No / The arrest and prosecution in March 2006 of the former Liberian warlord-President Charles Taylor by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, for war crimes including the recruitment and use of child soldiers, and the arrest and prosecution of the Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, by the International Criminal Court, accused of enlisting child soldiers in the DRC war, have raised expectations that finally international conventions and customary international laws protecting children in conflict zones will now have enforcement powers. But why has it taken so long to protect children in conflict situations despite the volume of international treaties and conventions? What do we know about the phenomenon of child soldiering, and why are children still routinely recruited and used in Africa's bloody wars? This article argues that against the background of unfolding events relating to prosecution for enlistment of child soldiers, the international community is beginning to wake up to the challenge of enforcing its numerous 'paper protection' instruments for the protection of children. However, a range of challenges still pose serious threats to the implementation and enforcement of the international conventions protecting children. Extensive research fieldwork in Liberia and Sierra Leone over three years reveals that the application of the restrictive and Western-centric definition and construction of a 'child' and 'childhood' raises inherent difficulties in the African context. In addition, most war-torn and post-conflict African societies are faced with the challenge of incorporating international customary laws into their domestic laws. The failure of the international community to enforce its standards on child soldiers also has to do with the politics of ratification of international treaties, in particular the fear by African governments of setting dangerous precedents, since they are also culpable of recruitment and use of child soldiers.

The trials of a comfort woman was never revealed after the conclusion of WWII. More than half a century has passed before the name was uttered on the international stage. Why the sudden break of silence? What is the response of the Japanese government. In this paper, we discuss the issue of the comfort women and the the political implications it holds on Japan. Japan's failure to accept wartime reparation, largely due to Allied intervention, has resulted in the widening gap between Japan and Asia. This paper focuses on the combination of increased US influence as a result of the San Francisco Treaty of 1951 and Japan’s fervent nationalistic identity served to widen the gap between Japan and other East and Southeast Asian nations, making reconciliation over the issue of comfort women a problem that remains unresolved to this day.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established by the UN Security Council in the early 1993 and 1994 respectively in the wake of mass atrocities commented in the Balkans and in Rwanda are arguably the first truly international criminal tribunals (ICTs). While the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals set up by the Allies to prosecute the Germans and Japanese responsible for atrocities committed during World War II provided some precedent, much of the ICTs’ substantive law had never been litigated. In addition, differences in the circumstances surrounding the two sets of prosecutions meant that the ICTs’ procedural system was effectively brand new. In this context, the role of the ICTs’ judges in progressively developing international criminal law and the international criminal justice system assumes great importance. Since the establishment of the ICTs, a permanent international criminal court and several ‘hybrid’ international courts have been created. Each of these has drawn heavily on the jurisprudence and procedural law, practices and norms of the ICTs. This further underscores the importance of understanding the development of international criminal law by ICT judges. / Studies of factors influencing the behaviour of judges have generally focused either on micro-level factors, primarily the policy position of judges, or macro-level factors, primarily the relationship between States and international courts. This thesis argues that the exploration of factors influencing judicial behaviour on both levels is important. This thesis uses a broad institutional perspective to identify the types of factors likely to be salient influences on judicial behaviour and the way in which those factors operate, in particular the way in which the ICTs as organisations operate to mediate exogenous influences. / The thesis uses a range of data sources, including interviews with judges and defence counsel to empirically explore two micro level and three macro level influences. The micro-level influences explored are judges’ national system and professional backgrounds. The macro-level influences explored are the reliance of the ICTs on States, the need for the ICTs to establish and maintain legitimacy and the broader expectations directed towards war crimes tribunals. / The thesis findings show that exploring both the micro and macro-levels provide important insights into judicial behaviour at the ICTs. The findings on the influence of the micro-level factors explored in the thesis reveal that both national system background and professional background do influence some aspects of judicial behaviour. The findings also suggest the importance of understanding the process of institutionalisation when exploring judicial behaviour and the organisational factors that facilitate or impede this. The findings on the influence of the macro-level factors explored in the thesis suggest that each of these factors do influence judicial behaviour at the ICTs in certain ways, but that the level to which the factors influence behaviour is context-contingent.

Imputer un acte à quelqu'un soulève déjà des difficultés propres. Mais ces difficultés sont encore augmentées lorsque c'est un crime de guerre que l'on cherche à imputer. En effet, à qui attribuer un crime lorsque la structure engage des actions collectives (bataillons, foules, organisations résistantes) ou que les actes commis ont été ordonnés par des supérieurs hiérarchiques ? Comment prendre en considération le fait que le contexte de guerre peut-être perturbant ou traumatisant pour les soldats, sans pour autant en venir à excuser les actes commis ? Et pourtant, il faut arriver à proposer des solutions, car ces questions revêtent une importance capitale, non seulement au sein des procès internationaux, mais aussi dans le contexte général d'après-guerre. L'exactitude des inculpations, la visibilité des méthodes juridiques et des procédures sont autant d'éléments qui acquièrent une portée particulière dans les efforts pour installer une paix aussi durable que possible. De plus, l'établissement des responsabilités, au niveau des individus comme au niveau des États, doit permettre de comprendre ce qui a rendu possible des crimes au sein d'un conflit armé et ainsi de penser les éléments possibles d'une prévention. / My research starts from the statement that imputing an act on someone raises its own difficulties. But these difficulties are increased when it is a war crime that we have to attribute. Indeed, to whom does one accredit a crime when the context engages collective actions (battalions, crowds, resistant organizations) or when acts performed were ordered by superiors in the hierarchy ? How to consider the fact that the context of war can be disturbing or traumatizing for soldiers, without going so far as to excuse them of their crimes? And nevertheless, it is necessary to propose solutions, because the question takes on major importance, not only in regard to justice within international lawsuits, but also in the post-war general context. Indeed, the exactness of accusations, the visibility of legal methods and procedures are some of the many elements which acquire a particular impact on the efforts to settle a peace that will be as durable as possible. Furthermore, the establishment of responsibilities, at the individual level as well as at the States level, has to allow to understand what made possible crimes within an armed conflict and, therefore, to rethink elements of a possible prevention. / réalisée en cotutelle entre les Universités de Montréal et de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (France)

This thesis takes its starting point from the need for a comprehensive approach towards justice following atrocities, and where not only the states in which the crimes were committed have a role to play. The thesis discusses atrocity crime (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) prosecution and reparations procedures concerning individuals as two appropriate courses of action, through which non-territorial states may contribute to atrocity prevention and justice for the victims of atrocities. The analysis addresses whether, under international law, non-territorial states are allowed to, required to, or prohibited from facilitating prosecution and reparations procedures and includes an assessment of the extent to which international law relating to reparations fails to correspond to that applicable to prosecution. The implications of the lack of correspondence are analysed in light of the historical connection and separation of the two courses of action, the procedural and substantive legal overlaps between prosecution and reparations, and the underlying aims and functions of prosecution and reparations. The study covers a wide spectrum of international legal sources, most of them to be found in human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. The study shows that while non-territorial states are included in both conventional and customary law as regards prosecution of atrocity crimes, the same cannot be said in relation to reparations procedures. This serious deficit and inconsistency in international law, is explained by the framing of reparations, but not prosecution, as a matter concerning victims and human rights, thereby leaving the enforcement of the rules to the discretion of each state. Reparation is also considered a private matter and as such falls outside the scope of the far-reaching obligations regarding prosecution. The study suggests taking further the responsibilities of non-territorial states in relation to atrocity crimes. Most urgently, measures should be considered that bring the legal space for reparations procedures into line with that for prosecution in, for instance, future discussions by human rights treaty-monitoring bodies and in the drafting of new international victims' rights, atrocity crimes or civil procedure instruments.

Magister Legum - LLM

The central focus of this thesis is to rediscover Julius Streicher and to determine whether his actions merited the same punishment as other persons executed for war crimes. Sources used include Nuremberg Trial documents and testimony, memoirs of Nazi leaders, and other Nazi materials. The thesis includes seven chapters, which cover Streicher's life, especially the prewar decades, his years out of power, and his trial at Nuremberg. The conclusion reached is that Streicher did have some influence on the German people with his anti-Semitic newspaper Der Sturmer, but it is difficult to ascertain whether his speeches and writings contributed directly to the extermination of the Jews in World War II or simply reflected and magnified the anti-Semitism of his culture.

réalisée en cotutelle entre les Universités de Montréal et de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (France) / Imputer un acte à quelqu'un soulève déjà des difficultés propres. Mais ces difficultés sont encore augmentées lorsque c'est un crime de guerre que l'on cherche à imputer. En effet, à qui attribuer un crime lorsque la structure engage des actions collectives (bataillons, foules, organisations résistantes) ou que les actes commis ont été ordonnés par des supérieurs hiérarchiques ? Comment prendre en considération le fait que le contexte de guerre peut-être perturbant ou traumatisant pour les soldats, sans pour autant en venir à excuser les actes commis ? Et pourtant, il faut arriver à proposer des solutions, car ces questions revêtent une importance capitale, non seulement au sein des procès internationaux, mais aussi dans le contexte général d'après-guerre. L'exactitude des inculpations, la visibilité des méthodes juridiques et des procédures sont autant d'éléments qui acquièrent une portée particulière dans les efforts pour installer une paix aussi durable que possible. De plus, l'établissement des responsabilités, au niveau des individus comme au niveau des États, doit permettre de comprendre ce qui a rendu possible des crimes au sein d'un conflit armé et ainsi de penser les éléments possibles d'une prévention. / My research starts from the statement that imputing an act on someone raises its own difficulties. But these difficulties are increased when it is a war crime that we have to attribute. Indeed, to whom does one accredit a crime when the context engages collective actions (battalions, crowds, resistant organizations) or when acts performed were ordered by superiors in the hierarchy ? How to consider the fact that the context of war can be disturbing or traumatizing for soldiers, without going so far as to excuse them of their crimes? And nevertheless, it is necessary to propose solutions, because the question takes on major importance, not only in regard to justice within international lawsuits, but also in the post-war general context. Indeed, the exactness of accusations, the visibility of legal methods and procedures are some of the many elements which acquire a particular impact on the efforts to settle a peace that will be as durable as possible. Furthermore, the establishment of responsibilities, at the individual level as well as at the States level, has to allow to understand what made possible crimes within an armed conflict and, therefore, to rethink elements of a possible prevention.

No description available.

<p>This thesis assessed the effectiveness of the Special Court in relation to the impact is has made in cultivating the rudiments of a human rights culture, dispensing justice, ending a culture of impunity, effecting unity and national reconciliation in post war Sierra Leone.</p>