Magister Legum - LLM / Piracy attacks off the coast of the Horn of Africa have been on the rise in the recent years. According to a report by Ocean without Borders, although no vessels were hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia in 2017, 8 seafarers who were captured in 2016 were still being held in captivity. So far, 545 seafarers have been subjected to piracy attacks.1 The west coast of Africa has also experienced its fair share of piracy attacks. There has been an increase in piracy attacks off the coast of West Africa, two thirds of these attacks occurred off the coast of Nigeria.2The law governing maritime piracy is founded in the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS).3Article 101 of the Convention defines piracy as; (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: i. on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; ii. against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). In addition to the UNCLOS, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful acts of Violence against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (herein after referred to as SUA Convention) also criminalises acts related to maritime piracy but which hinder the safe navigation of ships.4 The determining factor for crimes under the SUA Convention is whether the offence is a threat to the safe navigation or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of ships.5 The SUA Convention, however, differs from the UNCLOS in several aspects. First, the Convention does not require that the offence be committed for private ends. Second, the two ships requirement under Article 101 (a) of the UNCLOS is not applicable in the SUA Convention. The offences created in Article 3 of the SUA Convention imply that they may be committed by a perpetrator who is in the same ship with the victim. The SUA Convention does not provide for application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, a State can only exercise jurisdiction over the crimes if it is a party to it.6 Both the SUA Convention7 and the UNCLOS8 provide that the offence must be committed outside a State’s territorial waters. Article 4 of the SUA Convention however further limits the application of the Convention. The Convention does not apply to instances where the ship was not scheduled to navigate out of the territorial waters of the State. This limitation is not applicable under the UNCLOS.

International humanitarian law, international criminal law and international human rights law all share the common goal of seeking to regulate the behavior of international actors in relation to the three most serious offences under international law - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. International legal rules, processes and institutions within these three areas of law represent the international community's ongoing quest to address and prevent the commission of these crimes - to create "a more humane world under law." International law has therefore been relied upon as the primary - arguably exclusive - mechanism for prescribing rules of conduct and for enforcing prescribed rules. It is clear, however, that the legal framework alone has not been able to bridge the gap between internationally agreed standards and substantive practice on the part of international actors. That international law comprises only a partial solution to the problem of human rights atrocities is well recognized. It is argued here that the international community's preoccupation with international law as the means for regulating State and individual behavior in this area has in fact contributed to continuing problems of non-compliance as much as it has assisted in engendering compliance with the law. In other words, law is as much a part of the problem as it is a part of the solution. It is argued that the international community must look beyond the law, to non-traditional, informal influences operating alongside the law, in order to move towards the goal of effective enforcement of the law prohibiting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Based on Constructivist thinking, four key strategies - departures from traditional Positivist-Realist conceptions of the international legal system - are suggested as focal points for enhancing compliance with the laws in this area, these being: active differentiation between the target subjects of the law; utilization of the dual power of international humanitarian law; employing social norms and ethical values as motivations for compliance with the law; and embracing the informal compliance-inducing activities and powers of non-state actors. Applying these strategies to the humanitarian law enforcement project, a reversal of traditional perceptions of the influence of ethics and law in relation to individual and State target subjects respectively, is proposed as a future direction for enhancing compliance and furthering the prevention project in relation to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This dissertation explores the relationship between state sovereignty and major instances of crimes against humanity committed in the latter 20 th century. In order to examine this dynamics of this relationship, the author analyzes the history and theory of the concept of sovereignty and examines five case studies of crimes against humanity: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Argentina during the military junta from 1976 to 1983, the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda in 1994, and the ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. State sovereign power is shown to be an important facilitating factor in these atrocities as well as a major source of contention during the civil conflicts in which these crimes have taken place. International efforts to control or mitigate the damaging effects of state sovereignty, including humanitarian intervention, the International Criminal Court, and the promotion of democratization, are shown to be largely ineffectual and often end up strengthening state sovereignty.

<p>In the aftermath of World War Two, the International Community has shown a renewed commitment towards the protection of human rights. However, whether during wars or under dictatorial regimes, numerous human rights abuses occurred everywhere in the world, from Latin America to Eastern Europe and from Southern Europe to Africa. Countries which experienced oppressive governance or outrageous atrocities has to address the legacies of their past on the return of democratic rule or peace. In other words, they had to emerge from the darkness of dictatorship or civil war in order to establish a democracy. Today, after 14 years of civil war, Liberia is faced with the challenge of achieving a successful transition where the imperatives of truth, justice and reconciliation need to be met. The purpose of this research paper was to make some recommendations on the way the accountability process in Liberia should be shaped as far as prosecution is concerned.</p>

Originally presented as the author's thesis (PhD)--Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Thesis (J.S.M.)--Stanford University, 2009. / Submitted to the Stanford Program in International Legal Studies at the Stanford Law School, Stanford University. "April 2009." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-82). Abstract available online.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2005. Graduate Programme in Political Science. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 260-268). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNR11565

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Münster (Westf.), 2008. / Includes English summary. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Magister Legum - LLM / The precise legal definition of crimes against humanity has always been elusive since their first codification in the IMT Charter in 1945. Jurisprudence applying the definition has reflected the uncertainty especially with regard to the contextual element that requires that crimes against humanity should be committed pursuant to some form of a policy of a state or organisation: The Policy Element. In the 1990s the ICTY in its early Decisions exhibited an inclination to broaden the scope of the application of crimes against humanity by downgrading the Policy Element to cover states and non-state actors in asymmetric armed conflicts. In 2002, this tendency culminated in the complete abandonment of the Policy Element requirement. Eminent international criminal law scholars are divided whether the ICTY was correct or not. At the same time, Article 7(2) (a) of ICC Statute has expressly provided for a downgraded Policy Element that somehow resonates with the ICTY as it covers states and organisations. In 2010, the Situation in the Republic of Kenya presented the ICC with a question whether the concept of organisation in Article 7(2) (a) of the Statute covers organisations generally or only state-like organisations. The Majority Decision resonated with the more recent jurisprudence of the ICTY and held that it covered all organisations. The Dissenting Opinion, however, restricted the Policy Element to only state-like organisations. This Research agrees with the recent ICTY position that has been reflected by the Majority Decision and postulates that the Policy Element should not be a requirement for crimes against humanity.

Entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980, Brasil e Argentina vivenciaram ditaduras de segurança nacional. As diferentes experiências vividas por essas nações possuem alguns elos em comum: a tomada do poder pelas Forças Armadas, a aplicação da Doutrina de Segurança Nacional, suspensão de direitos e garantias fundamentais, o consequente estabelecimento do Terrorismo de Estado e, por fim, a aprovação de algum tipo de anistia ao fim desses regimes. Tendo diferentes designações, as leis aprovadas visavam um mesmo objetivo: impossibilitar a responsabilização de militares e civis pelas inúmeras violações a direitos humanos cometidas durante as ditaduras. O discurso de “virar a página e olhar para o futuro” esteve presente em ambos os países, e foi usado para propagar a ideia da pacificação nacional. A partir dos anos 2000, já em um contexto de democracias consolidadas, o quadro difere imensamente. Enquanto na Argentina, entre 2004 e 2007, a Corte Suprema de la Nación julgou inconstitucionais todos os dispositivos que representavam obstáculos ao julgamento dos crimes da ditadura (Lei de Obediência Devida, a Lei do Ponto Final e os indultos concedidos por Carlos Menem), no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou improcedente, em 2010, uma ação ajuizada pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) e considerou a Lei da Anistia (Lei n. 6.683/79) fruto de um acordo político e, por consequência, impossível de ser revisado. Partindo dessas premissas, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o posicionamento das Cortes Supremas de Brasil e Argentina no que diz respeito à responsabilização penal dos crimes de lesa humanidade cometidos pelas ditaduras. As decisões dos fallos Arancibia Clavel, Simón e Mazzeo, e a sentença da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) n. 153, serão comparadas sob o viés histórico do contexto democrático nas quais foram geradas, buscando compreender a discrepância entre os entendimentos das Cortes e do quadro atual de ambos os países no que diz respeito à efetivação de mecanismos de justiça de transição. / Between the decades of 1960 and 1980, Brazil and Argentina have experienced dictatorships. The different experiences for these nations have some links in common: the seizure of power by the armed forces, the application of the national security doctrine, suspension of fundamental rights and guarantees, the consequent establishment of State terrorism and, finally, the adoption of some kind of amnesty in the end of those regimes. Having different designations, the laws adopted had the same goal: make it impossible the accountability of military and civilians by the numerous human rights violations committed during the dictatorships. The speech of "turn the page and look to the future" was present in both countries, and was used to propagate the idea of “national pacification”. From the year 2000, in a context of consolidated democracies, the situation differs immensely. While in Argentina, between 2004 and 2007, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional all devices that represent obstacles to the prosecution of crimes commited by the dictatorship ( the Due Obedience Law, the Final Point Law and pardons granted by President Carlos Menem), in Brazil, the Supreme Court dismissed, in 2010, an action filed by the Bar Association of Brazil, and considered the Amnesty Law (Law n. 6.683/79) the result of a political agreement and, consequently, impossible to review. Starting from these premises, the present study aims to analyze the positioning of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and Argentina, with regard to the criminal liability of the crimes against humanity committed by dictatorships. Decisions of “fallos” Arancibia Clavel, Simón and Mazzeo, and the sentence in the Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamentl (ADPF) n. 153 will be compared under the historical bias of the democratic context in which they were generated, seeking to understand the discrepancy between the understandings of the courts and of the current framework of both countries regarding the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.