National Security And International Criminal Justice

One of the main problems of the International Ad hoc-tribunals in The Hague and Arusha, as well as of the permanent International Court, concerns the conflict between national security and secrecy interests of sovereign States arising in legal proceedings as a result of evidence interests and the court hearing the case. While an International Criminal Court cannot succeed without the necessary competence for gathering evidence, it can also not succeed if it fails to take account of legitimate national security interests. Written by well-known authors and commentators, the articles in the book deal with this controversy from the point of view of comparative law and legal politics. The topics covered focus on experiences and decisions from the practice of both ad hoc-tribunals, as well as political and legal discussions relating to the Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the permanent International Criminal Court.

American reluctance to join the International Criminal Court illuminates important trends in international security and a central dilemma facing U.S. Foreign policy in the 21st century. The ICC will prosecute individuals who commit egregious international human rights violations such as genocide. The Court is a logical culmination of the global trends toward expanding human rights and creating international institutions. The U.S., which fostered these trends because they served American national interests, initially championed the creation of an ICC. The Court fundamentally represents the triumph of American values in the international arena. Yet the United States now opposes the ICC for fear of constraints upon America's ability to use force to protect its national interests. The principal national security and constitutional objections to the Court, which the volume explores in detail, inflate the potential risks inherent in joining the ICC. More fundamentally, they reflect a belief in American exceptionalism that is unsustainable in today's world. Court opponents also underestimate the growing salience of international norms and institutions in addressing emerging threats to U.S. national interests. The misguided assessments that buttress opposition to the ICC threaten to undermine American leadership and security in the 21st century more gravely than could any international institution.

This book analyzes the position of the ICC in relation to national court systems. The research illustrates that what seemed to be a straight forward relationship between the ICC and national courts under the complementarity mechanism, proves to be much more complex in practice. Using the referrals of Uganda and Darfur, the book demonstrates ways in which it might be possible to prosecute for crimes currently not prosecuted by the ICC and brings to light possible solutions to overcome the gaps in law and practice in the jurisdictional relation between the ICC and national systems. It will be of value to academics, students and policy-makers working in the area of international law, international organizations, and human rights.

This book critically examines the issues pertaining to the Rome Statute’s complementarity principle. The focus lies on the primacy of African states to prosecute alleged perpetrators of international crimes in their respective jurisdictions. The chapters explore states’ international and domestic obligations to hold perpetrators of international crimes to account before the national courts, and demonstrate the complexity of enforcing national accountability of alleged perpetrators of international crimes while also ensuring that post-conflict African states achieve national healing, reconciliation, and sustainable peace. The contributions reject impunity for international crimes whilst also considering these complexities. Emphasis further lies on the meaning of accountability in the context of the politics of selective international criminal justice for crimes committed before the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Here, David Scharia explains how the Supreme Court of Israel developed unconventional judicial review tools and practices that allowed it to provide judicial guidance to the Executive in real-time. In this book, he argues that courts could play a much more dominant role in reviewing national security, and demonstrates the importance of intensive real-time inter-branch dialogue with the Executive, as a tool used by the Israeli Court to provide such review.

This volume presents an overview of the principal features of the legacy of International Tribunals and an assessment of their impact on the International Criminal Court and on the review process of the Rome Statute. It illustrates the foundation of a system of international criminal law and justice through the case-law and practices of the UN ad hoc tribunals and other internationally assisted tribunals and courts. These examples provide advice for possible future developments in international criminal procedure and law, with particular reference to their impact on the ICC and on national jurisdictions. The review process of the Rome Statute is approached as a step of a review process to provide a perspective of the developments in the field since the Statute’s adoption in 1998.

On August 21, 2013, chemical weapons were unleashed on the civilian population in Syria, killing another 1,400 people in a civil war that had already claimed the lives of more than 140,000. As is all too often the case, the innocent found themselves victims of a violent struggle for political power. Such events are why human rights activists have long pressed for institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute some of the world’s most severe crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While proponents extol the creation of the ICC as a transformative victory for principles of international humanitarian law, critics have often characterized it as either irrelevant or dangerous in a world dominated by power politics. Christopher Rudolph argues in Power and Principle that both perspectives are extreme. In contrast to prevailing scholarship, he shows how the interplay between power politics and international humanitarian law have shaped the institutional development of international criminal courts from Nuremberg to the ICC. Rudolph identifies the factors that drove the creation of international criminal courts, explains the politics behind their institutional design, and investigates the behavior of the ICC. Through the development and empirical testing of several theoretical frameworks, Power and Principle helps us better understand the factors that resulted in the emergence of international criminal courts and helps us determine the broader implications of their presence in society.

This 2003 collection of essays is based on five lectures organized jointly by Matrix Chambers of human rights lawyers and the Wiener Library between April and June 2002. Presented by leading experts in the field, this fascinating collection of papers examines the evolution of international criminal justice from its post World War II origins at Nuremberg through to the concrete proliferation of courts and tribunals with international criminal law jurisdictions based at The Hague today. Original and provocative, the lectures provide various stimulating perspectives on the subject of international criminal law. Topics include its corporate and historical dimension as well as a discussion of the International Criminal Court Statute and the role of the national courts. The volume offers a challenging insight into the future of international criminal legal system. This is an intelligent and thought-provoking book, accessible to anyone interested in international criminal law, from specialists to non-specialists alike.