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, and International / LL. D.

Zugl.: Bremen, Univ., Diss., 2007

Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

On October 1, 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a war from and with the support of the Republic of Uganda against Rwanda. This war was accompanied by unspeakable violations of International Humanitarian Law. Both conflicting parties violated the basic rules protecting the civilian population in situations of armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter, passed resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute alleged responsible of such violations. This study investigates the background of the ICTR and questions the nature of the conflict that prompted the Security Council to establish another ad hoc international criminal tribunal after the one established for the former Yugoslavia. It further inquires into its jurisprudence and reflects critically on the ICTR's approach to serious violations of IHL under Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. / Jurisprudence / LL. M. (Law)

This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.D.

On October 1, 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a war from and with the support of the Republic of Uganda against Rwanda. This war was accompanied by unspeakable violations of International Humanitarian Law. Both conflicting parties violated the basic rules protecting the civilian population in situations of armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter, passed resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute alleged responsible of such violations. This study investigates the background of the ICTR and questions the nature of the conflict that prompted the Security Council to establish another ad hoc international criminal tribunal after the one established for the former Yugoslavia. It further inquires into its jurisprudence and reflects critically on the ICTR's approach to serious violations of IHL under Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. / Jurisprudence / LL. M. (Law)

This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.