Suchergebnisse

On June 8, 2021, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism) Appeals Chamber delivered its appeals judgment in Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. The judgment affirmed the 2017 trial judgment of Trial Chamber I of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which convicted Mladić, the Bosnian Serb commander, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, as well as affirming his sentence of life imprisonment. This constituted Mladić's final appeal, opening the door for his assignment to a prison somewhere in Europe.

Our contemporary moment of reckoning presents an opportunity to evaluate racial subordination and structural inequality throughout our three-tiered domestic, transnational, and international criminal law system. In particular, this Essay exposes a pernicious racial dynamic in contemporary U.S. global criminal justice policy, which I call othering across borders. First, this othering may occur when race emboldens political and prosecutorial actors to prosecute foreign defendants. Second, racial animus may undermine U.S. engagement with international criminal legal institutions, specifically the International Criminal Court. This Essay concludes with measures to mitigate such othering.

On June 8, 2021, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism) Appeals Chamber delivered its appeals judgment in Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. The judgment affirmed the 2017 trial judgment of Trial Chamber I of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which convicted Mladić, the Bosnian Serb commander, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, as well as affirming his sentence of life imprisonment. This constituted Mladić's final appeal, opening the door for his assignment to a prison somewhere in Europe.

Overcriminalization has rightly generated national condemnation among policymakers, scholars, and practitioners alike. And yet, such scholarship often assumes that the encroachment of criminal justice stops at our borders. This Article argues that our foreign relations are also at risk of overcriminalization due to overzealous prosecution, overreaching legislation, and presidential politicization—and that this may be particularly problematic when U.S. criminal justice supplants certain nonpenal U.S. foreign policies abroad. This Article proposes three key reforms—presidential distancing, prosecutorial integration, and legislative de-escalation—to assure a principled place for criminal justice in foreign relations.

Constitutional criminal procedural rights are familiar to contemporary criminal law scholars and practitioners alike. But today, U.S. criminal justice may diverge substantially from its centuries-old framework when all three branches recognize only a core set of inviolable rights, implicitly or explicitly discarding others. This criminal procedural line drawing takes place when the U.S. criminal justice system engages in law enforcement cooperation with foreign criminal justice systems in order to advance criminal cases. This Article describes the two forms of this criminal procedural line drawing. The first is a "core criminal procedure" approach, rooted in fundamental rights, that arises in the exchange of electronic evidence but is related to two prior eras' cross-sovereign criminal procedural articulation—the Warren Court incorporation of the Bill of Rights' criminal procedural protections and engagement with international human rights instruments. Alternatively, courts today may use an ad hoc "outlier" approach, only excluding foreign evidence, convictions, or extradition requests in extreme circumstances that "shock the conscience." This Article argues that the former approach is superior to the latter, and argues for a methodology—rooted in constitutional law, international human rights, and comparative legal functionalism—for evaluating foreign legal systems. To support this argument, this Article draws on political theory concerned with global justice. This Article concludes by considering how core criminal procedure informs U.S. engagement with international criminal tribunals and investigative mechanisms.

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the case of Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga held that a Trial Chamber, during the deliberations stage of trial proceedings, may, pursuant to Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court (Regulation 55), give notice of a possible modification of the legal characterization of the facts in its final Judgment, so long as the trial remains fair. This Introductory Note will provide background on the Katanga case and Regulation 55, summarize the Appeals Chamber's Judgment, and discuss the implications of this ruling.