Suchergebnisse

Prendre en considération l'expérience des auteurs de crimes de guerre et de crimes contre l'humanité permettrait de repenser les fondements du droit pénal international, de manière à reconnaître différentes formes de responsabilités collectives.

Nombre d'études empiriques ont montré la manière dont la prison et les droits humains qui s'y appliquent sont régis par une logique sécuritaire. La présente contribution propose d'analyser le droit pour savoir si cette logique sécuritaire est présente au moment de la rédaction (ou de l'interprétation) de la norme légale. Se concentrant sur le droit international de la détention, appréhendé comme droit émetteur des normes de protection des droits des personnes privées de liberté, l'auteur montre que ce corpus juridique oscille entre une volonté de protection et une logique d'exception comprenant la logique sécuritaire. Entre exceptions qui annihilent le droit et application exceptionnelle de ce dernier, le droit international de la détention semble préfigurer la pratique en détention.

Cette contribution propose une analyse de la première condamnation prononcée par
la Cour pénale internationale, par laquelle Thomas Lubanga Dyilo a été reconnu
coupable de crimes de guerre (de conscription et d'enrôlement d'enfants de moins de
15 ans) et condamné à 14 ans d'emprisonnement. Attendue depuis dix ans, cette
décision aurait pu être l'occasion pour la Cour pénale internationale (cpi) de
préciser son action en Afrique, notamment en clarifiant le sens des peines qu'elle
prononce. Or, les juges ont interprété le régime applicable à la fixation de la
peine, mais n'ont pas donné de véritable sens à cette dernière. Par manque de
pédagogie, cette première peine prononcée est insatisfaisante, voire
incompréhensible.

AbstractWar crimes are among the most serious crimes; that is why international courts and tribunals have jurisdiction to prosecute and punish them. However, serious though they are, it is not legitimate to punish them in such a way as to exceed the bounds of respect for human rights. The author considers that, when the perpetrators of war crimes are prosecuted and punished, criteria inherent to the rule of law like those applied by the European Court of Human Rights (such as legality and proportionality) must be met.

War crimes are among the most serious crimes; that is why international courts and tribunals have jurisdiction to prosecute and punish them. However, serious though they are, it is not legitimate to punish them in such a way as to exceed the hounds of respect for human rights. The author considers that, when the perpetrators of war crimes are prosecuted and punished, criteria inherent to the rule of law like those applied by the European Court of Human Rights (such as legality and proportionality) must be met. Adapted from the source document.

Un bilan du droit pénal international dressé par des spécialistes juridiquesVingt ans après la création du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, quinze ans après la signature du Statut de la Cour pénale internationale, vingt ans aussi après l'adoption de la première mouture de la loi belge de la compétence universelle (et dix depuis sa modification drastique), le moment a paru venu pour la Revue de dresser un dossier-bilan du droit des crimes les plus graves.Ce dossier s'articule autour de quatre thèmes:1. les compétences juridictionnelles et interactions entre ordres juridiques

Cet article présente, à travers l'analyse d'entretiens menés avec dix-huit personnes jugées par le Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), le vécu et la perception du parcours judiciaire international, en se concentrant particulièrement sur la dimension procédurale (ou justice procédurale ) de leur expérience. Il met en exergue l'importance de l'absence de contrôle dans le processus ainsi que le traitement réservé aux accusés et ce que ces perceptions, dans leurs reconstructions discursives de leurs parcours de justice, reflètent en termes de différentiels de pouvoir et d'enjeux identitaires. Face à un espoir de participer activement à une justice inclusive, leurs discours révèlent la volonté de se positionner en rejet du jeu procédural auquel ils sont soumis et plusieurs formes de résistances apparaissent.

AbstractDespite the growing attention being paid to "victims" in the framework of criminal proceedings, this attention does not seem to be meeting their needs under either national criminal justice systems or the international regime. In the latter, the difficulties encountered by the victims are aggravated by factors specifically arising from the prosecution and punishment of mass crimes at international level. This has prompted the authors to point out that the prime purpose of criminal law is to convict or acquit the accused, and to suggest that the task of attending to the victims should perhaps be left to other entities.

International criminal justice is at a crossroads: International Criminal Tribunals for the former-Yugoslavia and Rwanda are closing and the International Criminal Court is developing growing activity. It is therefore crucial to adopt a new perspective in the analysis and understanding of the rationality and impacts of these post-mass crimes mechanisms: this would help clarify and strengthen their foundations and relevance. The purpose of our contribution is to present the analysis of international criminal institutions and justice better understand what kind of answers are given for mass crimes and if they achieve the goals and finalities they pursue, in taking into account the perspective of tried people (acquitted and condemned). More specifically, we analyse the discourses of around 60 individuals (made by semi-directive interviews conducted by the authors) who were tried by the ICTY and ICTR in order to approach experience and reception of international criminal law. This article is divided in two chapters. Before presenting the results of our research, we propose to develop a theoretical approach that would justify the recourse to "penal experience" of people prosecuted in order to analyse the rationality, functioning and impacts of international criminal justice. Our reasoning, based on conceptual landmarks drawn from the social sciences, allows us also to support a specific approach to the legal process as phenomenon. It is therefore not only addressed to sociologists, social psychologists or criminologists, but also to lawyers, who are, considering the foundations of their field, probably the most resistant to our approach. The article expounds first the necessity to establish a Respondents' approach. Secondly, we propose a presentation and analysis of discourses of tried people. It gives different results: firstly, the criminal process is poorly conceived, more so than the pronounced sentence. Moreover, the attributed responsibilities are rejected as a matter of principle, with a particular dismissal of forms that are specific to international criminal law i.e. command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise. These two results explain why international justice is viewed as unfair, politicised and as an outgroup justice. We analyse these findings against the backdrop of the current scholarly debates and developments concerning the forms of responsibility ascribed for international crimes, as well criminology research on biases in self-perceptions of responsibility. Secondly, discourses of tried people highlight domination and scapegoating rhetoric. Fourthly, we analyse specifically the experience of acquitted people. Indeed, acquittal is an unthought in international criminal law and the discourse of our participants confirms this assessment. So, these empirical results challenge the purposes pursued by international criminal law.

International criminal justice is at a crossroads: International Criminal Tribunals for the former-Yugoslavia and Rwanda are closing and the International Criminal Court is developing growing activity. It is therefore crucial to adopt a new perspective in the analysis and understanding of the rationality and impacts of these post-mass crimes mechanisms: this would help clarify and strengthen their foundations and relevance. The purpose of our contribution is to present the analysis of international criminal institutions and justice better understand what kind of answers are given for mass crimes and if they achieve the goals and finalities they pursue, in taking into account the perspective of tried people (acquitted and condemned). More specifically, we analyse the discourses of around 60 individuals (made by semi-directive interviews conducted by the authors) who were tried by the ICTY and ICTR in order to approach experience and reception of international criminal law. This article is divided in two chapters. Before presenting the results of our research, we propose to develop a theoretical approach that would justify the recourse to "penal experience" of people prosecuted in order to analyse the rationality, functioning and impacts of international criminal justice. Our reasoning, based on conceptual landmarks drawn from the social sciences, allows us also to support a specific approach to the legal process as phenomenon. It is therefore not only addressed to sociologists, social psychologists or criminologists, but also to lawyers, who are, considering the foundations of their field, probably the most resistant to our approach. The article expounds first the necessity to establish a Respondents' approach. Secondly, we propose a presentation and analysis of discourses of tried people. It gives different results: firstly, the criminal process is poorly conceived, more so than the pronounced sentence. Moreover, the attributed responsibilities are rejected as a matter of principle, with a particular dismissal of forms that are specific to international criminal law i.e. command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise. These two results explain why international justice is viewed as unfair, politicised and as an outgroup justice. We analyse these findings against the backdrop of the current scholarly debates and developments concerning the forms of responsibility ascribed for international crimes, as well criminology research on biases in self-perceptions of responsibility. Secondly, discourses of tried people highlight domination and scapegoating rhetoric. Fourthly, we analyse specifically the experience of acquitted people. Indeed, acquittal is an unthought in international criminal law and the discourse of our participants confirms this assessment. So, these empirical results challenge the purposes pursued by international criminal law.

Acquittal in international criminal law has long been disregarded by the governing bodies of international criminal courts. However, the acquittal exposes constitutive (and constituent) components of this very body of law. The authors draw conclusions from semi-directive interviews with (acquitted and condemned) people tried by the ad hoc tribunals. Their approach creates an opportunity to highlight and comprehend-from the perspective of the acquitted individual-the failures of the functioning of international criminal justice, which is focused on the idea of guilt. Moreover, this research shows how the position of tried individuals affects their perception and acceptance of international criminal law. ; SCOPUS: re.j ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published