News from the Working Commissions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi , 2021
Terrorism as a multi-faceted and complex phenomenon has revealed many discussions in the context of international law. The core problems on the crime of terrorism stem from the non-agreement on the definition of terrorism due to the disagreements on the legal ingredients of a possible definition of terrorism or on the existence of a legal definition of terrorism and the political reasons behind the failure of states to relinquish their sovereignty on terrorism. Examining thoroughly these issues, this article explores the status of international criminal law and the International Criminal Court ("ICC") on terrorism in the international legal framework, with a particular focus on prospects in respect of prosecuting terrorism under the customary international law or under the crimes against humanity or the war crimes which are the core crimes under the Rome Statute. Critically analyzing the prospects along with the elements of customary international law and core crimes in the framework of discussions in the academic literature, this contribution argues that the ICC may have a potential role in prosecuting terrorism under the crimes against humanity or the war crimes.
The Case for Inclusion of Terrorism in the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
2014
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has recently announced that she will start investigations into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Central African Republic. As far as war crimes are concerned, the success of this venture hinges on the question whether the situation in the CAF has reached the threshold of an armed conflict. Arguably, the unruly groups that engage in atrocities lack the required organizational capacities to warrant such a conclusion. The CAF is paradigmatic of failed states in which non-state armed groups vie for power. In this article the authors advocate the inclusion of terrorism in the jurisdiction of the ICC, in order to plug the jurisdictional loophole. Taking the striking analogy between terrorism and war crimes - to wit, the attack on innocent civilians - as point of departure, the authors argue that it is rather arbitrary to depend jurisdiction on the crossing of the line of armed conflict. Moreover, in case of terrorism ...
European Journal of International Law, 2008
Notwithstanding the emphasis placed on the need for concerted international action to confront the problem of terrorism, positive international law is far from treating the issue of defi ning the criminal notion of terrorism coherently; the discussion of such a notion is being made hostage [sic!] to the abuse of the term ' terrorism ' in the course of the debate and to the confusion between an empirical description of a phenomenon and its treatment under criminal law. Proposing a coredefi nition approach, this article elaborates a notion based upon the basic rights of civilians and on the unacceptability of their violation by terrorist methods carried out by private organized groups. The defi nition proposed here, which does not recognize in the perpetrator ' s motivations any material relevance because of the overwhelming importance of the value infringed, is able to minimize the relevance of some abused arguments (such as state terrorism or the treatment of ' freedom fi ghters ' ), could quickly gain customary status and would prove useful in interpretation and in drafting exercises, both at international and national level. As for the inclusion of terrorism in the category of international crimes, it is submitted that two interpretive options are open: to consider the category of crimes against humanity as already able to embrace core terrorism; or to place the strong rationale underlying the stigmatization of terrorist crimes in the perspective of the gradual emerging of a discrete international crime of terrorism. National case law seems to point to the latter option, but the question does not appear settled: for this reason, the discussion regarding the
International Legal Regime: Analysis of Cases Relating to Global Terrorism
Extradition Laws in the International and Indian Regime, 2019
Post 9/11 attacks, terrorist activities have evolved the extradition laws. Both extradition and terrorism is interconnected to other branches of public international law. Irrespective of the nature of perpetrator of terrorist acts, it has globalized the political violence, which has further given rise to sectoral treaties on terrorism. International humanitarian law and international criminal law have not incorporated terrorism as an international offence, however judicial institutions have consistently interpreted to the finding that terrorist attacks are prohibited under international and non international armed conflicts and, the States are bound to punish the alleged offenders. Judicial decisions, showcase the challenges in prosecuting individuals, and lay down emerging norms of finding individuals criminally responsible committing offences violating of customary laws of war, and treaty crimes, irrespective of their official capacity while committing those crimes.
A critique of the international legal regime applicable to terrorism
Terrorism is a global phenomenon that permeates state borders and predominantly causes immeasurable suffering to civilians. The need for international cooperation and concerted efforts in combating terrorism cannot be gainsaid. Already, sectoral instruments have been passed to regulate certain aspects of terrorism. However, without a single terrorism specific instrument, acts of terrorism generally classified will fall under spheres of international law which include; public international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. This paper makes a critical analysis of these spheres of international law and how they apply to states' counter-terrorism efforts.
Role of International Criminal Court on Terrorist Activities-Issues & Challenges
Terrorism is not a new threat to the international order but it is a threat that has grown more urgent in the last few years. Terrorism has become a tragic circumstance of everyday live and has caused a remarkable loss of lives. This part of the research paper will discuss the controversial debate on the concept of terrorism before addressing the ICC " s problem. he purpose of this paper is to explore what role the International Criminal Court.
Should Terrorism Be Added to ICC Jurisdiction?
On 17 July 1998, 120 states participated in a Rome conference to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC). After being ratified by 60 states, the ICC entered into force on 1 July 2002. This court has jurisdiction authority over the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity (CAH) and aggression. Terrorism was one of the subjects discussed during this conference; however, terrorism was not eventually included within the ICC statutes. There was no doubt of the international importance and effects of terrorism; however, several states believed that terrorism should be managed by local criminal law. In contrast, other states believed that terrorist acts should be prosecuted in the ICC based on the war crimes or CAH statutes. This study argues that terrorism should be included in the ICC jurisdiction. First, this article claims that managing terrorism in a domestic court may not be accepted as a reasonable argument. Following this, the issues of state terrorism and the prosecuting difficulties related to this will be investigated. Second, given that not all terrorism acts can be considered war crimes or CAH, it is illogical for them to be considered in this way by the ICC. This study argues and demonstrates that inhumane acts such as hostage taking, arson and hijacking in particular circumstances, as well as property terrorism, may be not covered by existing ICC statutes. Third, this study presents the logical and legal arguments of including specific terrorism statutes in the ICC and argues that terrorism should be included in the ICC statutes. This section will discuss the ICC’s definition of terrorism, the ICC’s complementary role, the ICC as an independent organ, the authority of the ICC and terrorism as a separate crime.
Including the Crime of Terrorism Within the Rome Statute: Likelihood and Prospects
ABSTRACT: One of the lessons from September 11, and the more recent wave of terror in Europe, is how latent international terrorism is today, in a world that is increasingly interconnected. This paper analyzes the way that international terrorism is handled from a legal perspective and the reach that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has in terms of jurisdiction on acts of terrorism. The Rome Statute, which gave life to the ICC, excluded the crime of terrorism from its jurisdiction. Two reasons for this exclusion were the opposition from the United States by claiming that this could jeopardize its country’s security when it comes to sharing intelligence with an international court, and the fear of highly politicizing the new permanent international court. However, the o cial position given to the world as to why the ICC did not exercise jurisdiction over international terrorism was the lack of a de nition of the concept of terrorism. This paper argues that since the end of the Cold War, a Post-Westphalian order that gives power not only to States but also to International Governmental Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations, has created a space and precedent to consider the crime of terrorism as jus cogens. I argue that with the current pressing situation in Europe and the Middle East on terrorist attacks, having the crime of terrorism within the jurisdiction of the court would cover some existing loopholes, not necessarily because the ICC will prosecute every terrorist, but instead because the crime itself will have universal jurisdiction.
Towards an International Court Against Terrorism: An Analysis of the Added-Value of Establishing such a Court, 2018
Desde 2001, el combate al terrorismo se consolidó como una de las grandes cuestiones en la agenda de organizaciones internacionales y en discusiones bilaterales dirigidas a promover una respuesta más efectiva al terrorismo, incluso a nivel judicial. El presente artículo se propone comparar dos estrategias de contraterrorismo: de un lado, el establecimiento de una corte internacional contra el terrorismo; de otro, el combate al terrorismo por medio del ejercicio de la jurisdicción doméstica de los Estados, asistido por la cooperación internacional. Al largo de este análisis, el artículo promoverá una discusión constante de derechos humanos, lo que se justifica por la percepción de que contraterrorismo y derechos humanos son dos caras de una misma moneda, y cualquier separación entre los dos es artificial y no contribuye a una estrategia efectiva de contraterrorismo. Palabras claves: contraterrorismo; derechos humanos; corte internacional contra el terrorismo; análisis comparativo. Abstract: From 2001 onwards, counterterrorism has been a major issue in the agenda of international organizations and in bilateral discussions aimed at the promotion of a more effective response to terrorism, including at the Judiciary level. The present article aims to analyse whether there is an added-value in establishing an international court against terrorism, in comparison to domestic prosecution with the assistance of international cooperation. Throughout this analysis, the paper will engage in a constant discussion of human rights law. This is justified by the understanding that counterterrorism and human rights are two sides of a same coin, and any separation of the two is artificial and does not contribute to an effective counterterrorism strategy.
WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: AN ALTERNATIVE ORGANISING PRINCIPLE?
WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: AN ALTERNATIVE ORGANISING PRINCIPLE?, 2014
Terrorism has become a catchcry which has many shades of meaning. Governments in power around the world find it a useful means of labelling political opponents or, otherwise, using it for political advantage. The paper suggests that greater use be made of more reliable and less pliable concepts such as war crimes and crimes against humanity to investigate and prosecute political violence.