1 |
A critical analysis of some of the legal issues raised by the indictment of president al-Bashir of Sudan by the ICCJohanne, Annah 25 July 2013 (has links)
There is a stark regress in the development of international criminal justice, in particular the fight against impunity on the African continent. This study explores various legal aspects that have arisen between Africa and the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the indictment of President al-Bashir of Sudan by the Court. There is a presumption of conflict between some provisions of the Rome Statute, particularly Article 27 and Article 98. The indictment of President al-Bashir ICC has been the epitome of such a presumption. The African Union (AU) is among those opposed to the indictment of President al-Bashir and has requested the Security Council to defer the matter in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute. The regional body has also refused to cooperate with the ICC in the arresting and surrendering of President al-Bashir to the Court on the basis of Article 98. Therefore, this study seeks to critically analyse the indictment of President al-Bashir by the ICC and the AU’s response to the same. The study further explores the legal validity of a deferral by the UN Security Council and the challenges it would will raise. The study also attempts to reconcile article 27 and article 98 of the Rome Statute in the context of President al Bashir’s indictment. In doing so, the study endeavours to weigh the legal elements in both of the arguments offered in support and against the action taken by the ICC. The reason for such a discussion is to investigate the nature of the jurisdiction the Court has upon President al-Bashir by virtue of UN Security Council Resolution 1593(2005), which referred the al Bashir case to the court. The discussion also investigates the nature of the legal obligations on members of the international community including Sudan, to cooperate with the ICC by arresting and surrendering President al-Bashir to the Court. In an effort to garner support for the ICC’s indictment of President al-Bashir, the study also looks at the operation of the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute and various principles of International Criminal Law that affirm the ICC’s jurisdiction over the situation in Darfur and those principles that speak to the presumed liability of President al-Bashir. Although this study acknowledges the apparent competing demands of justice and peace, it challenges arguments that promote impunity and makes the case for addressing the AU’s concerns relating to the ICC. More importantly, the study suggests that the UN Security Council and the ICC should be consistent and in condemning atrocities wherever they are committed and should be impartial in referring perpetrators of atrocities to the ICC irrespective of their political status. In so doing a clear message may be sent to individuals like President al-Bashir that commission of atrocities will invite international accountability. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted
|
2 |
[en] THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND SOVEREIGN (IN)EQUALITY: A RE-READING OF HIERARCHY IN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FROM THE AL BASHIR CASE / [pt] O TRIBUNAL PENAL INTERNACIONAL E A (DES)IGUALDADE SOBERANA: UMA RELEITURA DA HIERARQUIA NAS INSTITUIÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS A PARTIR DO CASO AL BASHIRLUISA PEREIRA DA ROCHA GIANNINI 29 May 2018 (has links)
[pt] O presente trabalho realiza uma investigação da (des)igualdade soberana
como um fenômeno que se manifesta nos diferentes níveis de instituições da
sociedade internacional. A análise é desenvolvida a partir do estudo de caso do
processo contra Omar Al Bashir, presidente em exercício do Estado do Sudão, no
Tribunal Penal Internacional. Esse caso evoca uma discussão acerca da autoridade
desempenhada pelo Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas nas instituições do
pós-1945, em especial, no direito internacional penal. Considerando que normas e
regras possuem um papel social nas múltiplas relações existentes em meio a
agentes e a estrutura, ou seja, elas transformam as relações no sistema
internacional, o trabalho investiga as disposições e princípios presentes tanto no
âmbito do Tribunal Penal Internacional, quanto também da Organização das
Nações Unidas, que autorizam uma discriminação entre os Estados. Essa distinção
implica a imposição de regras internacionais para alguns atores e, ao mesmo
tempo, a manutenção de certas prerrogativas soberanas para outros. Mais
especificamente, a justiça internacional penal é caracterizada pela seletividade nos
julgamentos, uma vez que é conferida a alguns países certa autoridade sobre o
regime. Nesse sentido, defende-se que a (des)igualdade soberana que está presente
no direito internacional penal é, simultaneamente, manifestação e condição de
possibilidade da hierarquia na arquitetura social, e portanto normativa
institucional, e política do sistema internacional. Argumenta-se, assim, que a
presença dessa (des)igualdade soberana pode ser identificada nos diferentes níveis
das instituições da sociedade internacional, na medida em que elas influenciam
umas às outras, de sorte que as características de uma refletem-se nas demais. / [en] This work carries out an investigation of sovereign (in)equality as a
phenomenon that manifests itself in the different levels of institutions of the
international society. The analysis departs from the case study of the process
against Omar al-Bashir, acting President of the State of Sudan, at the International
Criminal Court This case evokes a discussion about the authority exercised by the
United Nations Security Council over post-1945 institutions, especially
international criminal law. Considering that rules and norms have a social role in
the multiple relations existing between agents and the structure, that is, they
transform the relations in the international system, the work investigates the
dispositions and principles present both in the scope of the International Criminal
Court, as well as of the United Nations, which authorize a discrimination between
States. This distinction implies the imposition of international rules for some
actors and, at the same time, the maintenance of certain sovereign prerogatives for
others. More specifically, international criminal justice is characterized by
selectivity in judgments, as some countries are given certain authority over the
regime. In this sense, it is defended that the sovereign (in)equality, which is
present in international criminal law is simultaneously a manifestation and
condition of possibility of hierarchy in the social, and therefore institutionalnormative,
and political architecture of the international system. It is argued,
therefore, that the presence of this sovereign (in)equality can be identified at
different levels of the institutions of international society, insofar as they influence
each other, so that the characteristics of one are reflected in the others.
|
3 |
[pt] CONTESTANDO O CASO AL BASHIR: O SENTIDO DA POLÍTICA NAS PRÁTICAS ARGUMENTATIVAS JURÍDICAS INTERNACIONAIS E OS LIMITES DA CONTESTAÇÃO AFRICANA / [en] CONTESTING THE AL BASHIR CASE: THE MEANING OF POLITICS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENTATIVE PRACTICES AND THE LIMITS OF THE AFRICAN CONTESTATIONLUISA PEREIRA DA ROCHA GIANNINI FIGUEIRA 07 November 2022 (has links)
[pt] Esta tese analisa o processo de contestação iniciado pelos Estados africanos
em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no Tribunal Penal Internacional. A promulgação por
esses Estados de práticas de contestação representou um momento sem precedentes
na prática do direito penal internacional. Não apenas os Estados se engajaram com
o Tribunal por meio de uma vasta gama de práticas, mas também essa participação
gerou um nível alto de escrutínio de estudiosos e profissionais do direito
internacional. Ao longo da resposta ao envolvimento africano com o TPI, esteve
constantemente presente a conhecida mobilização da fronteira entre direito e
política. Uma posição frequente nas reações dos praticantes foi a de que a política
não deveria ocorrer no ambiente do Tribunal e a prática do direito internacional
deve ser capaz de transcendê-la. A análise desta tese centra-se nestes dois
elementos: as práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos e as
respostas dadas pelo Tribunal. Nesta tese, questiono se a forma como o Tribunal
deu sentido a essas práticas por meio da divisão do trabalho entre direito e política
afetou a capacidade desses Estados contestadores de provocar mudanças no direito
internacional. Por meio dessa pergunta, procuro capturar os aspectos mais
significativos que estão velados não apenas nas práticas de contestação, mas na
atribuição de significados em resposta a elas. Esse esforço requer um exame dos
padrões de significado subjacentes a essas práticas e narrativas, pois apontam para
as condições que permitem que certos atores questionem a autoridade. Argumento
que a criação de uma fronteira entre o que pertence à esfera do direito e à esfera da
política é em si uma postura política que tem consequências na forma como o direito
internacional é praticado. A forma como o direito e a política são mobilizados nas
práticas argumentativas do direito internacional criam um conjunto de barreiras
para que certas práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no TPI, quando enquadradas como política, não tenham
chance de provocar a mudança em primeiro lugar. / [en] This thesis works through the process of contestation embarked by African
States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the International Criminal Court. The
enactment by these States of practices of contestation represented an unprecedented
moment in the practice of international criminal law. Not only were States engaging
with the Court through a vast array of practices, but also this participation generated
an enormous level of scrutiny from scholars and practitioners of international law.
Throughout the response to the African engagement with the ICC was the familiar
mobilization of the frontier between law and politics. A frequent position in the
practitioners reactions was that politics should not take place in the environment of
the Court, and the practice of international law should be able to transcend it. The
analysis of this thesis focuses on these two features: the practices of contestation
performed by African States and the responses it engendered from the Court. In this
thesis, I question whether the way the Court made sense of these practices through
the division of labour between law and politics affected the ability of these
contesting States of engendering change in international law. Through this question,
I seek to grasp the more significant aspects that are veiled not only in the practices
of contestation but in the attribution of meanings in response to them. This
endeavour requires an examination of the patterns of meaning underlying these
practices and narratives, as they point to the conditions that allow certain actors to
question authority. I argue that the creation of a boundary between what belongs to
the realm of law and the sphere of politics is itself a political stance that has
consequences on the way international law is enacted. The way law and politics are
mobilized in the argumentative practices of international law creates a set of barriers
so that certain practices of contestation being performed by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the ICC, when framed as politics, do not stand a
chance to provoke change in the first place.
|
4 |
Sitting head of state immunity for crimes under international law : conflicting obligations of ICC member states?Gebremeskel, Wintana Kidane January 2016 (has links)
Magister Legum - LLM / Sitting head of state immunity for crimes under international law has been a very controversial issue in recent times. On the one hand, the debate bears that personal immunity has been renounced for crimes under international law. On the other hand, the advocates of personal immunity claim that the principle of immunity is still persisting under customary International law. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a treaty based court, it is able to extend its jurisdiction to non-state parties to the Rome Statute through a referral by the United Nations Security Council. Lacking its own enforcement body the ICC relies on the cooperation of other states for arrest and surrender of those it indicts. The extension of the court's jurisdiction to non-state parties, such as the case of Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir, has led to the reluctance of state parties to the Rome Statue to effect arrest and surrender citing a 'dilemma between two conflicting obligations'. This paper analyses the legal status of personal immunity before different fora such as International tribunals, foreign domestic courts and under customary international law. It also critically examines the legal basis for the alleged conflicting obligations of state parties. The paper at the end concludes that there is no conflicting obligation for states parties to fully co-operate with the ICC and the lack of co-operation in the arrest and surrender of a sitting head of state is inconsistent with international law particularly with United Nation Charter and the Rome Statute. / German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
|
5 |
Transnational criminal justice and crime prevention: an international and African perspectiveAdonis, Bongiwe January 2011 (has links)
<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 Councilâs 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 ICCâs 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>
|
6 |
Transnational criminal justice and crime prevention: an international and African perspectiveAdonis, Bongiwe January 2011 (has links)
<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 Councilâs 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 ICCâs 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>
|
7 |
Immunity for serving Heads of State for crimes under International Criminal Law: an analysis of the ICC-indictment against Omar Al BashirAdonis, Bongiwe January 2011 (has links)
Magister Legum - LLM / 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. / South Africa
|
Page generated in 0.023 seconds