Search

The philosophy of being righteous essentially sustains our existence, questioning the sphere of morality in man. It reaches the colossal connotation of the royal essence of our natural virtue—if it exists—which can then institute the soul of all international human rights and criminal conventions. No matter what we include in our arguments and reasoning in relation to the content of justice itself, it is the sugarcoated perception of the improper use of our obligations that undermines its major philosophy. All divisive interpretations of the nature of rights and justice ultimately reveal how fragile our human rights ecosphere is and why there is a lack of criminal accountability for those who commit core international crimes. The truth is that justice is served without using any metaphysics of categorical righteousness. Consequently, the axiomatic merit of justice remains conceptually indistinct, as it cannot face the noble spirit of the forum of humanity. Justice becomes a simple metaphor. The very merits of being righteous decline, and the actual notions of cruel injustice escalate. This is not my assumption, nor is it the judgment of national or international courts. It is proven, it is seen, and it is waged. We will witness that those very major and invaluable provisions of justice have been recycled “in the name of humanity” to slaughter populations of millions in order to gain control of their resources.

The Statute of the United Nations promotes a very disastrous image of the inequality of arms. If we conclude that the inequalities in Chapter VII of the Charter must be respected because states have given their consent, we can argue that the extraction of information through the use of torture is lawful since victims of torture have confirmed this statement. Ultimately, the contemporary modern bodies of international criminal justice and human rights are chained to a system of paternalism that has gradually infringed upon an independent taboo norm of dignity, which in turn represents the decree of immorality by a superior order. Paternalism is the successor to the traditional colonial rules of control and intends to guide governments as to what to do when it comes to their natural resources, security, and international legal personalities. Therefore, paternalism represents control through sanctions and resolutions. Paternalism also monopolises the basic principles of the legal discipline to promote political, military, and economic interests. The author coins new phrases “human-snaking rights” and “snaking justice” to express how paternalist governments impose rules and inject their dangerous, venomous fangs into legal and political resolutions against other governments. These resolutions function like saws because it does not matter which direction a member state chooses, since they will ultimately be cut into pieces. The veto of paternalism is a conundrum that poses a potential existential threat to international criminal jurisprudence when it comes to serious questions of criminal justice. Paternalism imposes its decisions on groups, governments, prosecutors, and judges of international criminal courts. Those who fail to listen are sanctioned through various means.

It is statistically unlikely that humans are the only intelligent species in the universe. Nothing about the others will be known until contact is made beyond a radio signal from space that merely tells us they existed when it was sent. That contact may occur tomorrow, in a hundred years, or never. If it does it will be a high-risk scenario for humanity. It may be peaceful or hostile. Relying on alien altruism and benign intentions is wishful thinking. We need to begin identifying as a planetary species, and develop a global consensus on how to respond in either scenario.

This book examines the importance of international criminal law in promoting and defending human rights as well as its relationship with law and international politics. It highlights criminal cases at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda, the International Criminal Court, and the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh. The book considers human rights approaches to crimes from a theoretical and practical perspective, analyses various crimes under international law, and examines the application, implementation and enforcement of international criminal law. This book will serve as an important reference for students, teachers, scholars and lawyers specialising in international human rights, international criminal law and international humanitarian law.

This book focuses on the tension between the protection of human rights recognised as jus cogens (peremptory) norms, on the one hand, and the bestowal of immunity on the state and its representatives, on the other, to ascertain how these immunities can be eroded, if not fully abolished, to maintain full protection of jus cogens human rights under international law. The book argues that immunity should not equate to impunity when violations of jus cogens human rights are committed by States, Heads of State, or diplomatic agents. To make the case, the organic structures of the concepts of sovereignty and fundamental human rights are examined. Then, the human rights-based challenge to immunity is presented with respect to State, Head of State and diplomatic immunity, and the transition from a state-centric system to a human-centric system is explored. Jus cogens norms are at the centre of the impunity versus immunity debate.

This timely book comprehensively examines whether the worst human rights violations directed specifically at sexual and gender minorities are punishable under international criminal law, as codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.Drawing on general rules of interpretation, the development of human rights for sexual and gender minorities, and the social construction of gender, this monograph reveals that the worst crimes committed against persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity can amount to crimes against humanity, particularly the crime of persecution under Article 7(1)(h). It also shows how legislators can be held individually criminally responsible for passing laws that criminalize consensual same-sex sexuality.The book not only makes a significant and original contribution to the literature but is also highly relevant for international criminal law practitioners, since, so far, no cases regarding this topic exist.Dr. Valérie V. Suhr is currently a trainee lawyer in the district of the Koblenz Court of Appeal in Germany

From the Nuremberg trials to the arrest of General Pinochet to the prosecution of barbarians of the Balkans, we have crafted a global human rights law to punish crimes against humanity. And yet today it is rarely applied: the International Criminal Court has faltered, populist governments refuse to cooperate, the UN Security Council is pole‑axed and liberal democracy is on the defensive. When faced with the torture of Sergei Magnitsky, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the repression of the Uighurs, what recourse do we have? Distinguished human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson argues that our most powerful weapon is Magnitsky laws, by which not only perpetrators but their accomplices – lickspittle judges, doctors who assist in torture, corporations that profit from slave labour – are named, shamed and blamed. Though the UK and the EU have passed nascent Magnitsky laws, they are not deploying them effectively. It is only by developing a full‑blooded system of coordinated sanctions – banning human rights violators from entering democratic countries to funnel their ill-gotten gains through Western banks and take advantage of our schools and hospitals – that we can fight back against cruelty and corruption. Bad People sets out a Plan B for human rights, offering a new blueprint for global justice in a post‑pandemic world.

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the presumption of innocence from both a practical and theoretical point of view. Throughout the book a framework for the presumption of innocence is developed.The book approaches the right to presumption of innocence from an international human rights perspective using specific examples drawn from international criminal law. The result is a framework for understanding the right that is grounded in human rights law. This framework can then be applied across different national and international systems. When applied, it can help determine when the presumption of innocence is being infringed upon, eroded, violated, and ensure that the presumption of innocence is protected. The book is an essential resource for students, academics and practitioners working in the areas of human rights, criminal law, international criminal law, and evidence. The themes also have a more general application to national jurisdictions and legal theory.

Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim's claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.

Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens): Disquisitions and Dispositions brings together an impressive collection of authors addressing both conceptual issues and challenges relating to peremptory norms of general international. Covered themes in the edited collection include concepts relating to the identification of peremptory norms, consequences of peremptory norms, critiques of peremptory norms, the relationship between peremptory norms and particular areas of international law as well as the peremptory status of particular norms of international law. The contributions are presented from an array of scholars and experts with different perspective, thus providing an interesting mosaic of thoughts on peremptory norms. Written against the backdrop of the ongoing work of the International Law Commission, it exposes some tensions inherent in the jus cogens.

Traditionally, human rights have protected those facing the sharp edge of the criminal justice system. But over time human rights law has become increasingly infused with duties to mobilise criminal law towards protection and redress for violation of rights. These developments give rise to a whole host of questions concerning the precise parameters of coercive human rights, the rationale(s) that underpin them, and their effects and implications for victims, perpetrators, domestic legal systems, and for the theory and practice of human rights and criminal justice. This collection addresses these questions with a focus on the rich jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The collection explores four interlocking themes surrounding the issue of coercive human rights: First, the key threads in the doctrine of the ECtHR on duties to mobilise the criminal law as a means of delivering human rights protection. Secondly, the factors that contribute to a readiness to demand coercive measures, including discrimination and vulnerability, and other key justificatory reasoning shaping the development of coercive human rights. Thirdly, the most pressing challenges for the ECtHR's coercive duties doctrine, including: - how it relates to theories and rationales of criminalisation and criminal punishment; - its implications for the fundamental tenets of human rights law itself;- its relationship to transitional justice objectives; and - how (far) it coheres with the imperative of effective protection for persons in precarious or vulnerable situations.Fourthly, the (prospective) evolution of the coercive human rights doctrine and its application within national jurisdictions.

Malekian introduces two new terms into the system of international criminal law. These are the law of somebodiness and the law of nobodiness. From the lowest to highest level of the provisions of international human rights law, international criminal law, and the Statute of the Permanent International Criminal Court, the philosophical assumption throughout is to preserve the heritage of the body of the law of somebodiness and prevent the imposition of the law of nobodiness. Individuals and groups, regardless of their ethnic composition, possess a certain universal united essence which should not be disregarded, and which should not put them in the position of nobodiness in the legislation of any state. Therefore, the law of somebodiness is the missing ingredient in our legal system, and its existence contributes to the collective good of humanity. The law contests any law which authorises the use of force, the production of weapons for war, or which grants permission to kill under any circumstance. In contrast, the law of nobodiness is a brutal law which violates the rights of human beings, and which may be used to conceal crimes and contribute to the deaths of millions of individuals by presenting the false truth in order to allow the monopolisation of economic resources, the rights of victims, property, and land. The unique and innovative principles of this book establish the right reason for justice in international legal and political disciplines. This book is recommended to all those who are engaged in questions of human personal values as a union of true law. It includes not only students of law and politics, but lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and politicians as well.

This book challenges the traditional approach to international law by concentrating on international hThis book challenges the traditional approach to international law by concentrating on international humanitarian law and placing the focus beyond States: it reflects on current legal, policy and practical issues that concern non-State actors in and around situations of armed conflict.With the emergence of the nation-State, international law was almost entirely focused on inter-State relations, thus excluding - for the most part - non-State entities. In the modern era, such a focus needs to be adjusted, in order to encompass the various types of functions and interactions that those entities perform throughout numerous international decision-making processes.The contributions that comprise this volume are oriented towards a broad readership audience in the academic and professional fields related to international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international human rights law and general public international law.Ezequiel Heffes, LLM, is a Thematic Legal Adviser in the Policy and Legal Unit at Geneva Call in Geneva, Switzerland, Marcos D. Kotlik, LLM, is Academic Coordinator at the Observatory of International Humanitarian Law of the University of Buenos Aires, School of Law and was a Judicial Fellow at the International Court of Justice between 2018-2019, and Manuel J. Ventura, LLM (Hons), is an Associate Legal Officer in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, an Adjunct Fellow at the School of Law at Western Sydney University, and a Director of The Peace and Justice Initiative.

'In The Right to Appeal in International Criminal Law Dražan Djukić describes appeal proceedings in international criminal law and evaluates them against human rights benchmarks. While international criminal courts and tribunals mainly comply with these benchmarks, they have fallen short in certain important areas. Despite their importance to the legal process, appeal proceedings tend to receive limited attention. On the basis of benchmarks arising from international human rights law, Dražan Djukić systematically assesses the law and practice concerning appeal proceedings in international criminal law'--

This book provides an updated overview of current international human rights law relating to the police. Around the globe, the police have a special responsibility for the protection of human rights. Police work is governed by national rules and in addition, in today's world, by the evolving international human rights standards. As a result of the ever-developing case law of international courts and other bodies, the requirements of human rights law on policing have become more and more detailed and complex in recent years. Bringing together a variety of distinguished authors from academia, police forces and other government authorities, the human rights movement, and international organizations, the book discusses topical issues, including the use of deadly force, the prevention of torture, effective investigations, the protection of personal data, and positive obligations of the police.

This book contains a systematic assessment of the content and scope of obligations to prevent gross human rights violations. There has been a great deal of attention for concepts aiming to prevent gross human rights violations, such as conflict prevention and the responsibility to protect. Yet despite this shift in attention towards prevention, it has remained unclear what legal obligations states have to prevent gross human rights violations under international human rights law.The focus in this book is on three specific types of injury prohibited under international human rights law: torture, arbitrary death and genocide. Further distinctions are made between four temporal phases (long-term prevention, short-term prevention, preventing continuation, preventing recurrence) and territorial and extraterritorial obligations.The structure of the book allows academics and practitioners to learn about obligations to prevent gross human rights violations in a general sense, as well as find targeted information on the content and scope of obligations in specific settings.Nienke van der Have recently completed her Ph.D. at the Amsterdam Center for International Law, which forms part of the University of Amsterdam's Faculty of Law, and currently works as Senior legal specialist at the department of Constitutional Affairs and Legislation of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of The Netherlands.

The aim of this monograph is to analyze how the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court have resorted to proportionality and other limitation techniques when placing implied external limits upon the exercise of substantive and procedural human rights enjoyed by the accused and other actors affected by international criminal proceedings. Implied external limits in this context are defined as those limits that override the exercise of a human right on public interest grounds or on grounds relating to competing human rights and that either fall outside the scope of a limitation/qualification clause of an international criminal court's internal legal instruments or go beyond its express and ordinary terms. The present monograph will point to various sources of legal uncertainty which international criminal courts have generated in the limitation process of those human rights relevant to international criminal proceedings and to the definition of international crimes. The monograph will examine the relation between human rights, limitations on human rights standards and proportionality under international criminal procedural law and international criminal law (understood substantively) in light of the limitation and proportionality practices of international human rights monitoring bodies.

​​​This book examines hybrid tribunals created in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Cambodia, East Timor, and Lebanon, in terms of their origins (the political and social forces that led to their creation), the legal regimes that they used, their various institutional structures, and the challenges that they faced during their operations. Through this study, the author looks at both their successes and their shortcomings, and presents recommendations for the formation of future hybrid tribunals.Hybrid tribunals are a form of the international justice where the judicial responsibility is shared between the international community and the local state where they function. These tribunals represent an important bridge between traditional international courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and various local justice systems. Because hybrid tribunals are developed in response to large-scale atrocities, these courts are properly considered part of the international criminal justice system. This feature gives hybrid tribunals the accountability and legitimacy often lost in local justice systems; however, by including regional courtroom procedures and personnel, they are integrated into the local justice system in a way that allows a society to deal with its criminals on its own terms, at least in part.This unique volume combines historical and legal analyses of these hybrid tribunals, placing them within a larger historical, political, and legal context. It will be of interest to researchers in Criminal Justice, International Studies, International Law, and related fields.

This book is designed to introduce law students, legal actors and human rights activists, particularly participants in human rights dialogues with China, to the process and reality of a newly confident China's participation in the international human rights system, albeit with inherent challenges. From an international and comparative perspective, one of the key findings of the author's research is that progress towards human rights depends more on judges than on legislators. Chinese legislators have enacted a series of reforms in order to better protect human rights. Unfortunately, these reforms have not led to greater adherence to China's international human rights obligations in practice. The reforms failed because they have generally been misunderstood by Chinese judges, who often have a limited understanding of international human rights norms. Specifically, this book will examine how judicial misunderstandings have blocked reforms in one specific area, the use of severe punishments, based on international human rights theory and case studies and data analyses. This examination has several purposes. The first is to suggest that China ratify the ICCPR as the next step for its substantive progress in human rights and as a good preparation for its re-applying to be a member of the UN Human Right Council in the future. The second is to explain how judges could be better educated in international human rights norms so as to greatly reduce the use of severe punishments and better comply with China's human rights obligations. The third is to demonstrate how the international community could better engage with China in a manner that is more conducive to human rights improvements. The author's ultimate goal is to enhance dialogue on human rights in China between judges and the Chinese government, between Chinese judges and their foreign counterparts and between China's government and the international community.Another significant aim ofthis book is to clarify the controversial question of what obligations China should undertake before its ratification of the ICCPR and to re-examine trends in its developing human rights policy after standing down from the Council in late 2012. The tortuous progress of China's criminal law and criminal justice reforms has confirmed that Chinese judges need further instruction on how to apply severe punishments in a manner consistent with international standards. Judges should be encouraged to exercise more discretion when sentencing so that penalties reflect the intent of relevant domestic laws as well as the international human rights standards enumerated in the ICCPR. In order to better educate and train judges, this book contains introductory chapters that examine the severe punishments currently available to Chinese judges from an international human rights perspective. To illustrate how Chinese justice currently falls short of international norms, this paper also examines several cases that are considered to be indicative of China's progress towards greater respect for human rights and the rule of law. These cases demonstrate that China still has a long way to go to achieve its goals, at least before abolishing the death penalty, forced labor and torture.

Should international law be concerned with offence to religions and their followers? Even before the 2005 publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Muslim States have endeavoured to establish some reputational protection for religions on the international level by pushing for recognition of the novel concept of'defamation of religions'. This study recounts these efforts as well as the opposition they aroused, particularly by proponents of free speech. It also addresses the more fundamental issue of how religion and international law may relate to each other. Historically, enforcing divine commands has been the primary task of legal systems, and it still is in numerous municipal jurisdictions. By analysing religious restrictions of blasphemy and sacrilege as well as international and national norms on free speech and freedom of religion, Lorenz Langer argues that, on the international level at least, religion does not provide a suitable rationale for legal norms.