Suchergebnisse

Despite the promises made after World War II to eliminate the commission of
atrocities, crimes against humanity persist with horrifying ubiquity. Yet the
absence of a consistent definition and uniform interpretation of crimes against
humanity has made it difficult to establish the theory underlying such crimes and
to prosecute them in particular cases. In the 1990s, several ad hoc international
criminal tribunals were established to respond to the commission of atrocity
crimes,1 including crimes against humanity, in specific
regions of the world in conflict. Building on this legacy, in 1998 a new
institution—the International Criminal Court(ICC)— was established to take up the
task of defining crimes against humanity and other atrocity crimes and preventing
and punishing their commission.

Crimes against humanity first emerged in international law in 1945, when the allied powers that won World War II—the United States, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France—granted the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg jurisdiction to prosecute German leaders for 'crimes against peace,' 'war crimes,' and 'crimes against humanity.' Since the Nuremberg trials, the concept of crimes against humanity has expanded dramatically, which other essays in this volume describe. Most notably, as highlighted in the next essay in this volume, international law has now affirmed that, unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity may be committed in times of formal peace. As William Schabas has put it, many colloquially view crimes against humanity as being analogous to serious violations of human rights, but 'in the case of breaches of international human rights law, it is the state that is held responsible, whereas in the case of crimes against humanity, individuals are the perpetrators and they are the ones who are held criminally responsible.' Thus, violations of human rights might trigger orders to cease certain actions or compensate victims, but violations of crimes against humanity can lead to the imprisonment of state officials, and even heads of state ; peer-reviewed

A Crimes Against Humanity Convention after the establishment of the International Criminal Court / by Morten Bergsmo and Song Tianying -- Codifying the 'Laws of Humanity' and the 'Dictates of the Public Consciene': towards a new global treaty on crimes against humanity / by Leila Sadat -- The ICC case law on the contextual elements of crimes against humanity / by Eleni Chaitidou -- The Draft Convention on Crimes Against Humanity: what to do with the definition? / by Darryl Robinson -- Beyond territory, jurisdiction, and control: towards a comprehensive obligation to prevent crimes against humanity / by María Luisa Piqué -- The obligation to prevent in the Proposed Convention examined in the light of the obligation to prevent in the Genocide Convention / by Travis Weber -- State obligation to punish core international crimes and the Proposed Crimes Against Humanity Convention / by Julie Pasch -- Towards greater coherence in international criminal law: comparing protected groups in genocide and crimes against humanity / by Rhea Brathwaite -- The Proposed Convention on Crimes Against Humanity and human trafficking / by Christen Price -- The responsibility to protect and to prosecute: reflections on the Canadian experience and recommendations for the Proposed Crimes Against Humanity Convention / by Rita Maxwell -- U.S. role in the prevention and prosecution of and response to crimes against humanity / by Mary Kate Whalen -- The Proposed Convention on Crimes Against Humanity and aut dedere aut judicare / by Ian Kennedy -- The aut dedere aut judicare provision in the Proposed Convention on Crimes Against Humanity: assessment from a Chinese perspective / by Shang Weiwei and Zhang Yueyao -- The Proposed Convention on the the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity: developments and deficiencies / by Tessa Bolton

The Mediterranean Sea is considered to be the deadliest route for migrants seeking to reach the shores of the European Union. However, reaching EU territory does mean that the risks to their lives and wellbeing have ended. Thousands of migrants are illtreated in refugee camps, indefinitely detained, and deprived of basic necessities such as food and health care. Thousands are pushed back to third countries by EU actors or their cooperating partners to avoid the invocation of responsibility. In such situations, migrants are likely to fall prey to human traffickers, be recruited by militias, suffer torture and other inhumane acts. It is the mistreatment of persons at their most vulnerable, on a large scale. Such mistreatment is part of border control tactics based on the sole rationale of deterring other migrants from trying to make the same hazardous journey. Thus, sending a clear signal. ; peer-reviewed

In the 21st century Ukraine faced with horrific crimes against humanity that were known during World War II. Despite the Minsk agreements, on February 24, 2022 the Russian Federation started a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The issue of combating crimes against humanity in the 21st century is considered. The commission of such crimes violates a number of international conventions and treaties, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998, the Charter of the United Nations of 26 June 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of November 4, 1950, etc. The international community should focus their attention on inadmissibility of violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The ratification of international instruments and the existence of institutions, aimed at ensuring peace in the modern civilized world, should prevent encroachments on the territory of other states, mass destruction of people and civilian buildings. The invasion of the Russian Federation into the territory of Ukraine, use of weapons of mass destruction, missiles and gunfire against the civilian population is not only an encroachment on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is an encroachment on European values, which have been built for centuries in response to the experience of war. The best way to deal with crimes against humanity and war crimes as well is integration and unity of the international community in combating these crimes. The existence of global problems, environmental and economic crises, epidemics, epizootics, poverty especially conditioned integration of the international community for peace. Last but not the least, the human rights standards should be complied with at prosecuting people who have committed and been involved in crimes against humanity

Although the concept of genocide was introduced into science in the last century, this inhuman act has very ancient roots. In this article, the author reveals how and when this concept is used, against which peoples, how many people were killed, and proves with facts that the crime of genocide is not limited to Azerbaijan and other peoples. However, he did not change his attitude towards the values of multiculturalism in his mentality. The term genocide was first used by Lemkin in the early twentieth century, but genocide and terrorist acts are still being committed in the modern, renewed, humanized world. Not only because of their nationality, but also because of their race, political views and religious beliefs, people are subjected to violence. There are many international courts and courts around the world that deal with crimes related to this genocide. But so far only a few crimes have been considered. No criminal has yet received a worthy sentence. The article explains that this crime has not yet been properly assessed, and calls on the younger generation to constantly fight the tragedy of genocide.

There seems to be little doubt that modern international law embodies the principle that, in addition to the individual responsibility of those who may actually perpetrate such crimes, criminal liability will also accrue to any political or military superior who orders, colludes in, condones, or fails to take steps to prevent their commission or repress end punish the actual offenders.