This thesis examines how the promise and institutionalization of 'justice for victims' has shaped the ICC's justice vision and identity. Drawing on interviews with 90 practitioners in The Hague, Kenya and Uganda, it undertakes a sociological and institutional analysis of how 'justice for victims' has evolved in the Court's first two decades through the definitions and redefinitions, pushes and pulls, strategies and miscalculations of the Court's diverse actors both in The Hague and in the field. It argues that the introduction of 'justice for victims' has led to a rift within the Court between those who embrace a narrow understanding of justice as 'fair trials' and those who see the ICC as an opening for broader justice processes. These rifts and gaps are reinforced by the Court's actors in the field such as victims' lawyers and intermediaries who sometimes assume political advocacy roles beyond what the Court's judges envisaged or follow their parochial interests on the ground. While the ICC's judges have increasingly curtailed victim participation and reparation in the court room, the Court's practices on the ground reflect an uneasy fusion of legal justice, development, local and national politics with a proliferation of new justice concepts including 'transformative justice' and 'gender justice'. So far, these justice contestations have not chipped away, much less undermined, the Court's legitimacy. Rather, the Court has thrived on its justice contradictions; its failure to commit to any particular justice vision while loosely relating to all possible visions, has made the Court impervious to critique. But the thesis will also show that 'justice for victims' at the ICC is schizophrenic: it is inherently unstable and its contradictory dynamics may at some point rip the concept apart - and with it the Court's legitimacy.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana de Oliveira Bueno.pdf: 692348 bytes, checksum: f81580072edc0fe11acf77b5b159438d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-08-01 / The International Criminal Court represented a major breakthrough in the international scenery, as the accountability of agents who commit extremely serious crimes because it was created in a permanent and complementary manner to national jurisdictions, respecting the principles of universality, complementarity, natural justice and independence. This Court, which differed from background experiences, for their essential characteristics, was structured in an organized way, giving the prosecutor the important investigative role, which greatly contributed to the achievement of the Court work. The Court's decisions, in turn, are uttered with the observance of the principles of legal reserve and prior criminal law, giving them greater legal certainty and fairness. However, what is observed is that the States that are committed to cooperate with the work of the Court, often do not contribute to the investigation or to implement the decisions of the Court, which has sparked many debates about the need to apply the law of force rather than the force of law. Another issue of great importance lies in the compatibility of the rules laid down in the Rome Statute with the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which, in some cases, apparently contrasts with our legal system. However, as it will be seen throughout this study, the problem of effectiveness slips in the very development of the countries involved in the conflict and the alleged incompatibilities exist in appearance only and do not constitute in reality / O Tribunal Penal Internacional representou um grande avanço no cenário internacional, quanto à responsabilização de agentes que cometem crimes de extrema gravidade, pois foi criado de forma permanente e complementar às jurisdições nacionais, respeitando os princípios da universalidade, complementaridade, juiz natural e independência. Esse Tribunal, que se diferenciou das experiências antecedentes, por suas características essenciais, foi estruturado de forma organizada, atribuindo ao Procurador o importante papel investigativo, o que muito contribuiu para a concretização dos trabalhos da Corte. As decisões do Tribunal, por sua vez, são proferidas com a observância dos princípios da reserva legal e da anterioridade da lei penal, conferindo-lhes maior segurança jurídica e imparcialidade. Entretanto, o que se observa é que os Estados, que assumem o compromisso de cooperar com os trabalhos da Corte, por muitas vezes não contribuem com a investigação ou para a execução das decisões proferidas pelo Tribunal, o que tem suscitado diversos debates acerca da necessidade da aplicação do direito da força em detrimento da força do direito. Outra questão de grande relevo reside na compatibilidade das normas previstas no Estatuto de Roma com a Constituição Federal brasileira, as quais, em algumas hipóteses, aparentemente contrastam com nosso ordenamento jurídico. Contudo, como se verá no decorrer desse estudo, o problema da efetividade resvala no próprio desenvolvimento dos países envolvidos nos conflitos e as supostas incompatibilidades só existem na aparência e não se configuram na realidade

Submitted by Rosina Valeria Lanzellotti Mattiussi Teixeira (rosina.teixeira@unisantos.br) on 2016-04-13T14:47:14Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Edigardo Ferreira Soares Neto.pdf: 1028853 bytes, checksum: 70f63bd2384eff0b1bd14f8959b7c5d6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-13T14:47:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Edigardo Ferreira Soares Neto.pdf: 1028853 bytes, checksum: 70f63bd2384eff0b1bd14f8959b7c5d6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-09-03 / In this dissertation, it will be made an approach to the International Criminal Court (ICC) rules in comparison with those of the Brazilian legal system, what coincide, making a check analysis of possible antinomies between internal standard and internalized. In this north, will be carried out an assessment of International Courts historical evolution that existed and the Court of Rome predecessors forms, in addition to the perception of data relating to its creation and accession of Brazil for their rules. In sequence, the features Court are related and, in this line, individual criminal responsibility, own this approach, in addition to the reflection on the concept of the Statute Member States sovereignty. Then the study is concentrated on the examination of international criminal law in comparison with the international criminal law, where international cooperation is addressed, in addition to the core crimes and criminal principles common to the internal order and external, all under the rules paradigm for the protection of international human rights. Finally, it will be checked the apparent shocks between constitutional rules and the Rome Statute, a verification of compatibility, a control of all juridical convention on domestic law impact and effect. / Neste trabalho, far-se-á uma abordagem das normas do Tribunal Penal Internacional em comparação com as do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, naquilo que coincidem, fazendo uma análise de verificação das possíveis antinomias entre a norma interna e a internalizada. Neste norte, será realizada uma apreciação da evolução histórica das Cortes Internacionais que existiram e foram antecessoras do Tribunal de Roma, além da percepção dos dados referentes à sua criação e adesão do Brasil as suas regras. Em sequência, as características da Corte serão relacionadas e, nesta linha, a responsabilidade penal individual, própria desta abordagem, além do reflexo no conceito de soberania dos Estados/Partes do Estatuto. Em seguida, o estudo é concentrado no exame do direito penal internacional em comparação com o direito internacional penal, onde a cooperação internacional é abordada, além dos core crimes e princípios penais comuns à ordem interna e externa, tudo sob o paradigma das regras de proteção aos direitos humanos internacionais. Por fim, checar-se-á os aparentes choques entre normas constitucionais e as do Estatuto de Roma, numa verificação de compatibilidade, num controle de convencionalidade do impacto e consequência ao direito interno.

<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 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>

Le mémoire vise à déterminer quelle contribution la justice internationale peut apporter à la résolution des conflits et au maintien de la paix et plus précisément si les pouvoirs octroyés au Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale, dans le cadre du Statut de Rome, lui donnent la capacité d’influencer les conflits en cours. Le premier chapitre décrit l’historique des événements ayant mené à l’adoption du Statut de Rome en 1998 et permet d’expliquer l’évolution de la notion d’une justice post-conflictuelle à une justice pouvant favoriser la paix. Le débat théorique paix-justice est ensuite analysé afin de démontrer que le Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale peut exercer une certaine influence sur les conflits lorsqu’il possède un pouvoir discrétionnaire important. Le second chapitre examine les prérogatives octroyées au Procureur dans le cadre du statut de Rome et comment elles s’appliquent durant les différentes étapes de procédure menant à la délivrance d’un mandat d’arrêt. Il est démontré que le pouvoir discrétionnaire du Procureur est limité par le régime de complémentarité et par des enjeux de coopération avec les États Parties. Par conséquent, cela nuit à sa capacité d’influencer la résolution des conflits. Le troisième chapitre analyse deux situations en cours à la Cour pénale internationale, soit celle de l’Ouganda et celle du Darfour, afin de vérifier si le Procureur a réellement un impact sur les conflits en cours. Il est avancé que dans le cadre actuel du Statut de Rome, le Procureur est dépendant de la coopération des États Parties pour influencer la résolution des conflits. / The thesis aims to determine how international justice can contribute to peace-building and ending conflicts and more specifically whether the powers given to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, in the Rome Statute, enable him to take action on ongoing conflicts. The first chapter describes the events that led to the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 and explains the evolution from a post-conflict justice to a justice for peace. The Peace and Justice debate is further analysed as to demonstrate that the International Criminal Court Prosecutor may have an impact on ongoing conflicts if granted with prosecutorial discretion. The second chapter looks into prosecutorial discretion in the Rome Statute and how it is implemented during the main steps of the process leading to an arrest warrant. It is demonstrated that prosecutorial discretion is limited by complementarity and cooperation issues between State Parties. Therefore it restricts the Prosecutor’s ability to ending conflicts. The third chapter analyses two ongoing situations at the International Criminal Court that is Uganda and Darfur, as to verify if the Prosecutor can have an effect on ongoing conflicts. It is concluded that in the current Rome Statute, the Prosecutor is dependent on State Parties cooperation to influencing conflict resolution.

<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 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>

Abstract not available. / Thesis (LL.D.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2011.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Frankfurt am Main, 2005.