Military V Civilian Justice For Core International Crimes

Is it in the enlightened self-interest of armed forces to have perpetrators of core international crimes brought to justice? This anthology adds the 'carrot' perspective of self-interest or incentives to the common rhetoric of 'stick' legal obligations and political pressures. Twenty authors from around the world discuss why military actors themselves often prefer accountability: Richard Saller, Andrew T. Cayley, William K. Lietzau, William J. Fenrick, Arne Willy Dahl, Richard J. Goldstone, Elizabeth L. Hillman, Bruce Houlder, Agus Widjojo, Marlene Mazel, Adel Maged, Kiki A. Japutra, Christopher Mahony, Christopher Jenks, Franklin D. Rosenblatt, Roberta Arnold, Roisin Burke, Elizabeth Santalla Vargas, Morten Bergsmo and SONG Tianying. The self-interests presented in this book are multi-dimensional: from internal professionalisation to external legitimacy; from institutional reputation to individual honour; from operational effectiveness to strategic stakes; from historical lessons to contemporary needs; from religious beliefs to aspirations for rule of law; from minimizing civilian interference to pre-empting international scrutiny. The case is made for long-term self-interest in accountability and increased military 'ownership' in repressing core international crimes. In his foreword, William K. Lietzau observes that of "all the international community's well-intended endeavours to foster accountability and end impunity, none is more important than that addressed in this book.""

This book concerns the relationship between the principles of complementarity and universal jurisdiction. Territorial States are normally affected most strongly by core international crimes committed during a conflict or an attack directed against its civilian population. Most victims reside in such States. Most damaged or plundered property is there. Public order and security are violated most severely in the territorial States. It is also on their territory that most of the evidence of the alleged crimes can be found. There are, in other words, obvious policy and practical reasons why States should accord priority to territoriality as a basis of jurisdiction. But is there also an obligation for States to defer exercise of universal jurisdiction of core international crimes to investigation and prosecution of the same crimes by the territorial State? What - if any - is the impact of the principle of complementarity in this respect? These are among the questions discussed in this anthology.

This commentary provides a critical insight into the negotiating history that led to the adoption of the elements of war crimes. It also presents existing jurisprudence, which is relevant for the interpretation of the war crimes in the ICC Statute.The aim is to serve as a tool in the implementation of international humanitarian law in future cases dealing with war crimes and offer practitioners (judges, prosecutors and lawyers) and academics important background information on the substance of the crimes.

A universal criminal court : the emergence of an idea -- The global civil society campaign -- The victory : the independent prosecutor -- The defeat : no universal jurisdiction -- The controversy : gender and forced pregnancy -- The missed chance : banning weapons -- A global civil society achievement : why rejoice?

Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules is a comprehensive analysis of the customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. In the absence of ratifications of important treaties in this area, this is clearly a publication of major importance, carried out at the express request of the international community. In so doing, this study identifies the common core of international humanitarian law binding on all parties to all armed conflicts. Comment Don:RWI.