{"title":"Syrian State Torture on Trial","authors":"Fin-Jasper Langmack","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad047","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"24 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139452351","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 suggests an account in the language of criminal law that merits the language for criminal accountability over the language of human rights, as a form of accountability, when prosecution is not possible. Calling for the prosecution of those most responsible for international crimes seems to be feasible after the war has ended, or at least when there is a vision for a political transition, but the war in Syria is ongoing and a vision for political transition remains elusive. The Syrian conflict has produced almost all kinds of heinous crimes, yet there is no clear political will to hold the alleged perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable. At the same time, calls for criminal accountability in Syria, and discourse to achieve international criminal justice are taking place before the civil war ends. This article relies on the expressive theory of punishment to assess the rationales of calls for criminal accountability during the ongoing conflict in Syria. Out of many rationales, the article notes that calls for criminal accountability open the possibility of punishment and send a message of condemnation to perpetrators as well as a message of acknowledgment to victims. Furthermore, using the language of criminal accountability as a basis for the calls is stronger than using the language of human rights. The article discusses the problem of standing to call those responsible for international crimes to account and proposes that our shared humanity provides the authority for such calls while also pointing out limitations of this approach.
{"title":"Should We Call for Criminal Accountability During Ongoing Conflicts?","authors":"Ghuna Bdiwi","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article suggests an account in the language of criminal law that merits the language for criminal accountability over the language of human rights, as a form of accountability, when prosecution is not possible. Calling for the prosecution of those most responsible for international crimes seems to be feasible after the war has ended, or at least when there is a vision for a political transition, but the war in Syria is ongoing and a vision for political transition remains elusive. The Syrian conflict has produced almost all kinds of heinous crimes, yet there is no clear political will to hold the alleged perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable. At the same time, calls for criminal accountability in Syria, and discourse to achieve international criminal justice are taking place before the civil war ends. This article relies on the expressive theory of punishment to assess the rationales of calls for criminal accountability during the ongoing conflict in Syria. Out of many rationales, the article notes that calls for criminal accountability open the possibility of punishment and send a message of condemnation to perpetrators as well as a message of acknowledgment to victims. Furthermore, using the language of criminal accountability as a basis for the calls is stronger than using the language of human rights. The article discusses the problem of standing to call those responsible for international crimes to account and proposes that our shared humanity provides the authority for such calls while also pointing out limitations of this approach.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"20 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138954871","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 seven trials to date, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has relied on the expertise of historians, anthropologists and political scientists to provide historical and political context. Overview expert witnesses help the judges appreciate the evidence of charged crimes in a wider context of conflict and violence. In this article, I consider the fundamental purpose and factors militating in favour of engaging an overview expert. In addition, I first review and then reflect on the current use of overview expert evidence — as a subset of expert evidence — in ICC trials, to better understand its legal and practical utility in international crimes cases. I focus on four aspects: relevance in criminal proceedings, timing of engaging an expert, selection of experts and impact on the fairness of proceedings.
{"title":"Context Matters","authors":"Yulia Nuzban","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad049","url":null,"abstract":"In seven trials to date, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has relied on the expertise of historians, anthropologists and political scientists to provide historical and political context. Overview expert witnesses help the judges appreciate the evidence of charged crimes in a wider context of conflict and violence. In this article, I consider the fundamental purpose and factors militating in favour of engaging an overview expert. In addition, I first review and then reflect on the current use of overview expert evidence — as a subset of expert evidence — in ICC trials, to better understand its legal and practical utility in international crimes cases. I focus on four aspects: relevance in criminal proceedings, timing of engaging an expert, selection of experts and impact on the fairness of proceedings.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536034","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}
{"title":"Correction to: Crime of Aggression against Ukraine: The Role of Regional Customary Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad045","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"7 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135087250","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}
Abstract This article explores the use of remorse as a source of leniency at international criminal tribunals. It outlines the difficulties that beset international tribunals’ attempts to develop a clear, consistent conceptualization of the idea of remorse. Using a range of perspectives, it offers ways forward in terms of both comprehending remorse, as experienced by perpetrators of international crimes, and incorporating remorse into the present international criminal legal framework. In particular, it analyses how sincere expressions of remorse within the international criminal courtroom can signal and produce transformative effects for different players operating in the terrain of international criminal justice.
{"title":"‘Is It Too Late Now to Say Sorry?’","authors":"Radhika Kapoor","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the use of remorse as a source of leniency at international criminal tribunals. It outlines the difficulties that beset international tribunals’ attempts to develop a clear, consistent conceptualization of the idea of remorse. Using a range of perspectives, it offers ways forward in terms of both comprehending remorse, as experienced by perpetrators of international crimes, and incorporating remorse into the present international criminal legal framework. In particular, it analyses how sincere expressions of remorse within the international criminal courtroom can signal and produce transformative effects for different players operating in the terrain of international criminal justice.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"10 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135975786","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}
Abstract Twenty years after the entry into force of the German Code of Crimes Against International Law, it is time for a critical assessment of its implementation and impact in practice. While a number of trials have been conducted and a certain prosecutorial practice has been established during the last decade, the law and practice nevertheless leave room for some criticism. This article addresses some of the criticism from the perspective of an NGO with experience in several international crimes cases, and deals with substantive and procedural law, as well as the issue of political case selection and the failure to prosecute corporate involvement in crimes under international law.
{"title":"Room for Improvement","authors":"Wolfgang Kaleck, Andreas Schüller","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Twenty years after the entry into force of the German Code of Crimes Against International Law, it is time for a critical assessment of its implementation and impact in practice. While a number of trials have been conducted and a certain prosecutorial practice has been established during the last decade, the law and practice nevertheless leave room for some criticism. This article addresses some of the criticism from the perspective of an NGO with experience in several international crimes cases, and deals with substantive and procedural law, as well as the issue of political case selection and the failure to prosecute corporate involvement in crimes under international law.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135975642","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}
Abstract This article takes the 20th anniversary of the entering into force of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, CCAIL) as an opportunity to offer a historical review of the prosecution of international crimes in (West-)Germany. Starting from the post-World War II period, it flags early milestones, including efforts to hold accountable before German courts those involved in Nazi atrocities, in state oppression in the German Democratic Republic, in violations of international humanitarian law during the Yugoslav wars, and in dictatorship crimes in Argentina. This article then focuses on the practical implementation of the CCAIL and presents, at a glance, major trends, flaws and lessons learned over the past 20 years. It identifies four major phases: standstill, build-up, implementation and consolidation. This article concludes with a call for German judges and prosecutors to step up their efforts to contribute to a uniform and universal enforcement of international criminal law.
{"title":"A Short History of Prosecuting Crimes under International Law in Germany","authors":"Florian Jeßberger","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article takes the 20th anniversary of the entering into force of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, CCAIL) as an opportunity to offer a historical review of the prosecution of international crimes in (West-)Germany. Starting from the post-World War II period, it flags early milestones, including efforts to hold accountable before German courts those involved in Nazi atrocities, in state oppression in the German Democratic Republic, in violations of international humanitarian law during the Yugoslav wars, and in dictatorship crimes in Argentina. This article then focuses on the practical implementation of the CCAIL and presents, at a glance, major trends, flaws and lessons learned over the past 20 years. It identifies four major phases: standstill, build-up, implementation and consolidation. This article concludes with a call for German judges and prosecutors to step up their efforts to contribute to a uniform and universal enforcement of international criminal law.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135266264","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}
Abstract This article discusses an important international justice development, and specifically the rise of a new generation of ‘accountability mandates’ at the United Nations (UN). Often created in response to mass atrocities alleged in country situations falling outside of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, UN accountability mandates are generally tasked to collect, consolidate, preserve, and analyse evidence of international law violations, prepare files, and preserve such evidence until it can be made available to support legal accountability proceedings, including as relevant of the criminal nature. Through such investigative and evidence preservation responsibilities, UN accountability mandates can help fill important impunity gaps by helping to collate information generated by a variety of sources, including civil society documenters, and by laying the groundwork for judicial authorities. Within this broad categorization, however, UN accountability mandates are not a monolith and exist along a spectrum based on the strength of any accountability requirements they contain — including whether they are explicitly mandated to follow criminal justice standards — and their general institutional and operational setup. The investigative mechanisms created for Syria, Myanmar and Daesh/ISIL are specifically tasked to fulfil ‘pre-prosecutorial’ functions and enjoy greater resources and independence than other, less resourced and more ‘hybrid’ mandates — expected to simultaneously fulfil the role of more traditional human rights investigations, while also supporting legal accountability. All, however, play a crucial role within the broader international justice ecosystem, while sharing common challenges that this article submits would be best addressed by permanently centralizing a variety of investigative support functions, to be administered by a dedicated, permanent, standing investigative entity. The article will first provide an overview of how and why UN accountability mandates have evolved over the past decade, and of the important role they have come to play. It will then turn to discussing the case and proposed models for a standing, permanent UN accountability mandate to support future investigations. After providing a comparative analysis of the possible alternatives, the article will conclude with some recommendations and ideas for the way forward.
{"title":"UN Accountability Mandates in International Justice","authors":"Federica D’Alessandra","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad038","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article discusses an important international justice development, and specifically the rise of a new generation of ‘accountability mandates’ at the United Nations (UN). Often created in response to mass atrocities alleged in country situations falling outside of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, UN accountability mandates are generally tasked to collect, consolidate, preserve, and analyse evidence of international law violations, prepare files, and preserve such evidence until it can be made available to support legal accountability proceedings, including as relevant of the criminal nature. Through such investigative and evidence preservation responsibilities, UN accountability mandates can help fill important impunity gaps by helping to collate information generated by a variety of sources, including civil society documenters, and by laying the groundwork for judicial authorities. Within this broad categorization, however, UN accountability mandates are not a monolith and exist along a spectrum based on the strength of any accountability requirements they contain — including whether they are explicitly mandated to follow criminal justice standards — and their general institutional and operational setup. The investigative mechanisms created for Syria, Myanmar and Daesh/ISIL are specifically tasked to fulfil ‘pre-prosecutorial’ functions and enjoy greater resources and independence than other, less resourced and more ‘hybrid’ mandates — expected to simultaneously fulfil the role of more traditional human rights investigations, while also supporting legal accountability. All, however, play a crucial role within the broader international justice ecosystem, while sharing common challenges that this article submits would be best addressed by permanently centralizing a variety of investigative support functions, to be administered by a dedicated, permanent, standing investigative entity. The article will first provide an overview of how and why UN accountability mandates have evolved over the past decade, and of the important role they have come to play. It will then turn to discussing the case and proposed models for a standing, permanent UN accountability mandate to support future investigations. After providing a comparative analysis of the possible alternatives, the article will conclude with some recommendations and ideas for the way forward.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"1998 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135413571","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}
Abstract The German Code of Crimes Against International Law can be considered a ‘well-crafted’ law. It has not only been put to test in practice in several high-profile cases before German Higher Regional Courts, but it also serves as a model for the implementation of international criminal law into domestic legislation. Nevertheless, 20 years after its entry into force and from a point of view of substantive law, it is possible to identify areas of the Code that are in need of legislative reform, such as sexual and reproductive crimes, crimes against the environment, the crime of aggression, war crimes against property and the applicable sentencing ranges. This article provides an overview of these areas and discusses possible ways forward.
{"title":"Shortcomings of a Showpiece","authors":"Aziz Epik, Leonie Steinl","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The German Code of Crimes Against International Law can be considered a ‘well-crafted’ law. It has not only been put to test in practice in several high-profile cases before German Higher Regional Courts, but it also serves as a model for the implementation of international criminal law into domestic legislation. Nevertheless, 20 years after its entry into force and from a point of view of substantive law, it is possible to identify areas of the Code that are in need of legislative reform, such as sexual and reproductive crimes, crimes against the environment, the crime of aggression, war crimes against property and the applicable sentencing ranges. This article provides an overview of these areas and discusses possible ways forward.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"22 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135413141","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}
Abstract More than 20 years ago — on 30 June 2002 and thus one day prior to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court — the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (CCAIL) entered into force and since then allows for the national prosecution of the international core crimes. The most far-reaching innovation of the CCAIL is its broad jurisdictional reach. It is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction and empowers the German judicial authorities to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes even when they are committed abroad and have no specific link to Germany. After some initial hesitation, Germany today plays an active role in the international fight against impunity for core crimes. Prominent examples are the Koblenz torture trial against former members of the Assad Regime, the conviction of Taha Al-J. for genocide against members of the Yazidi community by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt and the decision of the Federal Court of Justice on the irrelevance of functional immunities. Sometimes, however, the Higher Regional Courts do not seem to be sufficiently aware of the international dimension and meaning of the cases. This negatively affects the trial management and the communication of the Courts with the (international) public.
{"title":"The German Code of Crimes Against International Law at Twenty","authors":"Stefanie Bock","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad041","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract More than 20 years ago — on 30 June 2002 and thus one day prior to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court — the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (CCAIL) entered into force and since then allows for the national prosecution of the international core crimes. The most far-reaching innovation of the CCAIL is its broad jurisdictional reach. It is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction and empowers the German judicial authorities to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes even when they are committed abroad and have no specific link to Germany. After some initial hesitation, Germany today plays an active role in the international fight against impunity for core crimes. Prominent examples are the Koblenz torture trial against former members of the Assad Regime, the conviction of Taha Al-J. for genocide against members of the Yazidi community by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt and the decision of the Federal Court of Justice on the irrelevance of functional immunities. Sometimes, however, the Higher Regional Courts do not seem to be sufficiently aware of the international dimension and meaning of the cases. This negatively affects the trial management and the communication of the Courts with the (international) public.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"24 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135567965","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：