DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Judge Piotr Hofmański

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Judge Piotr Hofmański ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red 08-06-2018 1/269 EC A Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Judge Piotr Hofmański Table of contents I. .......... INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 II. ......... STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ALLEGED FACTUAL ERRORS ................................................ 3 III. ....... SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL: “THE CONVICTION EXCEEDED THE CHARGES” ...... 11 A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 11 B. ARTICLE 74 (2) OF THE STATUTE ............................................................................................................ 12 C. ROLE OF THE PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER ......................................................................................................... 16 D. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 18 IV......... THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL: “MR BEMBA IS NOT LIABLE AS A SUPERIOR” .............. 19 A. “MR BEMBA TOOK ALL NECESSARY AND REASONABLE MEASURES” ....................................................... 19 B. “LACK OF EFFECTIVE CONTROL” ............................................................................................................. 49 C. “EVIDENCE DISMISSED OR IGNORED” ...................................................................................................... 80 D. “MR BEMBA DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES” ...................................... 110 E. “THE FINDING ON CAUSATION IS INVALID”............................................................................................ 135 F. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 160 V. ......... FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: “THIS WAS A MISTRIAL” ..................................................... 160 A. WHETHER MR BEMBA’S ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE ............................................... 160 B. MR BEMBA’S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUEST .................................................................................. 166 C. WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR’S EX PARTE SUBMISSIONS AND ALLEGED DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS COMPROMISED MR BEMBA’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ..................................................................................... 171 D. WHETHER PRIVILEGED AND OTHERWISE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENCE WAS SHARED WITH THE PROSECUTION ................................................................................................................................. 184 VI......... FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL: “THE CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED” .............................................................................................................................................. 197 A. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER ERRED IN RELATION TO THE MENS REA REQUIREMENT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ....................................................................................................................................... 197 B. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS AN ORGANISATIONAL POLICY ... 199 C. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER ERRED IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF PILLAGE ........................................ 218 No: ICC-01/05-01/08 A 1/269 ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red 08-06-2018 2/269 EC A VII. ...... FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL: “THE TRIAL CHAMBER ERRED IN ITS APPROACH TO IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE” .................................................................................................................. 224 A. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER FAILED TO DELIVER A REASONED JUDGMENT AS TO THE IDENTITIES OF THE PERPETRATORS OF RAPE AND PILLAGE ..................................................................................................... 224 B. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER FAILED TO DELIVER A REASONED JUDGMENT AS TO THE IDENTITIES OF THE PERPETRATORS OF MURDER ..................................................................................................................... 233 C. WHETHER THE TRIAL CHAMBER ALTERED DATES TO FIT THE MLC’S MOVEMENTS .............................. 234 VIII. ..... SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL: “OTHER PROCEDURAL ERRORS INVALIDATE THE CONVICTION” ................................................................................................................................................ 241 A. NO RELIANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE EVIDENCE OF P169, P178 AND THE 19 CAR WITNESSES ..................................................................................................................................................... 241 B. SCOPE OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF VICTIMS’ INVOLVEMENT LED TO AN UNBALANCED AND UNFAIR TRIAL ................................................................................................................................................. 253 No: ICC-01/05-01/08 A 2/269 ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red 08-06-2018 3/269 EC A I. INTRODUCTION 1. We respectfully disagree with the decision of our colleagues, Judge Van den Wyngaert, Judge Eboe-Osuji and Judge Morrison (“the Majority”), to discontinue the proceedings with respect to a number of criminal acts and to reverse the conviction of Mr Bemba with respect to the remainder of the criminal acts. We would have confirmed the Conviction Decision. Specifically, we disagree with the conclusions reached by the Majority in relation to the second ground of appeal concerning the scope of the charges and with its assessment of whether Mr Bemba failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent, repress or punish the commission of crimes by his subordinates. We also disagree with the standard of appellate review which the Majority adopts with respect to factual findings, a matter that we will address first. We will then explain why we are unable to join the Majority in relation to the second ground of appeal and its conclusions on the third ground of appeal, regarding necessary and reasonable measures. Thereafter, we will address the remaining grounds of appeal raised by Mr Bemba, which, in our view, do not warrant reversal of the Conviction Decision either. In relation to the grounds of appeal that are not addressed by the Majority, we wish to note that the views expressed in this opinion are not necessarily in contradiction with the views the Majority Judges may have. When examining the various grounds of appeal, we are guided by the standard of appellate review that has been applied by the Appeals Chamber so far, including in respect of alleged factual errors. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ALLEGED FACTUAL ERRORS 2. In its first judgment on a final appeal before this Court, the Appeals Chamber stated its standard of review in relation to alleged factual errors as follows: [W]hen a factual error is alleged, the Appeals Chamber will determine whether a reasonable Trial Chamber could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the finding in question. The Appeals Chamber will not assess the evidence de novo with a view to determining whether it would have reached the same factual finding.1 3. This standard of review, which accords a margin of deference to a trial chamber’s factual findings,2 was based on the Appeals Chamber’s consistent jurisprudence regarding the 1 Lubanga Appeal Judgment, para. 27. 2 Lubanga Appeal Judgment, para. 22. No: ICC-01/05-01/08 A 3/269 ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red 08-06-2018 4/269 EC A standard of review for factual errors in interlocutory appeals3 and the consistent jurisprudence of the appeals chambers of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.4 We are not aware of any appellate chamber of an international or internationalised court or tribunal in the field of international criminal law that would apply a different standard of review. In our opinion, a different standard of review would also not be appropriate for such jurisdictions. 4. We therefore note with concern that the Majority has adopted a number of modifications to the standard of appellate review for alleged errors of fact. In our view, these modifications are unwarranted and contrary to the corrective model of appellate review and, in some aspects, potentially inconsistent with the Statute. In addition, the modifications appear to lead to inconsistencies, which will make it difficult for anyone to understand the standard of review that the Majority has followed. 5. We recall at the outset that the Appeals Chamber does not change its jurisprudence lightly. Article 21 (2) of the Statute provides that “[t]he Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions”. The Appeals Chamber is therefore not obliged to follow its previous interpretations of principles and rules of law. However, as the Appeals Chamber has previously held, “absent ‘convincing reasons’ it will not depart from its previous decisions”.5 This caution against readily departing from the previous jurisprudence ensures “predictability of the law and the fairness of adjudication to foster public reliance on its decisions”.6 In our view, predictability of the law is essential for any court, especially for the ICC, that has a complex legal framework and only a limited number of cases; parties and participants should be able to assume that the interpretation of the law by the Appeals Chamber will not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hall Street Associates, LLC V. Mattel, Inc
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HALL STREET ASSOCIATES, L. L. C. v. MATTEL, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06–989. Argued November 7, 2007—Decided March 25, 2008 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§9–11, provides expe- dited judicial review to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards. Under §9, a court “must” confirm an award “unless” it is vacated, modified, or corrected “as prescribed” in §§10 and 11. Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, including where the award was pro- cured by “corruption,” “fraud,” or “undue means,” and where the arbi- trators were “guilty of misconduct,” or “exceeded their powers.” Un- der §11, the grounds for modifying or correcting an award include “evident material miscalculation,” “evident material mistake,” and “imperfect[ions] in [a] matter of form not affecting the merits.” After a bench trial sustained respondent tenant’s (Mattel) right to terminate its lease with petitioner landlord (Hall Street), the parties proposed to arbitrate Hall Street’s claim for indemnification of the costs of cleaning up the lease site. The District Court approved, and entered as an order, the parties’ arbitration agreement, which, inter alia, required the court to vacate, modify, or correct any award if the arbitrator’s conclusions of law were erroneous.
    [Show full text]
  • International Arbitration - Scherk V
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 6 Article 10 Issue 3 Summer 1975 1975 International Arbitration - Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., The Exemption of International Contracts from the Wilko Doctrine Voiding Agreements to Arbitrate Securities Disputes Mahir Jalili Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the International Law Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Mahir Jalili, International Arbitration - Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., The Exemption of International Contracts from the Wilko Doctrine Voiding Agreements to Arbitrate Securities Disputes, 6 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 738 (1975). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol6/iss3/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION-Scherk v. Alberto- Culver Co., The Exemption of International Contracts from the Wilko Doctrine Voiding Agreements to Arbitrate Securities Disputes INTRODUCTION Arbitration may be defined as a voluntary agreement by the parties to a contract which provides that any controversy arising out of the contract will be settled by a neutral body or panel provided for in the contract, rather than by litigation in the courts. Arbitration has been long approved and widely used in the settlement of commercial dis- putes in a speedy and efficient manner by arbitrators familiar with the customs and practices of the trade, without the formalities and com- plexities of judicial proceedings.' When a controversy arises between two parties who have made an agreement in connection with the purchase of securities to arbitrate future disputes, a court is faced with the difficult problem of reconcil- ing the right of the plaintiff to have his dispute determined in a judi- cial forum and the right of the defendant to resort to arbitration.
    [Show full text]
  • Principle of the Rome Statute of the Icc Within the African Union: Opportunities and Challenges
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 2 Article 10 6-1-2018 Pull and Push'- Implementing the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute of the ICC within the AU: Opportunities and Challenges Sascha Dominik Dov Bachmann Eda Luke Nwibo Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Sascha Dominik D. Bachmann & Eda L. Nwibo, Pull and Push'- Implementing the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute of the ICC within the AU: Opportunities and Challenges, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 457 (2018). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. PULL AND PUSH—IMPLEMENTING THE COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE ICC WITHIN THE AFRICAN UNION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Sascha Dominik Dov Bachmann* & Eda Luke Nwibo< INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 459 I. THE ROME STATUTE’S COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE UNDER ARTICLE 17 AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND NATIONAL LEGAL ORDERS................ 467 A. The Relationship Between International and National Systems of Criminal Justice and the ICC .......................... 468 B. The Rationale Behind Primacy and Complementarity Regimes ............................................................................... 472 1. The Primacy Relationship of the ICTY and the ICTR 475 2. The Complementarity Relationship of the ICC .......... 477 C. Models of Complementarity...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Prosecutor Falls, Time for the Court to Rise by Morten Bergsmo, Wolfgang Kaleck, Sam Muller and William H
    POLICY BRIEF SERIES A Prosecutor Falls, Time for the Court to Rise By Morten Bergsmo, Wolfgang Kaleck, Sam Muller and William H. Wiley FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 86 (2017) 1. The Promise of the International Criminal Court only proposing that it “will not be disappointed thanks to the Let us step back in time, to Saturday 18 July 1998. There was farsightedness shown by all of you and the countries you rep- intense sunlight over the Capitoline Hill – ‘Collis Capitōlīnus’, resent”, the Florentine also invoked “the pressure of civil soci- one of the Seven Hills of Rome – where some of the delegates ety”, making the success possible as they “passionately backed 5 who had negotiated the Statute of the International Criminal the work of governments”. He linked the United Nations’ own Court (‘ICC’) during the preceding five weeks were gradually credibility – which “has now been further enhanced” – to the 6 assembling. They looked tired but contented, as if surprised that Statute. He crowned his language describing the commitment they had just managed to complete a marathon. Some sported of the moment by stating that “it will mark not only a political 7 sunglasses, while formally dressed for the imminent ceremony but a moral stride forward by international society”. to mark the successful conclusion of the United Nations Diplo- In hindsight, Dini’s statement stands out for its prescient, matic Conference. veiled warning that States Parties and the ICC should heed in- Of the present co-authors, Morten Bergsmo was there, hav- ternational expectations, retain the support of civil society, and ing represented the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals at the show foresight in preserving the credibility of international or- Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Völkerstrafrecht
    Völkerstrafrecht Online verfügbare Literaturauswahl Materialien (Urteile, Normtexte, teilw. Literatur) ICC Legal Tools Database: https://www.legal-tools.org Lehrbücher Ambos, Kai – Internationales Strafrecht, 5. Aufl. München 2018 Beck eLibrary: https://www.beck-elibrary.de/10.17104/9783406746697/internationales- strafrecht?hitid=0&search-click Bassiouni, M. Cherif – Introduction to International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. Leiden 2012 Brill Nijhoff eLibrary: https://brill.com/view/title/16412 Bassiouni, M. Cherif – International Criminal Law, 3 Bände, 3rd ed. Leiden 2008 Brill Nijhoff eLibrary: https://brill.com/search?f_0=author&pageSize=10&q_0=M.+Cherif+Bassiouni&sort=relevance Safferling, Christoph – Internationales Strafrecht, Heidelberg usw. 2011 Springer eLibrary: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14914-6 Satzger, Helmut – Internationales und europäisches Strafrecht, 9. Aufl. Baden-Baden 2020 Nomos eLibrary: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748904519/internationales-und-europaeisches- strafrecht Stahn, Carsten – A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law, Cambridge 2019 Cambridge University Press open access: https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/a-critical- introduction-to-international-criminal-law/EFEDBED0B84359DFA281A9079047846F Werle, Gerhard/Jeßberger, Florian – Völkerstrafrecht, 5. Aufl. Tübingen 2020 Mohr Siebeck eLibrary: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/voelkerstrafrecht-9783161589850?no_cache=1 Kommentare Klamberg, Mark/Case Matrix Network (Hrsg.) – Commentary on the Law of the ICC (CLICC) http://www.casematrixnetwork.org/case-m/klamberg-commentary/rome-statute/ Triffterer, Otto/ Ambos, Kai (Hrsg.) – Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; observers’ notes, article by article, 4th ed. Baden-Baden 2021 in Erwerbung als eBook, erscheint im Frühjahr Monographien, Handbücher, Sammelbände Ahlbrecht, Heiko/Böhm, Klaus Michael/Esser, Robert/Eckelmans, Franziska – Internationales Strafrecht, 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds E
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 4 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds E. Miles Kilburn Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation E. Miles Kilburn, Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 792 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-792 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printedin U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-WORK- RELATED SEARCHES BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS VALID ON "REASONABLE" GROUNDS O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S. Ct. 1492 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION In O'Connor v. Ortega,' a plurality of the United States Supreme Court continued an expansion of the "few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions ' 2 to the fourth amendment require- ment that an unconsented search be supported by a warrant based upon probable cause. In O'Connor, the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision 3 that a state government employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and file cabinets at his place of work.4 However, the Court reversed the lower court's summary judgment that the government employer's extensive unconsented search of the employee's office, desk, and file cabinets violated his fourth amendment rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Piracy
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 15 Number 2 Winter/Spring Article 2 May 2020 The Law of Piracy Alfred P. Rubin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Alfred P. Rubin, The Law of Piracy, 15 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 173 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. ARTICLES The Law of Piracy ALFRED P. RUBIN* "Pirate ... Middle English from Latin pirata, from Greek peirates, 'at- tacker,' from peiran, to attempt, attack, from peira, an attempt . From Indo-European root per-." "per- . To try, risk;" from which come the modern English words: fear, peril, experience, expert, empire, and pirate. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (W. Morris, ed.) (1969), 998, 1534. I. THE ORIGINS A. Introduction The word "piracy" is used in modern English in many different ways, from a half-admiring description of the shrewd practices of an assertive businessman cutting the corners of morality but strictly within the law, to a highly technical legal word of art related to some crimes for which peo- ple have been hanged. In between lie uses that relate to unrecognized rebels, naval vessels acting beyond their authority, naval vessels acting within their national commissions to interfere with peaceful commerce in ways the international legal order will not tolerate, and many other shades of meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhalt JAHRESTAGUNG 2017 DES ARBEITSKREISES
    Inhalt JAHRESTAGUNG 2017 DES ARBEITSKREISES VÖLKERSTRAFRECHT Einführung zum Inhalt der aktuellen Ausgabe Jahrestagung 2017 des Arbeitskreises Völkerstrafrecht Einführung zum Inhalt der aktuellen Ausgabe Von Prof. Dr. Florian Jeßberger, Hamburg 723 AUFSÄTZE Völkerstrafrecht Zwischen parlamentarischer Diplomatie und Aktivismus Über das Gutachten des niederländischen Beirats für Völkerrecht zur Verwendung des Begriffes „Völkermord“ im politischen Raum Von Prof. Dr. Larissa van den Herik, Den Haag 724 Recent developments in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court – Part 1 By Eleni Chaitidou, The Hague 733 Die Verfahrens- und Beweisregeln der Kosovo Specialist Chambers Von Simon M. Meisenberg, LL.M., Aachen/Den Haag 746 Aus der Praxis des Generalbundesanwalts im Völkerstrafrecht – Aktuelle Entwicklungen Von Dr. Lars Büngener, Karlsruhe/Frankfurt a.M. 755 Die Zentralstelle für die Bekämpfung von Kriegsverbrechen und weiteren Straftaten nach dem Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (ZBKV) Von Erster Kriminalhauptkommissar Klaus Zorn, Meckenheim bei Bonn 762 Die Zerstörungsabsicht bei dem völkerstrafrechtlichen Verbrechen des Genozids Zugleich eine Anmerkung zur deutschen Rechtsprechung im Verfahren gegen Onesphore R. Von Prof. Dr. Daniela Demko, LL.M.Eur., Leipzig 766 Witness Preparation und historische Wahrheit im Völkerstrafprozess Probleme der Zeugenvorbereitung vor dem Hintergrund der Zielsetzungen des Völkerstrafprozesses Von Dipl.-Jur. Lea Babucke, Hamburg 782 TAGUNGSBERICHTE Völkerstrafrecht Was war und was bleibt? Zur Tätigkeit des Jugoslawien- Strafgerichtshofes – ein Diskussionsbericht Von Wiss. Mitarbeiterin Annegret Hartig, LL.M., Maître en droit, Wiss. Mitarbeiterin Swantje Maecker, LL.M., Hamburg 793 Jahrestagung 2017 des Arbeitskreises Völkerstrafrecht Einführung zum Inhalt der aktuellen Ausgabe Von Prof. Dr. Florian Jeßberger, Hamburg Zur inzwischen dreizehnten Jahrestagung des Arbeitskreises schluss des ersten Tages sowie eine willkommene Gelegen- Völkerstrafrecht1 versammelten sich am 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Reining in the Manifest Disregard of the Law Standard: the Key to Restoring Order to the Law of Vacatur
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1998 Issue 2 Article 1 1998 Reining in the Manifest Disregard of the Law Standard: The Key to Restoring Order to the Law of Vacatur Stephen L. Hayford Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Hayford, Reining in the Manifest Disregard of the Law Standard: The Key to Restoring Order to the Law of Vacatur, 1998 J. Disp. Resol. (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1998/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hayford: Hayford: Reining in the Manifest Disregard of the Law Standard: JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION VOLUME 1998, NUMBER 2 Reining in the "Manifest Disregard" of the Law Standard: The Key To Restoring Order To The Law Of Vacatur Stephen L. Hayford I. INTRODUCTION Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)' sets out four very narrow grounds upon which the courts can vacate commercial arbitration awards. Those grounds are: Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.; Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; and Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The text of the Rome Statute reproduced herein was originally circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and corrected by procès-verbaux of 10 November 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 November 1999, 8 May 2000, 17 January 2001 and 16 January 2002. The amendments to article 8 reproduce the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-6, while the amendments regarding articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter replicate the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-8; both depositary communications are dated 29 November 2010. The table of contents is not part of the text of the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998. It has been included in this publication for ease of reference. Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, http://treaties.un.org. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Published by the International Criminal Court ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2 ICC-PIOS-LT-03-002/15_Eng Copyright © International Criminal Court 2011 All rights reserved International Criminal Court | Po Box 19519 | 2500 CM | The Hague | The Netherlands | www.icc-cpi.int Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Table of Contents PREAMBLE 1 PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT 2 Article 1 The Court 2 Article 2 Relationship of the Court with the United Nations 2 Article 3 Seat of the Court 2 Article 4 Legal status and powers of the Court 2 PART 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Statistics
    THE STATISTICS a TABLE I (A) ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES Opinions Writtenb Dissenting Votesc In Disposition by Opinions Concur- Memo- of Courtd rencese Dissentse Total Opinion randumf Total Roberts 8 0 2 10 5 3 8 Kennedy 8 2 0 10 3 0 3 Thomas 7 13 11 31 15 9 24 Ginsburg 8 5 4 17 11 0 11 Breyer 8 3 6 17 7 0 7 Alito 7 7 4 18 11 7 18 Sotomayor 7 3 5 15 8 0 8 Kagan 7 0 1 8 5 0 5 Gorsuch 1 2 2 5 3 2 5 Per Curiam 8 — — 8 — — — Total 69 35 35 139 68 21 89 a A complete explanation of how the tables are compiled may be found in The Supreme Court, 2004 Term — The Statistics, 119 HARV. L. REV. 415, 415–19 (2005). Table I, with the exception of the dissenting-votes portion of section (A) and the memorandum tabulations in section (C), includes only full-opinion decisions. Eight per curiam decisions contained legal reasoning substantial enough to be considered full-opinion decisions during October Term 2016. These cases were Pavan v. Smith, 137 S. Ct. 2075 (2017); Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003 (2017); Jenkins v. Hutton, 137 S. Ct. 1769 (2017); Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. 1726 (2017); North Carolina v. Covington, 137 S. Ct. 1624 (2017); Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017); White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017); and Bosse v. Oklahoma, 137 S. Ct. 1 (2016). This table includes every opinion designated by the Court as a 2016 Term Opinion except for one.
    [Show full text]
  • ICC-02/17 Date: 2 December 2019
    ICC-02/17-130 02-12-2019 1/34 SL PT OA OA2 OA3 OA4 Original: English No.: ICC-02/17 Date: 2 December 2019 THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Piotr Hofmański, Presiding Judge Howard Morrison Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa Judge Kimberly Prost SITUATION IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN PUBLIC Written Submissions of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Source: The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan No. ICC-02/17 1/34 2 December 2019 ICC-02/17-130 02-12-2019 2/34 SL PT OA OA2 OA3 OA4 Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Ms Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor Ms Helen Brady Legal Representatives of the Victims Amicus Curiae Mr Fergal Gaynor Ms Spojmie Nasiri Ms Nada Kiswanson van Hooydonk Mr Luke Moffett Mr David J. Scheffer Ms Katherine Gallagher Ms Jennifer Trahan Ms Margaret Satterthwaite Ms Hannah R. Garry Ms Nikki Reisch Mr Goran Sluiter Mr Tim Maloney Mr Kai Ambos Ms Megan Hirst Mr Dimitris Christopoulos Ms Nancy Hollander Ms Lucy Claridge Mr Mikolaj Petrzak Mr Gabor Rona Mr Steven Kay Mr Steven Powles Mr Pawel Wilinski Mr Conor McCarthy Ms Nina H. B. Jorgenson Mr Wayne Jordash Mr Jay Alan Sekulow Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants (Participation/Reparation) The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence Ms Paolina Massidda Mr Xavier-Jean Keita States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae Mr Rodney Dixon Mr Aidan Ellis Ms Anne Coulon REGISTRY Registrar Counsel Support Section Mr Peter Lewis Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section No.
    [Show full text]