DOCSLIB.ORG

Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases Morten Bergsmo (Editor)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases Morten Bergsmo (Editor) FICHL Publication Series Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases Morten Bergsmo (editor) Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases Morten Bergsmo (editor) 2009 Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law (FICHL) International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 1 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases FICHL PUBLICATION SERIES Series Co-Editors Morten Bergsmo, PRIO Nobuo Hayashi, PRIO Editorial Board Dr. Gro Nystuen, University of Oslo/Norwegian Defence Command and Staff College Ms. Torunn Salomonsen, Ministry of Justice, Norway Dr. Jo Stigen, Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo Advisory Board Prof. Kai Ambos, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen/State Court Göttingen Prof. Emeritus M. Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University Mr. Gilbert Bitti, International Criminal Court Judge Advocate General Arne Willy Dahl, Norway Prof. Jon Elster, Columbia University/Collège de France Judge Hanne Sophie Greve, Gulating Court of Appeal Mr. Christopher Keith Hall, Amnesty International Prof. Emeritus Frits Kalshoven, Leiden University Judge Erkki Kourula, International Criminal Court Judge Erik Møse, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Ms. Jelena Pejić, International Committee of the Red Cross Maj-Gen (ret’d) Anthony P.V. Rogers, Cambridge University Prof. James Silk, Yale Law School This paper may be downloaded from http://www.prio.no/ficjc. © International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission in writ- ing from the copyright holder. ISBN 978-82-7288-305-7 FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 2 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases PREFACE BY THE SERIES CO-EDITOR This volume contains papers presented at a seminar of the Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law in Oslo on 26 September 2008 with the same title as the publication. The Forum seeks to contribute to scholarship and practice. Through this Publication Series we aspire to place high quality products on an Internet-based platform that is open and freely ac- cessible to all, including those in less resourceful countries. The seminar was co-organized by several organizations: the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina; the Procuración General de la Nación, Unidad de Asistencia para causas por violaciones a los Derechos Humanos durante el terrorismo de Estado; Amnesty International; Belgrade Centre for Human Rights; Center for Legal and So- cial Studies (CELS); Center for the Study of Law, Justice and Society (DeJuSticia); Chr. Michelsen Institute; Documenta; Human Rights Watch; Humanitarian Law Centre; Research and Documentation Center Sarajevo; the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (University of Oslo); the Norwegian Helsinki Committee; the Norwegian Red Cross; and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). The broad institutional backing of the seminar is an indication of the importance of the topic. Criminal justice as a response to atrocities in armed conflict has enjoyed growing sup- port in the international community of states. Several international and hybrid criminal juris- dictions have been created since 1993. All of them have faced more cases than they can proc- ess. Take the example of crimes committed during the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia will deal with less than 200 cases in its lifetime, most of them pertaining to Bosnia and Herzegovina. With an annual capacity of less than 30 cases, the national war crimes mechanism established within the criminal justice system of Bosnia and Herzegovina has maybe as many as 12,500 suspects in the existing backlog of open case files. Armed conflicts tend to generate too many international crimes for all persons respon- sible to be held criminally accountable. This volume does not address what should be done with cases which probably can not go to trial due to limited capacity. That is the subject of a separate Forum seminar on abbreviated criminal procedures. Rather, the volume concerns the best way to select and prioritize cases to be investigated and prosecuted first. This is a ques- tion of the quality of discretion in the management of criminal justice for atrocities. Both the Forum seminar on 26 September 2008 and this volume were made possible by financial support from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ambassador Jan Braathu at the Norwegian Embassy in Sarajevo and Mr. Sven Marius Urke of the High Judi- cial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina made important contributions to discussions on the purpose of the seminar during the first half of 2008. The Forum would like to thank the Norwegian Red Cross for providing the seminar venue for free and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights for assisting with the travel arrangements for the seminar speakers.1 Morten Bergsmo 1 The Forum would also like to thank Linda Hafstad (FICHL Intern 2006-2008) for taking care of the registration of semi- nar participants; Aida Šušić for assisting with the preparation of the Table of Contents and for reminding some of the speakers of the deadline to submit written contributions; Erlend des Bouvrie for proof-reading the manuscript; and PRIO’s Information Department for assistance with making the covers of this volume. FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 3 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 4 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases PREFACE PRIO is the ‘mother’ of the Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law in the sense that our researchers Morten Bergsmo and Nobuo Hayashi are the driving forces behind this open, inclusive and innovative initiative. The rapid development of the Forum is a source of satisfaction and pride at PRIO. We see this as a positive process of incubation, network building and will to intellectual leadership – all values which are central to PRIO’s culture and aspirations. For us it is particularly valuable that Morten and Nobuo are investing considerable mental energy on the framing of the issues which they put on the agenda of the Forum. We know from discourse analysis more broadly that framing the issue can in itself be a decisive intellectual contribution. I hope Morten and Nobuo will continue this line, with creativity and courage. Discourse entails occasional controversy, disagreement and provocation – one should welcome all three. This publication is based on papers presented at a Forum seminar on 26 September 2008. The topic – Criteria for prioritizing and selecting core international crimes cases – is specific and technical. It would appear to be home ground for lawyers. Nevertheless, Aften- posten – an important daily newspaper in Norway – ran a long article on the seminar on its page 6 the day before the event. The headline reads: ‘The war crimes code shall be broken’ – suggesting that a key issue for the success of, and continued support for, war crimes prosecu- tions is that the best suited cases are selected for trials first. This is a common sense considera- tion of a political nature: it concerns everyone, not only lawyers. Whereas lawyers are uniquely placed to conduct discussion on selection and prioritization criteria, they also shoul- der a distinct responsibility to ensure that effective and acceptable solutions are found. The circle of stakeholders in criminal justice for those who commit atrocities goes beyond the legal profession. The bill for criminal justice for atrocities is not paid by the legal community. I therefore think that the topic of this publication has general importance. It seeks to contribute to the improvement of the quality of criminal justice for atrocities. That is necessary to ensure broad public support for criminal justice in transitions also in the future. Stein Tønnesson 2 PRIO Director 2 Dr. Stein Tønnesson is Director of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). He was trained as a historian, and has in particular worked on East Asia. His doctoral thesis, defended at the University of Oslo in 1991, was on the in- ternational history of the Vietnamese revolution in 1945, and he is currently working on a manuscript for the University of California Press on Vietnam 1946: How the War Began. As Director of PRIO he is engaged in dialogue work in Cy- prus, studies of energy dependence and Middle East policies, of global counter-terrorist strategies, and of the causes be- hind global and regional trends towards less and less murderous warfare. He currently intends to set up a research project on how to explain the relative peace in East Asia since 1979. FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 5 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases FICHL Publication Series No. 4 (2009) – page 6 Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Siri Frigaard, Some introductory remarks ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building a Legacy: Lessons Learnt from the Offices of the Prosecutors of International
    Building a Legacy Lessons Learnt from the Offices of the Prosecutors of International Criminal Tribunals and Hybrid Courts International Conference 7–8 November 2013 in Nuremberg Conference Report by Viviane Dittrich Introduction The following is a report of the proceedings of the conference entitled “Building a Legacy – Lessons Learnt from the Offices of the Prosecutors of International Criminal Tribunals and Hybrid Courts” which was held at the Memorium Nuremberg Trials on 7 and 8 November 2013. This report is designed to summarize the main arguments made in each presentation and to capture the key points of discussion. We have also identified some questions that remain salient. The conference explored the timely topic of impact and legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals and Courts from the perspective of the prosecution of international crimes. As the Ad hoc Tribunals and Hybrid Courts are working towards completing their last cases and winding down, the conference provided an international forum to capture and extend the important discussions on their achieve- ments, contributions and lessons learnt regarding the selection of cases and investigations, the completion of mandates and partnerships between national and international jurisdictions. There were a number of reasons to organize a conference on this topic. Following the successful conference “Through the Lens of Nuremberg: The International Criminal Court at Its Tenth Anniversary” held in Nuremberg in October 2012 which indirectly touched upon the topic of legacy, it seemed apposite to hold a conference dedicated entirely to a discussion on the impact and legacy of the different tribunals at the international and national level.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 4: Mechanisms in Europe
    ANNEX 4: MECHANISMS IN EUROPE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Conflict Background and Political Context The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) emerged from World War II as a communist country under the rule of President Josip Broz Tito. The new state brought Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and Slovenes into a federation of six separate republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) and two autonomous provinces of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina). Ten years after Tito’s death in 1980, the country was in economic crisis and the mechanisms he had designed to both repress and balance ethnic demands in the SFRY were under severe strain. Slobodan Milošević had harnessed the power of nationalism to consolidate his power as president of Serbia. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia dissolved in January 1990, and the first multiparty elections were held in all Yugoslav republics, carrying nationalist parties to power in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia.1763 Meanwhile, Milošević and his political allies asserted control in Kosovo, Vojvodina, and Montenegro, giving Serbia’s president de facto control over four of the eight votes in the federal state’s collective presidency. This and the consolidation of Serbian control over the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) heightened fears and played into ascendant nationalist feelings in other parts of the country. Declarations of independence by Croatia and Slovenia on June 25, 1991, brought matters to a head. Largely homogenous Slovenia succeeded in defending itself through a 10-day conflict that year against the Serb-dominated federal army, but Milošević was more determined to contest the independence of republics with sizeable ethnic Serb populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifteen Years of Outreach at the ICTY
    OUTR ACH 15 years of Outreach at the ICTY A publication of the Outreach Programme, Registry, ICTY Editor-in-Chief: Giorgia Tortora Managing editor: Rada Pejić-Sremac Editors: Joanna Ellis Adwan and Nenad Golčevski The ICTY Outreach Programme Managing editors for the OTP: Kevin Hughes and Ljiljana Vodenski-Piteša is generously supported by the Graphics editor: Leslie Hondebrink-Hermer European Union. Photographs: ICTY Outreach Programme and Leslie Hondebrink-Hermer Contributors: Almir Alić, Ernesa Ademagić, Giulia Chiara, Steve Coulson, Petar Dubljević, Helena Eggleston, Amy Eussen, Petar Finci, Goran Georgijev, Amanda Molesworth, Thomas Rivière, Ana Cristina Rodríguez Pineda, Catina Tanner, Isabella Tan Hui Huang Proofreading: Joanna Ellis Adwan and Conference and Language Services Section Circulation: 1,000 copies Printed in The Netherlands, 2016 Special thanks go to all Outreach staff, past and present, who made the work of the Outreach Programme possible. The editors are especially grateful to Mr Matias Hellman, former Outreach representative, for providing insights into the early days of the Outreach Programme and his assistance in researching the Programme’s history. Last but not least, the editors would also like to thank the Principals of the Tribunal and their staff for their invaluable support they have been providing to the Programme and their endorsement of this project. This publication makes use of QR codes (Quick Response code) to expand the reading experience. Where available, these will bring you to the related webpage
    [Show full text]
  • OSJI-Options for Justice-FR-11-14-2018.Indd
    ANNEXE 4 : MÉCANISMES EN EUROPE TRIBUNAL PÉNAL INTERNATIONAL POUR L’EX-YOUGOSLAVIE Historique du conflit et contexte politique La République fédérative socialiste de Yougoslavie (RFSY) était au sortir de la Seconde Guerre mondiale un pays communiste dirigé par le président Josip Broz Tito. Le nouvel État réunissait les Serbes, les Croates, les musulmans bosniaques, les Albanais, les Macédoniens, les Monténégrins et les Slovènes dans une fédération de six républiques distinctes (Slovénie, Croatie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Macédoine, Monténégro et Serbie) et deux provinces autonomes de Serbie (Kosovo et Vojvodine). Dix ans après la mort de Tito en 1980, le pays connut une crise économique, tandis que les mécanismes conçus par Tito pour à la fois réprimer et équilibrer les exigences des différentes ethnies en RFSY furent mis à rude épreuve. Slobodan Milošević avait profité de la force du nationalisme pour consolider son pouvoir à la présidence de la Serbie. La Ligue des communistes de Yougoslavie fut dissoute en janvier 1990, et les premières élections multipartites furent organisées dans toutes les républiques yougoslaves, amenant des partis nationalistes au pouvoir en Bosnie, en Croatie, en Slovénie et en Macédoine.1763 Entre-temps, Milošević et ses alliés politiques revendiquèrent le contrôle du Kosovo, de la Vojvodine et du Monténégro, donnant au président serbe un contrôle de facto sur quatre des huit droits de vote au sein de la présidence collective de l’État fédéral. Cet événement et la consolidation du pouvoir serbe sur l’Armée populaire yougoslave (APY) amplifièrent les craintes et contribuèrent à la montée du nationalisme dans d’autres régions du pays. Les déclarations d’indépendance de la Croatie et de la Slovénie le 25 juin 1991 précipitèrent les choses.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Issue 2.1
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 1 April 2007 Full Issue 2.1 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation (2007) "Full Issue 2.1," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 2: Iss. 1: Article 1. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol2/iss1/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Editor’s Introduction We are very excited to be entering the second volume year of Genocide Studies and Prevention. Our first three issues were diverse and contained some of the most important new research in the field. As we enter our second year, and publish our first issue of volume 2, we hope to continue that tradition. Broadly speaking, GSP 2:1 focuses on the prevention of genocide. The lead article, by Thomas Weiss, Presidential Professor of Political Science and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, examines genocide prevention in the real world of politics. Weiss points out that, ‘‘except for the label, the responses of the international community of states to Rwanda and Sudan were comparable.’’ He notes that ‘‘perhaps, as Scott Straus has argued in these pages, we have invested too much time and energy in parsing the ‘G-word.’’’ In this sense Weiss is a perfect supplement to David Scheffer’s arguments, originally published in GSP 1:3, concerning the need for a new category of crime.
    [Show full text]
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; International Tribunals; Prosecute and Punish; Rwanda; Special Court for Sierra Leone
    Transitional Justice Institutions and Organizations 237 (Kambanda), to clarify the definition of rape in international law and hold that it could constitute genocide (Akayesu), and to pass the first genocide conviction of journalists (on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Ferdinand Nahimana, and Hassan Ngeze). Its proponents thus claim that the ICTR, despite having what they assert as a limited mandate and resources, has indeed contributed to accountability, reconciliation, and peace in Rwanda and atrocity deterrence more widely, even if those achievements are not yet apparent and will be realized only in conjunction with other efforts, such as Rwanda’s national and local justice systems, including gacaca (see separate entry). Conclusion Along with the ICTY the only other ad hoc international war crimes tribunal the Security Council has established through the UN Charter’s Chapter VII authority, the ICTR represents a significant development in transitional justice. The ICTR’s ultimate success will likely be determined only after it completes its work. In the meantime, proponents and opponents alike will continue to weigh in on the tribunal’s achievements and controversies. Zachary D. Kaufman Cross-references: Congo, Democratic Republic; Gacaca Courts; Genocide; Interna- tional Criminal Court; International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; International Tribunals; Prosecute and Punish; Rwanda; Special Court for Sierra Leone. Further Readings Clark, P. and Z. D. Kaufman, eds. 2009. After Genocide: Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruc- tion, and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press. Morris, V. and M. P. Scharf, eds. 1998. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 2 vols. Irvington-on-Hudson: Transnational Publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies
    Strengthening Gender Justice through International Prosecutions Speaker biographies 6-7 SEPTEMBER 2012 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM THE HAGUE · THE NETHERLANDS Dr Anne Marie Goetz Mr Bob Reid Dr Goetz is Chief Advisor for Peace and Security at UN Mr Reid is the Chief of Operations at Women. She supports programming across UN Women the International Criminal Tribunal on preventing the use of sexual violence as a method of for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). warfare, on supporting women’s engagement in peace He has been working at the ICTY processes, on gender-sensitive security sector reform, and since June 1994 and has held the on inclusive peace-building post-conflict. In the area of positions of Investigations Team good governance she works on building women’s influence Leader, Investigations Commander, over public decision-making. Deputy Chief of Investigations and Deputy Chief of Prosecutions. He was the lead investigator in Prior to taking on this post in the first ICTY trial of Dusko Tadic. 2005, she was a Professor of Political Science at the Institute of Prior to working at the ICTY, Mr Reid was a police officer in Development Studies, University the New South Wales Police Service in Australia. He worked of Sussex. She has published on mainly in Homicide, Organised Crime and Drug Enforcement. the topics of gender and conflict, For a period of three years he was seconded to the Federal pro-poor and gender-sensitive Attorney-General’s Office to work on investigations relating approaches to public sector reforms, to war crimes committed during the Second World War. anti-corruption initiatives, and decentralization, and has also analysed political liberalisation and state-building in fragile states and post-conflict situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Through the Lens of Nuremberg Documentation
    Documentation Through the Lens of Nuremberg The International Criminal Court at its Tenth Anniversary Conference 4–5 October 2012 in Nuremberg Through the Lens of Nuremberg The International Criminal Court at its Tenth Anniversary Conference 4–5 October 2012 in Nuremberg Table of contents 04 Acknowledgments Panel: Experiences of Prosecutors in International Criminal Courts and Tribunals 05 Introduction 46 Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Hague Opening Remarks by Brenda J. Hollis, Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, The Hague/Freetown 06 Peter Küspert, President of the High Regional Court Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 08 Ambassador Dr. Martin Ney, Legal Adviser / Director General for Legal Affairs, Arusha, Tanzania Federal Foreign Office Panel: The principle of Complementarity and its Effects on Domestic Prosecution Keynote Speech by in Uganda, Kenya and Libya 10 Judge Sang-Hyun Song, President of the International 52 Fredrick Ruhindi, State Minister for Justice, Uganda Criminal Court: “The implementation of the Nuremberg Principles within the 54 Githu Muigai, Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya framework of the International Criminal Court” 56 Elham Saudi, Director, Lawyers for Justice in Libya 13 Anne Rübesame, Commissioner, International Nuremberg Principles Academy 58 Rod Rastan, Legal Advisor in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court Panel: The Nuremberg Trials and their Relevance Today
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia: Current Issues and Future Direction
    SERBIA: CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EMERGING THREATS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 Serial No. 109–224 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 29–974PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 21 2002 08:24 Nov 28, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\EET\092006\29974.000 DOUG PsN: DOUG COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, HOWARD L. BERMAN, California Vice Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California Samoa ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California PETER T. KING, New York ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DARRELL ISSA, California BARBARA LEE, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JERRY WELLER, Illinois GRACE F.
    [Show full text]
  • Kosovo: Unmik's Legacy
    KOSOVO: UNMIK’S LEGACY THE FAILURE TO DELIVER JUSTICE AND REPARATION TO THE RELATIVES OF THE ABDUCTED Amnesty International Publications First published in 2013 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org © Amnesty International Publications 2013 Index: EUR 70/009/2013 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo: [Credit] Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations.
    [Show full text]
  • SIPRI Yearbook 2004: Armaments, Disarmament and International
    5. Post-conflict justice: developments in international courts SHARON WIHARTA 1. Introduction The nexus between justice and peace has grown stronger in recent years. The 1990s were characterized by several repressive dictatorships giving way to more democratic regimes. In such circumstances, there was a recognition that gross violations of international humanitarian law had to be expediently addressed if the goal of a peaceful transition was to be achieved.1 The issue of holding accountable those responsible for committing grave crimes during conflicts is also becoming a major component of peace negotiations. A mechanism for redress, be it an ad hoc tribunal, a truth and reconciliation commission or as a component of a complex peacekeeping mission, was advocated in almost all recently concluded or ongoing peace processes. One positive consequence of what has been a lengthy debate is that the delivery of justice as an essential element of post-conflict peace-building has emerged as an internationally accepted norm. Equally important is the understanding that international courts represent just one element in a wide range of conflict pre- vention instruments. Deterrence effects are also part of the rationale behind the setting up of such courts. Several significant developments in formal institution building occurred in the sphere of post-conflict justice in 2003. However, the specific means by which these were pursued were often controversial. The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in July 2002, is now fully operational.2 The judges and the prosecutorial team have commenced work. The court has received numerous reports of possible crimes. It has also been placed on a sound finan- cial footing.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Nominations Submitted to The
    Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Nominations Submitted to the Senate December 25, 2009 The following list does not include promotions of members of the Uniformed Services, nominations to the Service Academies, or nominations of Foreign Service Officers. Submitted January 20 Steven Chu, of California, to be Secretary of Energy. Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York, to be Secretary of State. Thomas Andrew Daschle, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Shaun L.S. Donovan, of New York, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Arne Duncan, of Illinois, to be Secretary of Education. Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be Secretary of the Treasury. Eric H. Holder, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be Attorney General. Lisa Perez Jackson, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Ronald Kirk, of Texas, to be U.S. Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Ray LaHood, of Illinois, to be Secretary of Transportation. Janet Ann Napolitano, of Arizona, to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Peter R. Orszag, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Susan E. Rice, of the District of Columbia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations. 1 Susan E. Rice, of the District of Columbia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations.
    [Show full text]