scholarly journals The Indirect Intent in The International Criminal Case-Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-196
Author(s):  
Viorel Pașca ◽  
Bianca-Codruța Băra

Abstract This study focuses on the analyse of the indirect intent in the international criminal caselaw. Traditionally, the Romanian Criminal Code defines the indirect intent through the pshychological position of the offender towards the result of the crime, which can lead, in some circumstances, to unfair result. Finding an appropriate definition has been a constant problem for the international courts of justice, especially taking into consideration the effort to reconcile this attempt with the national regulations and principles. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia developed a new form of criminal participation in which it described the mens rea using the notion of `risk`. The Tadić case represents a significant step for the definition of indirect intent, in the way it is considered in our legal system.The international criminal court emphasizes the importance of the person`s position towards the risk that criminal acts could lead to relevant results and it outlines the standards of foreseeability of such risk.

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.


2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
CARSTEN STAHN

On 11 June 2010, the first Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted Resolution RC/Res. 6 on the ‘Crime of Aggression’ by consensus, after years of debates and negotiations in the framework of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court and the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. The resolution includes a definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime, while making the actual exercise of jurisdiction ‘subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017’ by states parties. This outcome has triggered a broad variety of reactions. The UN praised it as a ‘historic agreement’ and a significant step towards a new ‘age of accountability’. Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed concerns that the compromise deepens the gaps between states and leaves accountability loopholes. US legal advisor Harold Koh qualified the compromise as an opportunity for further constructive dialogue and positive engagement with the ICC.


Author(s):  
Schabas William A

This chapter comments on Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 6 defines the crime of genocide, one of four categories of offence within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The first important ruling on genocide by one of the ad hoc tribunals — the September 2, 1998 judgment of a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Prosecutor v. Akayesu — was issued several weeks after the adoption of the Rome Statute. Since then there have been several important judicial pronouncements by the Appeals Chambers of the ad hoc tribunals addressing a range of issues relevant to the interpretation of article 6 as well as two judgments of the International Court of Justice. The Court has indicated that the definition of genocide in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (and therefore article 6 of the Rome Statute) reflects customary law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Dmytro Koval

The article analyzes the approaches of international courts (the UN International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and hybrid Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia) to the criteria for defining genocide groups. The article emphasizes that the definition of belonging to a group is a contextual circumstance (contextual element) of the crime of genocide. In particular, the paper studies how the international courts applied positive/negative and objective/subjective identification strategies to conclude that certain groups constitute those protected by the Genocide Convention or the statutes of the international criminal courts. In addition, the article deals with the problem of the stability and mobility of the groups and the ways these characteristics help the international courts to apply the Convention.The article focuses on a search for algorithms that allow international courts to identify genocide groups. It stresses that the international criminal courts have not demonstrated consistency in their assessment of the definition of the groups. Neither have they showed the synchronized understanding of the approaches (objective/subjective, positive/negative, stable/mobile) to be used for the identification of these groups. Therefore, it is further argued that, due to the variability of approaches and strategies used by international courts to identify genocide groups, belonging to the group is a window of opportunity for a contextual reading of international criminal law.


2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Mancini

At the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was held in Kampala in 2010, the negotiations on the crime of aggression resulted in a complex package, at the core of which are the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over it. This article examines the definition of the crime of aggression, as enshrined in the new Article 8 bis, considering the various parts of that package as well as the existing practice and case law. On the basis of this analysis, it evaluates the relevance of the Kampala definition to the evolution of customary international law.


Author(s):  
M. Antonovych

The article deals with the definition of the concept of intent to commit genocide in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in the document “Elements of Crimes” adopted by the International Criminal Court, as well as in decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Court and in practice of the International Court of Justice. The author reveals constitutive elements of the concept of intent to commit genocide: intent to be engaged in the conduct which would cause destructive consequences for a national, ethnic, religious or racial group as such; intent to reach these consequences; or awareness that they will occur as a result of this conduct in the ordinary course of events. The author indicates slightly different approaches of the international criminal tribunals and courts to knowledge of the consequences as a result of destruction of a group. It is stated that the intent should not necessarily be fixed in documents or formulated in public oral speeches, but may also be certified by facts and circumstances of a crime. The author analyzes different circumstances which may evidence the intent to commit genocide. Special attention is paid to differentiation between individual and collective intent to commit genocide. The author examines the intent to commit genocide in the Holodomor organized against the Ukrainian national and ethnic group.


1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Mohammed

The road to developing an international institutional capacity to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide has been a long one, and has in many ways concluded with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By looking at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the ICC, this paper traces the evolution of the concept of individual criminal responsibility to its present incarnation. It argues that while the ICC presents its own unique ‘added value’ to the prosecution of international criminals, its application of justice continues to be biased by the influence of powerful states.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1261-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Kuhli ◽  
Klaus Günther

Without presenting a full definition, it can be said that the notion of judicial lawmaking implies the idea that courts create normative expectations beyond the individual case. That is, our question is whether courts' normative declarations have an effect which is abstract and general. Our purpose here is to ask about judicial lawmaking in this sense with respect to international criminal courts and tribunals. In particular, we will focus on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). No other international criminal court or tribunal has issued so many judgments as the ICTY, so it seems a particularly useful focus for examining the creation of normative expectations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Nathan T. Carrington ◽  
Claire Sigsworth

Although legitimacy is crucial for courts’ efficacy, the sources identified as legitimizing domestic institutions are weaker or absent altogether for international institutions. We use an original, preregistered, nationally representative survey experiment to show that perceived home-state interest strongly affects the legitimacy afforded by UK citizens to the International Criminal Court. Importantly, this relationship is moderated by nationalism. Our findings have implications for state actors in a position to act vis-á-vis international courts, elites seeking to alter opinions toward courts, and courts themselves weighing possible institutional costs of acting against noncompliant states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document