Download Free State Sovereignty And International Criminal Law Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online State Sovereignty And International Criminal Law and write the review.

'State sovereignty' is often referred to as an obstacle to criminal justice for core international crimes by members of the international criminal justice movement. The exercise of State sovereignty is seen as a shield against effective implementation of such crimes. But it is sovereign States that create and become parties to international criminal law treaties and jurisdictions. They are the principal enforcers of criminal responsibility for international crimes, as reaffirmed by the complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Criminal justice for atrocities depends entirely on the ability of States to act. This volume revisits the relationship between State sovereignty and international criminal law along three main lines of inquiry. First, it considers the immunity of State officials from the exercise of foreign or international criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, with the closing down of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, attention shifts to the exercise of national jurisdiction over core international crimes, making the scope of universal jurisdiction more relevant to perceptions of State sovereignty. Thirdly, could the amendments to the ICC Statute on the crime of aggression exacerbate tensions between the interests of State sovereignty and accountability? The book contains contributions by prominent international lawyers including Professor Christian Tomuschat, Judge Erkki Kourula, Judge LIU Daqun, Ambassador WANG Houli, Dr. ZHOU Lulu, Professor Claus Kre, Professor MA Chengyuan, Professor JIA Bingbing, Professor ZHU Lijiang and Mr. GUO Yang.
Scientific Essay from the year 2008 in the subject Law - Criminal process, Criminology, Law Enforcement, grade: 2:1, University of Leeds, course: Political Science, language: English, abstract: It is the argument of this dissertation that the International Criminal Court is an appropriate tool for the enforcement of international criminal law and embodies a shifting notion of state sovereignty. Historically, both multilateral and unilateral attempts to enforce international criminal law have been progressive but not wholly successful. The International Criminal Court is rooted in customary law and addresses the failures of past attempts. The Court's opposition has illustrated problems of state sovereignty, which in turn exemplifies how the International Criminal Court embodies a shifting notion of state sovereignty. The sources used are the existing academic literature, interviews, international statute, magazines, and newspaper articles.
This innovative text is shows how there has been a concerted effort, since the end of World War I, to curb a state's power and freedom of action through the concept of international accountability to a set of recognized rules and norms. A state not only is to adhere to these rules but also can be sanctioned by an international penal process through enforcement of international criminal law. Adoption of the Rome Statute and the creation of the International Criminal Court are the culmination of many years of effort to challenge the power of state action. Scholars and students of international law with an interest in international criminal law will find this volume an interesting narrative of how the developments of international penal mechanisms of the 20th century have contributed to a diminution of state sovereignty. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.
Galand critically spells out a comprehensive conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to the various limits to the International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over situations that concern nationals and territories of non-party States.
This is a review of five recent works which deal with international criminal law. By an analysis of those works, the essay queries whether the relationship between international criminal law and state sovereignty is always accurately conceptualized. International criminal lawyers often see sovereignty as the enemy of international criminal law, though frequently failing to discuss in any depth the nature and malleability of sovereignty. Although international criminal law does involve some challenges to sovereignty, it also needs, and in some ways empowers, that sovereignty too. The works under review tend to pay less attention to the substantive aspects of international criminal law than its institutional part. This is unfortunate, as some of the most interesting interactions between international criminal law and sovereignty occur at this level. The essay finishes with some broader reflections on how the works under review conceptualize the international legal order, regrets the absence at times of engagement with relevant constructivist scholarship but notes that the answer to the question of the precise relationship between international criminal law and sovereignty is unlikely to be agreed upon soon.
This anthology brings together legal and philosophical theorists to examine the normative and conceptual foundations of international criminal law. In particular, through these essays the international group of authors addresses questions of state sovereignty; of groups, rather than individuals, as perpetrators and victims of international crimes; of international criminal law and the promotion of human rights and social justice; and of what comes after international criminal prosecutions, namely, punishment and reconciliation. International criminal law is still an emerging field, and as it continues to develop, the elucidation of clear, consistent theoretical groundings for its practices will be crucial. The questions raised and issues addressed by the essays in this volume will aid in this important endeavor.
This book theorizes the ways in which states that are presumed to be weaker in the international system use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to advance their security and political interests. Ultimately, it contends that African states have managed to instrumentally and strategically use the international justice system to their advantage, a theoretical framework that challenges the “justice cascade” argument. The empirical work of this study focuses on four major themes around the intersection of power, states' interests, and the global governance of atrocity crimes: firstly, the strategic use of self-referrals to the ICC; secondly, complementarity between national and the international justice system; thirdly, the limits of state cooperation with international courts; and finally the use of international courts in domestic political conflicts. This book is valuable to students, scholars, and researchers who are interested in international relations, international criminal justice, peace and conflict studies, human rights, and African politics.
This book offers a historical presentation of how international criminal law has evolved from a national setting to embodying a truly international outlook. As a growing part of international law this is an area that has attracted growing attention as a result of the mass atrocities and heinous crimes committed in different parts of the world. Çakmak pays particular attention to how the first permanent international criminal court was created and goes on to show how solutions developed to address international crimes have remained inadequate and failed to restore justice. Calling for a truly global approach as the only real solution to dealing with the most severe international crimes, this text will be of great interest to scholars of criminal justice, political science, and international relations.
This thesis looks at the dynamics between the concept of State sovereignty and the new international criminal law regime established by the Rome Statute. The principle of State sovereignty has served as a foundation of the international legal order for centuries because the State is traditionally considered to be the subject as well as the maker of international law. It is, however, a very contentious principle because many attempts have been made to give it a specific content, but this content has to be redefined in the light of modern trends and developments at the international level, which is then reflected at the national level. The concept has therefore always existed within an interstate paradigm, whereby States interact, cooperate and bargain with one another to serve and safeguard their own interests. However, the human rights movement has changed this state of affairs, and the creation of a permanent international criminal court represents a culmination of this movement. To understand whether and to what extent the content of State sovereignty is changing, the practice of criminal jurisdiction is assessed, both at the national level by the State and at the international level by the ICC. This assessment reveals two important issues. First of all, the international legal regime will be ineffective within the territorial boundaries of the State because, to some extent, State sovereignty remains somehow unchallenged in the context of international crimes, allowing States to retain the ability to grant amnesties or, in the context of State parties to the Rome Statute, to disregard the duty to ensure that perpetrators of international crimes do not go unpunished. Essentially, the balancing exercise concerning the codification of the Statute gives a greater deference to the State. In relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC, the paradigm changes from horizontal, governing the relationship between equal sovereign States, to a vertical one, centred on the relationship between State parties and the Court. This shift has given rise to some issues regarding cooperation, especially when the rules that apply within the horizontal system do not appear to be reciprocated within the vertical system. A better understanding of the true content of sovereignty can only be achieved through a clearer and more open evaluation concerning the place of State sovereignty in the intersection between the horizontal and vertical paradigms. A "renewed" understanding and content of sovereignty can lead to a more efficient surrender system in general. In addition, the lack of cooperation of member States in the arrest and surrender of President Al Bashir is indicative of the States' reluctance to violate another stronghold of international law, namely the immunity of a current Head of State. Without some international judicial collaboration between the relevant international courts, mainly the ICJ and the ICC, regarding a proper interpretation of immunity, cooperation concerning arrest and surrender will not reflect the general aim of the new regime, that is the end of a culture of impunity.
The drafters of the ICC’s founding document, the Rome Statute, foresaw what would become the main challenge to the Court’s legitimacy: that it could violate national sovereignty. To address this concern, the drafters added the principle of complementarity to the ICC’s jurisdiction, in that the Court’s province merely complements the exercise of jurisdiction by the domestic courts of the Statute’s member states. The ICC honours the authority of those states to conduct their own trials. However, if the principle of complementarity is to be applied, states must ensure that their own judicial systems and trials are consistent with international standards of independence and fairness. In addition, for complementarity to work, the ICC must be willing to actively support, embrace, and implement the principle. If the Court holds on too tightly to a self-aggrandising view of its role in promoting international justice, then it will lose all credibility in the eyes of nation states. Finally, the international community, in calling on states to address war crimes committed within their borders, must provide the financial, technical, and professional resources that many struggling states need in this endeavour. This book sets forth several innovative recommendations to fulfil these goals so as to make future domestic war crimes courts work more effectively.