Promoting Accountability Under International Law For Gross Human Rights Violations In Africa

Promoting Accountability under International Law for Gross Human Rights Violations in Africa reflects primarily upon the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in challenging impunity for serious crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994. The authors, among whom are leading scholars and practitioners of international law, draw lessons for future tribunals such as the permanent International Criminal Court.

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.

Responsibility to Protect: Research, bibliography, background. Supplementary volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

In the 1990s, the promise of justice for atrocity crimes was associated with the revival of international criminal tribunals (ICTs). More recently, however, there has been a renewed emphasis on domestic accountability for international crimes across the globe. In identifying a 'complementarity turn', a paradigm shift toward domestic accountability in the field of international criminal justice, this book investigates how the shadow of international criminal tribunals influences the treatment of serious crimes at the national level. Drawing on research and interviews in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone, this book develops a tripartite framework to analyse how states and tribunals work with, despite, or against one another in the fight against impunity. While international prosecutors and judges use the principle of complementarity to foster cooperation and decrease tension with government actors, Patryk I. Labuda argues that too much deference by ICTs toward states reduces the likelihood of accountability and may enable national elites to consolidate authoritarian power. By interrogating how international accountability stakeholders relate to their domestic counterparts, International Criminal Tribunals and Domestic Accountability advocates improvements to ICTs' institutional design and more dynamic interactions with states to strengthen the enforcement of international criminal law.

This course investigates the relationships between international criminal law and other branches of international law. It begins by examining four issues of general international law: the principal sources of international law, jurisdiction and immunities, State responsibility, and use of force. It then explores internationalhumanitarian law, focusing on definitions of war crimes and difficulties in linking IHL and ICL. Next, it examines refugee law, paying particular attention to the exclusion of war criminals from refugee protection and to international crimes that may be related to the rights and treatment of refugees. The final chapter explores the relationship between ICL and human rights law, examining the position of human rights within the Rome Statute of the ICC, as well as the human rights aspects of genocide, crimes against humanity, various procedural rights relating to fair international trials and the contribution of human rights fact-finding mechanisms.

This book examines how historical narratives of mass atrocites are constructed and contested within international criminal courts. In particular, it looks into the important question of what tends to be foregrounded, and what tends to be excluded, in these narratives.

International courts and tribunals are increasingly asked to pass judgment on matters that are traditionally considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Especially in the fields of human rights, investment, and trade law, international adjudicators commonly evaluate decisions of national authorities that have been made in the course of democratic procedures and public deliberation. A controversial question is whether international adjudicators should review such decisions de novo or show deference to domestic authorities. This book investigates how various international courts and tribunals have responded to this question. In addition to a comparative analysis, the book provides a normative argument, discussing whether different forms of deference are justified in international adjudication. It proposes a distinction between epistemic deference, which is based on the superior capacity of domestic authorities to make factual and technical assessments, and constitutional deference, which is based on the democratic legitimacy of domestic decision-making. The book concludes that epistemic deference is a prudent acknowledgement of the limited expertise of international adjudicators, whereas the case for constitutional deference depends on the relative power of the reviewing court vis-à-vis the domestic legal order.