The International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC) is a new permanent international judicial tribunal which plays an important role in combating international crimes and dispensing justice. It was established in 1998 by the international community after much effort and compromise. It is designed to be an independent international body, with the autonomy to determine its budget and control its funding. This study discusses how the ICC acts as a mechanism to create a nexus between international criminal and humanitarian law by prosecuting crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, that fall within its jurisdiction. The study seeks to show that the international jurisdiction of the ICC is a potential safeguard against arbitrary national criminal procedures in respect of those who are accused of committing serious international crimes. The ICC's jurisdiction is complementary to that of national courts that are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute these crimes. National judicial systems are still required to play a primary role in combating international crimes and it is important that states, organisations and individuals assist the ICC if it is to become an effective deterrent to perpetrators of international crimes. The rationale behind the ICC's establishment is that the international community is under a legal obligation to prosecute violations of international law in either national or international courts. The study also analyses the role of the ICC in balancing the rights of the victims and the rights of the accused by applying the guarantees and safeguards for conducting fair trials set out in the Rome Treaty. In this way, it seeks to show that prosecuting and punishing perpetrators of international crimes is an important contributing factor in the creation of a human rights' culture, while also serving as a deterrent to prospective violators of international human rights and humanitarian law. / Thesis (LL.M)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2005.

Cette étude s’intéresse aux enjeux éthiques de l’advocacy et de la défense des droits comme composante de l’humanitaire d’urgence. Les violences sexuelles sont devenues des instruments de guerre, utilisées à des fins politiques et militaires. Les plaidoyers qui sont habituellement une fonction des organisations humanitaires des droits de l’homme intègrent les interventions humanitaires d’urgence. Le recours à l’advocacy dans le milieu humanitaire expose les missions humanitaires à des tensions et dilemmes éthiques notamment en ce qui concerne l’accès aux victimes et la défense de leurs droits, le principe d’humanité et le principe de neutralité. L’advocacy représente également un danger pour l’image apolitique des organisations humanitaires et ébranle la confiance des États belligérants aux conflits. Face à ces dangers que présente l’advocacy, la question se pose sur les raisons qui peuvent justifier une partie advocacy dans les interventions humanitaires dans le cas des violences sexuelles utilisées à des fins politiques. A partir d’une méthode décrite comme un essai interdisciplinaire et critique de théorie du droit, notre argumentation et nos preuves sont structurées afin de justifier l’hypothèse selon laquelle le silence face au non-respect de la dignité humaine et des droits des victimes est contraire aux valeurs universelles et à l’esprit d’humanité qui sont la raison d’être des actions humanitaires, que cela renforce également l’État de non-droit et l’impunité des auteurs des crimes, mais en même temps cela accentue la stigmatisation des victimes. En effet, le silence des organismes humanitaires qui sont témoins des violations des droits fondamentaux, perpétue la culture du silence qui accompagne habituellement les actes de violence sexuelle et ne permet pas de restaurer la paix ni de prévenir que cela ne revienne dans le futur. La collecte des données pour étayer cette hypothèse s’effectue à partir d’une recherche documentaire analysée de manière critique, réflexive et interdisciplinaire. Le caractère oscillatoire de l’essai, entre les différentes disciplines, a fait ressortir que sur le plan moral, le silence complice est contraire à l’esprit de l’humanitaire. L’advocacy est une interprétation du principe d’humanité qui est l’essence de l’assistance humanitaire. La prise en charge des victimes par les organisations humanitaires ne saurait se limiter, de ce fait, à la médecine humanitaire d’urgence. En même temps, l’obligation de réserve et de confidentialité est également contraire au principe de « first do not harm ». Soigner et soutenir les victimes nécessite que l’action humanitaire soit étendue aux protections de la vie humaine dans un sens holistique et aussi aux défenses des droits des victimes. Sur le plan juridique, l’analyse des paradigmes concernant l’humanitaire démontre que les mécanismes juridiques mis en place pour protéger les personnes, en temps de conflit, sont en grande partie tributaires des organisations humanitaires et de leurs rôles en tant que « gardiens » du droit international. Le plaidoyer et la défense des droits sont devenus des obligations légales implicites des organisations humanitaires pour prévenir la résurgence des violations des règles de droit dans le futur mais également dans le but de réprimer les auteurs des crimes. / This study looks at the ethical issues of advocacy and rights-based approaches to emergency humanitarian work. Sexual violence has become an instrument of war, used for political and military purposes. Advocacy, which is usually a function of humanitarian human rights organizations, is becoming part of emergency humanitarian response. The use of advocacy in humanitarian settings exposes humanitarian missions to ethical tensions and dilemmas, particularly with regard to access to victims and the defense of their rights, the principle of humanity and the principle of neutrality. Advocacy also represents a danger to the apolitical image of humanitarian organizations and therefore undermines the confidence of belligerent states in conflicts. In view of these dangers of advocacy, the question arises as to what reasons might justify advocacy in humanitarian interventions in the case of politically motivated sexual violence. From a method described as an interdisciplinary and critical essay of legal theory, our argument and evidence will be structured to justify the hypothesis that silence in the face of non-respect for human dignity and the rights of victims is contrary to the universal values and spirit of humanity that are the raison d'être of humanitarian actions, that it also reinforces the state of lawlessness and impunity of perpetrators, but at the same time it accentuates the stigmatization of victims. In fact, the silence of humanitarian organizations that witness violations of fundamental rights perpetuates the culture of silence that usually accompanies acts of sexual violence and does not help to restore peace or prevent it from happening again in the future. The collection of data to support this hypothesis is based on a documentary research that is critically analyzed, reflexive and interdisciplinary. The oscillating nature of the essay, across disciplines, made it clear that morally, complicit silence is contrary to the spirit of humanitarianism. Advocacy is an interpretation of the principle of humanity that is the essence of humanitarian assistance. The care of victims by humanitarian organizations cannot therefore be limited to emergency humanitarian medicine. At the same time, the obligation of reserve and confidentiality is also contrary to the "first do not harm" principle. Caring for and supporting victims requires that humanitarian action be extended to the protection of human life in a holistic sense and also to the defense of victims' rights. From a legal perspective, the analysis of humanitarian paradigms demonstrates that the legal mechanisms put in place to protect people in times of conflict are largely dependent on humanitarian organizations and their roles as "gatekeepers" of international law. Advocacy has become a legal obligation of humanitarian organizations as a preventive measure against future violations of the rule of law, but also as a repressive measure against perpetrators.