Permanent International Criminal Court Research Articles

South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Process and International Humanitarian Law

Since its establishment in 1995, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission has captured the attention of an international community preoccupied with the problem of dealing with crimes of the past in divided societies. While the creation of a permanent international criminal court to punish those guilty of atrocities constituting international crimes has been the first priority, the international community has, albeit grudgingly, accepted that there may be circumstances in which amnesty and reconciliation hold out more hope for troubled societies than punishment. This realisation has led to the search for an acceptable alternative to punishment that does not result in absolute amnesty for those guilty of gross human rights abuses. The South African model, of conditional amnesty accompanied by the uncovering of the past, appears to offer such an alternative. This factor, together with the relief over the fact that apartheid has at last been laid to rest, accounts for the interest shown in the South African experience.The present note will not attempt to describe and analyse the South African precedent in detail. Instead it will provide an overview of the history, establishment and work of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); examine the significance of the Report of the TRC for international humanitarian law; and consider the status of amnesty under contemporary international law in the context of the South African experience.

The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: Controversies over the Preconditions for Exercising its Jurisdiction

On the evening of Friday 17 July 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of plenipotentiaries voted to adopt the Statute of an International Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over persons who have committed the most serious crimes of international concern. The Secretary-General of the United Nations characterised this historical event as ‘a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law.’ This marathon Conference achieved what several generations of lawyers and diplomats have tried to create: the foundations of a workable permanent International Criminal Court which satisfies the criteria of independence and aims at effectiveness and universality. According to the Preamble of the Statute, the international community affirms that it is determined:‘That the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international co-operation, to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes, to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court…’

Toward Universal Human Rights and the Rule of Law: The Permanent International Criminal Court

(1999). Toward Universal Human Rights and the Rule of Law: The Permanent International Criminal Court. Australian Journal of International Affairs: Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 95-111.

Pinochet: The Politics

Against the background of the Pinochet affair, the author considers that a new era of international politics is in the process of being created. The House of Lords’ ruling which has allowed extradition procedures against the former Chilean dictator, is understood as a formidable and groundbreaking decision in international law based on the defence of human rights against crimes committed by authoritarian and unlawful rulers. The decision taken under the European Convention on extradition and the setting up of a Permanent International Criminal Court in the summer of 1998 are, according to the author, signs that international law and international politics are moving in the direction of a universal acceptance that violators of human rights must bepunished. However, the author is also cautious about the tension between the new path opened to international politics and the old power politics based on the absolute and indivisible sovereignty of the state. Double standards will certainly prevail and powerful states, in particular the United States, are reluctant to accept that international law and international politics are in the process of change.

Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

After languishing for some forty years in the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC), efforts toward establishing a permanent international criminal court were finally afforded serious attention by the ILC in 1993.1 In 1994, the ILC reported its findings and submitted a draft statute for a court that would try individuals for particularly enumerated international crimes.2 After six lengthy and exhaustive Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) sessions held in New York City between 1996–1998,3

The United States and the International Criminal Court

The United States has had and will continue to have a compelling interest in the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (ICC). Such an international court, so long contemplated and so relevant in a world burdened widi mass murderers, can both deter and punish diose who might escape justice in national courts. Since 1995, the question for the Clinton administration has never been whether there should be an international criminal court, but rather what kind of court it should be in order to operate efficiently, effectively and appropriately within a global system that also requires our constant vigilance to protect international peace and security. At the same time, the United States has special responsibilities and special exposure to political controversy over our actions. This factor cannot be taken lightly when issues of international peace and security are at stake. We are called upon to act, sometimes at great risk, far more than any other nation. This is a reality in the international system.

Implementing Legislation for the Application of the Law on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Criteria for its Evaluation

The establishment of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 (ICTY) and the adoption of its Statute heralded a new page in the history of international, particularly international criminal, law. For the first time since World War II, an international criminal court was established. The Tribunal was created in order to achieve important legal and political goals: to punish perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991; to prevent further crimes; to facilitate the peace process; and to serve as a test for a future permanent international criminal court.

Case Analysis: International Criminal Tribunals and State Sources of Proof: The Case of Tihomir Blaškić

In a world of sovereign states, gathering evidence is one of the major challenges for the new international criminal tribunals. The decision in Prosecutor v. Blaškić, by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, shows some of the difficulties. The Tribunal finds it has the power to issue compulsory orders to sovereign states for the production of evidence, although not to issue a subpoena as such. The Tribunal also assumes the power to review a state's national security privilege, a holding that may challenge the more protective provisions of the new Rome treaty for a permanent International Criminal Court. However, the Appeals Chamber's declaration that there is no power to summon particular government officials, even for eyewitness testimony, that document production must be limited, and that its orders cannot be directly enforced, may hobble the Tribunal's capacity to muster the necessary proof at trial.

Accounting for Crimes: The Role of International Criminal Tribunals in Effectively Addressing Impunity

In this paper, the author examines the ways in which accountability for international crimes could become a practical reality. She takes the position that "impunity" is inimical both to justice, and to lasting peace and democracy in post-conflict societies and proposes a conceptual framework for the international rule of law as an alternative. She also argues that a strong, independent and permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) would ensure the kind of universal enforcement of international law that will lead to a progressive, long-term reduction of human rights violations.

The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Fifty-Second Session of the UN General Assembly

At the fifty-second session of the General Assembly, the Sixth (Legal) Committee reviewed the annual reports of the International Law Commission (ILC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (Special Committee) and the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (Host Country Committee). The Sixth Committee also considered proposals for three new legal instruments relating to (1) the establishment of a permanent international criminal court, (2) international terrorism and (3) jurisdictional immunities of states and their property, as well as other topics concerning the United Nations internal justice system, the United Nations Decade of International Law (Decade) and the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law. The topics are discussed in the order in which they were considered by the committee.

The Sixth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court

The Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Preparatory Committee or committee) held its sixth and final session from March 16 to April 3, 1998, at the United Nations headquarters in New York. At this session it completed its work of preparing a consolidated text of a statute for a permanent international criminal court (ICC) for adoption at a diplomatic conference in Rome held from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The consolidated text is considerably longer than the draft statute submitted by the International Law Commission to the UN General Assembly in July 1994 (ILC draft statute) and contains many different options submitted by states, but it is still largely consistent with the basic structure of the ILC draft statute.

The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead

On 15 December 1997, the UN General Assembly resolved to convene a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries in Rome during June-July 1998 for the purpose of establishing a permanent international criminal court.' The idea of a permanent court is not new; it began with the unsuccessful attempt to establish an international tribunal following World War I. Although there have been various attempts and proposals to establish such a court since the inception of the League of Nations, the forthcoming meeting is the first time that prospects have ever seemed so promising for the court to become a reality.2 A brief history of prior efforts follows, in order to provide a proper context for the issues discussed in this article.

The first proposal for a permanent international criminal court

On 15 June 1998, a diplomatic conference in Rome will open a five-week session to remedy one of the long-standing gaps in the implementation system for international humanitarian law by adopting a treaty to establish a permanent international criminal court. Although the current effort within the United Nations to set up a permanent court began half a century ago with a proposal in 1947 by Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, the French judge on the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, it is not widely known that the first serious such proposal appears to have been made more than a century and a quarter ago by Gustave Moynier, one of the founders, and longtime President, of the International Committee of the Red Cross. He wrestled with many of the same problems which will face the drafters of the statute at the 1998 diplomatic conference and the strengths and weaknesses of his proposal still have relevance today. This short essay describes that proposal and its origins, reviews the reaction to it of his contemporaries and its impact on subsequent history and concludes with an assessment of the merits of Moynier's plan.

The establishment of a permanent international criminal court: ICRC expectations of the Rome Diplomatic Conference

Violations of international humanitarian law are not a new phenomenon. Nor is the establishment of an international criminal court to counter such violations a new idea. The first project creating a link between violations of a humanitarian treaty — that is, the Geneva Convention of 1864 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field — and penal sanction by a permanent international judicial body was drawn up by Gustave Moynier, one of the founders of the ICRC Like so many other projects, it did not materialize, however.

Towards a Permanent International Criminal Court

AbstractNo Abstract

Freiburg Declaration on the Position of the Prosecutor of a Permanent International Criminal Court

AbstractNo Abstract

The Third and Fourth Sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court

The Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Preparatory Committee or committee) held its third and fourth sessions from February 10 to 21, 1997, and August 4 to 15, 1997, bringing the world a step closer to the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (ICC). The United Nations General Assembly, on December 16, 1996, reaffirmed the mandate of the Preparatory Committee and decided that the committee would meet in four more sessions (the final two from December 1 to 12, 1997, and March 16 to April 3, 1998) “in order to complete the drafting of a widely acceptable consolidated text of a convention, to be submitted to a diplomatic conference.” It also decided that “a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries will be held in 1998, with a view to finalizing and adopting a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court”; the conference is now scheduled to open in Rome on June 15,1998, and to last five weeks. The General Assembly urged participation in the committee “by the largest number of States so as to promote universal support for an international criminal court” and requested that the Secretary-General establish a voluntary fund to facilitate participation in the committee and the diplomatic conference by the least developed countries.

The Creation of a Permanent International Criminal Court

The Creation of a Permanent International Criminal Court

Zločin genocida - 50 godina konvencije UN o sprečavanju i kažnjavanju genocida

The author explains the notion of genocide and points to its normative and historical roots. He analyzes the content of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and the compliance of the Yugoslav Criminal Code with the Convention. He explains the character of the permanent International Criminal Court and of the Hague Tribunal.

Completing the ``International Criminal Order''

AbstractRecent efforts in the United Nations to establish a comprehensive system of international criminal repression by creating a permanent international criminal court are by no means free from doubts regarding the possibility ever to enforce such law. The preamble of the draft statute prepared by the International Law Commission states the basis on which the court is to assert jurisdiction in an ambitious manner: it is the ``International Community'', joining against ``the most serious crimes of international concern''. The project cannot, however, ignore decades of realist criticism against the assumption of the existence of an international community that is ready to accept an international criminal jurisdiction. In the negotiations, this contradiction is dealt with by a technique provided with an ambiguous name: ``complementarity'', i.e. the coordination of the tasks of the international and domestic jurisdiction. The writer discusses the various ideas and proposals presented under the heading of ``complementarity'' in order to examine the tension between communitarian and sovereignty-based strands in the international project to create an effective criminal jurisdiction.