International Criminal Court Part 23

 

The Definition of “Gender”in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court : A Step Forward or Back for International Criminal Justice?
Valerie Oosterveld
Harvard Human Rights Journal
Volume 18, Spring 2005 p.55

Review: International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of law
Cécile Aptel
Journal of International Criminal Justice
Volume 3, Number 2, May 2005 p.530-533

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A NEW AND NECESSARY INSTITUTION MERITING CONTINUED INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
Judge Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court
Fordham International Law Journal
Volume 28, Number 2, January 2005 p.292

International Criminal Court
Leiden Journal of International Law
Volume 18, Number 1, March 2005

THE COMPETENCE OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO TERMINATE THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Ademola Abass
Texas International Law Journal
Volume 40, Number 2, Winter 2005 p.263

The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatment of the Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of Office of the Prosecutor
Hector Olasolo
International Criminal Law Review
Volume 5, Number 1, January 2005 p.121

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Niels Blokker and Sam Muller
Hague Yearbook of International Law
Volume 15, 2002 p.173

The International Criminal Court
Ciampi Annalisa
Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Volume 4, Number 1, January 2005

Immunities of Foreign Ministers: Paragraph 61 of the Yerodia Judgment as it Pertains to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court
David S. Koller
American University International Law Review
Volume 20, Number 1, 2004 p.7

[Articles] The US Supreme Court’s ‘Enemy Combatant’ Decisions: A ‘Major Victory for the Rule of law ‘?
Moeckli, D.
Journal of Conflict and Security Law
Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 2005

In its recent judgments in Rumsfeld v Padilla, Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Rasul v Bush, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the executive’s claim that it has the authority to incarcerate people suspected of terrorist connections without any judicial review. This article argues that, nevertheless, the suggestion that these decisions constitute a major setback for the US administration that will forever change the legal parameters of the ‘war on terror’ is misleading. For the court has upheld, in principle, the government’s power to designate terrorist suspects as ‘enemy combatants’ and to hold them without charging them with a criminal offence or according them prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions . And it is exactly this creation of a special category of detainees, not envisaged by international law, that underlies the most important controversies surrounding the government’s treatment of suspected terrorists. Furthermore, the procedural rules suggested by the Supreme Court for the judicial review of ‘enemy combatant’ detentions are so deferential to the executive that they could render the review all but meaningless. Moreover, several controversial elements of the government’s post-September 11 detention policies are not addressed by the decisions at all. The Supreme Court, it is argued, has missed the chance to impose on the executive a clear framework, based on standards of international law, governing the detention of alleged terrorists.

APPLYING THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A CASE STUDY OF HENRY KISSINGER
Steven Feldstein
California Law Review
Volume 92, Number 6, December 2004 p.1663

[Articles] ‘Unless Otherwise Provided’:: Article 30 of the ICC Statute and the Mental Element of Crimes under International Criminal Law
Werle, G.
Journal of International Criminal Justice
Volume 3, Number 1, March 2005

For the first time in international criminal law, Article 30 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute (ICCSt.) codifies a mental element as a general requirement for individual criminal responsibility. Moreover, Article 30 seeks to set a uniform standard – intent and knowledge – for the mental element, applicable to all crimes under international criminal law. The authors show that Article 30 establishes subjective conditions of liability which depart significantly from the ones that can be found in Other provisions of the ICC Statute, the Elements of Crimes and Customary International Law . The authors argue that the ‘unless otherwise provided clause included in Article 30(1) ICCSt. plays a vital role for a consistent and coherent application of international criminal law. They conclude that Article 30 ICCSt. should be interpreted as a default rule that is applied only in the few cases where there are no specific rules on the mental element in either the Other provisions of the ICC Statute, the Elements of Crimes or in Customary International Law .

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

California Law Review, Customary International Law, Geneva Conventions, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Law, Other provisions, Rule of law.