{"title":"Concluding Observations on the Influence of International Environmental Law over International Criminal Law","authors":"Jérôme de Hemptinne","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44873792","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}
Biodiversity and nature are severely impacted by armed conflict, particularly those fought in biodiversity-rich environments. Whether harm is caused directly by bullets and bombs, through the seepage of toxic chemicals into rivers and soils, the ground-churning tracks of tanks, or the ‘conservation vacuum’ the result is often the same — severe, possibly permanent, ecological change. International humanitarian law (IHL) has consistently come up short in delivering environmental protection on the battlefield. Can international environmental law (IEL) fare any better? The International Law Commission (ILC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have both submitted major new guidelines in the last two years, following more than a decade of in-depth analysis of the IHL rules governing protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. However, neither body was able to analyse the applicability of IEL obligations during armed conflict. Several authors have more recently entered this space, but none have so far undertaken a rule-by-rule analysis and spanning such a range of treaties. This article assesses the potential of the main biodiversity and nature conservation treaties to offer further environmental protection during armed conflict. Identifying complementary IEL obligations, particularly in relation to the conduct of hostilities, could be valuable to both mirror and reinforce IHL protections, and would ensure that IEL treaty bodies and third states have a basis upon which to promote conservation work with the parties to the conflict.
{"title":"Using International Environmental Law to Enhance Biodiversity and Nature Conservation During Armed Conflict","authors":"K. Hulme","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac060","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Biodiversity and nature are severely impacted by armed conflict, particularly those fought in biodiversity-rich environments. Whether harm is caused directly by bullets and bombs, through the seepage of toxic chemicals into rivers and soils, the ground-churning tracks of tanks, or the ‘conservation vacuum’ the result is often the same — severe, possibly permanent, ecological change. International humanitarian law (IHL) has consistently come up short in delivering environmental protection on the battlefield. Can international environmental law (IEL) fare any better? The International Law Commission (ILC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have both submitted major new guidelines in the last two years, following more than a decade of in-depth analysis of the IHL rules governing protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. However, neither body was able to analyse the applicability of IEL obligations during armed conflict. Several authors have more recently entered this space, but none have so far undertaken a rule-by-rule analysis and spanning such a range of treaties. This article assesses the potential of the main biodiversity and nature conservation treaties to offer further environmental protection during armed conflict. Identifying complementary IEL obligations, particularly in relation to the conduct of hostilities, could be valuable to both mirror and reinforce IHL protections, and would ensure that IEL treaty bodies and third states have a basis upon which to promote conservation work with the parties to the conflict.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43567132","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 revisits the possibility of prosecuting the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court, with specific reference to the February 2022 unlawful use of force against Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The authors argue that Russia’s unlawful use of force in breach of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people, which caused them great suffering or serious injury to mental/physical health, can be qualified as other inhumane acts under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. While this approach has its challenges, it would allow the Court to prosecute the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity avoiding the jurisdictional limitations that apply to the crime of aggression.
{"title":"Prosecuting Aggression against Ukraine as an ‘Other Inhumane Act’ before the ICC","authors":"G. Pinzauti, Alessandro Pizzuti","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac058","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article revisits the possibility of prosecuting the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court, with specific reference to the February 2022 unlawful use of force against Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The authors argue that Russia’s unlawful use of force in breach of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people, which caused them great suffering or serious injury to mental/physical health, can be qualified as other inhumane acts under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. While this approach has its challenges, it would allow the Court to prosecute the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity avoiding the jurisdictional limitations that apply to the crime of aggression.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48516953","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 present contribution explores the interactions between international legal standards, as determined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and national law before the Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP), and studies their respective rationales. It contrasts two situations: divergences between the two regimes, on the one hand, and their convergences on the other. First, it analyses three instances where the SJP Statute diverges from international criminal law, which resulted from decisions of the executive and legislative authorities in Colombia when drafting the Statute, namely: the SJP’s restorative penalties; the differentiated treatment of members of armed forces; and the notion of command responsibility. The authors offer three possible explanations for these departures of the Columbian legislation from international legal standards: Colombia’s willingness to carry out judicial proceedings at the national level instead of having recourse to the international community; the context of the negotiated peace in the country; and the national nature of the SJP. Second, the article addresses the convergences by examining recent practice of the judiciary in light of Macro Case 01 before the SJP, which shows a tendency towards the implementation of international legal standards in the SJP’s jurisprudence. The authors discuss the possible justification for this convergence, arguing that the adoption of international standards serves both to demonstrate the genuine character of the Colombian transitional justice process and subsequent judicial proceedings, and to allow for the closing of the preliminary examination before the ICC.
{"title":"When International Legal Standards Meet Transitional Justice Processes","authors":"Walter Arévalo-Ramírez, Pauline Martini","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac045","url":null,"abstract":"The present contribution explores the interactions between international legal standards, as determined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and national law before the Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP), and studies their respective rationales. It contrasts two situations: divergences between the two regimes, on the one hand, and their convergences on the other. First, it analyses three instances where the SJP Statute diverges from international criminal law, which resulted from decisions of the executive and legislative authorities in Colombia when drafting the Statute, namely: the SJP’s restorative penalties; the differentiated treatment of members of armed forces; and the notion of command responsibility. The authors offer three possible explanations for these departures of the Columbian legislation from international legal standards: Colombia’s willingness to carry out judicial proceedings at the national level instead of having recourse to the international community; the context of the negotiated peace in the country; and the national nature of the SJP. Second, the article addresses the convergences by examining recent practice of the judiciary in light of Macro Case 01 before the SJP, which shows a tendency towards the implementation of international legal standards in the SJP’s jurisprudence. The authors discuss the possible justification for this convergence, arguing that the adoption of international standards serves both to demonstrate the genuine character of the Colombian transitional justice process and subsequent judicial proceedings, and to allow for the closing of the preliminary examination before the ICC.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"167 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536028","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}
Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Ukrainian authorities have faced an unprecedented surge in the numbers of alleged mass atrocity crimes committed in the areas of hostilities and parts of Ukraine’s (de)occupied territories. Eight months into the war, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine has already registered over 47,000 instances of alleged crimes, including war crimes and the crime of aggression. Ukrainian courts have swiftly delivered first verdicts in the war crimes trials signalling their willingness to deliver justice even in the midst of the raging war. This article provides a brief recap of the domestic prosecution of atrocity crimes prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. It then evaluates the progress that has been achieved by the Ukrainian authorities and judiciary in relation to the prosecution and adjudication of war crimes since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It analyses key findings of the first war crimes verdicts rendered by the Solomyanskyy District City Court in Kyiv (later modified by the Kyiv Court of Appeals with respect to the sentence) and the Kotelevskyy District Court in the Poltava region, and appraises the application of international humanitarian law by Ukrainian judges. The article concludes by situating Ukrainian domestic efforts within the larger context in closing the impunity gap for atrocity crimes against the backdrop of a broader discussion of transitional justice in Ukraine.
{"title":"Domestic Accountability Efforts in Response to the Russia–Ukraine War","authors":"Iryna Marchuk","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac051","url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Ukrainian authorities have faced an unprecedented surge in the numbers of alleged mass atrocity crimes committed in the areas of hostilities and parts of Ukraine’s (de)occupied territories. Eight months into the war, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine has already registered over 47,000 instances of alleged crimes, including war crimes and the crime of aggression. Ukrainian courts have swiftly delivered first verdicts in the war crimes trials signalling their willingness to deliver justice even in the midst of the raging war. This article provides a brief recap of the domestic prosecution of atrocity crimes prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. It then evaluates the progress that has been achieved by the Ukrainian authorities and judiciary in relation to the prosecution and adjudication of war crimes since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It analyses key findings of the first war crimes verdicts rendered by the Solomyanskyy District City Court in Kyiv (later modified by the Kyiv Court of Appeals with respect to the sentence) and the Kotelevskyy District Court in the Poltava region, and appraises the application of international humanitarian law by Ukrainian judges. The article concludes by situating Ukrainian domestic efforts within the larger context in closing the impunity gap for atrocity crimes against the backdrop of a broader discussion of transitional justice in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536030","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 West, under the leadership of the US, EU and NATO, claims to be defending a rules-based international order by way of its support for Ukraine, including its call for full accountability. Regrettably, however, this claim fails to fully convince given the inconsistencies in the West’s approach to international (criminal) law. I will develop this counterclaim in three steps: first, I will argue that the Western approach to the Russian aggression is by no means universally accepted, especially not in the Global South (Part 2). Secondly, I will try to explain, at least partly, the reason for this limited support by pointing out both historical and more recent Western inconsistencies with regard to international law (Part 3). On this basis I will then, by way of conclusion, call for (greater) Western consistency in international law, while formulating some caveats at the same time (Part 4).
{"title":"Ukraine and the Double Standards of the West","authors":"Kai Ambos","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac041","url":null,"abstract":"The West, under the leadership of the US, EU and NATO, claims to be defending a rules-based international order by way of its support for Ukraine, including its call for full accountability. Regrettably, however, this claim fails to fully convince given the inconsistencies in the West’s approach to international (criminal) law. I will develop this counterclaim in three steps: first, I will argue that the Western approach to the Russian aggression is by no means universally accepted, especially not in the Global South (Part 2). Secondly, I will try to explain, at least partly, the reason for this limited support by pointing out both historical and more recent Western inconsistencies with regard to international law (Part 3). On this basis I will then, by way of conclusion, call for (greater) Western consistency in international law, while formulating some caveats at the same time (Part 4).","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536027","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 this article I argue that Russia’s use of memory laws has facilitated the armed conflict in Ukraine, bolstering the rhetorical justification for Russia’s latest aggression. The use of memory laws is hardly new for various legal systems around the world. Most of the early European memory laws have focused on the protection of victim groups from harmful ideologies, however the last two decades have seen a shift away from victim-centric to state-centric laws, especially in Eastern Europe. These laws protect the state’s honour and reputation and have serious ramifications domestically, in terms of human rights violations, but also in international relations. I argue that due to the relationship between identity-building and collective memory, the use of the most nefarious types of memory laws that exculpate the state from earlier crimes has enabled Russia to amplify its propaganda around Ukraine’s so-called ‘denazification’, justifying its aggression against Ukraine. The case study constitutes an example of the many reasons why memory laws should be used sparingly.
{"title":"Legislating Propaganda","authors":"Ilya Nuzov","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac052","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article I argue that Russia’s use of memory laws has facilitated the armed conflict in Ukraine, bolstering the rhetorical justification for Russia’s latest aggression. The use of memory laws is hardly new for various legal systems around the world. Most of the early European memory laws have focused on the protection of victim groups from harmful ideologies, however the last two decades have seen a shift away from victim-centric to state-centric laws, especially in Eastern Europe. These laws protect the state’s honour and reputation and have serious ramifications domestically, in terms of human rights violations, but also in international relations. I argue that due to the relationship between identity-building and collective memory, the use of the most nefarious types of memory laws that exculpate the state from earlier crimes has enabled Russia to amplify its propaganda around Ukraine’s so-called ‘denazification’, justifying its aggression against Ukraine. The case study constitutes an example of the many reasons why memory laws should be used sparingly.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47878362","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}
Allegations of genocide have been made on both sides during the armed conflict in Ukraine. This article reviews the claims, concluding that they appear to be inconsistent with the crime of genocide as defined in Article II of the 1948 Convention, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice, the ad hoc tribunals and the International Law Commission. Most of the claims appear to use the term genocide in a rhetorical sense, without serious concern for the legal issues. The available evidence does not permit inferences to be drawn that the punishable acts are committed with genocidal intent, to the exclusion of other reasonable explanations.
{"title":"Genocide and Ukraine: Do Words Mean What We Choose them to Mean?","authors":"William A Schabas","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac042","url":null,"abstract":"Allegations of genocide have been made on both sides during the armed conflict in Ukraine. This article reviews the claims, concluding that they appear to be inconsistent with the crime of genocide as defined in Article II of the 1948 Convention, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice, the ad hoc tribunals and the International Law Commission. Most of the claims appear to use the term genocide in a rhetorical sense, without serious concern for the legal issues. The available evidence does not permit inferences to be drawn that the punishable acts are committed with genocidal intent, to the exclusion of other reasonable explanations.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536026","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 this article, the author questions some assertions on issues of international and Congolese criminal law made in the context of an article published in a Special Issue of the Journal on ‘Justice and Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict: Progress and Challenges in National Efforts to Address Impunity’. While he credits the article with helping to bring to the attention of a wider audience the atrocities experienced by the victims of the Kavumu case — and thus contributing to the overall justice-effort on their behalf — he notes a few areas of legal concern, including: (i) the impact of Article 27(2) ICC Statute on parliamentary immunities in prosecuting crimes under the Rome Statute before national courts; (ii) the determination of liability of the accused when military judges have failed to identify direct perpetrators of crimes or the group to which they belong; and (iii) the relationship between the forms of criminal responsibility of individuals that make up the leadership of an organization and the policy element of crimes against humanity attributed to that organization. In sum, the article seeks to investigate to what extent the judicial reasoning in this case may have contributed to clarifying the provisions of the ICC Statute as applied by military judges in Congolese courts.
{"title":"Achieving Justice for Child Survivors of Conflict-related Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Light of the Kavumu Case","authors":"Jacques B Mbokani","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article, the author questions some assertions on issues of international and Congolese criminal law made in the context of an article published in a Special Issue of the Journal on ‘Justice and Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict: Progress and Challenges in National Efforts to Address Impunity’. While he credits the article with helping to bring to the attention of a wider audience the atrocities experienced by the victims of the Kavumu case — and thus contributing to the overall justice-effort on their behalf — he notes a few areas of legal concern, including: (i) the impact of Article 27(2) ICC Statute on parliamentary immunities in prosecuting crimes under the Rome Statute before national courts; (ii) the determination of liability of the accused when military judges have failed to identify direct perpetrators of crimes or the group to which they belong; and (iii) the relationship between the forms of criminal responsibility of individuals that make up the leadership of an organization and the policy element of crimes against humanity attributed to that organization. In sum, the article seeks to investigate to what extent the judicial reasoning in this case may have contributed to clarifying the provisions of the ICC Statute as applied by military judges in Congolese courts.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45657934","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 introductory section examines the similarities between the prosecution dilemmas posed by the successive piracy crises off the coasts of Somalia and the Gulf of Guinea. Section 1 analyses how the prosecution-related shortcomings of universal jurisdiction and of the international treaty regime currently applicable to the crime of piracy have been compounded by domestic legal and structural factors affecting littoral states in the east and west Africa coasts. Section 2 follows by examining the role of crises as tipping points for international adjudication and introducing central concepts of the analytical tradition of ‘historical institutionalism’ such as ‘critical juncture’ or ‘path-dependence’. Section 3 then applies these analytical tools as it reviews the pros and cons of the main international, hybrid and nationally assisted adjudicative alternatives for the prosecution of the crime of piracy, which it divides into the categories of ‘ad hoc’ and ‘permanent’ solutions, and examines their potential applicability to the escalating piracy crisis in the Gulf of Guinea. The conclusion recaps the main findings of the article and highlights how the elusive quest for international adjudication of the crime of piracy in Africa illustrates the veiled, yet pervasive, influence of path-dependence on international adjudicative-setting processes.
{"title":"The Paths Not Taken?","authors":"Ignacio de la Rasilla","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The introductory section examines the similarities between the prosecution dilemmas posed by the successive piracy crises off the coasts of Somalia and the Gulf of Guinea. Section 1 analyses how the prosecution-related shortcomings of universal jurisdiction and of the international treaty regime currently applicable to the crime of piracy have been compounded by domestic legal and structural factors affecting littoral states in the east and west Africa coasts. Section 2 follows by examining the role of crises as tipping points for international adjudication and introducing central concepts of the analytical tradition of ‘historical institutionalism’ such as ‘critical juncture’ or ‘path-dependence’. Section 3 then applies these analytical tools as it reviews the pros and cons of the main international, hybrid and nationally assisted adjudicative alternatives for the prosecution of the crime of piracy, which it divides into the categories of ‘ad hoc’ and ‘permanent’ solutions, and examines their potential applicability to the escalating piracy crisis in the Gulf of Guinea. The conclusion recaps the main findings of the article and highlights how the elusive quest for international adjudication of the crime of piracy in Africa illustrates the veiled, yet pervasive, influence of path-dependence on international adjudicative-setting processes.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48736950","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：