Orientador: Andrei Koener / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-18T18:32:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ferreira_MarrielleMaiaAlves_D.pdf: 2775647 bytes, checksum: b0cda201d9f8a77758515e61d56a312c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 / Resumo: O presente trabalho tem como objetivo estudar a política dos Estados Unidos para o Tribunal Penal Internacional do ponto de vista da estratégia da política externa norte-americana. O período de análise refere-se ao imediato pós Guerra Fria, quando o tema da criação de tribunais internacionais voltou para a agenda internacional, compreendido nos anos das administrações George H. W. Bush (1989-1992), Bill Clinton (1993-2000) e George W. Bush (2001-2008). Partiu-se da constatação das diferenças no tratamento dispensado pelas Presidências norte-americanas aos instrumentos de justiça internacional. Com vistas a apreciar o significado dessas diferenças o trabalho foi dividido em quatro capítulos. O primeiro capítulo dedica-se a apresentar os antecedentes históricos da criação do Tribunal Penal Internacional e seus aspectos institucionais, com atenção especial para o papel dos Estados Unidos no processo de negociação do referido documento. Em seguida, o segundo capítulo apresenta como o tema se insere no tradicional debate da política internacional e da política externa norte-americana com repercussões para o estudo da grande estratégia dos Estados Unidos. No terceiro capítulo, são examinados os relatórios de estratégia de segurança nacional dos governos estudados com o propósito de contribuir para o estudo das variações da política externa dos Estados Unidos para os instrumentos de justiça internacional. Por fim, o quarto capítulo examina a política de oposição ao Tribunal Penal Internacional durante a administração George W. Bush. A conclusão do trabalho traz considerações sobre o consenso subjacente às posições dos Estados Unidos sobre o Tribunal Penal Internacional e, mais genericamente, os regimes internacionais de direitos humanos, e também as dimensões específicas do dissenso observado no discurso dos governos estudados. Esses dissensos dizem respeito aos valores norte-americanos e as distintas interpretações sobre o grau de comprometimento do Estado com uma instituição permanente de justiça internacional / Abstract: The present research has as its objective an examination of the policies of the United States with regard to the International Penal Court from the perspective of the American foreign policy strategy. For the analysis, the review begins with the end of the "cold war" period. As a time of interest in the creation of international courts, the presidencies of George H. W. Bush (1989-1992), William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton 1993-2000) and George W. Bush (2001-2008) are considered. With the beginning of differences in the treatment given by the different North American presidents, variation in the use of instruments of international justice can be perceived. In order to appreciate the meaning of these differences the present analysis has been divided in four chapters. The first chapter is devoted to the presentation of historical antecedents of the creation of the International Criminal Court and its institutional aspects. Special attention is given to the role of the United States in the process of negotiation of the document. Following this, in the second chapter the theme of international justice is inserted into the international political debate, as well as the American foreign policy debate, with implications for the U.S. grand strategy. The third chapter examines reports elaborated on strategies of national security of individual governments with the goal of contributing to the study of variations in North American foreign policy, in view of international justice. Finally, the fourth chapter examines the policy of opposition to the International Penal Court during the administration of George W. Bush. The conclusion of the analysis presents considerations as to the underlying consensus of the positions of the United States regarding the International Criminal Court. In general, the positions of the international regimes as to human rights and specific dimensions of opposition in the discourse of the governments involved are observed. These dimensions represent North American values and the distinct interpretations of the level of commitment of the US Government as a permanent institution of international justice / Doutorado / Ciencia Politica / Doutor em Ciência Política

On 18 November 2010, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) held that legal reforms adopted by Senegal in 2007 to incorporate international crimes into the national Penal Code to enable its domestic courts to prosecute Hissene Habre for, among others, crimes against humanity committed in Chad twenty years before, violated the principle of legality, specifically the principle against non-retroactivity of criminal law. The court held that such crimes could be prosecuted only by a hybrid tribunal with the jurisdiction to try Habre for the international crimes based on general principles of law common to the community of nations. Some scholars opined that the ECOWAS decision was wrong, stating that the crimes in question were criminalised already under international law and that Senegal‟s legal reforms simply served jurisdictional purposes. Given that, as a core component of the principle of legality, the role of non-retroactivity is to prohibit the creation of new crimes and their application to past conduct, the opinions of such scholars may hold true. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

The principle of complementarity is a tool used to punish the commission of core international crimes. A concerted approach is required to combat war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court needs to fully appreciate the express and implied discretionary powers of states to ensure all possible accountability mechanisms are explored. Failure by the Prosecutor to do so results in missed opportunities to capitalise on various options related to the proper application of complementarity. Therefore, there is a need for consultations to establish that the International Criminal Court and prosecutions can no longer exist without competing alternatives preferred by states. The current misunderstandings on the application of complementarity are rooted in unresolved state and prosecutorial discretions. The endangering of state discretion threatens the integrity and credibility of the International Criminal Court. The unaddressed question of state discretion is also at the centre of disputes between the African Union and the International Criminal Court. Grey areas in the application of complementarity are clearly visible through the inconsistency and diversity of the International Criminal Court decisions and frequent prosecutorial policy proclamations. As a result, prosecutorial discretion needs to be checked. Prosecutorial discretion is checked at the United Nations, International Criminal Court and state levels. The checks at regional level and by non-prosecutorial options need to be explored. The call is for the International Criminal Court not to neglect the legal-political environment which the Court operates in. The environment is essential in demarcating the exercise of discretions. The Kenyatta case is illustrative of the need to invent an interpretation that reflects the evolving theory to practice reality. The development or amendment of a prosecutorial policy is desirable to give guidance on the value, circumstances and priority accorded to justice. The policy should be comprehensive enough to accommodate mechanisms which advocate for strengthened state discretion. For instance, African Union instruments and treaties reveal that the respect of state discretion is one of the core principles of the African Union system. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LL.D.

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

D. Litt. et Phil. (African Politics) / This study is an exploration of transitional justice mechanisms available to post conflict communities. It is a context sensitive and sustained interrogation of the effectiveness of endogenous transitional justice mechanisms in post-colonial Zimbabwe. The study utilised Ruti Teitel’s (1997: 2009-2080) realist/idealist theory as its theoretical framework. Using the case of Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular, it analyses the application of imported idealist transitional justice mechanisms, mainly International Criminal Court (ICC) trials. It also debates the efficacy of realist transitional justice mechanisms, mainly the South African model of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).The study explores the application of what it terms broad realist transitional justice mechanisms used mostly in rural areas of Zimbabwe to achieve peace building and reconciliation. These modes of everyday healing and reconciliation include the traditional institutions of ngozi (avenging spirit), botso (self-shaming), chenura (cleansing ceremonies), nhimbe (community working groups) and nyaradzo (memorials). The key finding of this exploration is that local realist transitional justice mechanisms are more efficacious in fostering peace building and reconciliation than imported idealist mechanisms such as the ICC trials and imported realist mechanisms such as the TRC. More value can be realised when imported realist mechanisms and local realist transitional justice mechanisms complement each other. The study contributes to the literature on transitional justice in general and bottom-up, victim-centred reconciliation in particular. It offers a different approach to the study of transitional justice in post conflict Zimbabwe by recasting the debate away from the liberal peace paradigm which critiques state centric top-down approaches such as trials, clemencies, amnesties and institutional reform. The study considers the agency of ‘ordinary’ people in resolving the after effects of politically motivated harm. It also lays the foundation for further research into other traditional transitional justice mechanisms used for peace building and reconciliation elsewhere in Africa / Political Sciences

Les crimes de guerre constituent des violations graves du droit international pénal. Cependant, chaque nouveau conflit, qu'il ait un caractère international ou non, donne lieu à la perpétration de tels crimes. Pourquoi ? Y aurait-il des éléments prédisposant aux comportements de violence ? Le XXe siècle est le siècle de la justice internationale pénale caractérisée par la mise en place de tribunaux militaires internationaux après la découverte des atrocités de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, puis de tribunaux internationaux « ad hoc » pour se terminer par l'instauration d’une Cour internationale permanente en matière pénale. Les tribunaux ad hoc instaurés pour l’ex-Yougoslavie et pour le Rwanda ont permis que soient appliquées aux conflits armés non internationaux, les conventions internationales définissant les règles régissant les conflits armés internationaux. Quel a été l’impact de la jurisprudence de ces tribunaux sur la notion de crime de guerre ? Enfin, même si la mise en place de la Cour pénale internationale constitue un espoir dans la lutte contre l’impunité, son Statut souligne le difficile équilibre qu’elle opère entre la souveraineté des États et la volonté d’une justice universelle. Aux côtés de la justice institutionnelle est apparue la « justice transitionnelle », dont l’un des objectifs est de permettre la transition entre le temps de guerre et le temps de paix, dans les meilleures conditions possible, et ce, malgré les dilemmes auxquels elle doit faire face. Après tout, un retour rapide à une paix durable n’est-il pas préférable ? La justice transitionnelle nous emmène à nous poser la question suivante : faut-il juger ou pardonner les crimes de guerre ? / War crimes are serious violations of international criminal law. However, each new conflict, international or non-international, gives rise to the commission of war crimes. Why ? Does-it have factors that predispose to violent behaviours ? The 20th century is the century of international criminal law which is first characterized by the establishment of international military tribunals after the discovery of the atrocities of World War II, then international tribunals « ad hoc », eventually it ends by the introduction of an international criminal court. International Criminal Tribunals established for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have permitted the application of International Conventions, defining armed conflict’s rules, to non-international armed conflicts. What was the impact of these tribunals’ case laws on war crime concept ? Eventually, even if the establishment of International Criminal Court gave hope to combat impunity, its status highlights the delicate balance between states’ sovereignty and the willingness of universal justice. Transitional justice was introduced to complete or to replace institutional justice in some cases. One of transitional justice’s objectives is to make a transition a transition between wartime and peacetime as smooth as possible even if many challenges remain. In fact, the fast restoration of lasting peace would it not be better ? The transitional justice leads us to wonder if we have to judge or forgive war crimes ?

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.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been both contentious and successful. By examining the ICTY from a Levinasian ethical standpoint, we might be able to understand how the court uses language to enforce ethical and moral standards upon post-war societies. Using linguistic methods of analysis combined with traditional data about the ICTY, I empirically examine the court using ordinary least squares (OLS) in order to show the impact that language has upon the court's decision making process. I hypothesize that the court is an ethical entity, and therefore we should not see any evidence of bias against Serbs and that language will provide a robust view of the court as an ethical mechanism.

This study is an exploration of transitional justice mechanisms available to post conflict communities. It is a context sensitive and sustained interrogation of the effectiveness of endogenous transitional justice mechanisms in post-colonial Zimbabwe. The study utilised Ruti Teitel’s (1997: 2009-2080) realist/idealist theory as its theoretical framework. Using the case of Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular, it analyses the application of imported idealist transitional justice mechanisms, mainly International Criminal Court (ICC) trials. It also debates the efficacy of realist transitional justice mechanisms, mainly the South African model of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).The study explores the application of what it terms broad realist transitional justice mechanisms used mostly in rural areas of Zimbabwe to achieve peace building and reconciliation. These modes of everyday healing and reconciliation include the traditional institutions of ngozi (avenging spirit), botso (self-shaming), chenura (cleansing ceremonies), nhimbe (community working groups) and nyaradzo (memorials). The key finding of this exploration is that local realist transitional justice mechanisms are more efficacious in fostering peace building and reconciliation than imported idealist mechanisms such as the ICC trials and imported realist mechanisms such as the TRC. More value can be realised when imported realist mechanisms and local realist transitional justice mechanisms complement each other. The study contributes to the literature on transitional justice in general and bottom-up, victim-centred reconciliation in particular. It offers a different approach to the study of transitional justice in post conflict Zimbabwe by recasting the debate away from the liberal peace paradigm which critiques state centric top-down approaches such as trials, clemencies, amnesties and institutional reform. The study considers the agency of ‘ordinary’ people in resolving the after effects of politically motivated harm. It also lays the foundation for further research into other traditional transitional justice mechanisms used for peace building and reconciliation elsewhere in Africa / Political Sciences / D. Litt. et Phil. (African Politics)

À ce moment charnière où les T.P.I. accomplissent leurs Stratégies d’achèvement et où la C.P.I. va rendre son premier jugement, il est essentiel de faire un point sur le droit international pénal et particulièrement sur les statuts de victime selon ce droit. En effet, ceux-ci symbolisent les tenants et aboutissants de l’ensemble du droit international pénal. Tantôt oubliée, tantôt sacralisée, la victime ne laisse pas indifférent, et encore moins lorsqu’elle a subi un crime international. Sa reconnaissance a d’ailleurs bouleversé l’économie générale du droit international pénal qui lui accorde une place de plus en plus grande. Une étude approfondie des droits des différentes juridictions permet de constater qu’il n’y a pas un mais plusieurs statuts de victime. La pluralité de ces statuts réside dans l’existence de plusieurs qualités juridiques de victime et de plusieurs régimes juridiques applicables à celle-ci. L’analyse des différents facteurs de cette pluralité donne lieu de voir qu’elle est une force et non une faiblesse du droit international pénal. Elle est la voie médiane entre le rejet de la considération des victimes comme une masse informe et leur impossible prise en compte individuelle. Mais, comme pour le statut du particulier en droit international public général, l’équilibre est parfois difficile à trouver et les statuts sont perfectibles. C’est pourquoi, des propositions d’enrichissements des statuts de victime sont faites et, pour chacune d’entre elles, il est observé si elle est réalisable et souhaitable. Un système de justice pénale internationale serait en construction. La victime pourrait finir par trouver une place en son sein qui satisferait l’ensemble des protagonistes de la répression des crimes internationaux, y compris et surtout, les États. / While the ICT carry out their Completion Strategies, the ICC will soon pronounce its first decision. At this point, itis important to assess international criminal law and especially victim’s status according to this law. Actually, theysymbolise the ins and outs of international criminal law. Once forgotten, once sacralised, the victim never leavesus indifferent, above all a victim of international crimes. His or her recognition has deeply altered internationalcriminal law, which now gives him or her an increasing place. Studying the laws of the international criminal courtsshows that there is not one status but several status of victim. This plurality comes from the fact that there areseveral legal characterisations of victim and several legal conditions. The analysis of the different factors leadingto this multiplicity of legal status enables us to envision this legal diversity as a power of international criminal law,rather than one of its weaknesses. It is the middle way between considering victims as a shapeless, undefinedand undifferentiated crowd and considering each victim individually. But, as with the status of private persons ininternational public law, reaching and keeping a well-balanced status is difficult ; and these are perfectible andcan be improved. This is the reason why some suggestions for the enrichment of the different status are madeand, for each of them, there is a thorough questioning and analysis of whether it is feasible and desirable. As aninternational criminal justice system is under construction, the victim could find a place in it which would satisfy allthe protagonists of the legal proceedings against international crimes, including and particularly States.