Non-retroactivity is the legal principle that laws do not apply retroactively and ex post facto laws are forbidden. This principle may be applied to judicial decisions as well as statutory law. The principle of non-retroactivity is widely recognized for international laws such as treaties, [1] although treaties can have retroactive effect if the parties so intend. [2] It is also widely recognized in criminal law, at least to the extent of prohibiting criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time of the crime. As a principle of criminal law it is recognized for example in the European Convention on Human Rights [3] as well as the United States Constitution.
Legal systems vary considerably in the extent to which they apply the principle to civil and administrative laws. [4] Legal systems also vary considerably in the extent to which court rulings on issues of law, such as the rulings of a constitutional court, have retroactive effect. The United States Supreme Court has for example often denied retroactive effect to its constitutional rulings on criminal procedure. [5] The first such decision was in Linkletter v. Walker in 1965. [6]
There is frequent tension between the principle of non-retroactivity and the punishment of crimes against humanity. For example, in the case of the former Chadian president Hissène Habré, the ECOWAS Court invoked the principle of non-retroactivity to bar Habré from being tried under a retroactive law in Senegal, instead requiring him to be tried in a new ad hoc court, the Extraordinary African Chambers. [7]
Historically, the principle of non-retroactivity of statutory law emerged in the ancient Roman Republic, becoming fully established by the second century BCE. This represented an evolution from earlier conception of the legal principles (ius) as unchanging and statutes as merely clarifying this existing law. Under that earlier understanding, statutory laws had absolute and immediate effect. Over time, however, it became customary for many statutes, such as the Lex Falcidia, to explicitly disclaim retroactivity, and over time this came to be recognized as the general rule. [8]
Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.
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 irrespective of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other connection 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.
Nulla poena sine lege is a legal formula which, in its narrow interpretation, states that one can only be punished for doing something if a penalty for this behavior is fixed in criminal law. As some laws are unwritten and laws can be interpreted broadly, it does not necessarily mean that an action will not be punished simply because a specific rule against it is not codified.
Crimes against humanity are certain serious crimes committed as part of a large-scale attack against civilians. Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during both peace and war and against a state's own nationals as well as foreign nationals. Together with war crimes, genocide, and the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity are one of the core crimes of international criminal law and, like other crimes against international law, have no temporal or jurisdictional limitations on prosecution.
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 February 2024, 124 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".
Hissène Habré, also spelled Hissen Habré, was a Chadian politician and convicted war criminal who served as the 5th president of Chad from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990.
The Nuremberg principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
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.
Legality, in respect of an act, agreement, or contract is the state of being consistent with the law or of being lawful or unlawful in a given jurisdiction, and the construct of power.
International criminal law (ICL) is a body of public international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. The core crimes under international law are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several separate concepts:
The Russian Criminal Code is the prime source of the Law of the Russian Federation concerning criminal offences. The 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (UGKRF) came into force on 1 January 1997. The new Criminal Code replaced the Soviet analogue of 1960. The main changes deal with economic crimes and property crimes. Most of the other chapters were already amended to correspond to new Russian realities.
The states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are those sovereign states that have ratified, or have otherwise become party to, the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, an international court that has jurisdiction over certain international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are committed by nationals of states parties or within the territory of states parties. States parties are legally obligated to co-operate with the Court when it requires, such as in arresting and transferring indicted persons or providing access to evidence and witnesses. States parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States Parties, which is the Court's governing body. Such proceedings include the election of such officials as judges and the Prosecutor, the approval of the Court's budget, and the adoption of amendments to the Rome Statute.
International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to obey in their mutual relations and generally do obey. In international relations, actors are simply the individuals and collective entities, such as states, international organizations, and non-state groups, which can make behavioral choices, whether lawful or unlawful. Rules are formal, often written expectations for behavior and norms are less formal, customary expectations about appropriate behavior that are frequently unwritten. It establishes norms for states across a broad range of domains, including war and diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights.
Laws against child sexual abuse vary by country based on the local definition of who a child is and what constitutes child sexual abuse. Most countries in the world employ some form of age of consent, with sexual contact with an underage person being criminally penalized. As the age of consent to sexual behaviour varies from country to country, so too do definitions of child sexual abuse. An adult's sexual intercourse with a minor below the legal age of consent may sometimes be referred to as statutory rape, based on the principle that any apparent consent by a minor could not be considered legal consent.
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".
The principle of legality in criminal law was developed in the eighteenth century by the Italian criminal lawyer Cesare Beccaria and holds that no one can be convicted of a crime without a previously published legal text which clearly describes the crime. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement[s] in the entire history of human thought ' ".
Analogy in law is a method of resolving issues on which there is no previous authority by using argument from analogy. Analogy in general involves an inference drawn from one particular situation to another based on similarity, but legal analogy is distinguished by the need to use a legally relevant basis for drawing an analogy between two situations. It may be applied to various forms of legal authority, including statutory law and case law.
Starvation of a civilian population is a war crime, a crime against humanity, or an act of genocide according to modern international criminal law. Starvation has not always been illegal according to international law; the starvation of civilians during the siege of Leningrad was ruled to be not criminal by a United States military court, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, though imposing limits, "accepted the legality of starvation as a weapon of war in principle". Historically, the development of laws against starvation has been hampered by the Western powers who wish to use blockades against their enemies; however, it was banned in the 1977 by Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions and criminalized by the Rome Statute. Prosecutions for starvation have been rare.