On 29 June 2022, the Italian Parliament approved Law no. 79, which converted — with amendments — Article 43 of Decree-Law no. 36/2022 of 30 April 2022 into law, possibly marking the final stage of the long saga of the German–Italian dispute over Germany’s civil liability for Nazi crimes against the Italian population during World War II. The Decree-Law was originally issued, as a matter of urgency, with a specific purpose: the Italian government intended to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from suffering the loss of a significant real estate asset, located in Rome, due to the execution proceedings before the Court of Rome. However, the purpose of this legislative measure was not solely to avert this scenario in the short term. On the contrary, with the Decree-Law, now converted into law, the singular result has been reached that the Italian state will pay all compensation owed to victims of Nazi massacres on behalf of Germany. The article contextualizes the new provision, analysing the saga of Germany’s civil liability in parallel with the criminal prosecutions of Nazi criminals in Italy, both after the war and in more recent years. It provides critical evaluations and proposes hypotheses on possible future scenarios.
{"title":"German Crimes and Italian Money?","authors":"P. Caroli","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 On 29 June 2022, the Italian Parliament approved Law no. 79, which converted — with amendments — Article 43 of Decree-Law no. 36/2022 of 30 April 2022 into law, possibly marking the final stage of the long saga of the German–Italian dispute over Germany’s civil liability for Nazi crimes against the Italian population during World War II. The Decree-Law was originally issued, as a matter of urgency, with a specific purpose: the Italian government intended to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from suffering the loss of a significant real estate asset, located in Rome, due to the execution proceedings before the Court of Rome. However, the purpose of this legislative measure was not solely to avert this scenario in the short term. On the contrary, with the Decree-Law, now converted into law, the singular result has been reached that the Italian state will pay all compensation owed to victims of Nazi massacres on behalf of Germany. The article contextualizes the new provision, analysing the saga of Germany’s civil liability in parallel with the criminal prosecutions of Nazi criminals in Italy, both after the war and in more recent years. It provides critical evaluations and proposes hypotheses on possible future scenarios.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47258224","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}
It has generally been understood that international criminal law recognizes ex post facto aiding and abetting as a mode of liability but not the standalone offence commonly known, in many states, as accessory after the fact. However, as this article reveals, the authentic Spanish text of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC Statute’) includes the word ‘encubridor’ which — as a comparative analysis of the Criminal Codes of Spanish-speaking countries confirms — is the Spanish language legal equivalent of a person that is an accessory after the fact. Yet, nothing in the authentic English text of Article 25(3)(c) — the version that most of the international criminal law scholarship and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) have focused on — alludes to this. To resolve this substantive discrepancy, Article 25(3)(c) is considered across all authentic languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish) and in light of Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a manner consistent with the rights of the accused. This article concludes that the mentioned discrepancy is unique to Article 25(3)(c) in the authentic Spanish language, most likely the result of an error, and that the concept of ‘accessory after the fact’ should not be applied at the ICC. That Article 25(3), a provision that has featured in so many ICC decisions and judgments and spawned so much academic writing, has contained such a glaring and seemingly undetected error for over 24 years ought to compel commentators, academics, and practitioners to look beyond the working languages of the ICC — English and French — when analysing, interpreting, and applying the ICC Statute.
{"title":"Accessory After the Fact at the International Criminal Court?","authors":"M. J. Ventura","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 It has generally been understood that international criminal law recognizes ex post facto aiding and abetting as a mode of liability but not the standalone offence commonly known, in many states, as accessory after the fact. However, as this article reveals, the authentic Spanish text of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC Statute’) includes the word ‘encubridor’ which — as a comparative analysis of the Criminal Codes of Spanish-speaking countries confirms — is the Spanish language legal equivalent of a person that is an accessory after the fact. Yet, nothing in the authentic English text of Article 25(3)(c) — the version that most of the international criminal law scholarship and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) have focused on — alludes to this. To resolve this substantive discrepancy, Article 25(3)(c) is considered across all authentic languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish) and in light of Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a manner consistent with the rights of the accused. This article concludes that the mentioned discrepancy is unique to Article 25(3)(c) in the authentic Spanish language, most likely the result of an error, and that the concept of ‘accessory after the fact’ should not be applied at the ICC. That Article 25(3), a provision that has featured in so many ICC decisions and judgments and spawned so much academic writing, has contained such a glaring and seemingly undetected error for over 24 years ought to compel commentators, academics, and practitioners to look beyond the working languages of the ICC — English and French — when analysing, interpreting, and applying the ICC Statute.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49529681","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 maritime domain, largely comprised of international ‘commons’ covering more than 70% of the Earth’s surface, presents some unique challenges in identifying, much less reconciling, applicable International Environmental Law (IEL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles. This article posits that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, particularly its prescriptive and enforcement jurisdictional apportionments to nations relating to the prevention and control of pollution, establishes the peacetime IEL normative framework at sea. After exploring this normative framework, this article furthers the symposium’s overall theme by examining the interplay between this IEL framework and the relatively sparse and sporadic IHL regime at sea. As will be seen, this interplay is largely a question of the extent to which, if at all, these jurisdictional apportionments survive during periods of armed conflict. As such, it aligns more closely with the ‘application process’ for impacting the regulation of armed conflict, in which IEL applies alongside IHL to activities related to armed conflict, than with the ‘interpretation process’, whereby IHL is interpreted in light of IEL.
{"title":"The Intersection of International Environmental Law and International Humanitarian Law at Sea","authors":"A. Norris","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The maritime domain, largely comprised of international ‘commons’ covering more than 70% of the Earth’s surface, presents some unique challenges in identifying, much less reconciling, applicable International Environmental Law (IEL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles. This article posits that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, particularly its prescriptive and enforcement jurisdictional apportionments to nations relating to the prevention and control of pollution, establishes the peacetime IEL normative framework at sea. After exploring this normative framework, this article furthers the symposium’s overall theme by examining the interplay between this IEL framework and the relatively sparse and sporadic IHL regime at sea. As will be seen, this interplay is largely a question of the extent to which, if at all, these jurisdictional apportionments survive during periods of armed conflict. As such, it aligns more closely with the ‘application process’ for impacting the regulation of armed conflict, in which IEL applies alongside IHL to activities related to armed conflict, than with the ‘interpretation process’, whereby IHL is interpreted in light of IEL.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41785834","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}
Although hazardous activities and substances create significant environmental risks and damage during warfare, international humanitarian law contains very few provisions that specifically address this question. To reinforce the protection of the environment, these provisions should be interpreted in light of — and complemented by — international environmental instruments adopted during the last decades. Indeed, these instruments envisage important rules, mechanisms, and institutions which aim at preventing and redressing environmental threats and damage resulting from the production and use of hazardous substances and the dumping of wastes during peacetime. This article seeks precisely to examine how these rules, mechanisms and institutions could apply in the context of war-related incidents, not only during an armed conflict, but also before and after its occurrence. The article will show that sophisticated safety measures that help in preventing such incidents, which often create irreversible consequences, must be designed, tested, and implemented well before hostilities are taking place. Furthermore, environmental remediation of contaminated areas should also be considered after the end of the conflict.
{"title":"The Regulation of Hazardous Substances and Activities During Warfare","authors":"Jérôme de Hemptinne","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac057","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although hazardous activities and substances create significant environmental risks and damage during warfare, international humanitarian law contains very few provisions that specifically address this question. To reinforce the protection of the environment, these provisions should be interpreted in light of — and complemented by — international environmental instruments adopted during the last decades. Indeed, these instruments envisage important rules, mechanisms, and institutions which aim at preventing and redressing environmental threats and damage resulting from the production and use of hazardous substances and the dumping of wastes during peacetime. This article seeks precisely to examine how these rules, mechanisms and institutions could apply in the context of war-related incidents, not only during an armed conflict, but also before and after its occurrence. The article will show that sophisticated safety measures that help in preventing such incidents, which often create irreversible consequences, must be designed, tested, and implemented well before hostilities are taking place. Furthermore, environmental remediation of contaminated areas should also be considered after the end of the conflict.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48235727","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}
Armed conflicts have an impact on freshwater resources and often damage water installations, which could be targeted or incidentally damaged, affecting water quality and quantity and limiting access for the civilian population. Thus, in situations of armed conflict, protecting freshwater resources and related installations becomes essential. International humanitarian law (IHL) and international environmental law (IEL) provide for relevant rules that limit the impact of armed conflicts on freshwater and water infrastructure. IHL protects civilian objects, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, works and installations containing dangerous forces and the natural environment. It also prohibits employing poison or poisonous weapons and environmental modification techniques. IEL regulates the sustainable and environmentally sound use, development and management of water resources. Progress in the realm of the human right to water and the rise of environmental consciousness further necessitate an eco-friendly approach that recognizes comprehensive protection. Therefore, this article examines the interplay between IEL and IHL, explaining how IEL can contribute to the interpretation of IHL rules and exploring areas where IEL could complement IHL rules relevant to the protection of freshwater resources and related installations during warfare.
{"title":"The Legal Protection of Freshwater Resources and Related Installations during Warfare","authors":"Mara Tignino, Tadesse Kebebew","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac061","url":null,"abstract":"Armed conflicts have an impact on freshwater resources and often damage water installations, which could be targeted or incidentally damaged, affecting water quality and quantity and limiting access for the civilian population. Thus, in situations of armed conflict, protecting freshwater resources and related installations becomes essential. International humanitarian law (IHL) and international environmental law (IEL) provide for relevant rules that limit the impact of armed conflicts on freshwater and water infrastructure. IHL protects civilian objects, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, works and installations containing dangerous forces and the natural environment. It also prohibits employing poison or poisonous weapons and environmental modification techniques. IEL regulates the sustainable and environmentally sound use, development and management of water resources. Progress in the realm of the human right to water and the rise of environmental consciousness further necessitate an eco-friendly approach that recognizes comprehensive protection. Therefore, this article examines the interplay between IEL and IHL, explaining how IEL can contribute to the interpretation of IHL rules and exploring areas where IEL could complement IHL rules relevant to the protection of freshwater resources and related installations during warfare.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536029","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":"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：