Thesis (doctoral)--Vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg, 1932. / "Literaturverzeichnis": p. 226-233.

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.

No description available.

The prosecutorial standard for incitement is subject to different approaches in the common law and civil law traditions respectively. The most crucial difference lies in the role attributed to the result as a definitional element of the offence. While the civil law generally characterizes proof of results as a prerequisite to liability, the common law views it as significant but not determinative of guilt. This divergence is expounded at the international level, which condones both approaches with respect to different crimes, employing the common law approach only to genocide and relegating all other crimes to the purview of the civil law approach. The practical effect is a focus on the gravity of the substantive crime to which incitement attaches, rather than on the crucial role of incitement itself. This thesis will seek to elucidate the parameters of this debate with the aim of deconstructing and redrawing preconceived barriers in international criminal law.

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Diss., 2008/2009 / Includes bibliographical references (p. 365-394) and index.

No description available.

Univ., Diss.--Frankfurt am Main, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 169 - 187.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Bremen, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [353]-356) and index.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Bochum, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 298-311) and register.

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD