Related Research Articles
The International Criminal Court is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. It is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states.
Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of November 2019, 123 states are party to the statute. Among other things, it establishes court function, jurisdiction and structure.
The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the Statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals. The Convention also provides for some visa-free travel for holders of refugee travel documents issued under the convention.
International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognised as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war and diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights. International law differs from state-based domestic legal systems in that it is primarily, though not exclusively, applicable to states, rather than to individuals, and operates largely through consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states. States may choose to not abide by international law, and even to breach a treaty but such violations, particularly of peremptory norms, can be met with disapproval by others and in some cases coercive action ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to war.
Impunity is the ability to act with exemption from punishments, losses, or other negative consequences. In the international law of human rights, impunity is failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress. Impunity is especially common in countries which lack the tradition of rule of law, or suffer from pervasive corruption, or contain entrenched systems of patronage, or where the judiciary is weak or members of the security forces are protected by special jurisdictions or immunities. Impunity is sometimes considered a form of denialism of historical crimes.
The Geneva Conventions are four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel, established protections for the wounded and sick, and provided protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.
Common heritage of humanity is a principle of international law that holds the defined territorial areas and elements of humanity's common heritage should be held in trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.
David Nelken is a Distinguished Professor of Legal Institutions and Social Change Faculty of Political Science, University of Macerata and the Distinguished Visiting Research Professor, Faculty of Law, Cardiff University. His work focuses primarily on comparative criminal justice and comparative sociology of law.
Par in parem non habet imperium is a general principle of international law, forming the basis of state immunity. Because of this principle, a sovereign state cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign state.
Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (CIDT) is treatment of persons which is contrary to human rights or dignity, but is not classified as torture. It is forbidden by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although the distinction between torture and CIDT is maintained from a legal point of view, medical and psychological studies have found that it does not exist from the psychological point of view, and people subjected to CIDT will experience the same consequences as survivors of torture. Based on this research, some practitioners have recommended abolishing the distinction.
Autonomous concepts is a principle in the judicial interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law.
Mark A. Drumbl is a scholar of international law and Class of 1975 Alumni Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Complicity in genocide is illegal under international law both for individuals, as part of international criminal law, and state parties to the Genocide Convention. The latter was first held in the Bosnian genocide case (2007) in which the International Court of Justice held Serbia responsible for failure to prevent the Bosnian genocide.
Right to truth is the right, in the case of grave violations of human rights, for the victims and their families or societies to have access to the truth of what happened. The right to truth is closely related to, but distinct from, the state obligation to investigate and prosecute serious state violations of human rights. Right to truth is a form of victims' rights; it is especially relevant to transitional justice in dealing with past abuses of human rights. In 2006, Yasmin Naqvi concluded that the right to truth "stands somewhere on the threshold of a legal norm and a narrative device ... somewhere above a good argument and somewhere below a clear legal rule".
Genocidal intent is the mens rea for the crime of genocide. "Intent to destroy" is one of the elements of the crime of genocide according to the 1948 Genocide Convention. There are some analytic differences between the concept of intent under national criminal law, where responsibility for a murder is ascribed to an individual based on their mental state, and international law. Under international law, responsibility falls upon individuals in their capacities as members of certain organizations or other official roles. The intent for genocide is less direct. An international court might look at whether the defendant participated in planning the genocidal acts, perhaps within the auspices of a certain organizational structure, or whether they acted with knowledge of such a preconceived plan.
Kevin Jon Heller is a scholar of international law who is Professor of International Law & Security at the University of Copenhagen's Centre for Military Studies. He has also taught at the University of Amsterdam, SOAS, University of London, and Melbourne Law School. Heller was described by one reviewer as "an accomplished scholar, multi-published writer, and heralded blogger on the most current and controversial topics in international law". He is co-editor-in-chief of the international-law blog Opinio Juris.
References
- ↑ Dörr, Oliver; Schmalenbach, Kirsten (2011). "Article 4. Non-retroactivity of the present Convention". Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary. Springer. pp. 81–88. ISBN 978-3-642-19291-3.
- ↑ Buyse, Antoine (2006). "A Lifeline in Time – Non-retroactivity and Continuing Violations under the ECHR". Nordic Journal of International Law. 75 (1): 63–88. doi:10.1163/157181006778530803.
- ↑ Cassese, Antonio (2006). "Balancing the Prosecution of Crimes against Humanity and Non-Retroactivity of Criminal Law". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 4 (2): 410–418. doi:10.1093/jicj/mql016.
- ↑ Fallon, Richard H.; Meltzer, Daniel J. (1991). "New Law, Non-Retroactivity, and Constitutional Remedies". Harvard Law Review. 104 (8): 1731–1833. doi:10.2307/1341619. ISSN 0017-811X.
- ↑ Beytagh, Francis X. (1975). "Ten Years of Non-Retroactivity: A Critique and a Proposal". Virginia Law Review. 61 (8): 1557–1625. doi:10.2307/1072226. ISSN 0042-6601.
- ↑ Spiga, V. (2011). "Non-retroactivity of Criminal Law: A New Chapter in the Hissene Habre Saga". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 9 (1): 5–23. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqq081 .
- ↑ Kryvoi, Y.; Matos, S. (2021). "Non-Retroactivity as a General Principle of Law". Utrecht Law Review. 17 (1): 46–58. doi: 10.36633/ulr.604 .
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |