Native American women have been historically disadvantaged as victims of domestic violence. These hardships were primarily due to a policy that limited Native American tribes’ criminal jurisdiction over non-Native individuals on Native American reservations. This policy changed with the passage of the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) in 2013. This qualitative case study employed the social construction of target populations conceptual framework to explore the experiences of tribal officials and judicial officers of the Tulalip tribe. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 9 key informants selected through purposeful sampling on the basis of their role within the Tulalip tribe’s SDVCJ. Data were sorted, organized, and coded by hand using a deductive thematic analysis to identify key themes. The key themes were leadership, protection against domestic violence, healing, accountability, training, and increased work. These conclusions may be useful to extend protection to individuals not protected under SDVCJ, which include Native American children, men, and elders who may also be victims of domestic violence.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

The principle of complementarity is the cornerstone of the establishment of the International Criminal Court as well as one of the key factors for its successful operation.  Having said that, the qualities of being flexible and adaptable make the task of interpreting the principle of complementarity extremely sensitive and technically tricky.  According to the current wording of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute, the ICC could factually exercise primacy over the national jurisdiction, if a loose interpretation of the principle is adopted, or conversely being residual to national jurisdictions, if the principle was strictly interpreted. While the principle of complementarity was at the heart of the negotiating process for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the emerging practice of the Court to date has left the vast majority of the questions on complementarity unanswered, even the few issues which the Court has touched upon are not immune from criticism. This thesis will thus strive, through an in-depth analysis of the past, present and practice of the principle of complementarity and its corollary issues, to offer workable answers as well as constructive criticism.  Guided by the central objective of ending impunity for the core crimes through criminal justice, this thesis, in interpreting the principle of complementarity, will follow a balanced approach which, while unequivocally favours national prosecutions where possible, it adopts a broadening interpretation when national jurisdictions are genuinely unavailable or ineffective.  To this end, this thesis eventually presents the principle of complementarity as a managerial principle which promotes for the effective investigation and prosecution of the core crimes through the adoption of different policies which encourage, <i>inter alia</i>, a division of labour between the International Criminal Court and domestic jurisdictions, and enable states to carry out proceedings and overcome dilemmas of ‘inability’ or ‘unwillingness’ without the role of the International Criminal Court being limited in such incidents to excluding national jurisdiction.

Recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has resulted in major amendments to Mexican military justice law that were previously thought to be impossible, considering the historical role of the armed forces and Mexico's civil-military pact. Yet, with a recent Supreme Court decision, Mexican law has been modified to bring it into compliance with the Inter-American Court's decisions. However, their efficacy has been undermined by aspects of the decisions which were not made on a principled basis.

Recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has resulted in major amendments to Mexican military justice law that were previously thought to be impossible, considering the historical role of the armed forces and Mexico's civil-military pact. Yet, with a recent Supreme Court decision, Mexican law has been modified to bring it into compliance with the Inter-American Court's decisions. However, their efficacy has been undermined by aspects of the decisions which were not made on a principled basis.

Thesis (doctoral)--Göttingen Universität, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Kiel, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Terrorism is not a new threat to the international order but it is a threat that has grown more urgent in the last few years. Terrorism has become a tragic circumstance of everyday live and has caused a remarkable loss of lives. It was only after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11 2001, that the international community realised it needed to co-operate and take actions against terrorism on an international level. One response has been the adoption of international rules for the suppression and eradication of terrorism and terrorist activities and making accountable the perpetrators of such acts. In fact, the contingent character of ad hoc tribunals encourages states to carry out their idea of establishing a permanent penal jurisdiction. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is considered a crowning achievement for preventing and prosecuting abominable crimes. The jurisdiction of the court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole; this includes crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and eventually crime of aggression. However disagreement over a definition of what constitutes terrorist activity made it impossible to include within the jurisdiction of the Court such serious crime named terrorism. There have been multiple approaches to the issue, but despite all efforts to pursue individuals who committed human rights violations, the ICC’s subject matter jurisdiction is limited since the international community could not reach to a consensual definition on what should be understood as terrorism. Consequently the Court does not have jurisdiction over international terrorism. There is therefore no standing, permanent international body with criminal jurisdiction over individuals accused of terrorist acts, although such acts may in extreme case fall within the rubric of crime against humanity. The various instruments and international directives dedicated to the eradication and suppression of terrorism have not resolved the impasse of its definition; nor is there any ‘unified’ international law approach to combating terrorism. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Public Law / unrestricted

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))—University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / Aggression is regarded as one of the core crimes under customary international law, but the definition of aggression is still contentious. At present there is no international instrument that provides for effective individual criminal liability for the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides for the inclusion of the crime of aggression within the court’s jurisdiction, but the Statute needs to be amended to include a definition of aggression and conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. This dissertation seeks to identify the elements of the international crime of aggression, for purposes of individual criminal liability. It is submitted that the creation of the ICC provides the international community with an historic opportunity to establish effective jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

No description available.