Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- The apologist role of national courts : legitimizing (illegal) state policy -- The avoiding role of national courts : law as a political doctrine -- The normative role of national courts : from deferring to limiting -- The twilight zone of utopia : judges as law developers -- Conclusion.

AbstractSince 2012, it is estimated that 2,000 French nationals have joined jihadist armed groups listed by the UN as terrorist organizations in Syria and in Iraq. Consequently, a new prosecution policy has been introduced in France. To date, more than 200 persons have been prosecuted and 1,600 persons have been placed under criminal investigation. In parallel, after the 13 November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, a State of emergency was declared. Persisting for two years, it introduced derogative administrative measures that slowly transgressed into regular criminal law. Consequently, French administrative and criminal courts, with ordinary judges and professional routines, find themselves involved in matters related to armed conflicts – a completely new phenomenon for them. What role has been performed by French criminal and administrative judges in the global fight against terrorism?This article takes a close look at France's fight against terrorism and the engagement of its domestic legal system in the context of foreign fighters and suspects of terrorism. It outlines the radicalization processes of French administrative and criminal law along with their hybridization and complementarity. While the armed conflict in Syria and Iraq and the complex geopolitical context are clearly present in French courtrooms, international humanitarian law and international criminal law frameworks are almost entirely absent. At the same time, by granting a growing power to the administration, the repressive and pre-emptive approaches introduced within criminal and administrative law transform liberal conceptions of law and justice.

AbstractRespect for international humanitarian law (IHL) comes in many forms, one of which is through the practice of domestic courts in addressing IHL-related cases. This article takes a closer look at the structural conditions necessary for the effective enforcement of IHL by domestic courts, elaborates on the spectrum of options that are available to national judges when faced with IHL-related cases, and describes the functional roles of courts in adopting a particular posture. It is demonstrated that even if the structural conditions are fulfilled, this will not necessarily result in the normative application of the law. It appears that national judges are in the process of defining their own roles as independent organs for overseeing the State's acts during armed conflicts. In that regard, the article outlines a few suggestions for future research on the choices courts make and the conditions necessary for them to effectively handle IHL-related cases.

My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of the government the find an appropriate remedy; and (4) the judicial activism role of courts, in which they introduce moral judgments in favour of the protection of the individual, beyond the requirements of the law. Revealing the court's function in order to situate a decision on the utopian-judicial activism scale is carried out by a critical analysis of the court ruling, in which both the legal argument and the political context are examined. This is done through a technique of deconstruction, which aims to reveal the political character of what appears a priori, to be a neutral application of objective rules. As the research shows, the functional role of the courts is a combination of contradictions and mixed attitudes – sometimes they play an apologist role, in other cases a normative, activist, or an avoiding one. It would appear that national courts are in the process of defining their own role as enforcing organs of IHL.

AbstractSince the beginning of the Israeli occupation more than 200,000 cases have been brought before military courts, where Palestinian civilians have been prosecuted and judged by the military authorities. However, despite the large number of judicial decisions, this jurisprudence has not received the attention it merits. Academic researchers and NGOs have usually examined the procedural rights of the accused and have only rarely dealt with other legal matters. This article aims to examine the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction. Through the analysis a process of judicial domination is revealed. It is a domination that facilitates extensive control of the military authorities over the Palestinian civilian population through their judicial powers.