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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Abstract On 31 May 2023, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) delivered its judgment in Stanišić and Simatović, marking the conclusion of the first full retrial in the history of international criminal law and providing occasion to reflect on how retrials before the International Criminal Court and other international criminal tribunals ought to be conducted. The focus of this article pertains to the Trial Chamber’s approach to the admissibility of new prosecutorial evidence during the course of the retrial, and specifically, its decision to exclude all new prosecutorial evidence from the scope of the retrial, unless exceptional circumstances justified its admission. This article questions whether the adoption of this exclusionary rule was a valid exercise of the Trial Chamber’s discretion and, from a normative standpoint, whether such a decision was and remains a desirable approach to the admissibility of prosecutorial evidence in international criminal retrials. This article argues that despite the strong and persistent objections raised by the prosecution during the Stanišić and Simatović retrial, the exclusionary rule constituted a valid exercise of the Trial Chamber’s powers and could serve as a blueprint for the admissibility of new prosecutorial evidence in potential future retrials.
{"title":"The Admission of New Prosecutorial Evidence in International Criminal Retrials","authors":"Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad042","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On 31 May 2023, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) delivered its judgment in Stanišić and Simatović, marking the conclusion of the first full retrial in the history of international criminal law and providing occasion to reflect on how retrials before the International Criminal Court and other international criminal tribunals ought to be conducted. The focus of this article pertains to the Trial Chamber’s approach to the admissibility of new prosecutorial evidence during the course of the retrial, and specifically, its decision to exclude all new prosecutorial evidence from the scope of the retrial, unless exceptional circumstances justified its admission. This article questions whether the adoption of this exclusionary rule was a valid exercise of the Trial Chamber’s discretion and, from a normative standpoint, whether such a decision was and remains a desirable approach to the admissibility of prosecutorial evidence in international criminal retrials. This article argues that despite the strong and persistent objections raised by the prosecution during the Stanišić and Simatović retrial, the exclusionary rule constituted a valid exercise of the Trial Chamber’s powers and could serve as a blueprint for the admissibility of new prosecutorial evidence in potential future retrials.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135617572","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 An error in the operation of an autonomous weapon system (AWS) results in civilians or civilian objects being attacked. In such situations, have civilians or civilian objects been ‘made the object of attack’, such that there is a breach of the rule prohibiting attacks against civilians or civilian objects? This question — which is important because of the high probability of such errors — forms the subject of this article. It argues that the rule prohibiting attacks against civilians or civilian objects requires due diligence — contextually reasonable efforts — across the targeting process, to ensure that civilians or civilian objects are not attacked. This implies that AWS errors breach this rule if the errors are unreasonable, i.e., if they originate in a failure of due diligence at any point in the process of development and deployment of AWS. Moreover, the risk-sensitivity of due diligence obligations suggests that the higher degree of risk involved in the development and use of an AWS leads to a corresponding increase in what constitutes contextually reasonable efforts to ensure that civilians or civilian objects are not attacked.
{"title":"Autonomous Weapon Systems, Errors and Breaches of International Humanitarian Law","authors":"Abhimanyu George Jain","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An error in the operation of an autonomous weapon system (AWS) results in civilians or civilian objects being attacked. In such situations, have civilians or civilian objects been ‘made the object of attack’, such that there is a breach of the rule prohibiting attacks against civilians or civilian objects? This question — which is important because of the high probability of such errors — forms the subject of this article. It argues that the rule prohibiting attacks against civilians or civilian objects requires due diligence — contextually reasonable efforts — across the targeting process, to ensure that civilians or civilian objects are not attacked. This implies that AWS errors breach this rule if the errors are unreasonable, i.e., if they originate in a failure of due diligence at any point in the process of development and deployment of AWS. Moreover, the risk-sensitivity of due diligence obligations suggests that the higher degree of risk involved in the development and use of an AWS leads to a corresponding increase in what constitutes contextually reasonable efforts to ensure that civilians or civilian objects are not attacked.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135617569","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 If autonomous weapon systems (AWS) cause harm beyond their legitimate military use, e.g., by killing innocent civilians, the question arises as to who can be held responsible. Due to the great number of persons involved in the construction, programming, training, and deploying of AWS, a ‘responsibility gap’ has been diagnosed. As it is neither theoretically nor practically feasible to impose criminal responsibility on AWS themselves, various doctrines of international criminal law (ICL) have been suggested with a view toward making individual persons responsible for the AWS’s malfunctioning. The mens rea requirements of ICL are, however, likely to severely limit individual criminal responsibility. The author suggests that the emphasis should not be on bending legal doctrine in a futile effort to close the ‘responsibility gap’ but on establishing specific obligations to train, test, and continually observe the operation of AWS in order to avoid malfunctioning.
{"title":"Convicting Autonomous Weapons?","authors":"Thomas Weigend","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract If autonomous weapon systems (AWS) cause harm beyond their legitimate military use, e.g., by killing innocent civilians, the question arises as to who can be held responsible. Due to the great number of persons involved in the construction, programming, training, and deploying of AWS, a ‘responsibility gap’ has been diagnosed. As it is neither theoretically nor practically feasible to impose criminal responsibility on AWS themselves, various doctrines of international criminal law (ICL) have been suggested with a view toward making individual persons responsible for the AWS’s malfunctioning. The mens rea requirements of ICL are, however, likely to severely limit individual criminal responsibility. The author suggests that the emphasis should not be on bending legal doctrine in a futile effort to close the ‘responsibility gap’ but on establishing specific obligations to train, test, and continually observe the operation of AWS in order to avoid malfunctioning.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136062635","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 International criminal courts and tribunals have missed opportunities to recognize gendered experiences, including when addressing crimes without a clearly sexual component. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has an opportunity to take a different approach when considering the crime against humanity of deportation in its Bangladesh/Myanmar proceedings. While the prevalence of sexual and other gendered violence, including rape and killings, in Myanmar and perpetrated against the Rohingya is well-documented, and will likely form an important aspect of investigations, there is also scope to explore the gendered nature of displacement. This article reviews the intersection of international criminal law with broader critiques of international law concerned with displacement. It then investigates how ICC Chambers could take a gender-competent approach towards the elements of the crime against humanity of deportation and forcible transfer of population in the Bangladesh/Myanmar proceedings, including when examining the concepts of expulsion and coercion, lawful presence and the purpose of the forcible displacement. It proposes a contextual approach to that analysis, informed by gender-inclusive expert evidence, gender-competent investigation practices and thoughtful integration of victims’ representations
{"title":"Gender and Forced Displacement at the International Criminal Court","authors":"Emma Palmer","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract International criminal courts and tribunals have missed opportunities to recognize gendered experiences, including when addressing crimes without a clearly sexual component. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has an opportunity to take a different approach when considering the crime against humanity of deportation in its Bangladesh/Myanmar proceedings. While the prevalence of sexual and other gendered violence, including rape and killings, in Myanmar and perpetrated against the Rohingya is well-documented, and will likely form an important aspect of investigations, there is also scope to explore the gendered nature of displacement. This article reviews the intersection of international criminal law with broader critiques of international law concerned with displacement. It then investigates how ICC Chambers could take a gender-competent approach towards the elements of the crime against humanity of deportation and forcible transfer of population in the Bangladesh/Myanmar proceedings, including when examining the concepts of expulsion and coercion, lawful presence and the purpose of the forcible displacement. It proposes a contextual approach to that analysis, informed by gender-inclusive expert evidence, gender-competent investigation practices and thoughtful integration of victims’ representations","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136063966","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 In the discourse around prosecution of perpetrators of the crime of aggression against Ukraine, there is a need to consider the impact of Eastern European regional norms, both treaty-based and customary. This concerns both the interpretation of principles of responsibility for the crime of aggression as well as the modes of prosecution thereof. The article argues that, in Eastern Europe, the crime of aggression is a well-established norm of international and national law, and aggression — as a conduct by a state — is defined based on the principle of first use of force, while political, economic and any other justifications in order to avoid responsibility are disallowed. Individual responsibility for the crime of aggression represents a departure from the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute standard and is instead based on the International Military Tribunal’s Charter, which limits its scope to responsibility for a war of aggression. At the same time, it does not preclude, for example, prosecution of those responsible for the administration of occupied territories. As a consequence, the leadership clause might be understood as broader in comparison to the Rome Statute standards.
{"title":"Crime of Aggression against Ukraine","authors":"Patrycja Grzebyk","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the discourse around prosecution of perpetrators of the crime of aggression against Ukraine, there is a need to consider the impact of Eastern European regional norms, both treaty-based and customary. This concerns both the interpretation of principles of responsibility for the crime of aggression as well as the modes of prosecution thereof. The article argues that, in Eastern Europe, the crime of aggression is a well-established norm of international and national law, and aggression — as a conduct by a state — is defined based on the principle of first use of force, while political, economic and any other justifications in order to avoid responsibility are disallowed. Individual responsibility for the crime of aggression represents a departure from the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute standard and is instead based on the International Military Tribunal’s Charter, which limits its scope to responsibility for a war of aggression. At the same time, it does not preclude, for example, prosecution of those responsible for the administration of occupied territories. As a consequence, the leadership clause might be understood as broader in comparison to the Rome Statute standards.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135303811","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：