This article empirically assesses the role third-party evidence has played in the Office of the Prosecutor’s (OTP) initiation of an investigation into the Afghanistan Situation at the International Criminal Court (ICC). After finding that most of the evidence upon which the OTP relied in its request to initiate an investigation is from third parties, this article classifies and ranks the categories of third party upon which the OTP relied. Critically analysing the OTP’s use of third-party sources, this article uncovers the way potential biases towards dominant languages, affluent locations and prestigious institutions influence the choice of which information to use as evidence, possibly evincing an epistemic injustice at the OTP. Heeding Naz Modirzadeh’s call to use Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) to empower Global South states, this article concludes with recommendations to the OTP and third parties on how they can maximize their collaboration while avoiding capitulation to the politics of exclusion. In addition, the article’s findings reveal opportunities for stakeholders to enhance evidence collection and use by particular third-party categories in Afghanistan and in similar situations.
{"title":"Epistemic Injustice at the ICC?","authors":"Hayley N Evans, Mahir Hazim","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad053","url":null,"abstract":"This article empirically assesses the role third-party evidence has played in the Office of the Prosecutor’s (OTP) initiation of an investigation into the Afghanistan Situation at the International Criminal Court (ICC). After finding that most of the evidence upon which the OTP relied in its request to initiate an investigation is from third parties, this article classifies and ranks the categories of third party upon which the OTP relied. Critically analysing the OTP’s use of third-party sources, this article uncovers the way potential biases towards dominant languages, affluent locations and prestigious institutions influence the choice of which information to use as evidence, possibly evincing an epistemic injustice at the OTP. Heeding Naz Modirzadeh’s call to use Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) to empower Global South states, this article concludes with recommendations to the OTP and third parties on how they can maximize their collaboration while avoiding capitulation to the politics of exclusion. In addition, the article’s findings reveal opportunities for stakeholders to enhance evidence collection and use by particular third-party categories in Afghanistan and in similar situations.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141571085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joint Investigation Teams or JITs are practical mechanisms of cooperation that are established between two or more states to, jointly, conduct criminal investigations. Increasingly used in investigations into core international crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression), JITs are understudied in the field of international criminal law. This article examines how the procedures outlined in JIT legal frameworks are implemented in practice and assesses whether JITs can respond to the challenges of contemporary international crimes investigations. The article contends that, while JITs introduce some useful new cooperation processes, they fall short on many of their most promising features, which are difficult to implement fully in practice or in fact already exist.
{"title":"Can They Deliver?","authors":"Andrea Furger","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae005","url":null,"abstract":"Joint Investigation Teams or JITs are practical mechanisms of cooperation that are established between two or more states to, jointly, conduct criminal investigations. Increasingly used in investigations into core international crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression), JITs are understudied in the field of international criminal law. This article examines how the procedures outlined in JIT legal frameworks are implemented in practice and assesses whether JITs can respond to the challenges of contemporary international crimes investigations. The article contends that, while JITs introduce some useful new cooperation processes, they fall short on many of their most promising features, which are difficult to implement fully in practice or in fact already exist.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141571086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Advocates of the criminalization of ecocide face a dilemma: how to address activities that bring socio-economic benefits and cause severe environmental damage. The solution has generally been seen in the integration of international environmental law (IEL) norms, such as balancing sustainability with development, into the definition of ecocide. This article challenges the uncritical adoption of IEL norms in ecocide debates and explores the socio-ecological implications of relying on those norms in future trials at the International Criminal Court. While this article does not offer a new definition of ecocide, by borrowing insights from critical environmental law and studies of law in the Anthropocene it proposes a new approach for engaging with the question of ecocide, namely, by embracing reflexivity and normativity in legal practice.
{"title":"Ecocide, Sustainable Development and Critical Environmental Law Insights","authors":"Liana Georgieva Minkova","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae006","url":null,"abstract":"Advocates of the criminalization of ecocide face a dilemma: how to address activities that bring socio-economic benefits and cause severe environmental damage. The solution has generally been seen in the integration of international environmental law (IEL) norms, such as balancing sustainability with development, into the definition of ecocide. This article challenges the uncritical adoption of IEL norms in ecocide debates and explores the socio-ecological implications of relying on those norms in future trials at the International Criminal Court. While this article does not offer a new definition of ecocide, by borrowing insights from critical environmental law and studies of law in the Anthropocene it proposes a new approach for engaging with the question of ecocide, namely, by embracing reflexivity and normativity in legal practice.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141502645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The International Criminal Court’s reparations mandate is a core feature of the court’s ‘more victim-centric approach’ to criminal justice. While there has been interest in victims’ expectations and satisfaction in regard to the court’s cases, scholars have focused on victims’ participation in trials and not how expectations and disappointment are influenced by investigations, the passage of time, and the promise (explicit or not) of reparations for non-recipient victim communities. This article engages with disappointment theory and economy of expectations to argue that more academic attention needs to be focused on the emotions associated with expectations to increase understanding of the effectiveness of the victim-centric nature of the reparations mandate.
{"title":"The Barlonyo Massacre, Ongwen’s Trial, and ICC Reparations: Reflections on the Dynamics of Expectations and Disappointment","authors":"Kirsten J Fisher","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae007","url":null,"abstract":"The International Criminal Court’s reparations mandate is a core feature of the court’s ‘more victim-centric approach’ to criminal justice. While there has been interest in victims’ expectations and satisfaction in regard to the court’s cases, scholars have focused on victims’ participation in trials and not how expectations and disappointment are influenced by investigations, the passage of time, and the promise (explicit or not) of reparations for non-recipient victim communities. This article engages with disappointment theory and economy of expectations to argue that more academic attention needs to be focused on the emotions associated with expectations to increase understanding of the effectiveness of the victim-centric nature of the reparations mandate.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141502646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Civil society actors are increasingly turning to international criminal law in response to harmful conduct by the states of the Global North. Legal and strategic concerns have been raised about this practice. It is unclear whether the International Criminal Court will ever be able or willing to effectively respond to the conduct of states, particularly the powerful states of the Global North. However, there is growing recognition that the expressive power of international criminal law may be strategically used beyond the courtroom. Drawing on criminological scholarship, this article suggests that international criminal law may offer potential in resisting the state crimes of the Global North. International criminal law provides civil society with a way to sociologically criminalize the state from below and challenge the hegemonic beliefs that enable state crime. Such expressive advocacy might ultimately play a role in expanding legal understandings of what constitutes an international crime to include the conduct of the Global North.
{"title":"Resisting the State Crimes of the Global North","authors":"Natalie Hodgson","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae010","url":null,"abstract":"Civil society actors are increasingly turning to international criminal law in response to harmful conduct by the states of the Global North. Legal and strategic concerns have been raised about this practice. It is unclear whether the International Criminal Court will ever be able or willing to effectively respond to the conduct of states, particularly the powerful states of the Global North. However, there is growing recognition that the expressive power of international criminal law may be strategically used beyond the courtroom. Drawing on criminological scholarship, this article suggests that international criminal law may offer potential in resisting the state crimes of the Global North. International criminal law provides civil society with a way to sociologically criminalize the state from below and challenge the hegemonic beliefs that enable state crime. Such expressive advocacy might ultimately play a role in expanding legal understandings of what constitutes an international crime to include the conduct of the Global North.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141198367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the increasingly pervasive enrolment of visual materials in the evolution and contestation of international criminal justice. We posit that this emerging field of ‘visual advocacy’ is transforming how international criminal law is produced and perceived. Visual advocacy stands to complement and reinforce, but also to challenge and subvert conventional norms and narratives. To probe how these dynamics play out in practice, we delve into the role of imagery in the ongoing controversy over the international criminalization of severe environmental destruction as ‘ecocide’. By articulating claims to non-human victimhood, the ecocide campaign pioneers an ecocentric vision that disrupts the anthropocentric aesthetics of international criminal law. Through a visual content analysis of 68 images posted by the movement organization Stop Ecocide International on X/Twitter and Instagram over the course of 2022, we explore how victimhood is depicted and concretized, how such imageries are framed, and how they appeal to legal authority. While our analysis underlines the critical potential of visual media as an epistemically emancipatory vehicle, it also evinces enduring ties to reductionist stereotypes and well-worn ‘aesthetic biases’.
{"title":"Polar Bears and Gavels","authors":"Daniel Bertram, George Hill","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae014","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the increasingly pervasive enrolment of visual materials in the evolution and contestation of international criminal justice. We posit that this emerging field of ‘visual advocacy’ is transforming how international criminal law is produced and perceived. Visual advocacy stands to complement and reinforce, but also to challenge and subvert conventional norms and narratives. To probe how these dynamics play out in practice, we delve into the role of imagery in the ongoing controversy over the international criminalization of severe environmental destruction as ‘ecocide’. By articulating claims to non-human victimhood, the ecocide campaign pioneers an ecocentric vision that disrupts the anthropocentric aesthetics of international criminal law. Through a visual content analysis of 68 images posted by the movement organization Stop Ecocide International on X/Twitter and Instagram over the course of 2022, we explore how victimhood is depicted and concretized, how such imageries are framed, and how they appeal to legal authority. While our analysis underlines the critical potential of visual media as an epistemically emancipatory vehicle, it also evinces enduring ties to reductionist stereotypes and well-worn ‘aesthetic biases’.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141198118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
New technologies have the potential to both advance accountability for international crimes and to aid in their perpetration. Most of the existing literature to date focuses on the former, such as how digital evidence can be used in international criminal law (ICL) proceedings, or in the case of the latter, has taken a mainly rights-based approach (such as how technology can infringe upon rights to privacy or freedom of expression). This article answers the understudied question of how technology can serve as the vehicle by which certain international crimes are committed or lead to new offences, and how current ICL frameworks may be able to accommodate these ‘online harms’ to ensure that the law recognizes the full scope of harms caused to victims, who currently may not be able to access redress through the international criminal justice system. It identifies three examples of online harm that have a foreseeable nexus to the perpetration of international crimes, including hate speech and disinformation, sharing footage of crimes to the internet, and online sexual violence. The article evaluates the online harms alongside similar harms that have been encompassed by core ICL crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, to assess how online harms might fit into ICL frameworks (e.g. as an aggravating factor at sentencing, a new mode of commission of an existing crime, or a new crime). It concludes that some types of online harm may be more feasible to account for than others, and identifies where the existing ICL architecture falls short, which is important for providing a basis for future research as to how to best include novel online harms under ICL. Finally, the article emphasizes that as technology will only continue to develop and serve as a vehicle for an increasing array of harms, finding ways to account for online harm and bring redress to victims should be an issue at the forefront of ICL.
{"title":"Is International Criminal Law Ready to Accommodate Online Harm?","authors":"Sarah Zarmsky","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae013","url":null,"abstract":"New technologies have the potential to both advance accountability for international crimes and to aid in their perpetration. Most of the existing literature to date focuses on the former, such as how digital evidence can be used in international criminal law (ICL) proceedings, or in the case of the latter, has taken a mainly rights-based approach (such as how technology can infringe upon rights to privacy or freedom of expression). This article answers the understudied question of how technology can serve as the vehicle by which certain international crimes are committed or lead to new offences, and how current ICL frameworks may be able to accommodate these ‘online harms’ to ensure that the law recognizes the full scope of harms caused to victims, who currently may not be able to access redress through the international criminal justice system. It identifies three examples of online harm that have a foreseeable nexus to the perpetration of international crimes, including hate speech and disinformation, sharing footage of crimes to the internet, and online sexual violence. The article evaluates the online harms alongside similar harms that have been encompassed by core ICL crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, to assess how online harms might fit into ICL frameworks (e.g. as an aggravating factor at sentencing, a new mode of commission of an existing crime, or a new crime). It concludes that some types of online harm may be more feasible to account for than others, and identifies where the existing ICL architecture falls short, which is important for providing a basis for future research as to how to best include novel online harms under ICL. Finally, the article emphasizes that as technology will only continue to develop and serve as a vehicle for an increasing array of harms, finding ways to account for online harm and bring redress to victims should be an issue at the forefront of ICL.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140930817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews the evolution of the role of civil society documentation efforts in international justice proceedings since 2013 circa. It is written from my personal perspective by virtue of my involvement in a series of initiatives aimed to strengthen civil society’s (as well as other international justice actors’) documentation efforts through the collection of standards and best practices, which the essay also discusses. In particular, it reviews the process and challenges of setting forth the first comprehensive guidance and set of best practices for civil society documentation with the Public International Law and Policy Group’s ‘Handbook on Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations’. It argues that civil society documentation efforts have undergone a revolution within the field: from the margins to the very heart of international judicial proceedings upholding accountability for international crimes. This revolution was, in part, rendered possible by a changing documentation landscape and the proliferation of documentation resources and capabilities now readily available to the civil society. After reviewing the current state of play with respect to documentary efforts and documentation best practices, which I situate within the context of a broader evolution of the international justice ‘ecosystem’, the article addresses some ongoing challenges in documentation and areas that would benefit of further strengthening in the future.
{"title":"The Ten-Year Revolution","authors":"Federica D’Alessandra","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae011","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the evolution of the role of civil society documentation efforts in international justice proceedings since 2013 circa. It is written from my personal perspective by virtue of my involvement in a series of initiatives aimed to strengthen civil society’s (as well as other international justice actors’) documentation efforts through the collection of standards and best practices, which the essay also discusses. In particular, it reviews the process and challenges of setting forth the first comprehensive guidance and set of best practices for civil society documentation with the Public International Law and Policy Group’s ‘Handbook on Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations’. It argues that civil society documentation efforts have undergone a revolution within the field: from the margins to the very heart of international judicial proceedings upholding accountability for international crimes. This revolution was, in part, rendered possible by a changing documentation landscape and the proliferation of documentation resources and capabilities now readily available to the civil society. After reviewing the current state of play with respect to documentary efforts and documentation best practices, which I situate within the context of a broader evolution of the international justice ‘ecosystem’, the article addresses some ongoing challenges in documentation and areas that would benefit of further strengthening in the future.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140942324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay examines the theories according to which ‘actions’ carried out by autonomous weapon systems enabled by strong artificial intelligence in detecting, tracking and engaging with the target (‘intelligent AWS’) may be seen as an ‘act’ of the weapon system for the purpose of legal responsibility. The essay focuses on the material act required for the commission of war crimes related to prohibited attacks in warfare. After briefly presenting the various conceptions of the act as an essential component of the material element of criminal offences, it argues that the material act of war crimes related to prohibited attacks is invariably carried out by the user of an ‘intelligent AWS’. This also holds true in the case of so-called ‘unintended engagements’ during the course of a military attack carried out with an intelligent AWS. The essay moves on to examine the question of whether, in the case of the use of intelligent AWS by the armed forces of a state, the ‘actions’ of intelligent AWS — including those not intended by the user — are attributable to the state. It demonstrates that under a correct understanding of the concept of ‘act of state’ for the purpose of attributing state responsibility under international law, such attribution is unquestionable. It underlines that, suggesting otherwise, would bring to a breaking point the possibility of establishing violations by states of international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities.
{"title":"Who Acts When Autonomous Weapons Strike?","authors":"Paola Gaeta","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae001","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines the theories according to which ‘actions’ carried out by autonomous weapon systems enabled by strong artificial intelligence in detecting, tracking and engaging with the target (‘intelligent AWS’) may be seen as an ‘act’ of the weapon system for the purpose of legal responsibility. The essay focuses on the material act required for the commission of war crimes related to prohibited attacks in warfare. After briefly presenting the various conceptions of the act as an essential component of the material element of criminal offences, it argues that the material act of war crimes related to prohibited attacks is invariably carried out by the user of an ‘intelligent AWS’. This also holds true in the case of so-called ‘unintended engagements’ during the course of a military attack carried out with an intelligent AWS. The essay moves on to examine the question of whether, in the case of the use of intelligent AWS by the armed forces of a state, the ‘actions’ of intelligent AWS — including those not intended by the user — are attributable to the state. It demonstrates that under a correct understanding of the concept of ‘act of state’ for the purpose of attributing state responsibility under international law, such attribution is unquestionable. It underlines that, suggesting otherwise, would bring to a breaking point the possibility of establishing violations by states of international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"299 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139644949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In many cases, and, in particular, in cases concerning crimes committed in the Syrian conflict, an overlap can be identified between international criminal law and counter-terrorism criminal law. The reason for this is the approximative and normative intertwining of these two areas in German criminal law. By way of counter-terrorism criminal law, Germany implemented an organizational crime of membership in an organization whose objective or activities are directed towards the commission of, inter alia, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as well as murder. As a consequence, non-state armed groups active in a non-international armed conflict are considered terrorist groups. While this allows for cumulative prosecution, charging, and conviction, in this article an argument will be made that the increasing intertwining of German international criminal law and counter-terrorism criminal law has a problematic side. It blurs the historical, conceptual, and normative differences between the two areas of criminal law. Eventually, this further deepens the asymmetry in the prosecution of state and non-state actors for international crimes.
{"title":"On the Relationship Between German International Criminal Law and Counter-terrorism Criminal Law","authors":"J. Geneuss","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad051","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In many cases, and, in particular, in cases concerning crimes committed in the Syrian conflict, an overlap can be identified between international criminal law and counter-terrorism criminal law. The reason for this is the approximative and normative intertwining of these two areas in German criminal law. By way of counter-terrorism criminal law, Germany implemented an organizational crime of membership in an organization whose objective or activities are directed towards the commission of, inter alia, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as well as murder. As a consequence, non-state armed groups active in a non-international armed conflict are considered terrorist groups. While this allows for cumulative prosecution, charging, and conviction, in this article an argument will be made that the increasing intertwining of German international criminal law and counter-terrorism criminal law has a problematic side. It blurs the historical, conceptual, and normative differences between the two areas of criminal law. Eventually, this further deepens the asymmetry in the prosecution of state and non-state actors for international crimes.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"48 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139442454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：