Double Jeopardy Without Parameters: Re-characterization in International Criminal Law

Olusanya, O. (2004). Double Jeopardy Without Parameters: Re-characterization in International Criminal Law. Series Supranational Criminal Law: Capita Selecta, volume 2. Antwerp: Intersentia. RAE2008

In search of coherent jurisprudence for international criminal law : correlating universal human responsibilities with universal human rights

I. The Evolution of International Criminal Law International criminal justice concerns breaches of international rules entailing the personal criminal liability of individuals (as opposed to the State for which the individuals may act as agents or organs), and presently includes acts such as genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, aggression and terrorism. ... A rule stating: any act of armed conflict which directly causes the death of a civilian is a war crime unless it can be shown that the military advantage gained by the attack outweighs the harm. ... Thus, so far as international criminal law is concerned any act during armed conflict which results in the death or injury to a person who does not pose a direct threat to the life of the accused should be a war crime. ... Pursuant to the Rome Statute and as a matter of customary international law torture is a war crime when performed in the context of an armed conflict, and a crime against humanity when it is part of systematic criminal conduct. ... Torture can also constitute an individual international crime, even where it does not satisfy the criteria of a war crime or crime against humanity. ...

The Role of Victims in the International Criminal Tribunals of the Second World War

This article analyses the role of victims within the founding international criminal tribunals of the Second World War, drawing from historical research of the practice and judgements of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. While some commentators have decried the absence of victims at Nuremberg and Tokyo, numerous victim-witnesses testified before these tribunals. However, the outcome of these tribunals has been disappointing to victims who still seek justice over sixty-five years later. This article considers the implications of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals not providing justice to victims and how this has impacted on their legacy. Although these tribunals are neglected in contemporary discussions of victim provisions, they can still provide some important lessons for modern international criminal justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, to learn from.

Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond Rhetoric and the Hague

Justice for victims has often been invoked as the raison d’être of international criminal justice, by punishing perpetrators of international crimes. This article attempts to provide a more holistic account of justice for victims by examining victims’ needs, interests, and rights. The International Criminal Court itself includes participation, protection and reparation for victims, indicating they are important stakeholders. This article also suggests that victims are integral to the purpose of the ICC in ending impunity by ensuring transparency of proceedings. However, there are limits to the resources and capacity of the ICC, which can only investigate and prosecute selected crimes. To overcome this justice gap, this article directs the debate towards a victim-orientated agenda to complementarity, where state parties and the Assembly of State Parties should play a greater role in implementing justice for victims domestically. This victim-orientated complementarity approach can be achieved through new ASP guidelines on complementarity, expanding universal jurisdiction, or seeking enforcement and cooperation through regional and international bodies and courts, such asUniversal Periodic Review or the African Court’s International Criminal Law Section. In the end, ifwe are serious about delivering justice for victims we need to move beyond the rhetoric, with realistic expectations of what the ICC can achieve, and concentrate our attention to what states should bedoing to end impunity.

Complementarity’s monopoly on justice in Uganda: the International Criminal Court, victims and Thomas Kwoyelo

Complementarity has been extolled as the pioneering way for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to navigate the difficulties of state sovereignty when investigating and prosecuting international crimes. Victims have often been held up to justify and legitimise the work of the ICC and states complementing the Court through domestic processes. This article examines how Uganda has developed its laws, legal procedure, and accountability for international crimes over the past decade. This has culminated in the trial of Thomas Kwoyelo, which after five years of proceedings, has yet to move to the trial phase, due to the issue of an amnesty. While there has been a profusion of provisions to allow victims to participate, avail of protection measures and reparations, in practice very little has changed for them. This article highlights the dangers of complementarity being the sole solution to protracted conflicts, in particular the realisation of victims’ rights.

Procedural Justice in International Criminal Courts: Assessing Civil Parties’ Perceptions of Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Procedural justice advocates argue that fair procedures in decision making processes can increase participant satisfaction with legal institutions. Little critical work has been done however to explore the power of such claims in the context of mass violence and international criminal justice. This article critically examines some of the key claims of procedural justice by exploring the perceptions of justice held by victims participating as Civil Parties in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC has created one of the most inclusive and extensive victim participation regimes within international criminal law. It therefore provides a unique case study to examine some of claims of ‘victim-centred’ transitional justice through a procedural justice lens. It finds that while procedural justice influenced civil parties’ overall perceptions of the Court, outcomes remained of primary importance. It concludes by analysing the possible reasons for this prioritisation.