States of various African and Asian States. So far, the initiation of the proceedings in 49 cases has been abstained in accordance with 152 subs. 153f subs. 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Strafprozessordnung, hereinafter CPC). These decisions have been either based on legal grounds (inter alia, immunity of the possible suspects, the non-applicability of the CCAIL at the time the alleged act was committed) or, as the case may be, on the lack of any prospects of success (153f subs. 1 clause [hereinafter cl.] 1 CPC). A formal investigation was only initiated in one case against a Rwandan citizen living in Germany as an asylum seeker for crimes committed on Congolese territory.

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminal investigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by the Rome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelines that may help the Court to address this problem, should it arise in a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to deal with the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretative autonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissible under the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibility for the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court by amnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatible with the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Court may be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsible perpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardons should, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namely where they are conditional and accompanied by alternative forms of justice.

THE CHINESE UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION CLAUSE: HOW FAR CAN IT GO?

The Chinese practice with regard to universal jurisdiction should not be ignored when examining its legal status under contemporary international law. Article 9 of the Chinese Criminal Code 1997 (CC 1997) provides the domestic legal basis for the PRC to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those crimes stipulated in those concluded international treaties within the scope of obligations prescribed therein. This article explores the birth of the Chinese universal jurisdiction clause from a historical perspective, and makes a much-detailed interpretation of it in the combination of the jurisprudence and the most recent judicial practices. It is intended to clear up the misunderstanding widespread in the western world that the PRC never recognizes universal jurisdiction, and provides a picture of the Chinese understanding of universal jurisdiction in the CC 1997. However, due to the restrictions of the legal factors, such as the absence of certain international crimes and penalties in the CC 1997, the inability of applying the customary international criminal law in the Chinese courts, the requirement of the presence of the accused within the Chinese territory, as well as the respect of immunity for the persons with high official position, the effect of the Chinese universal jurisdiction clause is so restricted that it is almost impossible to play a role of suppressing international crimes, in particular those core crimes within the Rome Statute, in the international level.

On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

International society, the International Criminal Court and American foreign policy

The discipline of International Relations has been slow to assess the ICC and American opposition to it. This article uses the English School approach to assess the impact of the ICC on international society. The Rome Statute's definition of core crimes and its provision of an independent prosecutor help to legally constitute world society which transcends the society of states. The US opposes this development by arguing that international criminal justice should remain within the framework of international society. This is because the society of states accommodates a strong exceptionalist discourse and furthers America's particular interests in a way world society does not.

A Defense of International Criminal Law

Previous articleNext article No AccessA Defense of International Criminal Law*Andrew Altman and Christopher Heath WellmanAndrew Altman Search for more articles by this author and Christopher Heath Wellman Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 115, Number 1October 2004 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/422895 Views: 171Total views on this site Citations: 21Citations are reported from Crossref © 2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Andrew Jason Cohen What liberals should tolerate internationally, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 24, no.11 (May 2019): 64–86.https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1616880Steven Ratner International law and political philosophy: Uncovering new linkages, Philosophy Compass 14, no.22 (Dec 2018): e12564.https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12564Christopher Soler What Is Required to Intrude into the Sovereignty of a Defaulting State in Order to Investigate and Prosecute Core Crimes?, (Sep 2019): 59–87.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_5Zachary Hoskins May, Larry, (Jul 2017): 1–4.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_242-1Catriona McKinnon Endangering humanity: an international crime?, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47, no.2-32-3 (Jan 2020): 395–415.https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1280381Zachary Hoskins Punishment, Analysis (Mar 2016): anw022.https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anw022Lars Waldorf Inhumanity’s law: Crimes against humanity, RtoP and South Sudan, International Politics 53, no.11 (Dec 2015): 49–66.https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.37Shlomit Wallerstein Delegation of Powers and Authority in International Criminal Law, Criminal Law and Philosophy 9, no.11 (Feb 2013): 123–140.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-013-9203-3J. B. Delston The criminalization of money laundering and terrorism in global contexts: a hybrid solution, Journal of Global Ethics 10, no.33 (Nov 2014): 326–338.https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2014.971854Harmen van der Wilt Crimes against humanity: a category hors concours in (international) criminal law?, (Feb 2014): 25–41.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107257139.003EAMON ALOYO Improving global accountability: The ICC and nonviolent crimes against humanity, Global Constitutionalism 2, no.33 (Sep 2013): 498–530.https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381713000178Kai Ambos Punishment Without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution Towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2013).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2274868Christopher Heath Wellman The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment, Ethics 122, no.22 (Jul 2015): 371–393.https://doi.org/10.1086/663791MARKUS D. DUBBER Common Civility: The Culture of Alegality in International Criminal Law, Leiden Journal of International Law 24, no.44 (Nov 2011): 923–936.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000434Soraya Nour, Klaus Schlichte, Benjamin Herborth, Andreas Niederberger, Peter Niesen, Anna Goppel, Thomas Seibert Politische Gestalt und politische Konsequenzen, (Jan 2011): 256–303.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05327-5_6Massimo Renzo A Criticism of the International Harm Principle, Criminal Law and Philosophy 4, no.33 (Aug 2010): 267–282.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9098-1Kirsten J Fisher The Distinct Character of International Crime: Theorizing the Domain, Contemporary Political Theory 8, no.11 (Feb 2009): 44–67.https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2008.21Christopher Heath Wellman A Theory of Secession, 18 (Jul 2009).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499265Aaron Fichtelberg Crimes beyond justice? Retributivism and war crimes, Criminal Justice Ethics 24, no.11 (Jan 2005): 31–46.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2005.9992178Jovana Davidovic, Larry May, Elizabeth Edenberg International Criminal Court, the Trust Fund for Victims, and Victim Participation, (): 217–243.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139628594.008Kristen Hessler, Larry May, Zach Hoskins State Sovereignty as an Obstacle to International Criminal Law, (): 39–57.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642265.003

'Transnational Criminal Law'?

International criminal law is currently subdivided into international criminal law stricto sensu — the so-called core crimes — and crimes of international concern — the so-called treaty crimes. This article suggests that the latter category can be appropriately relabelled transnational criminal law to find a doctrinal match for the criminological term transnational crime. The article argues that such a relabelling is justified because of the need to focus attention on this relatively neglected system, because of concerns about the process of criminalization of transnational conduct, legitimacy in the development of the system, doctrinal weaknesses, human rights considerations, legitimacy in the control of the system, and enforcement issues. The article argues that the distinction between international criminal law and transnational criminal law is sustainable on four grounds: the direct as opposed to indirect nature of the two systems, the application of absolute universality as opposed to more limited forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the protection of international interests and values as opposed to more limited transnational values and interests, and the differently constituted international societies that project these penal norms. Finally, the article argues that the term transnational criminal law is apposite because it is functional and because it points to a legal order that attenuates the distinction between national and international.

The German Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law

On June 26,2002 the German Federal Parliament passed an Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law (“the Act”), which subsequently entered into force on June 30,2002, the day after its promulgation in the German Federal Law Gazette. Article 1 of the Act contains the Code of Crimes Against International Law (“CCAIL”), which provides the legal framework for German courts to prosecute crimes for which the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is competent, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (“the core crimes”). The remaining Articles of the Act contain, inter alia, amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the primary purpose of which is to harmonize the general criminal law with the CCAIL.For a better understanding of the significance of the CCAIL on the national and international plane, it is important to recall briefly the legal situation in Germany regarding the prosecution of the core crimes prior to the entry into force of the Act

Universal Jurisdiction for International Core Crimes: Recent Developments in Belgium

Belgian legislation gives the national criminal justice system far reaching competence to prosecute international core crimes. International and national judicial decisions as well as policy considerations may however dictate restrictions.

Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v. Belgium Case

The ICJ, in its Judgment in The Congo v. Belgium (the so‐called Yerodia case), stated in a problematic obiter dictum that, before national courts, former Ministers for Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity even if they committed a serious international crime, unless they acted in their private capacity. It seems that this statement (for which the Court gives no reasons) does not properly reflect the current state of customary international law. Rather, modern state practice and opinion juris deny immunities for core crimes to all former and incumbent state officials with the sole exception of the highest state representatives such as Heads of State or Ministers for Foreign Affairs; and even these persons are protected only while in office (as has been demonstrated in the Pinochet case). It is submitted that this rule not only reflects positive law but at the same time strikes the proper balance between, on the one hand, the need to protect a state's ability to discharge its most important tasks (such as the maintenance of peace), and, on the other hand, the need to punish serious violations of human rights (once retired, even Heads of State can be held responsible).

Mezinárodní trestní soud a jeho předchůdci

Fifty years after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, the international community entered the final stage of work on the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court ( ICC). The primary aim of the Court would be to bring to justice persons responsible for the most serious crimes under international law, when domestic criminal justice systems fail to do so. The ICC would act as a standard-setting institution in the area of fair trial and due process standards, and serve as a model of international justice.The jurisdiction of the independent, effective and fair ICC should initially be limited to three core crimes: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. All three crimes constitute exceptionally serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and are well established as crimes under customary international law.The ICC Statute defines genocide pursuant to the definition provided for in the 1948 Genocide Convention, which has been ratified by many states and is widely accepted as reflecting customary international law. Acts of genocide may be committed in peacetime as well as in armed conflict.War crimes included in the ICC Statute cover acts committed both in international and non-interactional armed conflict. The enumeration of crimes committed in international armed conflict corresponds to the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the grave breaches and denials of fundamental guarantees of Additional Protocol I to Geneva Conventions, and violations of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and its Regulations, and crimes committed in non-international armed conflict, provided for in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II to Geneva Conventions.The ICC Statute defines crimes against humanity as acts committed on a widespread or systematic basis against a civilian population. The enumeration of such crimes should include: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, arbitrary detention, torture, extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance of persons, rape, forcible transfers of populations within or across national borders, persecution on political, ethnic, racial, religious and other grounds and other inhumane acts. Crimes can be committed both in time of peace and in armed conflict, by official and non-state actors.