<p>This research paper is an analysis of the case United States v Flick et al which took place in 1947 in Nuremberg, Germany. Friedrich Flick, a powerful German industrialist, and several high ranking officials of his firm were tried by a United States military tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Third Reich. The&nbsp / proceedings and the decision itself are the subject of a critical examination, including an investigation of the factual and legal background. The trial will be regarded in the historical context of prosecutions against German industrialists after World War II. Seen from present-day perspective, the question will be raised whether any conclusions can be drawn from the Flick case in respect of the substance of present-day international criminal law. <br /> &nbsp / </p>

<p>Kenya&rsquo / s December 2007 Presidential elections sparked a wave of violent clashes over allegations of election rigging. The protests broke out along ethnic lines, causing greater civil unrest. There have been allegations that during these outbreaks of violence crimes against humanity were committed. This violence attracted world-wide concern and was universally condemned. Kenya is loathe to prosecute the perpetrators or those who bear the highest responsibility for the alleged commission of crimes against humanity. It has instead established a national investigatory mechanism, the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter TJRC). This approach adopted by Kenya has been criticized for the fact that it fosters a culture of impunity. However, the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) has used his proprio motu powers to initiate an investigation of alleged commission of crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. This research paper has analysed the reasons for the proprio motu intervention of the ICC in Kenyan situation. It also examined whether Kenya was unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute the perpetrators of the post-election violence of 2007. Furthermore, the paper&nbsp / evaluated the provisions of the Kenyan TJRC, the major shortcomings of the Commission and the challenges it is facing in fulfilling its mandate. In conclusion the paper analysed the relationship between TJRC and ICC and re-evaluate any role that the two bodies could play in dispensing justice in Kenya. But before that, the paper laid down the factual&nbsp / background that led to the proprio motu interevention of the ICC in Kenya where a truth commission had alreday been established.<br /> <br /> &nbsp / </p>

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

<p>The first part of this study evaluates the historical events that led to the referral of the DRC situation to the ICC. This includes the background of the conflict and the extent to which international crimes have been committed. Both regional and domestic attempts and initiatives to address the conflict are discussed, with specific reference to peace agreements and restorative justice mechanisms. The second part of the study deals with the prosecution of the perpetrators by the ICC. It examines the approach of the Pre- Trial Chamber to two legal issues, the principle of complementarity and modes of criminal participation as part of the ICC Statute. In this regard, the study makes a critical evaluation of two preliminary decisions confirming the charges against Lubanga, Katanga and Chui before the cases proceeded to the trial stage.</p>

<p>This research paper is an analysis of the case United States v Flick et al which took place in 1947 in Nuremberg, Germany. Friedrich Flick, a powerful German industrialist, and several high ranking officials of his firm were tried by a United States military tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Third Reich. The&nbsp / proceedings and the decision itself are the subject of a critical examination, including an investigation of the factual and legal background. The trial will be regarded in the historical context of prosecutions against German industrialists after World War II. Seen from present-day perspective, the question will be raised whether any conclusions can be drawn from the Flick case in respect of the substance of present-day international criminal law. <br /> &nbsp / </p>

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

<p>Kenya&rsquo / s December 2007 Presidential elections sparked a wave of violent clashes over allegations of election rigging. The protests broke out along ethnic lines, causing greater civil unrest. There have been allegations that during these outbreaks of violence crimes against humanity were committed. This violence attracted world-wide concern and was universally condemned. Kenya is loathe to prosecute the perpetrators or those who bear the highest responsibility for the alleged commission of crimes against humanity. It has instead established a national investigatory mechanism, the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter TJRC). This approach adopted by Kenya has been criticized for the fact that it fosters a culture of impunity. However, the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) has used his proprio motu powers to initiate an investigation of alleged commission of crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. This research paper has analysed the reasons for the proprio motu intervention of the ICC in Kenyan situation. It also examined whether Kenya was unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute the perpetrators of the post-election violence of 2007. Furthermore, the paper&nbsp / evaluated the provisions of the Kenyan TJRC, the major shortcomings of the Commission and the challenges it is facing in fulfilling its mandate. In conclusion the paper analysed the relationship between TJRC and ICC and re-evaluate any role that the two bodies could play in dispensing justice in Kenya. But before that, the paper laid down the factual&nbsp / background that led to the proprio motu interevention of the ICC in Kenya where a truth commission had alreday been established.<br /> <br /> &nbsp / </p>

The cruelty and scope of the widespread criminality of humans in the world, which was a feature of the past century, was fuelled by scientific progress, egoism and humanity's power of destruction. The criminal consequences of the many imperialistic, hegemonic and barbarous wars in that century were immeasurable in terms of violations of human rights. Notwithstanding the emergence of international criminal justice through the experience of the International Criminal Military Tribunal of Nuremberg and Tokyo and later the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, globally, impunity for egregious crimes continues. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the end of the 20th century was saluted as a major step forward in the evolution of international criminal justice. While previous tribunals were ad hoc, the ICC is permanent and has large territorial jurisdiction. This raises hope among the many Congolese victims of the first African World War, who view the ICC as a paradigm change that will put a stop to impunity for crimes against humanity and the crimes of genocide and war. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the past decades have been marked by instability and horrible armed conflicts (1996-97 and 1998-2003) which left several million people dead, and which were marked by gross war crimes. The negative consequences of those atrocities persist until today. While the ICC initiated the prosecution of some war criminals in 2004, most crimes committed before 2002 remain unpunished, because the ICC's jurisdiction is limited to after that time. It is therefore imperative to examine other mechanisms to deal with impunity for various grave crimes, including war crimes, perpetrated between 1996 and 2002. Thus the aim of this research is to contribute to the fight against impunity for crimes in the DRC by examining how other modes of jurisdiction such as the principle of universality can be applied, and to assess the need for the establishment of a specific tribunal for the DRC. Considering the inability and incapacity of the Congolese judicial apparatus, this study concludes by recommending the establishment of a Special Criminal Tribunal which can put an end to impunity for serious crimes committed in the DRC. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

This research paper is an analysis of the case United States v Flick et al which took place in 1947 in Nuremberg, Germany. Friedrich Flick, a powerful German industrialist, and several high ranking officials of his firm were tried by a United States military tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Third Reich. The proceedings and the decision itself are the subject of a critical examination, including an investigation of the factual and legal background. The trial will be regarded in the historical context of prosecutions against German industrialists after World War II. Seen from present-day perspective, the question will be raised whether any conclusions can be drawn from the Flick case in respect of the substance of present-day international criminal law. / Magister Legum - LLM

<p>This thesis assessed the effectiveness of the Special Court in relation to the impact is has made in cultivating the rudiments of a human rights culture, dispensing justice, ending a culture of impunity, effecting unity and national reconciliation in post war Sierra Leone.</p>