Serious Crimes Of Concern Research Articles

Ratifikasi Statuta International Criminal Court Dalam Penegakan Hak Asasi Manusia di Indonesia: Perlukah?

The prosecution of serious human rights violations in Indonesia is complemented by special courts. These courts are ad hoc and can try cases of past serious human rights violations. By ratifying the Rome Statute, Indonesia will become a state subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. However, this feature of subordination is not absolute, but rather complementary. The aim of this research is to determine aspects of serious human rights violations in international law as well as the effectiveness of the implementation of international criminal law in the human rights justice system in Indonesia. The research method is normative law using secondary data with a conceptual approach. The research results show that serious human rights violations in international law can take into account the objectives of international criminal law regulations as well as Indonesian criminal law regulations. These are issues that affect the interests of security, order and peace of the international community and humanity in particular. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Under the Rome Statute, the Court has jurisdiction over serious human rights violations. However, Indonesia has not yet ratified the Rome Statute, due to differing views on how it should function and differing understandings of human rights violations.

The Relevance of the International Criminal Court and Its Possible Deterrent Effects of International Crimes

Purpose: The ICC was established for the primary purpose of ensuring that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole do not go unpunished and to contribute to the prevention of such crimes. Thus, this paper seeks to determine the possible deterrent effects of international crimes by the ICC through its investigations, prosecutions, sanctions and other activities.
 Methodology: The study adopted the doctrinal research method. Both primary and secondary sources like Statute, Case Law, textbooks, journals and internet are used.
 Finding: Finding reveals that the Court has not been effective in deterring and preventing international criminality due to lack of cooperation from States and lack of universal jurisdiction.
 Recommendation: In order for the Court to effectively deter the commission of international crimes, there is need to alleviate the factors hindering the proper discharge of the Court’s functions like lack of cooperation from states, a standing police force and universal jurisdiction.

The international criminal court. The legislation of Italy on the statute and on cooperation with the ICC

After 20 years from its entry into force, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), approved in Rome in July 1998, returned to the attention of the international community. The spirit of the ICC, i.e.an international judge, pre-established by the United Nations’ Law, able to prosecute and bring to justice the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, is recalled when war scenarios return to be close and concrete. At the same time, the status of ratifications of the Rome Statute, of its implementation, and of cooperation with the Court is far from being fully effective. When establishing the ICC, the international community affirmed that genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, In EU Member States, including Italy, a comprehensive legislative framework is established with a view to cooperating with the ICC. However, current scenarios suggest checking its efficiency and to further strengthen cooperation with ICC

Правові та інституційні засади Спеціального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне

В умовах глобалізації та інтеграції важливе значення у сфері протидії міжнародним злочинам, що викликають стурбованість усієї міжнародної спільноти, відіграють відповідні міжнародні судові органи, які діють, як правило, у тому випадку, якщо внутрішньодержавні органи кримінального правосуддя не бажають чи не в змозі вирішити питання щодо притягнення винних осіб до кримінальної відповідальності. Це може відбуватися особливо в умовах збройних конфліктів, під час яких можуть вчинятися такі міжнародні злочини, як геноцид, злочини проти людяності, серйозні порушення міжнародного гуманітарного права та інші воєнні злочини. У зв’язку з цим дослідження правових та інституційних основ утворення та діяльності міжнародних кримінальних судів, зокрема Специального суду по Сьерра-Леоне, має великий науковий та практичний інтерес.
 Метою статті є визначення правових та інституційних засад утворення та діяльності Специального суду по Сьерра-Леоне, його правового статусу та юрисдикції. Здійснення аналізу судової практики цього Суду та її впливу на подальший розвиток міжнародного кримінального права та нанальних правових систем.
 Наукова новизна результатів дослідження полягає в тому, що вперше у вітчизняній юридичній літературі обґрунтовано наукові погляди щодо необхідності комплексного дослідження правових та інституційних засад діяльності Специального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне. Доведено, що особливості міжнародно-правового статусу та юрисдикції цього Суду були обумовлені необхідністю боротьби із міжнародною злочинністю в умовах існування збройного конфлікту та проведення міжнародної миротворчої операції на території Республіки Сьєрра-Леоне, участь в якій брала і Україна. Вперше досліджено, що незважаючи на наявність в структурі цього Суду національного компоненту, Суд є міжнародним судом. Визначено вирішальну роль Організації Об’єднаних Націй у припиненні збройного конфлікту на території Сьєрра-Леоне, утворенні разом із Республікою Сьєрра-Леоне та іншими державами правових та інституційних засад діяльності Специального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне. Визначено інституційні засади діяльності цього Суду та проаналізовано діяльність таких його органів, як: а) камери (Судові камери та Апеляційна камера); б) Обвинувач; та с) Секретаріат. Досліджено юрисдикцію та судову практику Спеціального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне, зокрема щодо притягнення до відповідальності за вчинення таких злочинів проти людяності, як: викрадення та використання дітей в активних воєнних діях; викрадення жінок та примус їх до шлюбу, поневолення жінок у сексуальне рабство тощо. Досліджено особливості судового процесу Суду, правило non bis in idem щодо повторного притягнення осіб до кримінальної відповідальності, а також питання амністії.
 У висновку зазначається, що у процесі розвитку правових та інституційних засад діяльності міжнародних кримінальних судів у сфері боротьби із найсерйознішими злочинами, що викликають стурбованість усього міжнародного співтовариства, вкрай важливим є ефективне використання як міжнародного, так і національного компонентів системи міжнародного кримінального правосуддя, що простежується у діяльності Спеціального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне. Практика діяльності Спеціального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне засвідчує високу ефективність діяльності міжнародних кримінальних судових органів та сприяє подальшому розвитку міжнародного кримінального права. Концентрація зусиль науковців на дослідженні правових та інституційних засад діяльності міжнародних кримінальних судів, зокрема Спеціального суду по Сьєрра-Леоне, сприятиме підвищенню ефективності боротьби із міжнародними злочинами.

ICC and Afrocentrism: The Laws, Politics and Biases in Global Criminal Justice

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. However, since its inception, the Court has been wholly focused on Africa in terms of indictments and trials. This has led many Africans, including state leaders, to question the integrity of the Court. While most explanations of the ICC’s focus on Africa have bordered on the political, this work attempts to find out the reason for the Court’s slant towards Africa in the very Statute by which it was established. Therefore, this paper finds that of the four broad crimes that the ICC has jurisdiction to try, three (crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide) are more likely to occur in Africa, while the fourth (the crime of aggression), will more likely be perpetrated by or at the instigation of individuals in powerful States.

Filling the void: the case for international economic criminal law

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: ICC) is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community that threaten security, peace, and well-being of the world. This article argues that serious (transitional) economic offences should belong in this group. Ignoring these crimes, which often represent economic violence characteristic of transitional and post-conflict countries, can lead to another cycle of armed conflict and/or physical violence as well as to internal and external insecurity. Responses to globalization are having a significant effect on international law and institutions with a view to protecting economic and social human rights, human security, and human dignity. Sometimes, as in the case of Croatia, national states are not able to and/or unwilling to prosecute serious and systemic economic crimes, which in turn undermines individual and collective security. The same could be said for international criminal law. By ignoring these crimes and violations – unlike what international human rights law, supranational criminology, and transitional justice does – the core international criminal law no longer responds to the needs of societies and individuals. The Rechtsgut in need of protection by prosecuting serious economic crimes that fulfill the threshold of core crimes on an international level is comprised of the “security, peace and well-being of the world.” Therefore, one could argue that the International Criminal Court’s possible involvement in economic violence does have a legal base, without needing to amend the ICC’s Statute (hereinafter: ICCSt). Since one must be aware of the diversity that exists as to the criteria for international criminalization, this article is based on broader grounds in order to argue in favor of international criminalization of these economic crimes. The article therefore emphasizes the importance of connecting narratives of international criminal law, with discourses on international human rights law (based on Art. 21 of the ICCSt), human security, (supranational) criminology, transitional justice, and (economic) criminal law. In the line of (human) security discourse, this approach seeks to find arguments as to whether or not it is necessary to begin prosecuting serious (transitional) economic offences as crimes under international law. First, this article gives a brief overview of the failed experiment in Croatia concerning the prosecution of transitional economic crimes that served as incentive, based on the ICC’s complementarity principle.

Accountability for Forced Displacement in Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda Before the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is established to investigate, prosecute and punish the ‘most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.' In the first few cases before the ICC, the Court has concentrated on use of child soldiers in Democratic Republic of Congo and Northern Uganda, genocide in Darfur, and political violence surrounding elections in Kenya and Ivory Coast. These more obvious and legally defined crimes have grabbed the world’s attention and suited Western criminal justice responses. However, perhaps more endemic, but problematic in terms of establishing criminal responsibility, is forced displacement. While forced displacement is secondary to more traditional international crimes, such as mass murder and rape, its ripple effects on communities and perpetrators intent to displace rival ethnic communities, causes widespread victimisation, suggesting its egregious nature should be of greater international concern. This article examines the challenges of investigating and prosecuting forced displacement in the Central African countries of Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, where higher loss of life was caused by forced displacement, than by any other. In the Democratic Republic of Congo armed groups intentionally attacked civilian populations displacing them from their homes, to cut them off from food and medical supplies. In Northern Uganda the government engaged in a forced displacement policy as part of its counter-insurgency against the Lord’s Resistance Army, driving the civilian population in ‘protected villages,’ where at one point the weekly death toll was over 1,000 in these camps. This article critically evaluates how criminal responsibility can be established for forced displacement and alternative approaches to accountability through reparations.

The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the otp’s Performance

The main aim of the International Criminal Court (icc) is to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. One of the most valued features of the icc is the independent position of the Prosecutor in selecting situations and cases to investigate. The Prosecutor, however, has been heavily criticized for his selection policy and countries from the African Union even threatened to withdraw from the icc because of its alleged bias and unfair focus on African political leaders. In this article we present the results of our explorative study in which we empirically evaluate the situations selection policy of the icc Prosecutor. We conclude that given the icc’s limited jurisdictional reach, the Prosecutor is generally focusing on the gravest situations where international crimes are supposedly committed.

Accountability for Forced Displacement in Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda before the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is established to investigate, prosecute and punish the ‘most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.' In the first few cases before the ICC, the Court has concentrated on use of child soldiers in Democratic Republic of Congo and Northern Uganda, genocide in Darfur, and political violence surrounding elections in Kenya and Ivory Coast. These more obvious and legally defined crimes have grabbed the world’s attention and suited Western criminal justice responses. However, perhaps more endemic, but problematic in terms of establishing criminal responsibility, is forced displacement. While forced displacement is secondary to more traditional international crimes, such as mass murder and rape, its ripple effects on communities and perpetrators intent to displace rival ethnic communities, causes widespread victimisation, suggesting its egregious nature should be of greater international concern. This article examines the challenges of investigating and prosecuting forced displacement in the Central African countries of Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, where higher loss of life was caused by forced displacement, than by any other. In the Democratic Republic of Congo armed groups intentionally attacked civilian populations displacing them from their homes, to cut them off from food and medical supplies. In Northern Uganda the government engaged in a forced displacement policy as part of its counter-insurgency against the Lord’s Resistance Army, driving the civilian population in ‘protected villages,’ where at one point the weekly death toll was over 1,000 in these camps. This article critically evaluates how criminal responsibility can be established for forced displacement and alternative approaches to accountability through reparations.

Redrawing the Line? Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community beyond theRome Statute

AbstractInternational criminal law, like all areas of law, must continue to evolve to reflect contemporary realities. This article demonstrates that the current subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under theRome Statuteis very much an artefact of history, and it argues that the historical and reactive line that the statute draws between “core” international crimes and other serious international or transnational crimes is inadequate. In order to ensure that international criminal law continues to evolve in a reasoned and principled manner, states need to better articulate the criteria by which conduct is included within the category of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” Using a primarily inductive approach, the article considers a number of such criteria that have been considered over the years. It concludes that, when assessed in the context of their systematic and organized perpetration, many other serious international and transnational crimes raise some of the same concerns that underpin the current core international crimes, suggesting that it may be time for the international community to consider redrawing the line.

Fighting Impunity Unsuccessfully in Africa: A Critique of the African Union's Handling of the Hissène Habré Affair

Impunity for the commission of grave infringements of humanitarian law and for the perpetration of mass violations of human rights having an international dimension has been and continues to be a most serious problem. It does not pertain only to the African continent but has been a cause for concern for almost all parts of the world. Moreover, it is closely connected with the need to put into place an effective multilateral criminal justice system. Thus, combating impunity demands that a mechanism be devised which will ensure that those responsible for heinous crimes are prosecuted and, upon conviction, receive sentences commensurate to their offences. As has been argued, the assumption that the creation of an international justice system would always generate positive results is both wrong and naive. Given the lack of any other alternative that would stand the test of time, however, it is submitted that, even though there might be good tribunals and bad tribunals, the establishment of a judicial entity cannot be wrong in itself. The Preamble to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) affirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished and determines to put an end to impunity for perpetrators. Equally, the creation of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court for Rwanda by the UN Security Council and, later on, the establishment of the so-called hybrid

Political Considerations in Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (icc) sits at the perfect crossroad of law and politics. As a primarily consent-based legal system, the icc is only effective to the extent that it has the political support from states who want to see it succeed in its mission to end impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Despite this, the Prosecutor’s interpretation of the ‘interests of justice’ criterion limits the extent to which the Prosecutor can consider the political ramifications of their actions. This article argues that the Prosecutor has legal grounds to consider politics in their analysis of whether proceeding with an investigation or prosecution would not be in the ‘interests of justice’. This article also argues that soft power theory can be used to overcome arguments that politics should not be considered in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, due to the consent-based nature of the icc regime.

The ICC and Complementarity in Practice

AbstractSince the start of its operations 10 years ago, the International Criminal Court has dealt with a number of challenges to the admissibility of cases before it. Some of the challenges were mounted by territorial states that had jurisdiction over the cases. Others were mounted by accused persons. The Court, acting on its own initiative, has, on a number of occasions, also considered issues of the admissibility of cases before it. It has done this, in the main, at the pre-trial stages of proceedings. Some of the cases arose out of state or Security Council referrals. Others arose out of the Prosecutor's initiated investigations. In the course of dealing with these matters the Court has endeavoured to strike a balance between the states’ right to exercise their sovereignty through national proceedings, on the one hand, and the interests of the international community to ensure that ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished’, on the other. In the process of doing so the Court has also developed some practices and generated an impressive body of jurisprudence, the subject of this article. The jurisprudence evinces the Court's readiness to assume jurisdiction over a case in situations where there is clear inaction on the part of the national authorities. The article, which is a critical exposé of that jurisprudence, endorses this stance as a veritable antidote to impunity for atrocity crimes.

The Raison D'Etre of Non-Ratification of the Rome Statute by Asian States

The International Criminal Court was created to help end impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, an objective which can only be achieved if the Court receives universal recognition. It is highly unfortunate that Asian countries are not joining the Court in its noble cause, due to their objection to some provisions of the Rome Statute. Only 11 Asian states are state party to the Rome Statute, as compared to 34 from Africa, 18 from Eastern Europe, 7 from Pacific, 27 from Latin America and Caribbean, and 25 from Western Europe and other States. In this paper, the reasons for the non-ratification of the Rome Statute by the Asian states would be explored and solutions would be given as to how these states can be convinced to join ICC. The author believes that this study is essential for the universal recognition of the Court, with more than a half of the population of the world living in Asia the creation of a credible deterrence against perpetration of crimes listed of Rome Statute would largely depend on ratification of the Rome Statute by Asian States.

A Panafrican and International Approach: Combating Piracy Off the Coast of Somalia

A Panafrican and International Approach: Combating Piracy Off the Coast of Somalia

The International Criminal Court and Africa: Exemplary Justice

This is a theoretical and empirical investigation into the causal link (if any) between international criminal trials and preventing violence through exemplary prosecutions. Specifically how do representative trials of persons accused of having the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, supposedly bind recurrent violence? The argument pursued is that by using an accused as an example, a court engages in an indirect and uncertain substitution of personal rights for social harmony and order. These prosecutions combine a peculiar rhetoric, logic and aesthetic, all which substitute the responsibilities for a society in general to a particular individual in order to redeem that society by transferring its communal responsibility onto the individual punished as a form of atonement or expiation. International and domestic trials, as well as truth and reconciliation commissions, are part of a suite of options addressing communal mass violence that can work in tandem. However, because those convicted do not have a monopoly on criminality, nor do those merely reconciled have a monopoly on virtue, exemplification through punishment only targets a few on behalf of the many. Indeed such a redemptively sacrificial economy distinguishes legal justice from mere vengeance.

Mayhem in Darfur: The Accountability, Peace and Immunity Debate

No one quite tells in precise terms what ‘justice’ is all about, that is why it is so useful a term. Today, the word is almost constantly on everyone’s tongue and might signify almost anything. It is used by all, ranging from the most repressive and atrocious regimes responsible for heinous international crimes, to victims of such egregious human rights abuses. It is a term with a ‘penumbra of uncertainties.’ Borrowing the words of Plato and other philosophers, Kirk tells us the classical definition of justice captured in one phrase, suum cuique, which means to each his own. Despite the recurring controversy over the meaning and normative content of the notion of justice, modern human rights enterprise posits the idea as articulating at least four obligations in the context of atrocity crimes, i.e., the duty to prosecute, disclosure of the truth, the right of victims to reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. The article examines the utility of prosecutorial justice as a comprehensive tool for combating gross violations of human rights and serious breaches of humanitarian law without ignoring other interrelated imperatives of justice. It seeks to posit the debate between peace and justice and tries to make a critical analysis of whether the concern for justice truly jeopardizes the effort for peace in the particular context of Darfur. It professes to look into the prospect of prosecution of those accused of perpetrating the most serious crimes of concern and examines the significance of ICC prosecution to the people of Darfur. By analyzing relevant international precedents and new developments in international criminal law, this article examines the state of the law relating to a sitting head of state immunity. It assesses whether the ICC indictment of President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir is politically motivated or a legally justified action against impunity.

Punishing War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity: Introduction

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (the ICC) as the first permanent legal institution designed to deal with ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community’ has in recent years attracted increasing attention among moral philosophers. This is not surprising. The sad fact that war crimes, genocides, and crimes against humanity—constituting the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC—are parts of the existing world (dis)order, naturally prompts the question as to how one should handle such crimes once they have occurred. More narrowly, the punitive questions addressing themselves in relation to the ICC are: Is an international punishment institution morally justified? Who should be held accountable? And how should perpetrators be punished for their misdeeds? The purpose of this volume is to contribute to a discussion of these questions. The opening article concerns the ‘‘how much’’ question. The overwhelming gravity of the most atrocious mass crimes obviously causes one to wonder what would constitute the proper punitive response to such crimes. Or, as Michael Davis puts the question: Does the ICC’s jurisdiction consist primarily of crimes too big for criminal justice? Drawing on his fairness-theoretic version of retributivism and a theory of enforcement, Davis seeks to answer this question. In contrast, the ensuing two articles engage in different ways in considerations of who should be held accountable for mass crimes. Operating within the framework of an expressive theory of punishment, Bill Wringe addresses the question as to whether those who are punished for war crimes and those who punish belong to the same community; he also considers the implications with regard to what constitutes a legitimate distribution of punishment. Larry May, for his part, directs attention to the concept of complicity. Taking his point of departure from the fact that one-third of the

The International Criminal Court: What in the World is the Crime of Aggression and Who in the World is to Say?

The International Criminal Court (ICC), created by Statute of Rome, is first of its kind: a permanent international institution charged with mandate of trying individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to international community as a whole. Four crimes fall within jurisdiction of ICC: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The first three crimes are defined in Articles 5-8 of Rome Statute. Although Statute also recognizes crime of aggression, it precludes Court from exercising jurisdiction over crime until a relevant provision has been adopted into Statute, which: (1) defines crime, and (2) sets forth conditions under which Court may exercise jurisdiction over individuals with respect thereto. To date, state parties to ICC have put forth numerous proposals, both on defining substantive crime of aggression, and on prescribing conditions for Court's exercise of jurisdiction. This Article examines some of these proposals, summarizes arguments made with respect to each, and makes recommendations as to a preferred course of action.

Responsibility, Accountability, and Innocence: Judging the September 11 Terrorist Attack

This Article defines the September 11 attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center as a non-isolated war-like attack undertaken against a sovereign state by individuals operating through a non-state actor. Although this means that the attack contains elements of both an armed attack and a criminal attack, this Article proposes that the attack should be treated as a criminal attack. As such, the appropriate legal response to it is one that emerges from the purview of the criminal law. However, this is not a matter to be left to domestic criminal law. Rather, the war-like nature of the attack suggests that it must be recognized as being an act of radical evil that lodges itself among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Accordingly, it is to be addressed by international criminal law through a multilateral, cross-civilizational, open, and pluralist process. Such a process would: (1) more emphatically denounce the attack; (2) better deter future attacks by building anti-terrorist social norms in places where disaffected individuals join terror networks; (3) diversify international human rights law by including Islamic perspectives; and (4) avoid some of the national security concerns that proceeding in a U.S. forum would trigger. This Article therefore revisits the positions taken by the Department of Justice that terrorist trials take place within the U.S. federal court system, as well as the November 2001 Presidential Order permitting the creation of U.S. military tribunals for terrorists.