Criminal liability of canadian corporations for international crimes

Ce mémoire porte sur la responsabilité pénale des entreprises canadiennes pour des crimes internationaux commis en partie ou entièrement à l’étranger. Dans la première partie, nous montrons que les premiers développements sur la reconnaissance de la responsabilité criminelle d’entités collectives devant les tribunaux militaires établis après la deuxième guerre mondiale n’ont pas été retenus par les tribunaux ad hoc des Nations Unies et par la Cour pénale internationale. En effet, la compétence personnelle de ces tribunaux permet uniquement de contraindre des personnes physiques pour des crimes internationaux. Dans la deuxième partie, nous offrons des exemples concrets illustrant que des entreprises canadiennes ont joué dans le passé et peuvent jouer un rôle criminel de soutien lors de guerres civiles et de conflits armés au cours desquels se commettent des crimes internationaux. Nous montrons que le droit pénal canadien permet d’attribuer une responsabilité criminelle à une organisation (compagnie ou groupe non incorporé) pour des crimes de droit commun commis au Canada, comme auteur réel ou comme complice. Nous soutenons qu’il est également possible de poursuivre des entreprises canadiennes devant les tribunaux canadiens pour des crimes internationaux commis à l’extérieur du Canada, en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur les crimes contre l’humanité et les crimes de guerre, du principe de la compétence universelle et des règles de droit commun. Bref, le Canada est doté d’instruments juridiques et judiciaires pour poursuivre des entreprises soupçonnées de crimes internationaux commis à l’étranger et peut ainsi mettre un terme à leur état indésirable d’impunité.

Sentencing War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

null RAE2008

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

Reparative Complementarity: Ensuring an Effective Remedy for Victims in the Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court

This article examines the reparation regime of the International Criminal Court in light of its first reparation decision. Based on the reparation jurisprudence established in international law and human rights law to provide victims of international crimes an effective remedy, this article suggests that in order for the International Criminal Court to achieve this objective it needs to go beyond individual criminal responsibility due to its limitations. This article considers the role of reparative complementarity in ensuring an effective remedy to victims of international crimes as part of the reparation regime of the International Criminal Court.

Justice for Victims before the International Criminal Court

Many prosecutors and commentators have praised the victim provisions at the International Criminal Court (ICC) as 'justice for victims', which for the first time include participation, protection and reparations. This book critically examines the role of victims in international criminal justice, drawing from human rights, victimology, and best practices in transitional justice.

Drawing on field research in Northern Uganda, Luke Moffet explores the nature of international crimes and assesses the role of victims in the proceedings of the ICC, paying particular attention to their recognition, participation, reparations and protection. The book argues that because of the criminal nature and structural limitations of the ICC, justice for victims is symbolic, requiring State Parties to complement the work of the Court to address victims' needs.

In advancing an innovative theory of justice for victims, and in offering solutions to current challenges, the book will be of great interest and use to academics, practitioners and students engaged in victimology, the ICC, transitional justice, or reparations.

Realising Justice for victims before the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been celebrated for its innovative victim provisions, which enable victims to participate in proceedings, avail of protection measures and assistance, and to claim reparations. The impetus for incorporating victim provisions within the ICC, came from victims’ dissatisfaction with the ad hoc tribunals in providing them with more meaningful and tangible justice.1 The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY/R) only included victim protection measures, with no provisions for victims to participate in proceedings nor to claim reparations at them. Developments in domestic and international law, in particular human rights such as the 1985 UN Declaration on Justice for Victims and the UN Guidelines on Remedy and Reparations, and transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions and reparations bodies, have helped to expand the notion of justice for international crimes to be more attuned to victims as key stakeholders in dealing with such crimes.

With the first convictions secured at the ICC and the victim participation and reparation regime taking form, it is worth evaluating the extent to which these innovative provisions have translated into justice for victims. The first part of this paper outlines what justice for victims of international crimes entails, drawing from victimology and human rights. The second section surveys the extent to which the ICC has incorporated justice for victims, in procedural and substantive terms, before concluding in looking beyond the Court to how state parties can complement the ICC in achieving justice for victims. This paper argues that while much progress has been made to institutionalise justice for victims within the Court, there is much more progress needed to evolve and develop justice for victims within the ICC to avoid dissatisfaction of past tribunals.

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.

La responsabilité pénale des sociétés canadiennes pour les crimes contre l’environnement survenus à l’étranger

Avec l’accentuation du libéralisme, les entreprises multinationales ne cessent d’être de plus en plus présentes dans les États en développement, et certaines sont peu scrupuleuses du respect des normes environnementales. Par ailleurs, notons que la plupart de ces États ne disposent pas de mécanismes juridiques contraignant ces entreprises de répondre à d’éventuels crimes contre l’environnement qu’elles sont susceptibles de commettre sur leurs territoires. Or, en l’absence de telles dispositions, peu de sociétés se conforment aux politiques permettant d’internaliser les risques en raison de leur coût élevé. La volonté de maximiser le profit amène ces entreprises à se livrer à des actes attentatoires à l’environnement, à la santé et à la sécurité des individus lorsque rien ne les contraint à procéder autrement. De façon générale, il appartient à l’État sur le territoire duquel opère une société de réglementer ses activités. Précisons que dans plusieurs États en développement, les entreprises multinationales échappent aux mesures contraignantes en vertu de l’influence financière qu’elles exercent sur les dirigeants de ces États. De même, l’impunité des crimes contre l’environnement commis dans les pays en développement découle aussi du manque de volonté politique accentué par le phénomène de la corruption. Malgré la multiplicité de traités et de conventions internationales dédiés à la protection de l'environnement, ces instruments ne sont pas directement applicables aux sociétés multinationales, considérées comme des acteurs non-étatiques. Alors, les pays développés d’où proviennent la majeure partie des entreprises multinationales sont appelés à combler cette lacune en prenant des mesures qui obligent leurs entreprises à se préoccuper de la préservation de l’environnement dans leurs activités. Cette thèse propose d’examiner les mécanismes juridiques par lesquels les crimes contre l’environnement survenus dans les pays en développement peuvent entraîner des poursuites pénales au Canada. En l’absence de législation ayant une portée extraterritoriale explicite en la matière, cela exige de se référer au droit existant et de proposer une nouvelle approche d’interprétation et d’adaptation tenant compte des récents développements envisageant la protection de l’environnement comme une valeur fondamentale pour la société canadienne. De nos jours, la portée de la protection de l’environnement au Canada requiert l’abandon des anciennes conceptions du principe de la territorialité pour adopter une autre approche plus soucieuse des nouvelles réalités entraînées par la mondialisation économique. Il serait donc légitime pour le Canada d’étendre sa compétence pour réprimer les crimes contre l’environnement survenus à l’étranger lors des activités menées par ses ressortissants. La nécessité de réprimer les atteintes à l’environnement survenues à l’étranger devient plus pressante lorsque ces crimes présentent un degré de gravité comparable à celui des crimes internationaux.

The status of child offenders under international criminal justice: lessons from Sierra Leone

This article analyses the status of child offenders under international criminal justice. International criminal proceedings, especially those in the African continent, have recently highlighted the significance of children and young people as perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It has been suggested by one commentator that there exist international prohibitions on the prosecution of children for international crimes. It will be argued here that this claim is not substantiated in respect either of customary or treaty-based international obligations.

The problematic relationship between customary international law and the domestic courts

The relationship between international law and domestic law has long been problematic. This article considers in particular the enforcement of customary international law through an analysis of judicial practice in England and Australia. The examination of the jurisprudence suggests that domestic judges often feel uncomfortable when asked to apply international law in the domestic courts and struggle to somehow justify its use. This has led to an inconsistency in judicial practice in the application of international law in jurisdictions such as Australia. However, ultimately the monist theory that recognizes that customary international law automatically flows into the domestic law appears to be reflected in an emerging trend in judicial practice in the common law judicial systems under consideration. However, the article suggests that the English courts now see international crimes as an exception to that theory and require domestic legislative transformation. Ultimately the article concludes that the municipal courts provide an important forum for the enforceability of customary international law, including human rights norms.

Syrian support for international terrorism, 1983-86.

Mode of access: Internet.

Rwanda Crisis and Genocide in Case Law of Rwanda Tribunal

After the Second World War the public was shocked to learn about the horrors perpetrated. As a response to the Holocaust, the newly established United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention of 1948 to prevent future genocides and to punish the perpetrators. The Convention remained, however, almost dead letter until the present day. In 1994, the long-lasted tension between the major groups of Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda erupted in mass scale violence towards the Tutsi ethnic group. The purpose was to eradicate the Tutsi population of Rwanda. The international community did not halt the genocide. It stood by idle, failing to follow the swearing-in of the past. The United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (the ICTR) to bring to justice persons responsible for the genocide. Ever since its creation the ICTR has delivered a wealth of judgements elucidating the legal ingredients of the crime of genocide. The case law on determining the membership of national, ethnic, racial or religious groups has gradually shifted from the objective to subjective position. The membership of a group is seen as a subjective rather than objective concept. However, a totally subjective approach is not accepted. Therefore, it is necessary to determine some objective existence of a group. The provision on the underlying offences is not so difficult to interpret compared to the corresponding one on the protected groups and the mental element of genocide. The case law examined, e.g., whether there is any difference between the words killing and meurtre, the nature of mental harm caused by the perpetrator and sexual violence in the conflict. The mental element of genocide or dolus specialis of genocide is not thoroughly examined in the case law of the ICTR. In this regard, reference in made, in addition, to the case law of the other ad hoc Tribunal. The ICTR has made a significant contribution to the law of genocide and international criminal justice in general. The corpus of procedural and substantive law constitutes a basis for subsequent trials in international and hybrid tribunals. For national jurisdictions the jurisprudence on substantive law is useful while prosecuting international crimes.