Responsibility For International Crimes Research Articles

The law of war as a source of contemporary branches of international law

Branches of international law arise mainly as a result of the following factors: 1) complications of international legal consciousness (international human rightslaw, international security law, international environmental law, international criminal law, etc.) and 2) technological progress (international air, space, nuclear law, relevant innovations in international maritime law, etc.). Under the influence of the same factors, new institutions are formed within existing branches (responsibility for international crimes, prohibitions of genocide, prohibitions of apartheid, responsibility for environmental pollution, instant custom, etc.). The article examines the mechanism of formation of the international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflicts, international security law, international human rights law, and international criminal law. It is claimed that they are based on a traditional section of pre-classical international law - the law of war. The first attempts to regulate the conduct of armed conflicts formed the basis for the creation of these branches. The first scientific systematization of international law was one proposed by Hugo Grotius. The scholar proposed to divide the system of this law into two interrelated components - the law of war and the law of peace. Grotian systematization formed the basis of further scientific systematics of international law in the 17th-19th centuries. The Hague Peace Conferences changed the traditional view of the division of international law into the law of war and peace. The Hague peace conventions influenced on formation of the international humanitarian law. The 20th century became a period of active formation of new branches of international law within the framework of the process of "codification and progressive development of international law" under the auspices of the United Nations. So the traditional law of war gave birth to several branches of modern international law.

Ответственность за международные преступления: новые вызовы

В статье рассматриваются вопросы ответственности за международные преступления, практические подходы, связанные с недопустимостью ссылок на полномочия высших должностных лиц публичной власти, обосновывается решение некоторых обсуждаемых в теории и на практике вопросов квалификации преступлений против мира и безопасности человечества. The article examines the issues of responsibility for international crimes, practical approaches related to the inadmissibility of references to the powers of senior public officials, substantiates the solution of some issues discussed in theory and practice of the qualification of crimes against the peace and security of mankind.

A Defense of Minority as a Ground for Procedural Objections in the Practice of Organs of International Criminal Justice

The article considers various aspects of reference to minority as grounds for procedural objections in the administration of the international judicial bodies of juvenile justice on charges of international crimes. It is noted that, despite the lack of a unified approach to the issue of the admissibility of the prosecution of juveniles for such crimes the international criminal tribunals (existing permanent and ad hoc) and hybrid judicial bodies, seems to be indisputable the validity of the qualification of minority of the accused as mitigating circumstances. Moreover, it is necessary to set the minimum age of criminal responsibility for international crimes through the adoption of a treaty.

Reassessing dual Responsibility for International Crimes

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2016v37n73p19A recente decisão da Corte Internacional de Justiça no caso entre Croácia e Sérvia nos oferece a oportunidade de reavaliar a relação entre responsabilidade individual e estatal por crimes internacionais. Embora limitada ao cometimento de atos de genocídio, a sentença demonstra que o quadro conceitual explicando tal relação é ora bem definido. Contudo, a Corteparece chegar a conclusões que por vezes não são completamente consistentes com as premissas de tal quadro conceitual. O objetivo da análise é testar a abordagem teórica geral em relação a alguns problemas lidados pela Corte em sua recente decisão.

Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice

The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice in the period spanning from 1 June 2014 to 30 June 2015. These include: the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis under a compromissory clause in the context of State succession; the admissibility of new arguments presented during oral hearings; the burden, standard and methods of proof in cases involving State responsibility for international crimes; and revocation of provisional measures in light of a change in the situation that warranted them.

Pluralism in Theories of Liability: Joint Criminal Enterprise versus Joint Perpetration

This paper scrutinizes the alleged pluralism between JCE and joint perpetration. It illustrates that the ICC and the ICTY in practice establish criminal responsibility under JCE and joint perpetration based on the participants’ cooperation in, and informed contribution to, a (criminal) organization involved in the commission of international crimes. This makes the alleged pluralism between these theories of liability nominal rather than actual. Instead of stressing the differences between JCE and joint perpetration, it is therefore more productive to focus on the similarities. The paper accordingly draws an analogy with domestic theories of criminal responsibility for (co-)perpetration and participation in a criminal organization. It argues that the ICTY and ICC should recognize the kinship between these domestic theories of liability, on the one hand, and JCE and joint perpetration, on the other hand. This can lead to a concept of criminal responsibility for international crimes that is better confined and more intellectually honest.

Allocating Individual Criminal Responsibility to Peacekeepers for International Crimes and other Wrongful Acts committed during Peace Operations

To delve into the realm of peace operations and the allocation of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes and other wrongful acts committed by peacekeepers is to enter a legal dimension of countless discrepancies and legal vacuums that have impeded a uniform application of even the most basic principles of responsibility. It is yet a system incapable of linking the notions of shared responsibility and commitment to the direct consequences of intensifying multilateral and collective activity in international law. Thus, even when the commission of a crime or wrongful act has been recognized, those injured are regularly unable to hold the perpetrators responsible and due redress to the victims is rarely a common practice. In light of this, we have inquired into the causes of these inconsistencies and the underlining reality and challenges posed by an underdeveloped system of criminal law -be that domestic, military and international- vis-a-vis the sui generis nature of peacekeepers and peace operations’ inherent multidimensional character.