Search

Contemporary international criminal law (ICL) is a well-established field of scholarship and practice that wields significant influence in framing how certain events come to be understood and acted upon. Yet, as the field has increasingly captured the public's attention and imagination, a body of critical scholarship has risen in prominence that seeks to test and challenge ICL's underlying assumptions. In such a climate, this article suggests that ICL not only has moved beyond its inception and consolidation phases, but is beginning to emerge from its critical period towards a 'post-critical' phase where critique is becoming increasingly normalized within the field, with both reformist and structurally oriented reappraisals more readily acknowledged within ICL's imaginary. Situated in this 'post-critical' moment, this article examines the extent to which the vocabulary and institutions of ICL may be productively (re-)engaged in the pursuit of emancipatory ends. After providing an overview of the strands of critique that have become increasingly prominent, we reflect on three avenues for engaging with the field of ICL 'after critique': first, critical engagement , centred on a commitment to revealing and detailing silenced and marginalized experiences and methods within the field itself; second, tactical and strategic engagement , which points to the ways in which actors choose to engage with imperfect legal frameworks for particular struggles; and finally, decolonial and abolitionist (dis-)engagement which takes as its point of departure the rejection of both colonial and carceral logics per se , especially in light of their historical and persisting patterns of patriarchal and racialized domination. Ultimately, in linking ICL with historical and contemporary anti-colonial and anti-carceral struggles, we seek not only to disrupt ICL progress narratives, but also to show how earlier, often-sidelined ways of imagining forms of harm and their repair may provide potentially more productive ways of engaging with ICL 'after critique'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In today's digital public sphere, individuals have little choice but to participate on online platforms, whose design choices shape what is possible, content policies influence what is permissible, and personalization algorithms determine what is visible. Ensuring that online content moderation is aligned with the public interest has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges for freedom of expression in the twenty-first century. Taking this challenge as its focus, this Article examines the promise and pitfalls of a human rights-based approach to content moderation--with a specific focus on the choices and challenges that online platforms are likely to confront in adhering to their corporate responsibility to respect human rights in this context. The Article examines three dimensions of a human rights-based approach to platform moderation in particular: a substantive dimension, encompassing the alignment of content moderation rules with international human rights law; a process dimension, encompassing the standards of transparency and oversight that platforms should implement as part of their human rights due diligence processes; and a procedural-remedial dimension, encompassing the procedural guarantees and remediation mechanisms that platforms should integrate within their systems of content moderation. The Article concludes by reflecting on some of the limits of the human rights-based approach and cautioning against viewing human rights as a panacea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the historical function of criminal courts tasked with adjudicating episodes of mass violence is well established, the precise purpose behind narrating history within atrocity trials remains a matter of contestation. This article examines how certain domestic atrocity trials have constructed narratives of the past aligned with the nation-building aspirations of those states in which they were convened. Rather than framing justice primarily in terms of upholding standards of fairness to the accused or responding to the needs of victims and local communities, the domestic atrocity trials examined in this article reflect a notion of ‘justice as identity’ whereby the criminal courtroom becomes a didactic mechanism of nation-building. The article examines two domestic atrocity trials in particular — the German trial of Auschwitz guards and the French trial of Paul Touvier, a former regional chief of the Vichy Milice. By revealing how these trials prioritized competing conceptions of the rule of law — the Auschwitz trial relying on a conservative conception of the rule of law underpinned by a strict legality conception of the principle of legality, and the Touvier trial relying on a more transformative conception of the rule of law underpinned by a substantive justice conception of the principle of legality — this article reveals an important dimension of the mechanics by which domestic atrocity trials have been able to legitimate particular conceptions of national identity out of specific interpretations of a nation’s past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the effect of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice over the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. It considers the court's reasoning that whether there is violation of general international law, Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the Constitutional Framework when there is adoption of the declaration of independence. It also focuses on the legality of independence by third states and the attempted succession by Kosovo.