Trials And Tribulations Of International Prosecution

There have been many political dilemmas that impose structural constraints on the effort to legalize, judicialize, and criminalize normatively deviant behavior in international politics. The annual costs of these tribunals has peaked at approximately $400 million, of which $140 million is allocated to the ICC, the latter now having spent $1 billion in its first decade of existence. What has been the track record of these international criminal courts with jurisdiction to try heads of states and leading official and military officers? Has the domestic political will of states increased to prosecute their own leaders, following the ICC’s complimentary jurisdiction? How have powerful states supported these courts and how have they undermined them? In succeeding in punishing a number of high-profile cases, the tribunals arguably constitute what Habermas called communicative action that expresses the aspirations and nascent norms of international society. Beyond the confines of a specific of international cooperation, these courts are increasingly becoming norm entrepreneurs, defining the norms of coexistence among states, such that internal atrocities are seen not only as international crimes, but threats to the stability and order of international society. These courts are also redefining the attributes of what states must practice to preserve their reputations, a breach of which will prove increasingly costly. The tribunals are increasingly incentivizing and mobilizing informational networks from NGOs, IGOs, and states to document and publicize violations of international criminal law, thereby increasing exposure risks of perpetration. To be sure the patchwork of compliance and norm communication is fraught with double standards, hypocrisy, selective enforcement, and neoimperial delegitimation of the subaltern. Still, what has begun as institutions created in the absence of humanitarian action by the powerful may come to constitute normal state attributes similar to sovereignty, whose violation will be seen as not only illegitimate, but also meriting humanitarian action to correct and punish such behavior. The question remains whether ongoing impunity of both the powerful and the powerless will undermine or limit this potential.

This 2005 book discusses the legitimacy of the international criminal law regime. It explains the development of the system of international criminal law enforcement in historical context, from antiquity through the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, to modern-day prosecutions of atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. The modern regime of prosecution of international crimes is evaluated with regard to international relations theory. The book then subjects that regime to critique on the basis of legitimacy and the rule of law, in particular selective enforcement, not only in relation to who is prosecuted, but also the definitions of crimes and principles of liability used when people are prosecuted. It concludes that although selective enforcement is not as powerful as a critique of international criminal law as it was previously, the creation of the International Criminal Court may also have narrowed the substantive rules of international criminal law.

Summary: "Written by seasoned scholars and practitioners, this collection of essays provides a most comprehensive analysis of the institutional dynamics and political underpinnings of international criminal justice. They explore and provide critical comment on the main institutional difficulties experienced by International Tribunals."--Publisher description.

The first comprehensive legal appraisal of tribunals convened across Asia to try war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

In Evidence in International Criminal Trials Mark Klamberg compares procedural activities relevant for international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, including evaluation, collection, disclosure, admissibility and presentation of evidence. The author analyses what objectives are recognized in relation to the aforementioned procedural activities and whether it is possible to establish a priority between them. The concept of “robustness” is introduced to discuss the quantity of evidence in addition to concepts that deal with quality. Finally, the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence method is examined as one of several analytical steps that may contribute to the systematic evaluation of evidence. The book seeks to provide guidance on how to confront legal as well as factual issues.

This book addresses the discursive importance of the prosecution's opening statement before an international criminal tribunal. Opening statements are considered to be largely irrelevant to the official legal proceedings but are simultaneously deployed to frame important historical events. They are widely cited in international media as well as academic texts; yet have been ignored by legal scholars as objects of study in their own right. This book aims to remedy this neglect, by analysing the narrative that is articulated in the opening statements of different prosecutors at different tribunals in different times. It takes an interdisciplinary approach and looks at the meaning of the opening narrative beyond its function in the legal process in a strict sense, discussing the ways in which the trial is situated in time and space and how it portrays the main characters. It shows how perpetrators and victims, places and histories, are juridified in a narrative that, whilst purporting to legitimise the trial, the tribunal and international criminal law itself, is beset with tensions and contradictions. Providing an original perspective on the operation of international criminal law, this book will be of considerable interest to those working in this area, as well as those with relevant interests in International/Transnational Law more generally, Critical Legal Studies, Law and Literature, Socio-Legal Studies, Law and Geography and International Relations.

This book presents a ground-breaking, interdisciplinary study into the various goals assigned to international criminal trials. It starts from the proposition that no hierarchy exists amongst the different goals meaning that trials should strive to achieve all of them in equal measure. This is made difficult by the fact that not all of these goals are compatible and the fulfilment of one may lead to others going unmet. Therefore, a balance must be found if the goals of trial are to be achieved at all. The book posits that fairness should serve as the guiding principle when weighing the different trial goals against one another. It is argued that without fairness international and internationalised criminal courts and tribunals lack legitimacy and without legitimacy they lack effectiveness. The book concludes that international criminal trials must adopt procedures that emphasise fairness to all of the parties and trial participants if they wish to accomplish any of the goals set for them. Each chapter is devoted to identifying and explaining a different trial goal, providing analysis of how that particular goal functions in conjunction with the other goals, and discussing the ways in which a fairness-oriented trial model will help achieve those goals. The book provides a dynamic understanding of the different trial goals and the importance of fairness in the trial process by drawing on research from a variety of different legal disciplines while also incorporating scholarship rooted in criminology, political theory, international relations, and psychology. The book will be essential reading for researchers, academics and professionals working in the areas of International Criminal Law, Public International Law and Transitional Justice.

The International Criminal Court ushers in a new era in the protection of human rights. The Court will prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national justice systems are either unwilling or unable to do so themselves. This third revised edition considers the initial rulings by the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, and the cases it is prosecuting, namely, Democratic Republic of Congo, northern Uganda, Darfur, as well as those where it had decided not to proceed, such as Iraq. The law of the Court up to and including its ruling on a confirmation hearing, committing Chalres Lubanga for trial on child soldiers offences, is covered. It also addresses the difficulties created by US opposition, analysing the ineffectiveness of measures taken by Washington to obstruct the Court, and its increasing recognition of the inevitability of the institution.