Book Review of "The Theory and Practice of International Criminal Law. Essays in Honor of M. Cherif Bassiouni" by Sadat and Scharf (eds.) (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Criminal Law: Nature, Origins and a Few Key Issues
Research Handbook on International Criminal Law, 2000
The purpose of international criminal law is to establish the criminal responsibility of individuals for international crimes. Public international law is traditionally focused on the rights and obligations of states, and thus is not particularly well suited to this task. It has adapted through a long and slow historical process, drawing upon multiple sources. Many of the chapters in this Handbook explore to some extent the historical development of international criminal law. I will not attempt to summarize that history in detail, but a few historical observations here will help to explain how international criminal law emerged from its sources in public international law, comparative law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law. This will set the stage for an introductory discussion of some key issues in contemporary international criminal law. ORIGINS AND SOURCES Public International Law International criminal law has developed and grown as part of a broader system of public international law which, since 1648, has been based on state sovereignty, including each state's jurisdiction over its own territory and citizens. A basic system of international law, defining the rights and obligations of states, was needed to recognize and validate this sovereignty, but this decentralized system has no legislature. Instead, international law must be based on the consent of states, arising from one or more of three formal sources: i.e. treaties, customary international law, or general principles of law. Treaties make binding law for those states that agree to accept them. Rules of customary international law develop when the actions of states, their general and consistent practices, demonstrate their implied consent to those rules. General principles of law, especially when common to the laws of many nations, can also be applied at the international level. Judicial decisions and scholarly writings are recognized as secondary sources of international law, and are especially useful as indicators of changes in customary international law. International crimes, and the other substantive aspects of international criminal law, emerge from these same sources. Public international law is predominantly state-centric both in the sense that it is based on the consent of states and also because its central focus has always been the rights and obligations of states. According to the well-established and recently codified law of state responsibility, 1 any state's violation of its international legal obligations entails legal consequences. 3 1 For the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the ILC 4 Research handbook on international criminal law Commentary to the Articles, see Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fiftythird Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), reprinted in James Crawford, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION'S ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY: INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES (2002) (hereinafter 'ILC Articles on State Responsibility'). 2 With regard to individual criminal responsibility, the International Law Commission (ILC) has merely observed as follows: 'The term "individual responsibility" has acquired an accepted meaning in light of the Rome Statute and other instruments; it refers to the responsibility of individual persons, including State officials, under certain rules of international law for conduct such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.' ILC Commentary on the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001) (hereinafter 'ILC Commentary') Commentary on Article 58, para. 3. 3 In the course of its attempts to codify the law of state responsibility the International Law Commission (ILC) did explore the possibility of defining state crimes under international law. The attempt was controversial and was omitted from the final version of the Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the ILC. This matter is briefly discussed in notes 38 and 39 infra and the associated text. 4 For more on this case and for a good discussion of the development of individual criminal responsibility under international law, see Edoardo Greppi,
DOI: 10.13189/sa.2015.030303 Objectives of International Criminal Law and Jurisdiction of ICC
2016
Although roots of criminal prosecutions are traced back in the 17th and 18th century but newly emerged discipline of international law namely international criminal law gained its scope after adoption Rome Statute. However, statute has not yet been universally accepted and various discrepancies have been raised by various states regarding the Jurisdiction and applicable procedure of International Criminal Court (ICC). Prior to the establishment of ICC, initially various international tribunals were established for the prosecutions of perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression, particularly after World War II. However, the prosecutions were subjected to serious criticism not only by the states representing the accused persons rather by the prosecuting states as well, on the grounds that all the prosecutions were partial in nature
2010
(UK); Assessor Jur., LL.M, LL.D. His academic focus lies in the field of international humanitarian, human rights and public law. A particular research interest lies in the field of civil responsibility for international crimes and the responsibility of private actors in armed conflict. He served as a peacekeeper with the German Army in the Balkans on three occasions prior while completing his LL.D. Some aspects of this chapter were discussed in an earlier article, see S.-D. Bachmann, 'The Quest for International Criminal Justice-The Long Road Ahead', 4 JSAL (2007) pp. 716-735. 1 Address by Kofi Annan (former United Nations Secretary-General) marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris, 8 December 1998. 2 'Bashir War Crimes Bid Challenged', BBC News
Challenges facing the international criminal court: how can Dr. Cherif Bassiouni's life inspire us
Challenges facing the international criminal court: how can Dr. Cherif Bassiouni's life inspire us?, 2019
In this context, we cannot forget referring to the story of the man called the godfather of the international criminal law, which has been instrumental in formulating the Constitution of the international criminal court "Rome statute". In the early '50s, perhaps no one – at that time - expected that this young man who grew up in one of the Egyptian cities with his grandmother one day will become the godfather of the international criminal law. That man is Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian American Born in Cairo on 19 December 1937; Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni was grandson to the first Egyptian Senate president (Mahmoud Bassiouni), and son to a diplomat (Ibrahim Bassiouni).
Harvard International Law Journal, 2001
Reviewed by Nancy Amoury Combs* I. INTRODUCTION After decades in which international criminal law seemed a forgotten field, two ad hoc international tribunals are now prosecuting those accused of committing international crimes in the former Yugoslavia 1 and Rwanda, 2 and each ratification of the Rome Stature' brings closer the creation of a permanent international criminal court. After a century in which approximately 250 conflicts around the world led to an estimated 70 to 170 million deaths, through genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes with virtually none of the perpetrators brought to justice, 4 the development of international criminal law comes none too soon. Fortunately, following on
Published in: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2014, pp. 249-279, 2014
The main objective of this article is to put forward a critical analysis of the emergent international criminal justice system, epitomized by the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court. Such an endeavour is warranted on the assertion that international criminal justice scholarship has entered into a ‘reflective’ phase, the hallmark of which lies in the re-evaluation of the institutions of international criminal law in the light of the distinctive traits of international criminality derived from the combination of the criminological theory of state crime and the rising theory of international crime in the domain of international criminal law. In this context, the article summarizes the basic points and the epistemological premises of the criminological theory of state crime, while seeks to delimit the subject matter by alluding to the concept of core international crimes arising from the normative system of the ICC. The core aim of such a combined approach is not to downplay the existing differences between the criminological concept of state crime and the penal concept of core international crimes, but to highlight common points in order to draw tentative conclusions and make some preliminary suggestions from a criminal policy perspective.
This second volume in the series ‘Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law’ zooms in on some of the foundational concepts or principles of the discipline of international criminal law, with a view to exploring their Hinterland beyond the traditional doctrinal discourse. It contains eight chapters on concepts such as sovereignty, global criminal justice, international criminal responsibility for individuals, punishment, impunity and truth. Among the authors in this book are Christoph Burchard, Christopher B. Mahony, Milinda Banerjee, CHAO Yi, Javier Dondé-Matute, Barrie Sander, Max Pensky and Shannon E. Fyfe.
This article focuses on the problems of, and prospects for, the enforcement of international humanitarian law through the prosecution and punishment of individuals accused of violations of international humanitarian law by international or national tribunals. The author first examines the factors that historically prevented the development of international tribunals and then looks at recent events, namely the end of the Cold War and the subsequent unleashing of unparalleled forces of nationalism and fundamentalism in different parts of the world, which have created an increased willingness on the part of states to institute mechanisms, both at the international and domestic levels, for international criminal justice. With the establishment of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the enforcement of international humanitarian law has moved into a new and more effective phase. Yet, the clear merits of individual criminal prosecution by international tribunals cannot simply override the very real problems and obstacles they face. The author examines these problems, arguing that state sovereignty is a major obstacle to the effective enforcement of international criminal justice. Nevertheless, the author concludes that justice can be done at the international level and that international criminal tribunals are vital in the struggle to uphold the rule of law. • Presiding Judge. Trial Chamber n. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Hague. The Netherlands; former President of the Tribunal (199 3-199 7): Assodt of the Insntut de Droll mteroattonaL ICIX ChurchMplein. 1. P.O. Box 13888.2501 EW, The Hague. The Netherlands. The opinions expressed In thli paper are personal to the author and m no way engage the Tribunal. The Invaluable assistance of Knthlfm Lawand and Suxannah Unton is gratefully acknowledged.