联合国在国际司法中的问责任务

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of International Criminal Justice Pub Date : 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1093/jicj/mqad038
Federica D’Alessandra
{"title":"联合国在国际司法中的问责任务","authors":"Federica D’Alessandra","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article discusses an important international justice development, and specifically the rise of a new generation of ‘accountability mandates’ at the United Nations (UN). Often created in response to mass atrocities alleged in country situations falling outside of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, UN accountability mandates are generally tasked to collect, consolidate, preserve, and analyse evidence of international law violations, prepare files, and preserve such evidence until it can be made available to support legal accountability proceedings, including as relevant of the criminal nature. Through such investigative and evidence preservation responsibilities, UN accountability mandates can help fill important impunity gaps by helping to collate information generated by a variety of sources, including civil society documenters, and by laying the groundwork for judicial authorities. Within this broad categorization, however, UN accountability mandates are not a monolith and exist along a spectrum based on the strength of any accountability requirements they contain — including whether they are explicitly mandated to follow criminal justice standards — and their general institutional and operational setup. The investigative mechanisms created for Syria, Myanmar and Daesh/ISIL are specifically tasked to fulfil ‘pre-prosecutorial’ functions and enjoy greater resources and independence than other, less resourced and more ‘hybrid’ mandates — expected to simultaneously fulfil the role of more traditional human rights investigations, while also supporting legal accountability. All, however, play a crucial role within the broader international justice ecosystem, while sharing common challenges that this article submits would be best addressed by permanently centralizing a variety of investigative support functions, to be administered by a dedicated, permanent, standing investigative entity. The article will first provide an overview of how and why UN accountability mandates have evolved over the past decade, and of the important role they have come to play. It will then turn to discussing the case and proposed models for a standing, permanent UN accountability mandate to support future investigations. After providing a comparative analysis of the possible alternatives, the article will conclude with some recommendations and ideas for the way forward.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"1998 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UN Accountability Mandates in International Justice\",\"authors\":\"Federica D’Alessandra\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jicj/mqad038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article discusses an important international justice development, and specifically the rise of a new generation of ‘accountability mandates’ at the United Nations (UN). Often created in response to mass atrocities alleged in country situations falling outside of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, UN accountability mandates are generally tasked to collect, consolidate, preserve, and analyse evidence of international law violations, prepare files, and preserve such evidence until it can be made available to support legal accountability proceedings, including as relevant of the criminal nature. Through such investigative and evidence preservation responsibilities, UN accountability mandates can help fill important impunity gaps by helping to collate information generated by a variety of sources, including civil society documenters, and by laying the groundwork for judicial authorities. Within this broad categorization, however, UN accountability mandates are not a monolith and exist along a spectrum based on the strength of any accountability requirements they contain — including whether they are explicitly mandated to follow criminal justice standards — and their general institutional and operational setup. The investigative mechanisms created for Syria, Myanmar and Daesh/ISIL are specifically tasked to fulfil ‘pre-prosecutorial’ functions and enjoy greater resources and independence than other, less resourced and more ‘hybrid’ mandates — expected to simultaneously fulfil the role of more traditional human rights investigations, while also supporting legal accountability. All, however, play a crucial role within the broader international justice ecosystem, while sharing common challenges that this article submits would be best addressed by permanently centralizing a variety of investigative support functions, to be administered by a dedicated, permanent, standing investigative entity. The article will first provide an overview of how and why UN accountability mandates have evolved over the past decade, and of the important role they have come to play. It will then turn to discussing the case and proposed models for a standing, permanent UN accountability mandate to support future investigations. After providing a comparative analysis of the possible alternatives, the article will conclude with some recommendations and ideas for the way forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"1998 12\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了一个重要的国际司法发展,特别是新一代“问责授权”在联合国(UN)的兴起。联合国问责授权通常是为应对国际刑事法院管辖范围之外的国家所发生的大规模暴行而设立的,其任务通常是收集、整合、保存和分析违反国际法的证据,准备档案,并保存这些证据,直到可以用于支持法律问责程序,包括与犯罪性质相关的证据。通过这种调查和证据保存责任,联合国问责任务可以帮助整理包括民间社会文件记录者在内的各种来源提供的信息,并为司法当局奠定基础,从而填补有罪不罚的重要空白。然而,在这一广泛分类中,联合国问责任务并不是一个整体,而是根据其所包含的任何问责要求的强度(包括是否明确授权遵守刑事司法标准)及其总体机构和业务设置而存在的。为叙利亚、缅甸和达伊沙/伊黎伊斯兰国设立的调查机制的具体任务是履行“起诉前”职能,并享有比其他资源较少、更“混合”的任务更多的资源和独立性——预计将同时履行更传统的人权调查角色,同时也支持法律问责制。然而,所有这些国家都在更广泛的国际司法生态系统中发挥着关键作用,同时分享本条提出的共同挑战,最好的解决办法是将各种调查支助职能永久集中起来,由一个专门的、常设的调查实体管理。本文将首先概述联合国问责制任务在过去十年中的演变方式和原因,以及它们所发挥的重要作用。然后,它将转而讨论这一案件,并提出一个常设的、永久的联合国问责授权模式,以支持未来的调查。在对可能的替代方案进行比较分析之后,本文将对未来的发展方向提出一些建议和想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
UN Accountability Mandates in International Justice
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Criminal Justice aims to promote a profound collective reflection on the new problems facing international law. Established by a group of distinguished criminal lawyers and international lawyers, the Journal addresses the major problems of justice from the angle of law, jurisprudence, criminology, penal philosophy, and the history of international judicial institutions. It is intended for graduate and post-graduate students, practitioners, academics, government officials, as well as the hundreds of people working for international criminal courts.
期刊最新文献
The Biological Weapons Amendment to the ICC Statute and National Provisions Victims’ Perspectives on Participation in the Ongwen Case Witnessing Ongwen The Ongwen Case at the International Criminal Court as a Test of the Court’s Outreach Programming in Northern Uganda Targeted Sanctions as a Pathway to Accountability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1