Search results

This book examines laws and customs of war prohibiting rape crimes dating back thousands of years, even though gender-specific crimes, particularly sex crimes, have been prevalent in wartime for centuries. It surveys the historical treatment of women in wartime, and argues that all the various forms of gender-specific crimes must be prosecuted and punished. It reviews the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals from a gendered perspective, and discusses how crimes against women could have been prosecuted in these tribunals and suggests explanations as to why they were neglected. It addresses the status of women in domestic and international law during the past one hundred years, including the years preceding World War II and in the aftermath of this war, and in the years immediately preceding the Yugoslav conflict. The evolution of the status and participation of women in international human rights and international humanitarian law is analyzed, including the impact domestic law and practice has had on international law and practice. Finally, this book reviews gender-specific crimes in the Yugoslav conflict, and presents arguments as to how various gender-specific crimes (including rape, forced prostitution, forced impregnation, forced maternity, forced sterilization, genocidal rape, and sexual mutilation) can be, and why they must be, prosecuted under Articles 2-5 of the Yugoslav Statute (i.e., as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, torture, violations of the laws of war, violations of the customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity). The author, a human rights attorney, academic, and activist, spent three years researching both the treatment of women during periods of armed conflict and humanitarian laws protecting women from war crimes

More than any other country, the United States of America has been a keen participant in the establishment of international criminal tribunals. But Washington's position has been a complex one, and it has changed from one of hostility to keen support in a seemingly cyclical manner. When an international tribunal was first proposed, at the Paris Peace Conference, the United States was opposed as a matter of principle. But Washington supported the post-Second World War prosecutions, by the international military tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo and, later, through a series of subsequent proceedings. When international justice revived, in the early 1990s, no other nation showed such enthusiasm for the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. The United States also participated very actively in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (or ICC or Court). Then, when the vagaries of international negotiations resulted in an institution that was not entirely to Washington's liking, it took its distance from the permanent tribunal and, under the Bush administration, became openly hostile for a few years. By 2005, the United States had returned to a more benign attitude toward the International Criminal Court and, by 2010, it was a strong supporter. Adapted from the source document.

THE INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA IS UNWORKABLE BECAUSE THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL HAS NEITHER THE PRACTICAL NOR LEGAL JURISDICTIONAL POWER TO PROSECUTE WAR CRIMES COMMITTED DURING CIVIL WARS OR REGIONAL HOSTILITIES. THE TRIBUNAL IS LIKELY TO CAUSE ONLY CONFUSION ON THE PART OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND PERHAPS, INDIRECTLY, AN ESCALATION OF THE CONFLICT. THE REASONS FOR FAILURE LIE IN FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE PROPER ROLE AND POWERS OF THE UN. THE UN IS NOT A FORM OF WORLD GOVERNMENT. IT HAS NO POLICE FORCE, NO LEGISLATURE. THE ATTEMPT TO CONSTRUCT A JUDICIAL SYSTEM (IN THE FORM OF A WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL) WHEN THE OTHER TWO ORGANS OF WORLD GOVERNMENT ARE MISSING IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.T EH UN RELIES PRIMARILY ON THE CONSENT OF ITS MEMBERS. THERE FORE, IT MUST NECESSARILY FALL BACK ON MORAL PERSUASION (AS A BODY REPRESENTING WORLD OPINION) TO 'KEEP THE PEACE' AND MAINTAIN REASONABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT DURING REGIONAL HOSTILITIES. IRONICALLY, THE ATTEMPT TO ERECT AN OVERLY COERCIVE AND INTERVENTIONIST ROLE FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL UNDERCUTS THE VERY STRENGTHS ON WHICH THE UN AS WHOLE RELIES: ITS CREDIBILITY AS AN IMPARTIAL FORUM FOR CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRISES.

Abstract
In 1967, amid the U.S. war in Vietnam, distinguished leftist intellectuals and activists gathered in Sweden and Denmark to establish the first citizens' tribunal. Initiated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, the purpose of the International War Crimes Tribunal (iwct) was to put the U.S. government on trial for its military actions in Southeast Asia. This article has two objectives. First, it argues that this activist endeavour was embedded in a larger internationalist movement against Western imperialism, namely Tricontinentalism, of which the war in Vietnam was a connecting factor. Second, the article investigates the tribunal as a manifestation of the solidarity that the New Left in the West maintained with revolutionary movements in the Third World. It aims to show the utility of the theoretical concept of political solidarity, most thoroughly elaborated by Sally J. Scholz, for the global history analysis of social justice movements. At the same time, it contends the necessity of additional parameters when studying manifestations of political solidarity in a post- and settler-colonial context, drawing on new scholarship on colonial-sensitive solidarity. By carving out the specificities of this case of activism on the theoretical ground, this investigation also highlights the importance, advantages, and pitfalls of political anti-imperialist solidarity.

In this essay, we survey the literature on international criminal tribunals & transitional justice. We argue that the literature has been dominated by two general orientations, a legalism that is premised on logic of appropriateness & a pragmatism premised on a logic of consequences. We also consider a third orientation, guided by a logic of emotions, that recognizes the significance of transitional justice but emphasizes strategies that diverge from the model of legalism. Our primary concern is with scholarship in political science, although we also consider work from the disciplines of law, history, & sociology & from practitioners & advocates. The normative positions of scholars have heavily influenced the development of literature in this field, in which scholarship, practice, & advocacy are deeply intertwined. Advocates & individuals who have played key roles in the development of international criminal justice institutions, domestic tribunals, & truth commissions have been prominent in setting the agenda for scholars. Nonetheless, there is also a growing body of rigorous social science research that attempts to assess empirically -- & sometimes critically -- the claims of advocates & practitioners & to explain changing strategies of justice. 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

Challenges to the credibility of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, due to the lack of resources for rapid investigation and sentencing, and need to satisfy national standards of justice and retribution.