The 1996 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Rwanda stated that during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda rape was the rule and its absence the exception. Indeed, rape and other forms of sexual violence as constituting genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, directed in particular against women, have taken place on a massive scale since time immemorial and are still rampant.
The supranational system is still under construction and will be so for at least some decades before it can be called a consistent system with an intrinsic logic. Sentencing and sanctioning is one of the issues in which this becomes clear. The ICC-complementarity principle, the principle of legality, the execution of sanctions, and the relation of the supranational system to domestic systems such as the Rwandan gacaca, are all topics to be thoroughly discussed. The uplifting of a penal system from a relatively small community - an individual state - with relative agreement on basic aspects of punishing, to the mondial, per definition heterogeneous, level, where no such agreement exists, reveals many controversies. Opinions on all aspects of sanctioning differ widely all over the world. What is the proper sanction for a crime against humanity or an act of genocide? And whom to punish? Controversy exists regarding States, children (child soldiers) and mentally incapable offenders as punishable subjects. Questionable also are the goals of the supranational criminal justice system, and whether these goals are achieved. Too often these supranational goals seem to be supra-natural as well. Goals steer the system in choosing the number of accused to be prosecuted and judged and the quality of its proceedings, but also questions such as whether a detainee has the right to be visited by a prostitute. These are some of the questions that are highlighted in this fourth Volume of the Supranational Criminal Law series
What exactly is the context in which all aspects of this new field of criminal law have to be interpreted? What does the principle of legality mean in the context of supranational criminal law? Which tradition lies at the basis of this new law system? Is supranational criminal law as it grows the result of a deliberate policy, tending towards a coherent system? Or is it merely the result of crisis management?
The study of international crimes - such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide - deserves to grow into a separate and fully fledged specialization within criminology, called supranational criminology. Supranational criminology entails the study of international crimes, behavior that shows affinity with these crimes, the causes and the situations in which they are committed, as well as interventions and their effectiveness. What exactly entails supranational criminology? What are international crimes? Should other forms of behavior also be qualified as international crimes? What are the specific characteristics of international crimes as forms of state sponsored or state facilitated crimes? Explanatory theories have to be developed which can be translated into testable hypotheses. Which theories from mainstream criminology can provide answers for the prevalence or causes of international crimes? Have the international courts and tribunals succeeded in their aim? This book repairs the fundamental and historical neglect of criminology and breaks out of a state of denial by putting international crimes on the criminological agenda.
"This conference book is the outcome of an expert meeting organized in June 2009 by the Amsterdam Centre of Interdisciplinary Research on International Crimes and Security (ACIC) which is based at the VU University in Amsterdam"--P. v.
The relationship between the United States and international criminal tribunals dates back to at least World War I. Currently, there are many anti-American criticisms throughout the international legal community concerning the foreign relations policies of the United States - in particular, its position on the International Criminal Court. Written by Harry M. Rhea, an emerging scholar in the field of international criminal justice, this book considers over 150 years of United States policies on international criminal tribunals and the prosecution of international crimes. Relying on archival research, Rhea demonstrates how the United States has remained consistent supporting all multinational and international criminal tribunals without supporting the International Criminal Court. In June 2013 the author, Dr. Harry M. Rhea, was awarded the Roslyn Muraskin Emerging Scholar Award in the US by the Northeastern Assn. of Criminal Justice Sciences in recognition of outstanding scholarly contributions to the advancement of criminal justice within the first five years of his professional career. (Series: Supranational Criminal Law: Capita Selecta - Vol. 14)
The dynamics of enforcing international criminal justice through the International Criminal Court (ICC) has become a challenging exercise in Africa. At times the uneasy relationship between the ICC, the African Union, and a few influential African states has given rise to concerns about the future of international criminal justice in general, and in Africa in particular. Still, the enthusiasts for international criminal justice as enforced by the ICC, interpret the challenges that the ICC is encountering in Africa as part of the growing pains of a new institution in the international system. The distractors have already prepared the ICC's obituary. One of the criticisms levelled against the ICC, and which is the motivation for, and central theme behind, this book is that the ICC has morphed and ceased to be an independent legal institution, instead becoming a political tool utilized by politically powerful states in the West against their political opponents in Africa. More specifically, the Court is alleged to be selectively enforcing international criminal law by only officially opening investigations and prosecutions in Africa. Although this book recognizes that selective implementation of criminal justice is acceptable both at the domestic and international level, it analyzes the legal and political factors behind the Court's focus on international crimes committed in Africa when there are other situations to which the court should potentially turn its attention, such as in Syria, Afghanistan or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The book seeks to determine whether such a focus implies that Africa has the monopoly over international crimes or whether African victims or perpetrators are any different from those in the Middle East? In addition the book attempts to uncover the basis and the validity of the African Union and some African states' criticisms of the ICC. (Series: Supranational Criminal Law: Capita Selecta, Vol. 20) Subject: International Criminal Law, African Law]
For the European Union, the famous "Kadi" cases have generated a wealth of articles dealing with the legal problems involved in EU implementation of UN Security Council sanctions. Less attention has been devoted to the numerous legal problems involved in the EU's own "autonomous" sanctions system. The subject is nevertheless topical, since there is a growing use of sanctions and the legal basis for sanctions has been changed with the Lisbon Treaty. EU sanctions are used both against regimes and against suspected terrorist financing. But these sanctions have developed "organically," without sufficient thought being given to certain basic issues (inter alia concerning procedural fairness). This has resulted in considerable litigation before the Court of Justice (CJEU). The new legal basis and the recent judgments from the CJEU have solved some difficulties, but "taking sanctions seriously" means new problems for national implementation, spanning a variety of areas: criminal law, constitutional law, international law, and European law. The essays in this book, written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields, deal with some of these issues: How should we go about measuring the impact(s) of targeted sanctions? * How coherent are these "administrative" measures of blacklisting with other existing and proposed EU measures in justice and home affairs promoting the criminal law model for dealing with the problem of terrorism (investigation, trial, conviction, and punishment/confiscation of assets)? * How can the problems caused for fair trial by the use of intelligence material be solved? * If we can (or must) continue to have sanctions in the area of terrorist financing, can they be made compatible with fundamental principles of national criminal law and criminal policy? * How does a system of "composite" decision-making (when the measure is partly national and partly at the EU level) avoid the risk that gaps arise in systems of legal protection? * What is the spillover effect of "over broad" quasi-criminal legislation directed at organizations, in the constitutional/human rights of freedom of expression and association? * How do EU sanctions fit into, and compare to, national systems for the proscription of terrorist organizations? * Should the same legal safeguards be applicable both for "regime" sanctions and anti-terrorist sanctions? (Series: Supranational Criminal Law: Capita Selecta - Vol. 15)
