Thesis (J.S.M.)--Stanford University, 2009. / Submitted to the Stanford Program in International Legal Studies at the Stanford Law School, Stanford University. "April 2009." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-82). Abstract available online.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2005. Graduate Programme in Social and Political Thought. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 219-239). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNR11630

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Münster (Westf.), 2008. / Includes English summary. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Magister Legum - LLM / The precise legal definition of crimes against humanity has always been elusive since their first codification in the IMT Charter in 1945. Jurisprudence applying the definition has reflected the uncertainty especially with regard to the contextual element that requires that crimes against humanity should be committed pursuant to some form of a policy of a state or organisation: The Policy Element. In the 1990s the ICTY in its early Decisions exhibited an inclination to broaden the scope of the application of crimes against humanity by downgrading the Policy Element to cover states and non-state actors in asymmetric armed conflicts. In 2002, this tendency culminated in the complete abandonment of the Policy Element requirement. Eminent international criminal law scholars are divided whether the ICTY was correct or not. At the same time, Article 7(2) (a) of ICC Statute has expressly provided for a downgraded Policy Element that somehow resonates with the ICTY as it covers states and organisations. In 2010, the Situation in the Republic of Kenya presented the ICC with a question whether the concept of organisation in Article 7(2) (a) of the Statute covers organisations generally or only state-like organisations. The Majority Decision resonated with the more recent jurisprudence of the ICTY and held that it covered all organisations. The Dissenting Opinion, however, restricted the Policy Element to only state-like organisations. This Research agrees with the recent ICTY position that has been reflected by the Majority Decision and postulates that the Policy Element should not be a requirement for crimes against humanity.

Entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980, Brasil e Argentina vivenciaram ditaduras de segurança nacional. As diferentes experiências vividas por essas nações possuem alguns elos em comum: a tomada do poder pelas Forças Armadas, a aplicação da Doutrina de Segurança Nacional, suspensão de direitos e garantias fundamentais, o consequente estabelecimento do Terrorismo de Estado e, por fim, a aprovação de algum tipo de anistia ao fim desses regimes. Tendo diferentes designações, as leis aprovadas visavam um mesmo objetivo: impossibilitar a responsabilização de militares e civis pelas inúmeras violações a direitos humanos cometidas durante as ditaduras. O discurso de “virar a página e olhar para o futuro” esteve presente em ambos os países, e foi usado para propagar a ideia da pacificação nacional. A partir dos anos 2000, já em um contexto de democracias consolidadas, o quadro difere imensamente. Enquanto na Argentina, entre 2004 e 2007, a Corte Suprema de la Nación julgou inconstitucionais todos os dispositivos que representavam obstáculos ao julgamento dos crimes da ditadura (Lei de Obediência Devida, a Lei do Ponto Final e os indultos concedidos por Carlos Menem), no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou improcedente, em 2010, uma ação ajuizada pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) e considerou a Lei da Anistia (Lei n. 6.683/79) fruto de um acordo político e, por consequência, impossível de ser revisado. Partindo dessas premissas, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o posicionamento das Cortes Supremas de Brasil e Argentina no que diz respeito à responsabilização penal dos crimes de lesa humanidade cometidos pelas ditaduras. As decisões dos fallos Arancibia Clavel, Simón e Mazzeo, e a sentença da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) n. 153, serão comparadas sob o viés histórico do contexto democrático nas quais foram geradas, buscando compreender a discrepância entre os entendimentos das Cortes e do quadro atual de ambos os países no que diz respeito à efetivação de mecanismos de justiça de transição. / Between the decades of 1960 and 1980, Brazil and Argentina have experienced dictatorships. The different experiences for these nations have some links in common: the seizure of power by the armed forces, the application of the national security doctrine, suspension of fundamental rights and guarantees, the consequent establishment of State terrorism and, finally, the adoption of some kind of amnesty in the end of those regimes. Having different designations, the laws adopted had the same goal: make it impossible the accountability of military and civilians by the numerous human rights violations committed during the dictatorships. The speech of "turn the page and look to the future" was present in both countries, and was used to propagate the idea of “national pacification”. From the year 2000, in a context of consolidated democracies, the situation differs immensely. While in Argentina, between 2004 and 2007, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional all devices that represent obstacles to the prosecution of crimes commited by the dictatorship ( the Due Obedience Law, the Final Point Law and pardons granted by President Carlos Menem), in Brazil, the Supreme Court dismissed, in 2010, an action filed by the Bar Association of Brazil, and considered the Amnesty Law (Law n. 6.683/79) the result of a political agreement and, consequently, impossible to review. Starting from these premises, the present study aims to analyze the positioning of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and Argentina, with regard to the criminal liability of the crimes against humanity committed by dictatorships. Decisions of “fallos” Arancibia Clavel, Simón and Mazzeo, and the sentence in the Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamentl (ADPF) n. 153 will be compared under the historical bias of the democratic context in which they were generated, seeking to understand the discrepancy between the understandings of the courts and of the current framework of both countries regarding the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.

Entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980, Brasil e Argentina vivenciaram ditaduras de segurança nacional. As diferentes experiências vividas por essas nações possuem alguns elos em comum: a tomada do poder pelas Forças Armadas, a aplicação da Doutrina de Segurança Nacional, suspensão de direitos e garantias fundamentais, o consequente estabelecimento do Terrorismo de Estado e, por fim, a aprovação de algum tipo de anistia ao fim desses regimes. Tendo diferentes designações, as leis aprovadas visavam um mesmo objetivo: impossibilitar a responsabilização de militares e civis pelas inúmeras violações a direitos humanos cometidas durante as ditaduras. O discurso de “virar a página e olhar para o futuro” esteve presente em ambos os países, e foi usado para propagar a ideia da pacificação nacional. A partir dos anos 2000, já em um contexto de democracias consolidadas, o quadro difere imensamente. Enquanto na Argentina, entre 2004 e 2007, a Corte Suprema de la Nación julgou inconstitucionais todos os dispositivos que representavam obstáculos ao julgamento dos crimes da ditadura (Lei de Obediência Devida, a Lei do Ponto Final e os indultos concedidos por Carlos Menem), no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou improcedente, em 2010, uma ação ajuizada pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) e considerou a Lei da Anistia (Lei n. 6.683/79) fruto de um acordo político e, por consequência, impossível de ser revisado. Partindo dessas premissas, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o posicionamento das Cortes Supremas de Brasil e Argentina no que diz respeito à responsabilização penal dos crimes de lesa humanidade cometidos pelas ditaduras. As decisões dos fallos Arancibia Clavel, Simón e Mazzeo, e a sentença da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) n. 153, serão comparadas sob o viés histórico do contexto democrático nas quais foram geradas, buscando compreender a discrepância entre os entendimentos das Cortes e do quadro atual de ambos os países no que diz respeito à efetivação de mecanismos de justiça de transição. / Between the decades of 1960 and 1980, Brazil and Argentina have experienced dictatorships. The different experiences for these nations have some links in common: the seizure of power by the armed forces, the application of the national security doctrine, suspension of fundamental rights and guarantees, the consequent establishment of State terrorism and, finally, the adoption of some kind of amnesty in the end of those regimes. Having different designations, the laws adopted had the same goal: make it impossible the accountability of military and civilians by the numerous human rights violations committed during the dictatorships. The speech of "turn the page and look to the future" was present in both countries, and was used to propagate the idea of “national pacification”. From the year 2000, in a context of consolidated democracies, the situation differs immensely. While in Argentina, between 2004 and 2007, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional all devices that represent obstacles to the prosecution of crimes commited by the dictatorship ( the Due Obedience Law, the Final Point Law and pardons granted by President Carlos Menem), in Brazil, the Supreme Court dismissed, in 2010, an action filed by the Bar Association of Brazil, and considered the Amnesty Law (Law n. 6.683/79) the result of a political agreement and, consequently, impossible to review. Starting from these premises, the present study aims to analyze the positioning of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and Argentina, with regard to the criminal liability of the crimes against humanity committed by dictatorships. Decisions of “fallos” Arancibia Clavel, Simón and Mazzeo, and the sentence in the Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamentl (ADPF) n. 153 will be compared under the historical bias of the democratic context in which they were generated, seeking to understand the discrepancy between the understandings of the courts and of the current framework of both countries regarding the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.

Entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980, Brasil e Argentina vivenciaram ditaduras de segurança nacional. As diferentes experiências vividas por essas nações possuem alguns elos em comum: a tomada do poder pelas Forças Armadas, a aplicação da Doutrina de Segurança Nacional, suspensão de direitos e garantias fundamentais, o consequente estabelecimento do Terrorismo de Estado e, por fim, a aprovação de algum tipo de anistia ao fim desses regimes. Tendo diferentes designações, as leis aprovadas visavam um mesmo objetivo: impossibilitar a responsabilização de militares e civis pelas inúmeras violações a direitos humanos cometidas durante as ditaduras. O discurso de “virar a página e olhar para o futuro” esteve presente em ambos os países, e foi usado para propagar a ideia da pacificação nacional. A partir dos anos 2000, já em um contexto de democracias consolidadas, o quadro difere imensamente. Enquanto na Argentina, entre 2004 e 2007, a Corte Suprema de la Nación julgou inconstitucionais todos os dispositivos que representavam obstáculos ao julgamento dos crimes da ditadura (Lei de Obediência Devida, a Lei do Ponto Final e os indultos concedidos por Carlos Menem), no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou improcedente, em 2010, uma ação ajuizada pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) e considerou a Lei da Anistia (Lei n. 6.683/79) fruto de um acordo político e, por consequência, impossível de ser revisado. Partindo dessas premissas, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o posicionamento das Cortes Supremas de Brasil e Argentina no que diz respeito à responsabilização penal dos crimes de lesa humanidade cometidos pelas ditaduras. As decisões dos fallos Arancibia Clavel, Simón e Mazzeo, e a sentença da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) n. 153, serão comparadas sob o viés histórico do contexto democrático nas quais foram geradas, buscando compreender a discrepância entre os entendimentos das Cortes e do quadro atual de ambos os países no que diz respeito à efetivação de mecanismos de justiça de transição. / Between the decades of 1960 and 1980, Brazil and Argentina have experienced dictatorships. The different experiences for these nations have some links in common: the seizure of power by the armed forces, the application of the national security doctrine, suspension of fundamental rights and guarantees, the consequent establishment of State terrorism and, finally, the adoption of some kind of amnesty in the end of those regimes. Having different designations, the laws adopted had the same goal: make it impossible the accountability of military and civilians by the numerous human rights violations committed during the dictatorships. The speech of "turn the page and look to the future" was present in both countries, and was used to propagate the idea of “national pacification”. From the year 2000, in a context of consolidated democracies, the situation differs immensely. While in Argentina, between 2004 and 2007, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional all devices that represent obstacles to the prosecution of crimes commited by the dictatorship ( the Due Obedience Law, the Final Point Law and pardons granted by President Carlos Menem), in Brazil, the Supreme Court dismissed, in 2010, an action filed by the Bar Association of Brazil, and considered the Amnesty Law (Law n. 6.683/79) the result of a political agreement and, consequently, impossible to review. Starting from these premises, the present study aims to analyze the positioning of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and Argentina, with regard to the criminal liability of the crimes against humanity committed by dictatorships. Decisions of “fallos” Arancibia Clavel, Simón and Mazzeo, and the sentence in the Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamentl (ADPF) n. 153 will be compared under the historical bias of the democratic context in which they were generated, seeking to understand the discrepancy between the understandings of the courts and of the current framework of both countries regarding the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.

L’objectif majeur de ce travail est de dresser un bilan de l’ensemble des litiges soumis et susceptibles d’être soumis aux juges relevant du droit international pénal ayant eu lieu dans les pays inter lacustres d’Afrique. Il articule autour des quatre axes principaux. Le premier axe consiste à placer le droit international pénal dans l’ensemble du droit international moderne. Le deuxième axe consiste à situer la criminalité de masse de la sous-région des pays inter lacustres d’Afrique dans le temps et dans l’espace tout en s’attardant sur le contexte politique et social dans lequel elle a eu lieu, son ampleur et son inhumanité. Le troisième axe quant à lui, s’attarde à la démonstration de quelles formes (chapeaux des crimes, et crimes sous-jacents) les crimes contre la paix et la sécurité de l’humanité se sont manifestés dans la sous-région des pays inter lacustres d’Afrique. Le quatrième et le dernier axe étudie les modes de participation aux crimes. Autrement, Il s’agit de passer en revue de la jurisprudence pour voir sous quels types de responsabilité les criminels des pays inter lacustres d’Afrique répondaient à leurs actes. Le présent travail permet d’étudier de long en large le génocide des Tutsis au Rwanda et s’attarde sur les éléments constitutifs des massacres perpétrés contre les communautés des hutus au Burundi, au Rwanda et au Congo dont l’hypothèse du génocide est fort avancée par le monde académique et diplomatique. Cela terminé, cette recherche analyse la jurisprudence des cours et tribunaux internationaux pour étudier les éléments contextuels et les crimes sous-jacents aux crimes de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité. Il permet de comprendre d’une manière typique et circonstanciée les groupes protégés par les conventions internationales de droit humanitaires et les scénarios dans lesquels ce droit a été violé. En dernière analyse, ce travail étudie les modes de participation aux crimes contre la paix et la sécurité de l’humanité qui ont enclenché les responsabilités des criminels des pays inter lacustres d’Afriques. Les modes collectifs tels que les entreprises criminelles communes et la responsabilité du chef hiérarchiques sont succinctement étudiés en prenant pour cas d’études les massacres ayant eu lieu dans la région susmentionnée. / This thesis aims at making an update compilation of the all crimes perpetrated in Democratic Republic of Congo, in Burundi in Uganda and in Rwanda. The above said crimes are those related to the international law judged and those to be judged by international criminal courts and tribunals. Our thesis articulates around four main sub topics. The first consist of studying the high moments of international criminal law and the place of this branch of law in international law arena. The second studies the high moments of mass killings in the inter-lacustrine region of Africa while the third identifies the crimes against the peace and security of humanity perpetrated in the above-mentioned region. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The fourth and final area of focus demonstrates the forms of international criminal responsibility developed by Law case in International Criminal tribunal for Rwanda and in International criminal court as well. The present research explores broadly the genocide perpetrated against Tutsi in Rwanda and focuses on the elements of the massacres perpetrated against the hutu communities in Burundi, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo on which genocide hypothesis is highly advanced by international community and some scholars. Moreover, this research has analyzed the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals to study contextual elements and additional infractions to war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It provides a typical and comprehensive understanding of the groups protected by the international humanitarian law conventions and the scenarios in which this right has been violated. At the end, this work examines the liability in the crimes against the peace and security of humanity that have triggered the responsibility of criminals. The collective types of participation including joint criminal enterprises and command responsibility by taking the cases of study the massacres perpetrated in the above-mentioned region.

LL.D. / Millions of human lives have been affected by gross human rights violations since 1945. Genocide and crimes against humanity have been perpetrated repeatedly against civilians despite the vow after the Holocaust that such atrocities would “never again” occur. The Holocaust acts were not criminalised as “genocide” in the London Charter, but as “persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds” under the broader international crime of “crimes against humanity”. “Genocide” was criminalised on 9 December 1948 by the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by the United Nations General Assembly. Two main obligations were imposed on signatory states by Article I of the Genocide Convention, namely to prevent the commission of the international crime of genocide, and the obligation to punish the perpetrators of such a crime. Both genocide and crimes against humanity form part of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”, which are also gross human rights violations. It is of interest to all states of the international community to prevent the commission of these gross human rights violations and to prosecute perpetrators. The prohibition of the international crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity is erga omnes in nature. The research objective of this doctoral thesis is to analyse the causes for the repeated failure of the international community to fulfil the erga omnes obligation to prevent and prosecute gross human rights violations. This endeavour is furthermore aimed at formulating recommendations that will enhance future compliance with the erga omnes obligation in accordance with the international legal developments that will form the subject matter of the thesis. The thesis consists of five parts. Part 1 is an introduction in which the research objective and aims of the thesis are explained and demarcated, as well as the issues focused upon. Core legal concepts, terms and notions explained in Part 1 include “gross human rightsviolations”, “erga omnes obligation”, “jus cogens norms”, “customary international law”, “states upon whom the erga omnes obligations to prevent and prosecute gross human rights violations are imposed”, “the obligation to prevent”, “the obligation to prosecute”, “state responsibility”, “individual criminal responsibility”, “state immunity”, and various other terms. Part 1 further explains the research methodology followed in the thesis and contains a brief overview of the parts and chapters.

Magister Legum / In the aftermath of World War Two, the International Community has shown a renewed commitment towards the protection of human rights. However, whether during wars or under dictatorial regimes, numerous human rights abuses occurred everywhere in the world, from Latin America to Eastern Europe and from Southern Europe to Africa. Countries which experienced oppressive governance or outrageous atrocities has to address the legacies of their past on the return of democratic rule or peace. In other words, they had to emerge from the darkness of dictatorship or civil war in order to establish a democracy. Today, after 14 years of civil war, Liberia is faced with the challenge of achieving a successful transition where the imperatives of truth, justice and reconciliation need to be met. The purpose of this research paper was to make some recommendations on the way the accountability process in Liberia should be shaped as far as prosecution is concerned. / South Africa