<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>

The Irish immigrants have been an important part of London throughout the centuries. Their presence can be found from the 17th century and onwards. Initially occupied as seasonal workers in agrarian fields the Irish later found alternative ways of supporting themselves as the Industrial Revolution transformed the whole of England. Despite their vital importance to the construction of what was to be known as "the modern Babylon" the Irish have been victims of both social prejudice and maltreatment. Some historians have imposed a comparison between the Irish in England and the African slaves in the United States. They have viewed the Irish with the spectacles of modern racism and in their presumptions created an unfair image of the relationship of the British and the Irish as the European equivalent of that of the African slaves and the American slave owners. Not content with superimposing the image of "the racist Englishman" solely on the 19th century, scholars such as L. P Curtis and R. N. Lebow have sought to explain any questionable act committed by the British as a sign of xenophobia towards their Celtic neighbours, whether it be Cromwell’s Irish Campaign in 1649 or the lack of British aid during the Great Famine in Ireland in the 1840s. This essay sets out to examine how Irish women were perceived at the Old Bailey Session House in London. Women have always received verdicts of a more lenient character than their male counterparts. It is therefore plausible to suppose that, if Cutis and Lebow are correct in their assumptions, Irish women should receive harsher verdicts and a higher frequency of those committed than those acquitted of crimes in comparison with their British counterparts, which simply is not the case.

With its national strength, the United States is, more often than not, a major State initiating the making of important international multilateral treaties and shaping the final outcome by wielding its influence in the negotiation processes. Nevertheless, three major international multilateral treaties concluded in three different domains all appear the same situation in which the U.S. participated actively in the negotiations but ended up rejecting to sign or ratify due to their inconformities with American ¡§national interests.¡¨ The purpose of this thesis is to examine the American proposals and interventions made in the negotiating processes of three important international multilateral treaties, i.e., the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Kyoto Protocol and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so as to understand American negotiation stances as well as the issues to which the U.S. attached importance to and the derive the substantive contents of the ¡§national interests¡¨ that the U.S. held dear. Furthermore, this thesis takes one step further to analyze who were the actors that shaped and defined the ¡§national interests¡¨ which the U.S. valued and held tight.

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.

The ICC, which came into force in 2002, was held up by human rights activists as a force that would transform a culture of impunity into a culture of accountability. However, after five years of activity, the evidence suggests that the Court's effect has been mixed. Its ability to achieve retributive justice, broader reconciliation and restorative justice, as well as to deter future offences and promote peace has been variable, at best. Despite the Court's claim that politics are not its job, political missteps and support are adversely affecting the work of a judicious Court. Using the cases of Uganda and Darfur, this paper argues that the most significant factors impacting the Court's ability to achieve the four aims outlined are its lack of enforcement capacity, lack of international political will, the result of geo-political interests and concerns over the norm of state sovereignty, and lack of attention to political context by the Court itself.

Thesis (M.A.) - Simon Fraser University, 2005. / Theses (School of Criminology) / Simon Fraser University.