<p>The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of <em>non-refoulement</em>. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a <em>jus cogens</em> rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state.</p><p>Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of <em>aut dedere aut judicare</em>, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of <em>jus cogens</em>-rules should include or give rise to <em>erga omnes</em> rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain <em>jus cogens</em>-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.</p>

This thesis examines the experiences of girl child soldiers in Uganda in order to explore the gender gaps that exist in post-conflict programming and to engender meaningful policy solutions that target these gaps. This thesis uses a gender lens to analyze the challenges faced by Ugandan girls and to explore how entrenched gender norms feed into a singular narrative of conflict &ndash; dangerous boys and traumatized girls &ndash; that renders particular combatants &ndash; and their unique needs &ndash; invisible. Adopting a feminist methodology that prioritizes the importance of girls&rsquo; narratives and self-perceptions, the author argues that girl child soldiers must be meaningfully included in the design and implementation of programming aimed at serving their needs. A participatory action research methodology is presented as a promising way forward. It can help address specific gendered challenges in the post-conflict environment, while also recognizing and drawing upon the resiliency and strengths of the girl child soldiers themselves.

This thesis examines the experiences of girl child soldiers in Uganda in order to explore the gender gaps that exist in post-conflict programming and to engender meaningful policy solutions that target these gaps. This thesis uses a gender lens to analyze the challenges faced by Ugandan girls and to explore how entrenched gender norms feed into a singular narrative of conflict &ndash; dangerous boys and traumatized girls &ndash; that renders particular combatants &ndash; and their unique needs &ndash; invisible. Adopting a feminist methodology that prioritizes the importance of girls&rsquo; narratives and self-perceptions, the author argues that girl child soldiers must be meaningfully included in the design and implementation of programming aimed at serving their needs. A participatory action research methodology is presented as a promising way forward. It can help address specific gendered challenges in the post-conflict environment, while also recognizing and drawing upon the resiliency and strengths of the girl child soldiers themselves.

„We need to defend culture – source of resilience and resistance, of belonging and identity – as a wellspring to rebuild and restore normality in societies in crisis” – mit diesem Aufruf forderte die ehemalige UNESCO-Generaldirektorin Irina Bokova eine Reaktion der internationalen Gemeinschaft auf die Schändungen materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter durch die Terrormiliz IS im Irak und Syrien. So besteht Palmyra – Symbol kultureller Vielfalt und interkulturellen Dialogs – zwar in seinen Grundfesten fort, die Zerstörung von Statuen, Vandalismus an prähistorischen Tempeln und Sprengungen des Triumphbogens lassen Experten jedoch schlussfolgern: „Palmyra remains, but its legacy is forever transformed“. Die Zerstörung materiellen Kulturerbes bildet längst nicht alle Schandtaten der Terrormiliz ab; gleichzeitig trachtet sie nach der Zerstörung der distinkten Kultur ganzer Volksgruppen. In ihren Angriffen auf die Jesiden blieb es nicht bei der Zerstörung heiliger Schreine. Auch immaterielle Ausdrucksformen von Kultur sind Gegenstand systematischer Angriffe. Durch Zerstörung materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter zeichnete der IS verantwortlich für „unprecedented cultural eradication“. Irina Bokova folgerte, „we are witnessing what can be described as ‚cultural cleansing‘ on an unprecedented scale.“ Eine wichtige Rolle in der Bestrebung, die Kulturen der Welt vor solchen Gräueltaten zu schützen, kommt der strafrechtlichen Ahndung letzterer zu. Vor diesem Hintergrund hält der Terminus kultureller Genozid Einzug in die Debatten. Die vorliegende Abhandlung führt zunächst in das Konzept kulturellen Genozids ein und analysiert seinen Status nach geltendem Recht. Daraufhin erfolgt eine Analyse der neueren Völkerrechtspraxis, um festzustellen, inwiefern im Hinblick auf die rechtliche Behandlung des kulturellen Genozids Reformbedarf besteht. Sodann werden Reformmöglichkeiten vorgestellt und bewertet. Am Ende dieses Beitrages soll ein Überblick über den Mehrwert eines potenziellen Straftatbestands kulturellen Genozids und zukünftige Schritte in Reaktion auf die derzeit von Extremisten begangenen Verbrechen an Kultur stehen.

The revision of laws and the application of culpability to those most responsible for serious humanitarian law violations has functioned as a necessary condition for achieving peace in most post-war societies. However, there is an embarrassing silence when it comes to addressing the question of whether children are to be subjected to the principle of individual criminal responsibility. As morally controversial as it is, the question remains fundamental. Unfortunately, children have been involved in armed conflicts, as victims primarily, but not exclusively. Children are among those accused of having committed brutal and terrible international crimes in times of armed conflict when part of armed groups or armed forces. And with no consensus within the international community regarding their status within International Criminal Law — no established law within International Law and no consistent practice among states on the issue— the problem of criminal accountability of children accused of international crimes remains unanswered. The current work conducts a legal positivist analysis with the focus of investigating the contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the current debate on children’s criminal responsibility under International Criminal Law. Among significant contributions, the Statute of the Special Court brought one interesting innovation to the debate on children’s potential criminal responsibility. Juveniles starting at age fifteen would be considered viable for prosecution if among those most responsible for the Special Court, as established in Article 7.1. The above innovation translates into two essential contributions to the debate on children criminal responsibility for international crimes: first the Special Court was the first international court to elect a minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) at age fifteen to be operational within the scope of the court. Secondly, and equally important, the court reflected the position that children, after the stipulated MACR would be considered, at least a priori, viable subjects of the international criminal system.

Este trabalho tem por objetivo debater a contribuição e o papel que a jurisprudência do Tribunal Penal Internacional para a ex-Iugoslávia desempenhou no processo de produção e desenvolvimento do direito internacional penal costumeiro sobre crimes contra a humanidade e sua influência na formação do conteúdo normativo atual do art. 7o(1),(2)(a), do Estatuto de Roma, que trata do crime contra a humanidade. Para isso, analisa-se como a Corte determinou o costume válido sobre as elementares do crime contra a humanidade nos casos Duko Tadie Draen Erdemovi, julgados antes da conferência de Roma. Em seguida, examina-se a teoria das fontes, mais especificamente, o costume internacional, seu fundamento, seus dois elementos (combinação de prática e opinio iuris), bem como seus sujeitos criadores e veículos de exteriorização, em especial a jurisprudência internacional. Nesse percurso, apontam-se as práticas destoantes do costume e a dificuldade de sua determinação, para então indicar o binômio valor e poder como elementos que influenciam sua manifestação. Depois, procura-se verificar o contexto político e jurídico de criação do Tribunal Penal Internacional para a ex-Iugoslávia, associando-o à proteção do valor paz mundial e às alterações das estruturas de poder da ordem internacional. Então, faz-se uma avaliação da contribuição dos julgados analisados como veículos para exteriorização do costume ou de seus elementos. Por fim, com a análise da coincidência de resultados no que tange à estrutura de algumas das elementares decididas pelo Tribunal Penal Internacional para a ex-Iugoslávia e o conteúdo normativo atual do art. 7o(1),(2)(a) do Estatuto de Roma, pode-se concluir que a jurisprudência estudada veiculou parte da opinio iuris do direito costumeiro sobre crimes contra a humanidade, contribuindo, assim, com o desenvolvimento do direito internacional penal sobre o tema. / This work aims to discuss the contribution and the role that the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia played in the production and development of international criminal customary law on crimes against humanity and its influence in shaping the article 7o(1),(2)(a), of the Rome Statute, about crime against humanity. In order to accomplish this task, it analyses how the Court defined valid custom on the chapeau elements of crime against humanity in the Duko Tadi and Draen Erdemovi cases. Next, it considers the theory of sources, more specifically, international custom, its basis, its two elements (combination of state practice and opinion juris), as well as its subjects and forms of externalization, including international decisions. About this, it points out the dissonant ways custom emerges and the difficulty of its determination, then indicating values and power as elements that influence its manifestation. After, it analyses the political and juridical contexts in which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established, relating it with the protection of world peace, as a value, and the changes in the power structures of international order. Then, it unpacks the contribution of the above decisions (Duko Tadi and Draen Erdemovi cases) as vehicles of externalization of custom or, at least, one of its elements. Finally, with the analyse of the coincidence between the chapeau elements of crimes against humanity as decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the current normative content of article 7o(1),(2)(a),of the Rome Statute, it can be concluded that the jurisprudence studied ran part of the opinion jurisabout crimes against humanity as an element of custom, thus, contributing to the development of international criminal law on that issue.

A expansão do direito penal pelos direitos humanos tem no direito penal internacional um privilegiado campo de estudo. Entre as tendências expansivas dos direitos humanos, motivadas pela luta contra a impunidade, e a necessária contenção mecanismo punitivo, princípios, estruturas de aplicação e fundamentação entram em choque, quando se pensava que os direitos humanos e o direito penal originaram-se da mesma matriz liberal de contenção do poder estatal. O tema ganha especial impulso diante da perspectiva expansionista por que passa o direito penal na modernidade, dos influxos da globalização. As decisões dos tribunais penais internacionais, de Nuremberg a Haia, dos tribunais de direitos humanos (europeu e interamericano), fornecem um panorama de como essa relação tem sido construída, favorecendo a aplicação da norma punitiva e flexibilizando garantias clássicas penais e processuais penais. A discussão empreendida busca matizar a luta contra a impunidade que seja tributária dos avanços jurídicos do sistema de garantias, também conquistas sociais e políticas para a efetiva proteção dos direitos humanos. Nesse contexto, alerta-se para o fato de que se estaria produzindo um direito especial motivado pela luta contra os mais graves crimes contra a paz e a segurança mundiais. Finalmente, expõe-se as dificuldades de validação do conteúdo preventivo das normas em direito penal internacional, do déficit democrático de sua produção desconectada da base social sobre a qual atua, e do efeito simbólico de seus enunciados à custa das máximas garantias. / The international criminal law features a special condition for the critical analysis of the expansion of criminal law through human rights. Between the expansive tendencies of human rights, motivated by the fight against impunity, and the necessary containment of punitive mechanism, stands the international criminal law, whose principles, implementation structures and grounds clash, despite the fact that human rights and criminal law originated from the same liberal matrix for the containment of state power. The debate gained particular momentum with the expansionist perspective experienced by the criminal law in modern times of globalization inflows. The decisions of international criminal courts, from Nuremberg to The Hague, human rights tribunals (European and Inter-American), provide an overview of how this relationship has been built, favoring the application of criminal provisions and easing criminal and criminal procedural classical guarantees. The discussion undertaken shades the fight against impunity, that shall be paved by the legal achievements for the effective protection of human rights, warning to the fact that it is producing a special law, away from the legal domestic law principles, motivated by the fight against the most serious crimes against peace and world security. Finally, sets up the difficulties in accepting the preventive content of international criminal provisions, the democratic deficit of its production disconnected of the social contexts in which operates, and the symbolic effect of its legal provisions at the expense of the maximum guarantees.

La ricerca affronta una particolare forma di responsabilità concorsuale per crimini internazionali chiamata ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE), creata dal Tribunale Penale Internazionale per l’ex-Yugoslavia. Il perno attorno al quale la ricerca si svolge è la suscettibilità di un tale criterio di imputazione di trasformarsi in un veicolo di responsabilità penale collettiva. Al fine di discutere dei punti di frizione di questo meccanismo ascrittivo con il fondamentale principio di responsabilità penale individuale e colpevole, l’autrice si propone di tracciare innanzitutto una cornice teorica più ampia. Il punto di partenza va individuato nella polarizzazione tra due forze che agiscono in senso opposto: una macro-dimensione, composta da fattori collettivizzanti (fattore storico, sistemico e teleologico), e una micro-dimensione che tenta di comprimere la responsabilità penale nei rigidi confini della colpevolezza. Collocata dunque al centro della “tensione” tra queste due forze opposte, la ‘joint criminal enterprise’ rivela i suoi caratteri più problematici, specialmente con riferimento ai requisiti di un nesso eziologico “indiretto” e a un elemento soggettivo fortemente indebolito. Addentrandosi infine nell’analisi comparata di sistemi di common law e civil law, l’autrice propone all’interprete internazionale diverse argomentazioni e correttivi al fine di un’applicazione della JCE che sia maggiormente conforme al principio di responsabilità penale personale e colpevole. / The thesis discusses a particularly problematic mode of liability for international crimes: the doctrine of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE) created by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The core issue is the suitability of this mechanism of attribution to turn into a vehicle of collective criminal responsibility. In order to discuss its points of friction with the principle of individual culpability, the author designs a broader theoretical framework. The point of departure is a polarization between two opposing forces: a macro-dimension of collectivizing factors (historical, contextual and teleological) and a micro-dimension that strives to contain liability into the strict boundaries of individual guilt. Placed within the “strain” between these two opposing forces, JCE reveals its highly problematic features, especially in relation to the requirements of an indirect causal nexus and a very weak mens rea. Finally, by venturing into a comparative analysis of common law/civil law domestic systems, the author proposes to the international interpreter several arguments and correctives in order to apply JCE liability in a manner that is more consistent with the fundamental principle of individual culpability.

La justice pénale est aujourd’hui confrontée au numérique et le développement des données dématérialisées, dont la valeur patrimoniale ne cesse de s’accroître, lui pose des défis de nature idéologique, sociologique, économique, géopolitique et, bien évidemment juridique. Elle doit faire face à la cybercriminalité qui se joue du temps, de l’espace et des législations puisque les actes illicites se déroulent désormais dans le cyberespace. Mais, pour que le système de justice pénale puisse contribuer efficacement à la lutte contre la cybercriminalité, les États doivent pouvoir s’appuyer sur un ensemble de règles juridiques contre cette criminalité et des systèmes de justice pénale qui fonctionnent correctement, doivent avoir les capacités nécessaires pour démêler les affaires pénales qui peuvent être complexes et coopérer à la répression de la cybercriminalité au plan international / Nowdays, Criminal justice is confronted to digital and the development of dematerialized data, whose heritage value is still increasing, raise challenges of ideological, sociological, economical, geopolitical and of course legal nature. Criminal justice needs to deal with cybercrime which make light of time, space and legislation because illicit acts now take place in cyberspace. However, so that the criminal justice system can contribute effectively to fight against cybercrime, states should be able to lean on a set of legal rules against crime and criminal justice systems which work correctly, should have the necessary abilities to get to the bottom of legal affairs which can be complex and cooperate in cybercrime repression on the international level

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of non-refoulement. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a jus cogens rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state. Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of jus cogens-rules should include or give rise to erga omnes rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain jus cogens-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.