Suchergebnisse

"In the past decades, great strides have been made to ensure that crimes against humanity and state-sponsored organized violence are not committed with impunity. Alongside states, large international organizations such as the United Nations and forums such as the International Criminal Court, 'de facto international prosecutors' have emerged to address these crimes. Acting as investigators and evidence-gathers to identify individuals and officials engaged in serious human rights violations, these 'private' non-state actors, and state legal 'officials' in a foreign court, pursue criminal accountability for those most responsible for core international crimes. They do so when local options to investigate fail and an international criminal tribunal remains unavailable. This study outlines three case studies of witnesses and victims who pursue those most responsible, including former heads of state. It examines their practices and strategies, and shows how witnesses and victims of core crimes emerge as key leaders in the accountability process"--Publisher's description

Although more than a little controversial, Mary Kaldor's academic work and ideas have both stimulated and influenced debate in the Pentagon, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and beyond. How did this come about? And how did Kaldor reach the conclusions outlined in her seminal books? Melinda Rankin traces the evolution of Kaldor's work, revealing how her thinking developed from her years as an anti–Cold War activist and scholar in the 1970s-1980s, through her direct experiences of war in the Balkans and Caucasus, to her present support for rights-based international law enforcement to defend civilians from state and quasi-state violence

Arguably, more than any other state or interstate actor, German federal authorities, including the German Federal Public Prosecutor General (Generalbundesanwalt,
gba) and German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), have been at the forefront of issuing arrest warrants for senior members of the Syrian government suspected of atrocity crimes in the wake of the Arab Spring. This includes German federal authorities making the first arrest of a senior member of the Syrian government in February 2019 for crimes against humanity. This article argues that in relation to core international crimes, Germany's concept of law reflects one based on a 'standard' and international rule of law. Moreover, German federal authorities have demonstrated a willingness to use international humanitarian and criminal law (ichl) in relation to those most responsible for core international crimes. In this way, Germany's current investigations into alleged crimes against humanity in Syria since 2011 provides for an illuminating case for extending universal jurisdiction, as well as the 'responsibility to prosecute' as a legal obligation. It also indicates how a multiplicity of actors – including state and non-state actors – can extend the reach of international criminal law, when the International Criminal Court (icc) cannot act.

The failure of the United Nations to effect a 'responsibility to protect' in Syria and Iraq has provoked acrimonious debates over how the international community should respond to mass atrocities in the contemporary international order. Moreover, the fact that the International Criminal Court and other United Nations (un) agencies remain unable to investigate in Syria and Iraq, has reinvigorated debate on the mechanisms available to bring those most responsible for humanities gravest crimes to account. This article examines the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (cija). As non-state actors, cija conduct their investigations outside the United Nations system, with the aim of investigating and preparing case briefs for the most senior leaders suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria; and war crimes, crimes against humanity and allegations of genocide in Iraq. This article argues that in preparing case briefs for individual criminal liability for a future prosecution, cija have attempted to extend the system of international criminal law, and in so doing, pose a challenge to traditional notions of the state in relation to the concept of war and the law, and the relationship between power and law in the international system. The article concludes by the asking the question: does the international community have a 'responsibility to prosecute' those suspected of criminal misconduct?