DOCSLIB.ORG

Coetzee & Others V. RSA, 176 Corfu Channel Case, 214 Crimen Contra

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coetzee & Others V. RSA, 176 Corfu Channel Case, 214 Crimen Contra INDEX Abu Dhabi Case, 136 Coetzee & Others v. RSA, 176 Additional Protocol II, 5–6, 13, 24 Corfu Channel Case, 214 African National Congress, 26, 26 n. 82, Crimen contra omnes, 189 152–155 Crimes against humanity Akayesu Case, 74, 89, 99 armed con ict, connection to, 64 Amnesty. See also indemnity, 9–37 justi cation, 65 armed con ict, and, 5, 12, 24 rejection, 91, 108, 211 consequence, 30, 31–34, 36 apartheid, 77–78, 91 criticism, 34, 35, 37, 151 category of effect, 6, 31–34, 164, 166, 207 n. 95 murder type, 63–64, 71, 75 forms, 12, 15 persecutory type, 64 history, 15–16, 36, 39, 46–47, 127, 155, deportation or forcible transfer of 173 population, 56 meaning, 9, 21 n. 64, 39–40, 42, 47, 61 enforced disappearance of persons, 76 motives, 24–26, 57 enslavement, 72 pardon and, 11–12, 18, 20 gravity or seriousness, 2, 40, 53–54, peace treaty, 16, 19–21, 26–28, 83 180–181 prosecution and, 35–37 imprisonment or severe deprivation of purpose, 13–14, 21, 40 liberty, 72 scope, 7, 27–32 inhuman act, 2, 75, 77 social peace and, 13–14 mens rea, 68–69, 78 Apartheid, 3, 6 intent, 70–71 boycott against, 153 knowledge, 68–70 condemnation of, 152 motive, 57–58, 63–64, 68, 75, 77, 79, 91, manifestation of, 201, 218 162 protest against, 152 murder and extermination, 72, 98 repression under, 153 notion of, 48, 53, 87, 180, 191, 200, 214 Ärtze-Urteil Case, 108 number of act, 56–58 Aut dedere aut judicare, 115, 196, 220 Ottoman Empire, massacre in, 18, 43 AZAPO Case, 25, 165, 171, 221 perpetration direct perpetrator, 91 Barbie Case, 60–61, 191, 216 facilitator, 91 Barcelona Traction Case, 216 indirect perpetrator, 91 Faustin Z. Ntoubandi, Amnesty for Crimes against Humanity under International Law, pp. 249–252. © 2007, Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in The Netherlands. 250 INDEX scale duress or coercion, 105–106 sexual crimes exclusion of jurisdiction over persons enforced prostitution, 74 under 18 years, 106–107 enforced sterilisation, 75 incapacity, 102–103 forced pregnancy, 74 intoxication, 104 rape, 74 mistake of fact or law, 108–109 sexual slavery, 74 necessity, 110 sexual violence, 75 reprisal, 110 torture, 75 self-defence, defence of another person, victims, 61 defence of property, 104–105 widespreadness and systematicity, 55, 188, superior orders, 109, 144 201 historical evolution, 62, 70 Crimes against peace, 52 participation, forms of commission of crime, 94–95 Danube Case, 136 complicity Delicti jus gentium. See also international aiding and abetting, 97–98 crimes, 8, 79, 185–213 failure to prevent or repress, 96–97 de nition, 188–189 incitement, 98–100 distinctive features, 160, 187 ordering, 95, 105 universal jurisdiction and, 189–192, 195, planning, 95 198 attempt, 100–102 Della Savia Case, 180 sources Apartheid Convention, 91 Eichmann Case, 95, 191, 216 Geneva Conventions, 89–91 Einsatzgruppen Case, 106 Genocide Convention, 88–90 Erdemovic Case, 54 Nuremberg Charter, 86, 140 Erga omnes obligations, 197, 216–217, 221, Nuremberg Principles, 87–88 223, 226, 229 Inhumanity, 53 Evian Agreement, 5 In re Eisenträger and Others, 190 International Committee of the Red Cross, Finta Case, 58, 148 13, 169 Fisheries Case, 134–135 International Criminal Court Furundzija Case, 97 n. 80, 148, 175 n. 107, complementarity, 203, 205 232 deference, 205–207 guiding values, 201 Genocide Convention, 4, 8, 24, 57, 78, 88, jurisdiction, 202 93, 99, 114, 193 objects and goals, 202 Grave breaches, 114–117 recommendations to, 231 International Military Tribunals, of Hostages Cases, 190 Nuremberg, 51 n. 64, 65 n. 124, 75, 83 Hostis humani generis, 115, 189, 197, 209 Ireland v. The United Kingdom, 127 Humanitarianism, 41 Jurisdiction, theories of Individual criminal liability. See also nationality, 189 individual criminal responsibility personality, 189 attribution, mechanism for, 91, 96, 102, protective, 189 111, 149 territoriality, 189 basis, participation as universality, 189 direct and substantial, 93 Jus cogens, 74, 78, 168 n. 77, 181 n. 141, knowing, 92 197 n. 59, 213 n. 129, 214 n. 137 personal, 92 amnesty and, 218–221 excluding grounds. See also defences or consequence, 213, 216, 220 exclusionary grounds derogation and abandonment, 101, 106 Additional Protocol II, 223–225.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Binding International Norms, Jus Cogens
    European Journal of Sustainable Development (2016), 5, 3, 318-324 ISSN: 2239-5938 Doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2016.v5n3p318 Binding international norms, jus cogens Erjona Ramaj1 Abstract Article 53 of the Vienna Convention of 1969 states that a treaty is considered invalid if it is in conflict with existing norms of jus cogens, and under Article 64 of the treaty becomes invalid if it conflicts with a norm youngest of the same nature. The case Nicaragua against the United States made clear that the notion of jus cogens is steadily entrenched in international law, however, is still necessary to determine accurately that power rates referred to in Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention. Jus cogens norms include more those norms relating to morality or natural law than with traditional positivist rates derived from State practice. In general, this includes making aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, sea piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery, and torture. Jus cogens norms are norms of customary international law which are so important, it can not be changed through treaties. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that is contrary to jus cogens norms is invalid. Jus cogens norms are not listed, there is no catalog , their determined by any authoritative body, but these rates come from judicial practices and political and social attitudes, which are not values static. Jus cogens norm of unconditional right international, accepted and recognized by the international community norm from which no deviation is permitted. Unlike the common law, which traditionally requires the consent and It lets change obligations between states through treaties, norms jus cogens can not be violated by any state "through treaties international or local regulations or special customary, or even through general rules of customary not have the same normative force.
    [Show full text]
  • Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law
    JUSTITIA ET PACE INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL KRAKOW SESSION - 2005 CINQUIEME COMMISSION Les obligations et les droits erga omnes en droit international FIFTH COMMISSION Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law Rapporteur : M. Giorgio Gaja RESOLUTION OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW The Institute of International Law, Considering that under international law, certain obligations bind all subjects of international law for the purposes of maintaining the fundamental values of the international community; Considering that a wide consensus exists to the effect that the prohibition of acts of aggression, the prohibition of genocide, obligations concerning the protection of basic human rights, obligations relating to self-determination and obligations relating to the environment of common spaces are examples of obligations reflecting those fundamental values; Desiring to take a first step in clarifying certain aspects of inter-State relations created by these obligations, especially the consequences of their breach and the related remedies, while acknowledging that some of these obligations also exist towards subjects of international law other than States; Adopts the following Resolution: Article 1 For the purposes of the present articles, an obligation erga omnes is: (a) an obligation under general international law that a State owes in any given case to the international community, in view of its common values and its concern for compliance, so that a breach of that obligation enables all States to take action; or (b) an obligation under a multilateral treaty that a State party to the treaty owes in any given case to all the other States parties to the same treaty, in view of their common values and concern for compliance, so that a breach of that obligation enables all these States to take action.
    [Show full text]
  • New Trends in the Enforcement of Erga Omnes Obligations
    New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations Karl Zemanek I. The Emergence of erga omnes Obligations 1. Human Rights Under the UN Charter a. The Programme b. The Implementation 2. The Establishment of erga, omnes obligations in Other fields a. Conventional Creation b. Jus cogens 3. Ensuring Compliance with erga omnes Obligations a. The Growing Awareness of their Different Character b. The Tortuous Implementation of the Idea in Practice II. Can the Existing Community Mechanisms Ensure Enforcement? 1. The Conceptual Question 2. The Relevant Functions of International Organs a. Reporting Systems b. Inspection, Verification and Investigation Systems c. Complaints Procedures d. (Limited) Non-Violent Sanctions 3. Conclusions III. Individual Criminal Responsibility 1. The Evolution of the Concept a. The Way to Nuremberg, Tokyo and Other Prosecutions after World War II b. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols 2. The influence of the International Criminal Tribunals Established by the Security Council a. Jurisdictional Innovation b. The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Tribunals 3. The International Criminal Court (ICC) a. Jurisdiction and its Implementation b. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction J.A. Frowein and R. Wolfrum (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 1-52. © 2000 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands. 2 Max Planck UNYB 4 (2000) 4. Evaluation IV. State responsibility 1. The Present State of the ILC Draft 2. Determining the Injured State a. The Context of the Draft b. Injured States and States with a Legal Interest 3. The state of Necessity a. The Context of the Draft b. Necessity V. Humanitarian intervention 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Erga Omnes Partes Before the International Court of Justice: from Standing to Judgment on the Merits
    ERGA OMNES PARTES BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: FROM STANDING TO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS Nawi Ukabiala, Duncan Pickard & Alyssa Yamamoto* I. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS ..... ...........................................................................................................236 II. LEGAL STANDARDS ON THE MERITS ................................................238 III. MARSHALLING EVIDENCE ................................................................241 A. Documentary Evidence.................................................................243 B. Third-Party Reporting..................................................................244 1. UN Fact-Finding ......................................................................244 2. NGO Fact-Finding ...................................................................246 C. Witness Evidence ..........................................................................246 D. Proceedings of Other Adjudicatory Bodies..................................248 E. Judicial Intervention.....................................................................249 IV. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................250 In its landmark order on provisional measures in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) (The Gambia v. Myanmar), the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or the Court) held that The Gambia had prima facie standing before the Court
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Enforcement in International Law
    The Problem of Enforcement in International Law This book explores the contentious topic of how collective and community interests should be protected and enforced in international law. Elena Katselli Proukaki takes a detailed look at the issue of third-state countermeasures, and considers the work the International Law Commission has done in this area. The volume addresses both the theory and practice of third-state countermeasures within international law. Critically reviewing the conclusions of the International Law Commission on the non-existence of a right to third-state countermeasures, it includes consideration of examples of State practice not previously covered in the literature of this topic. In taking a thorough view of the issues involved the author identifi es among others concerns about third-state countermeasures which remain unanswered and considers the possible legal ramifi cations arising from a clash between a right to third-state countermeasures and obligations arising from other international norms. The Problem of Enforcement in International Law: Countermeasures, the Non-Injured State and the Idea of International Community explores questions evolving around the nature, integrity and effectiveness of international law and the role it is called to play in a contemporary context. This book is of great interest and value not only for specialists in this area of international law, but also human rights, trade and EU lawyers, practitioners, legal advisers, and students. Elena Katselli Proukaki is a Lecturer at Newcastle University, UK. Routledge Research in International Law International Law and the Third World Reshaping Justice Richard Falk, Balakrishnan Rajagopal and Jacqueline Stevens International Legal Theory Essays and engagements, 1966–2006 Nicholas Onuf Forthcoming titles in this series include: International Economic Actors and Human Rights Adam McBeth International Organisations and the Idea of Autonomy Nigel D.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights and the World Bank's Draft Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples Fergus Mackay
    American University International Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 3 Article 2 2002 Universal Rights or a Universe unto Itself? Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights and the World Bank's Draft Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples Fergus Mackay Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Mackay, Fergus. "Universal Rights or a Universe unto Itself? Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights and the World Bank's Draft Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples." American University International Law Review 17, no.3 (2002): 527-624. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OR A UNIVERSE UNTO ITSELF? INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE WORLD BANK'S DRAFT OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.10 ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FERGUS MACKAY* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 528 A. THE WORLD BANK AND HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL C ONCERN ................................................ 529 B. RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT ............. 533 C. INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS .......................................... 535 I. DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS: THE ROLE AND ATTITUDE OF THE WORLD BANK ......... 539 II. DOES THE BANK HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS? .............................. 542 A. THE BANK'S MANDATE AND ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT .... 542 1. Position of the Bank's Articles in InternationalLaw ... 544 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Cogens: the Determination and the Gradual Expansion of Its Material Content in Contemporary International Case-Law
    JUS COGENS: THE DETERMINATION AND THE GRADUAL EXPANSION OF ITS MATERIAL CONTENT IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CASE-LAW ANTÔNIO AUGUSTO CANÇADO TRINDADE∗ ∗ Ph.D. (Cambridge - Yorke Prize) in International Law; Former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Judge Elect of the International Court of Justice (The Hague); Professor of International Law at the University of Brasilia, Brazil; Member of the Institut de Droit International, and of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law. 3 I. Introductory Observations In my General Course on Public International Law, delivered at The Hague Academy of International Law in 2005, I characterized the doctrinal and jurisprudential construction of international jus cogens as proper of a new jus gentium, the International Law for Humankind. I sustained, moreover, that, in my understanding, and by definition, international jus cogens goes beyond the law of treaties, extending itself to the law of the international responsibility of the State, and to the whole corpus juris of contemporary International Law, and reaching, ultimately, any juridical act. In encompassing the whole International Law, it projects also over domestic law, invalidating any measure or act incompatible with it. Jus cogens has direct incidence on the very foundations of a universal International Law, and is a basic pillar of the new jus gentium1. On the occasion of this XXXV Course of International Law organized by the OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee here in Rio de Janeiro (August 2008), I purport, at first, to review the origins and content of that concept within the framework of the fundamental values of the international community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility
    Mendip Communications Job ID: 9347BK--0076-5 5 - 1127 Rev: 08-01-2003 PAGE: 1 TIME: 09:07 SIZE: 61,00 Area: JNLS O ᭧ EJIL 2002 ............................................................................................. The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility Linos-Alexander Sicilianos* Abstract The final version of the Articles on State Responsibility, adopted by the ILC in 2001, contains considerable advances over the previous draft of 1996. The ILC reconsidered the group of provisions dealing with the multilateral aspect of responsibility relations, and proceeded to ‘decriminalize’ international responsibility; to classify international obligations by taking into account the intrinsic nature and beneficiaries of the obligations breached; to differentiate the positions of individually injured states and not directly affected states; and to spell out the legal consequences of ‘serious’ breaches of obligations under peremptory norms and of erga omnes obligations. The present paper offers a critical analysis of the relevant provisions of the text on state responsibility by focusing on their interplay. Emphasis is also given to the question of countermeasures by not directly affected states. The Articles on State Responsibility, as adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) on a second reading in 2001,1 have been thoroughly reworked from the earlier 1996 version.2 The main changes concern the multilateral dimension of the relations which result from a breach of a number of international obligations, and the legal consequences attaching thereto. The multilateralization, or universalization, of the relations of responsibility has been a concern to the Commission since 1976, when it proposed the famous Article 19 on international crimes of states, and again when considering the ‘content, forms and degrees of international responsibility’.
    [Show full text]
  • Aut Dedere Aut Judicare)
    International Law Commission UFRGSMUN | UFRGS Model United Nations Journal ISSN: 2318-3195 | v1, 2013| p.202-221 The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) André da Rocha Ferreira Cristieli Carvalho Fernanda Graeff Machry Pedro Barreto Vianna Rigon 1. Historical background Th e expression aut dedere aut judicare is commonly used to refer to the alternative obligation to extradite or prosecute which is contained in a number of multilateral treaties aimed at securing international cooperation in the suppression of certain kinds of multilateral conduct. Th e obligation is phrased in diff erent ways in diff erent treaties, but essentially it requires a state holding someone who has committed a crime of international concern either to extradite the off ender to another state which is prepared to try him or else to take steps to have him prosecuted before its own courts (Bassiouni and Wise 1996, 3). Th e term “extradition” comes from Voltaire’s extradition—the combination of the Latin “ex” (“out”) with “traditionem” (“a delivering up, handing over”). Although the expression is recent (from the 18th century), the institute consists of the most traditional instrument of international cooperation. Its fi rst traces in History can be found in Ancient Egypt with Ramses II and Hattusili III’s Peace Treaty, which is engraved on the walls of the Amon temple, at Karnak. Not only did extradition have a political scope for a long period, but it was treated as an incidental matter; that is to say that until a comparably recent past there were no legal instruments exclusively concerned about extradition proceedings (Blakesley 1981, 12).
    [Show full text]
  • Int Cat Ngo Grc 48 8929 E
    Combined 5th and 6th periodic report on the implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Submission from TRIAL (Swiss GREECE Association against Impunity) to the Committee Against Torture. September 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The present written submission to the Committee Against Torture is for the purposes of the examination of the combined 5th and 6th periodic reports (CAT/C/GRC/5-6) of Greece on its implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture). TRIAL is focusing on the topic of universal jurisdiction with a view to the effective prosecution of the crime of torture, considered as one of the necessary measures to properly implement the Convention Against Torture, ratified by Greece on 6 Oct 1988. A detailed review of Greek criminal legislation leads TRIAL to highlight that the legal framework of the State, despite containing a separate criminal offence of torture in its Criminal Code, and despite providing for universal jurisdiction over suspected perpetrators of torture, does not contain a definition of torture which is compatible with the Convention Against Torture. TRIAL TRIAL (Swiss Association against Impunity) is an association under Swiss law founded in 2002. It is apolitical and non-confessional. One of its principal goal is the fight against impunity of the perpetrators, accomplices and instigators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of torture. In this sense, TRIAL: ‣ fights against the impunity of the perpetrators and instigators of the most serious international crimes and their accomplices ‣ defends the interests of the victims before Swiss tribunals, international human rights organisms and the International Criminal Court TRIAL ‣ raises awareness among the authorities and the general public regarding P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Aut Dedere Aut Judicare)
    THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE (AUT DEDERE AUT JUDICARE) [Agenda item 10] DOCUMENT A/CN.4/571 Preliminary report, by Mr. Zdzislaw Galicki, Special Rapporteur [Original: English] [7 June 2006] CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Multilateral instruments cited in the present report ........................................................................................................................................ 259 Works cited in the present report .................................................................................................................................................................... 260 Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................................1–3 261 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................4–15 261 Chapter I. UNIVERSALITY OF SUPPRESSION AND UNIVERSALITY OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................. 16–30 263 II. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE ................................................................. 31–34 265 III. SOURCES OF THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE ........................................................................................... 35–48 265 A. International treaties ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aut Dedere Aut Judicare)
    The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) Final Report of the International Law Commission 2014 Adopted by the International Law Commission at its sixty-sixth session, in 2014, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (at para. 65). The report will appear in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2014, vol. II (Part Two). Copyright © United Nations 2014 The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) Final report on the topic 65. This report is intended to summarize and to highlight particular aspects of the work of the Commission on the topic “The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)”, in order to assist States in this matter. 1. Obligation to fight impunity in accordance with the rule of law (1) The Commission notes that States have expressed their desire to cooperate among themselves, and with competent international tribunals, in the fight against impunity for crimes, in particular offences of international concern,420 and in accordance with the rule of law.421 In the Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, the Heads of State and Government and heads of delegation attending the meeting on 24 September 2012 committed themselves to “ensuring that impunity is not tolerated for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and for violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights
    [Show full text]